emphasis of Indian tribal policy until quite
recently has been on “mainstreaming” pop-
ulations and combating “backwardness”, on
bringing tribal people into conformity with
national standards of economic participa-
tion, diet, health, housing, access to safe
water and electricity, education, and so
forth. This goal has been articulated
through the language of national “develop-
ment” in a manner that is difficult to recon-
cile with accepted conservation principles
and that often contradicts the govern-
ment”s own stated ideal of preserving cul-
tural diversity. Such policy
contradictions are especial-
ly problematic in cases like
that of Great Nicobar. This
paper provides an overview
of the recent environmental
history of Great Nicobar
and notes ecological prob-
lems and complications of
development identified by
natural scientists, social sci-
entists and other experts.
It examines policies and
recommendations applying
to protected areas and tribal populations.
One of the ironies highlighted here is that
the physical isolation of the Shompen, com-
pared to many other tribal peoples in India,
means that “protection” of Great Nicobar
has consisted mainly of measures taken by
central and state governments to control
external influences (e.g., immigration,
resource exploitation, invasive species, pol-
lution). This same isolation, however,
means that there exists at present only a
narrow basis for communication and negoti-
ation between Great Nicobar tribal people
and other stakeholders in the protected
area, including the national state.Community management is the current
mantra of environmental policy, and there
are indications of the promise of communi-
ty-conserved areas and community man-
aged areas in India, as elsewhere.However, for local communities to be actual
players in conservation and management,
the criteria of “participation” need to be
understood by all parties whose participa-
tion is being solicited by authorities who
have until now regarded themselves as
environmental managers. Where the experi-
ential gap is not wide between managers
and regulatory officials, and the differential-
ly empowered members of those communi-
ties, the principles and goals of manage-
ment can be contested and consensus
achieved. Where the gap between world-
views is wide, however, there is little basis
for negotiation, and environmental manage-
ment consists mainly of external agents
defining both problems and solutions.^7
While conservationists advocate participato-
ry and democratic management strategies,
many nevertheless assume that it is both
ethical and practical for members of indige-
nous and other isolated populations to be
brought around—gradually—to the view-
point of modernity.The cultural landscape of Great
Nicobar
Great Nicobar is largely covered by tropical
rainforest and has five perennial rivers. The
GNBR encloses two national parks,
Galathea National Park (225 sq. km) in the
south of the island and Campbell Bay
National Park (520 sq. km) in the north.
Great Nicobar displays high levels of
endemism and extraordinary diversity at
species and community levels. Studies of
species interaction in ecosystem processes
and of mechanisms of species coexistence
on Great Nicobar are still at a rudimentary
level. Fifty years ago there were no large
mammals on the island other than humans.
Today, however, cattle forage at the edges
of the rain forest and help pave the way for
invasive plants. Ironically, the nutrient con-
tent of the island’s soils is generally poor:
plant detritus is rapidly broken down
through microbial activity and nutrients are
delivered to above-ground biomass, ratherConservation aas ccultural aand ppolitical ppractice
Where tthe ggap
between wworldviews
is wwide, hhowever,
there iis llittle bbasis
for nnegotiation, aand
environmental
management ccon-
sists mmainly oof
external aagents
defining bboth pprob-
lems aand ssolutions