Nicobar Earthquake Risks Spark Concerns Over ₹72,000 Cr Island Development Plan
Nicobar Island’s ₹72,000 crore infrastructure project—including a mega port, airport, and township—is facing renewed scrutiny ove r its vulnerability to seismic risks. Despite assurances from environmental impact assessments, experts warn of data gaps and faultline uncertainties in the region, which lies in one of the world’s most active seismic zones. The island’s tectonic complexity, compounded by its tsunami history, has prompted fresh calls for site-specific studies and stringent earthquake-resilient design standards for all upcoming development.
The Great Nicobar Infrastructure Project (GNIP) aims to transform the island with a deep-sea trans-shipment port, an international airport, a power plant, and urban townships. However, critics argue that seismic risks have been underplayed in official assessments. The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA), prepared by a private consultancy, draws heavily on a 2019 IIT-Kanpur study conducted in the South Andaman region. While it projects a low probability for a magnitude 9 earthquake in the immediate future, the same study acknowledges long periods of seismic dormancy can abruptly end in catastrophic events. Notably, a 2,000-year data gap in the sediment record—indicating uncertainty in recurrence patterns—was excluded from the GNIP report. Seismologists argue that such exclusions overlook the distinct geological identity of Great Nicobar. They stress that fault systems and rupture zones south of the Andaman arc require dedicated, location-specific seismic modelling. Without these, planners may be underestimating both earthquake and tsunami vulnerability.
The region sits along the Andaman-Sumatra fault—one of the world’s most volatile tectonic zones—where the Indian Plate is actively subducting beneath the Burmese Microplate. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which claimed over 1,500 lives in the Nicobar Islands alone, remains a stark reminder of the area’s fragility. Experts caution that land-level shifts, hidden rupture zones, and non-linear seismic behaviour increase risk unpredictability. Despite this, authorities admitted that no specific ground-level seismic risk studies were conducted at the exact GNIP construction sites. While codes for earthquake-resilient infrastructure exist, experts argue that without granular risk mapping, structural codes may fall short under actual stress scenarios. Adding to the concern is the ongoing review by environmental regulators over biodiversity and tribal livelihood loss. The absence of integrated seismic, ecological, and social assessments makes the ₹72,000 crore investment highly contentious, especially when the aim is to create a resilient, future-ready development corridor in a fragile zone.
As India accelerates strategic infrastructure development in remote regions, the Great Nicobar project underscores the urgent need for deeper scientific scrutiny. While ambitions to build ports and cities in underdeveloped areas are commendable, bypassing location-specific geological studies could risk lives and long-term sustainability. The island’s seismic legacy, uncertain fault dynamics, and historical trauma from the 2004 tsunami demand a cautious, evidence-backed approach. Experts insist that resilient development cannot proceed on assumptions alone. To safeguard both investment and ecology, authorities must align planning with robust geotechnical assessments, transparent reporting, and disaster-resilient design—especially in seismically vulnerable zones like Great Nicobar.
