GNI project: Draft plan to ‘relocate’ project-affected Nicobarese families creates confusion

A draft plan outlining the “relocation” of Nicobarese tribal communities affected by the Union government’s Great Nicobar Island (GNI) mega-infrastructure project “to their ancestral lands” has now created confusion and is exacerbating existing apprehensions among local communities on the Island, who have, for four years, been protesting the clearance for the ₹92,000-crore project after withdrawing their consent for it (in 2022), alleging that their forest rights had not been settled.  

This draft “Comprehensive Tribal Welfare Plan” was prepared by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration and sent to district officials in Nicobar for consultations with all line departments and the Tribal Council of Great Nicobar on March 13.   

It outlines a ₹42.52 crore proposal with a 24-month timeline for the “relocation of Nicobarese tribal communities from tsunami-affected or project-impacted areas”, which involves housing, land development, annuity/employment programmes, subsistence grants, transportation support, fishing rights, resettlement allowances, and community infrastructure like roads, connectivity, drinking water supply, sanitation, education, and healthcare.  

Also read: Why has NGT cleared the Nicobar project? | Explained

However, details of where the proposed relocation will take place and who will be relocated have left members of the Tribal Council of Great and Little Nicobar confused, according to Nicobarese community leaders who spoke to The Hindu. They said they were handed a copy of the draft plan on March 28 and have since been called for two meetings by the district administration in Great Nicobar’s Campbell Bay to purportedly sign off on it.   

This comes as the Union government told a Bench of the Calcutta High Court on March 30 that it needed 15 days to “demonstrate that consent has been taken from the tribal people” for its mega-infrastructure project on GNI. This Bench is hearing a batch of matters challenging the project’s clearance on the grounds that it violated consent procedures and forest rights of the local Nicobarese and Shompen communities. The Tribal Council leaders were called to discuss the draft plan first on March 31 and then on April 1.   

At the April 1 meeting, the Tribal Council submitted a letter to district officials, pointing out that some aspects of the draft were unclear, and requested a copy in Hindi so all members of their community could read, understand, and discuss it. They added that they would need at least a month with the translated draft before they could discuss it further with district authorities.    

Interestingly, this draft plan, which states that the GNI project “involves relocation”, comes after the Centre has said multiple times that the project would not “disturb or displace tribes”. The project includes a transhipment port, an airport, a power plant, and a township.  

Unclear relocation plans 

In a letter attached to the draft proposal, the local administration said the plan was prepared after leaders of the Tribal Council voiced their demand to return to their ancestral villages on forest lands along the west coast of the GNI—villages that were destroyed by the 2004 tsunami, displacing them to government-constructed encampments in Rajiv Nagar and New Chingenh near Campbell Bay on the east coast.   

However, in the draft relocation plan itself, a copy of which was seen by The Hindu, the administration said, “The Great Nicobar Island Project involves relocation of Nicobarese tribal communities from tsunami-affected or project-impacted areas to Rajiv Nagar (32 households, 101 persons) and New Chingenh (30 households, 117 persons)”.  

Further on, in a section titled “proposed relocation”, plans were outlined to designate Pulobhabi for “community purposes” of residents currently in Rajiv Nagar, with “shared assets” that would “facilitate periodic visits to their ancestral lands”. It added that at a future date, “an option shall remain open” for the Rajiv Nagar families to return to their ancestral villages outside the GNI project area.  

In a subsequent section on residents currently living in New Chingenh, the plan recorded the community’s desire to return to other ancestral villages of Old Chingenh and Pulo Baha, but noted, “The final decision regarding their relocation will be taken after assessing land availability”, and community consultations, adding that their existing accommodations will be upgraded.

Further, in Section 6, the draft plan listed all enumerated families in both Rajiv Nagar and New Chingenh (62 families in total so far) and then stated: “Proposed relocation site: Pulobhabi, western coast of GNI”.   

This comes even as tables in the draft plan show financial allocations for “upgrading” 62 homes and building only 30 new homes; while in yet another section, the proposed plan said permanent shelters “will be constructed for all 62 displaced households of 50 sq.mtrs of plinth area” — neither part explicitly mentioning where these homes would come up. 

District authorities in Nicobar have not yet responded to The Hindu’s queries about what exactly the draft plan proposes. 

“It’s not just Pulobhabi”  

One leader of the Tribal Council said, “Even though we are yet to understand what they are proposing exactly, one thing is clear—Pulobhabi is just one of our ancestral village sites, and the proposal lists only about 13 pre-tsunami Nicobarese villages when there are in fact so many more of them.”  

In public remarks in New Delhi on March 20, the chief of the Tribal Council of Great and Little Nicobar, Barnabas Manju, had said that the community had been demanding the return to all their ancestral villages along the west coast ever since they were displaced by the tsunami in 2004.   

Soon after the GNI project was granted Stage-I clearance in 2022, the community withdrew their consent, fearing parts of the project would encroach on their forest lands, including their ancestral villages, preventing them from returning. Over the last four years, leaders of the Tribal Council have said this apprehension has only been exacerbated because the administration has not yet clearly explained the boundaries of the project area.   

This grievance was raised again by the Tribal Council in their April 1 letter, in which they mentioned that the map for project areas and villages in the draft “relocation proposal” is “not clear”.  

Forest Rights  

Further, years after withdrawing consent, the Nicobarese communities had flagged that the local administration had “falsely” certified that the rights of these communities under the 2006 Forest Rights Act had been identified and settled, even though the procedure for this had never been initiated. This was also reiterated in the Council’s April 1 letter.  

The draft proposal specifies that its components for housing, land development, employment, allowances, fishing rights, and community facilities have been drawn up as per provisions of the 2013 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act and the 1956 Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Act.   

But the 27-page document does not mention anything about rights under the Forest Rights Act of 2006.