Daily RC and Vocabulary_19th February

Troubled waters

Concerns about the Great Nicobar project should have got a fair appraisal​

Proponents of the controversial Great Nicobar Project will be enthused by an order from the Kolkata bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) ruling that all environmental safeguards are in place, that the potential impact of this gargantuan project on resident native populations of the region is duly accounted for, and the project’s “strategic utility” is reason enough for the government to not be fully transparent with what it shares in the public domain. But the dominant narrative around the project mirrors the classic development versus environment conflict of a pristine Pandora being ravaged for the greed of far-away mainlanders. The Great Nicobar Island Project (GNIP) envisages a trans-shipment port, an international airport, township development, and a 450 Megavolt-Amperes (MVA) gas and solar-based power plant. In the early 20th century, the British Phosphate Commissioners (a joint venture of the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand) began large-scale phosphate mining for fertilizer on Nauru and Banaba in the Pacific Ocean. By 1945, the island had been so physically devastated by strip mining that it was deemed uninhabitable. The native Banabans were forcibly relocated to Rabi Island in Fiji, over 2,000 kilometres away. Today, Banaba is a desolate landscape of jagged limestone “pinnacles” and the displaced population is fighting for the rehabilitation of its homeland. These serve as historical precedents for why economic logic alone cannot dictate actions in remote territories. Though accorded an environment and preliminary forest clearance by the Union Environment Ministry, concerns about the potential loss of biodiversity, tree-felling, and impact on resident tribes prompted the NGT to order a review of the environmental aspects of the project.Independent scientists and environmentalist groups have said that the felling of tracts of pristine tropical forest — nearly nine lakh trees across 130 sq.km — for this project would significantly harm the biodiversity of the region and constitute an irreparable loss. This is not counting the disturbance to leatherback turtle nesting grounds and the assault on the corals. There was also the contested matter of whether the community rights of the local Shompen and the Nicobarese tribes were fully settled under the requirements of the Forest Rights Act. Recently, members of the Tribal Council said they were being coerced to sign “surrender certificates” that implied their consent to large parts of their land being diverted for the project. The NGT order essentially rubber-stamps the government’s appraisal process without independently examining the concerns raised. It only imposes faith that the government will be a conscientious executor of the project. Whether the Great Nicobar Project is a ‘net good’ can only be judged by future generations, but the lack of a process that offers a fair appraisal of independent concerns bodes ill for the present. 🔟 Top Vocabulary from “Troubled Waters”

🧠 High-Level RC MCQs

 Q1. The editorial’s reference to Banaba primarily serves to:A) Highlight the economic potential of remote islands

B) Demonstrate how environmental activism evolved
C) Illustrate the long-term consequences of unchecked extractive development
D) Criticise colonial trade policies exclusivelyAnswer: CExplanation:
The Banaba example functions as a historical cautionary tale. It demonstrates how economic logic, when pursued without environmental or social safeguards, can permanently devastate ecosystems and displace indigenous communities.Q2. Which of the following best captures the editorial’s central concern?A) Strategic infrastructure projects must override local resistance
B) Environmental safeguards are inherently anti-development
C) The appraisal process lacked independent and transparent scrutiny
D) Indigenous communities oppose all forms of modernization

Answer: C

Explanation:

The editorial does not outright reject development. Its core criticism lies in the process — specifically, the absence of fair, transparent, and independent appraisal of environmental and tribal concerns.Q3. The term “strategic utility” in the context of the project implies:A) Commercial profitability alone
B) Military and geopolitical advantage
C) Tourism development potential
D) Environmental sustainabilityAnswer: BExplanation:
Strategic utility refers to the project’s importance in enhancing India’s geopolitical positioning, particularly in maritime security and Indo-Pacific trade routes.Q4. The author’s tone toward the NGT ruling can best be described as:A) Celebratory
B) Indifferent
C) Cautiously optimistic
D) Skeptical and critical

Answer: D

Explanation:

The use of phrases like “rubber-stamps” and “imposes faith” reflects skepticism about whether the tribunal conducted an independent and rigorous examination.Q5. Which of the following is NOT explicitly raised as a concern in the editorial?A) Loss of biodiversity due to tree felling
B) Threat to leatherback turtle nesting grounds
C) Financial insolvency of the project
D) Settlement of tribal rights under the Forest Rights Act

Answer: C

Explanation:

The editorial discusses biodiversity, coral reefs, turtle nesting grounds, and tribal consent issues. It does not raise concerns about financial viability or insolvency.