A recent meeting in Campbell Bay, Great Nicobar, highlighted growing concerns over a proposed road extension project that could significantly impact local indigenous communities. The meeting, organized to discuss a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) conducted for the project, revealed several gaps in transparency and consultation, raising questions about the potential consequences for Nicobarese and Shompen communities.

The planned road network, estimated to span 666 hectares, is intended to connect Campbell Bay to Galathea Bay and beyond. However, the SIA in question examines only 90 hectares of land owned by nine villages, leaving a substantial portion of the project area unassessed. Critics argue that this limited scope fails to account for the broader implications on indigenous land rights and traditional territories.

Language Barriers and Lack of Clarity

One of the primary concerns is the language barrier. The SIA document is available only in English, a language that many affected residents, particularly from tribal communities, do not speak or read. This has hindered meaningful participation in discussions about the project’s potential social and environmental costs. Without accessible information, local communities struggle to understand the full extent of the proposed development and its consequences for their livelihoods.

Additionally, while the SIA consultant has assured that the roads will not pass through Nicobarese-owned lands, official documents suggest otherwise. The SIA covers only a fraction of the total project area, and the remaining land includes zones traditionally associated with the Nicobarese and Shompen tribes. This discrepancy has fueled skepticism among tribal leaders, who fear that their land rights may be overlooked in the execution of the project.

Indigenous Land Rights at Risk

The Great Nicobar Island is home to indigenous communities that have lived in the region for generations, relying on its forests and coastal resources for sustenance. The Shompen, a particularly vulnerable tribal group, reside in the interior forests, while the Nicobarese inhabit coastal villages. Both groups have customary rights over their lands, but these rights are often inadequately documented in official records.

The road project, if implemented without proper safeguards, could disrupt these communities’ way of life. Increased connectivity may lead to encroachment, deforestation, and changes in land use, threatening the ecological balance that these tribes depend on. Despite these risks, the SIA’s narrow focus has left many questions unanswered about how the project will address these challenges.

Private Company Overseeing Sensitive Project

Adding to the controversy is the involvement of a private company in the road construction on this ecologically and culturally sensitive island. The lack of direct government oversight has raised concerns about accountability, especially given the limited consultation with indigenous groups. Tribal representatives have expressed frustration over the absence of clear communication from authorities, leaving them in the dark about how their concerns will be addressed.

Environmental activists and researchers have pointed out that infrastructure projects in ecologically fragile regions require thorough and inclusive assessments. The current SIA, however, appears to fall short of this standard, neglecting large sections of the proposed road network and failing to engage meaningfully with the most affected communities.

Calls for Greater Transparency

As the project moves forward, there are growing demands for a more comprehensive and transparent assessment process. Advocates argue that the SIA should be conducted in local languages and cover the entire proposed area, including regions traditionally used by the Nicobarese and Shompen. Additionally, they emphasize the need for direct dialogue with tribal leaders to ensure their rights and concerns are adequately considered.

The situation in Great Nicobar underscores a recurring challenge in development projects affecting indigenous populations—balancing infrastructure growth with the protection of vulnerable communities. Without proper safeguards and inclusive planning, such initiatives risk exacerbating inequalities and causing irreversible harm to both people and the environment.

For now, the indigenous communities of Great Nicobar remain uncertain about the future. As discussions continue, the hope is that their voices will be heard before any irreversible decisions are made. The road project, if implemented without addressing these concerns, could become yet another example of development at the cost of marginalized populations—an outcome that many are determined to avoid.