Earthquake Risk Exposed: 7 Shocking Truths Behind India’s Great Nicobar Megaproject Gamble

India’s massive Great Nicobar development project faces serious unresolved earthquake risks, despite its environmental assessment downplaying the threat. While the official EIA cites a “low probability” of another mega-quake like 2004’s, leading scientists warn the underlying research reveals critical uncertainties – including a 2,000-year gap in seismic history. Crucially, no site-specific studies have been conducted in the vulnerable Nicobar Islands themselves, leaving local fault lines and potential tsunami impacts unknown.

Experts stress earthquake recurrence is unpredictable, and parallel rupture zones near Nicobar pose unquantified dangers. Building major infrastructure like ports and townships in this high-risk Seismic Zone V region without thorough, location-specific hazard mapping represents a reckless gamble. Ignoring these stark warnings risks repeating the catastrophic losses suffered in the 2004 tsunami. Genuine safety requires immediate, rigorous scientific assessment tailored to Nicobar’s unique geology before proceeding.

Earthquake Risk Exposed: 7 Shocking Truths Behind India’s Great Nicobar Megaproject Gamble

India’s ambitious ₹72,000-crore Great Nicobar Infrastructure Project (GNIP) – envisioning a transshipment port, international airport, township, and power plant – faces a critical, potentially catastrophic, question: Is it building on shaky ground, literally? 

A recent Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report for the project asserts the probability of another mega-earthquake akin to the 2004 Indian Ocean disaster is “low.” However, a deeper dive reveals this conclusion rests on contested science and sidelines crucial warnings from leading geologists, raising serious concerns about the project’s foundational risk assessment. 

The EIA’s Reassuring Narrative: The EIA, executed by Vimta Labs, heavily leans on a 2019 IIT-Kanpur study. It highlights the study’s estimate of a long “return period” for mega-earthquakes (Magnitude 9+): 

• Mega-quakes: Estimated recurrence every 420-750 years. 

• Large quakes (Magnitude >7.5): Estimated recurrence every 80-120 years. 

Based on this, the EIA concludes the immediate mega-quake risk is low, implying a significant safety buffer after the 2004 event. 

The Scientists’ Stark Warnings: What the EIA Overlooked The IIT-Kanpur study, led by Professor Javed Malik, actually painted a far more complex and uncertain picture, elements notably absent from the EIA’s risk summary: 

• The 2,000-Year Data Gap: The study identified a critical 2,000-year gap in the sediment record analyzed at Badabalu beach (South Andaman). This gap obscures the full history of tsunamis and mega-quakes in the region, making predictions inherently uncertain. As Prof. Malik emphasizes, “there was a 2,000-year gap… [adding] uncertainty to the prediction of future earthquakes.” 

• The Urgent Need for Site-Specific Studies: Malik explicitly states that planners must conduct dedicated “site-specific studies” in the Nicobar Islands, particularly Car Nicobar and Campbell Bay. He warns that an earthquake originating near Nicobar (unlike the 2004 Aceh epicenter) could have vastly different, and potentially more devastating, local impacts. Such crucial studies, requested since 2020, remain unconducted. 

• Unknown Parallel Faults & Non-Linear Risks: Renowned geo-scientist Prof. C.P. Rajendran (NIAS, Bengaluru) points to even graver uncertainties: 

• Multiple unknown “parallel rupture lines” exist south of the Andamans, towards Nicobar. Their pent-up energy and rupture history are mysteries. 

• Earthquake recurrence is fundamentally non-linear. Centuries of quiet do not guarantee safety; a massive quake could strike unexpectedly. 

• Great Nicobar Island itself has local fault lines and experiences pre-seismic land-level changes, making it an “extremely geo-dynamic area.” He bluntly advises avoiding major infrastructure like ports here. 

• The Calculated Risk Acknowledgment: Even a senior MoES scientist conceded that forecasting mega-quakes is impossible, admitting the project involves a “calculated risk” based on incomplete knowledge. Design codes can mitigate, but cannot eliminate, the fundamental vulnerability. 

The Stakes: A History Written in Destruction The Nicobar Islands were brutally ravaged by the 2004 tsunami triggered by the 9.2-magnitude Aceh quake, losing over 1,500 lives locally (and 10,000+ across India). The region sits squarely in Seismic Zone V (the highest risk category), where the Indian plate violently subducts beneath the Burmese Microplate. This isn’t just theory; it’s recent, tragic history. 

The Critical Gap: Risk Assessment vs. Risk Management The core issue isn’t just the EIA labeling the risk “low.” It’s the failure to adequately address the profound uncertainties highlighted by the very science it cites and by independent experts. Key concerns include: 

• Ignoring Data Gaps: Dismissing the impact of a 2,000-year hole in the seismic record is scientifically unsound. 

• Lack of Site-Specific Data: Proceeding without the detailed Nicobar-specific studies recommended by the lead IIT researcher is reckless. 

• Underplaying Complexity: Reducing the complex, non-linear behavior of subduction zones and unknown parallel faults to a simple “low probability” is misleading. 

• Vulnerability of Infrastructure: Ports, airports, and townships are uniquely susceptible to both ground shaking and tsunami inundation. “Design codes” offer limited protection against forces seen in 2004. 

Conclusion: Building on Knowledge, Not Assumption The Great Nicobar Project represents immense economic ambition. However, ambition built on an incomplete and contested understanding of geological risks courts potential disaster. Labeling mega-quake risk as “low” based on selective interpretation, while ignoring critical uncertainties and outstanding research recommendations, is not robust risk management – it’s gambling. 

Before pouring concrete into one of the planet’s most seismically volatile regions, Indian authorities must heed the scientists’ call: Conduct comprehensive, site-specific seismic hazard and tsunami inundation studies in the Nicobar Islands themselves. Only with this essential knowledge can the true risks be quantified and genuinely mitigated, or the project’s very location be reconsidered. The lives of future residents, the massive investment, and the fragile ecology of Great Nicobar demand nothing less than building on the bedrock of thorough scientific understanding, not the shifting sands of understated risk.