Prashanth Kumar

Jairam Ramesh posted a four-page document opposing the Great Nicobar project. I read the document carefully and found it very unusual from the perspective of a political leader. It gives the impression that it may be the product of a large and well-resourced ecosystem, possibly involving NGOs, subject-matter experts, and other institutional actors like secret service agencies Here are the arguments supporting this assessment: 1. Hyper-precise data: The document contains highly granular ecological data from a protected zone, which may be difficult for a typical NGO to collect independently. This raises the possibility of access to advanced monitoring inputs, such as Chinese monitoring, satellite intelligence or maritime surveillance insights 2. Speed of publication: The government released its position on 1 May, and within 48 hours Jairam Ramesh responded with a detailed and data-heavy document. This suggests the possibility that the material was pre-prepared or supported by prior research inputs. 3. Strategic alignment with Beijing’s interests: The document advances positions that closely mirror those often articulated by analysts perceived as sympathetic to China, and which align with outcomes Beijing would likely prefer. Several maritime experts argue that the Great Nicobar project could disadvantage China, making opposition to it strategically aligned with Chinese interests. 4. Hyperlink scrutiny: The document notes that a government link to the Environmental Management Plan leads to an unrelated pharmaceutical file. This doesn't look casual observation of a busy politician; it is the work of someone who clicked through every hyperlink in the official press note with forensic patience, behaviour typical of a professional research team 5. Unusual language and structure: The note makes extensive use of terms such as “non-viable,” “non-implementable,” and “non-logical,” along with structured elements like headings, numbered arguments, and subsections. This style is commonly seen in legal documents, NGO reports, and formal policy briefs and Chinese think tanks Conclusion: The document is highly structured, Data-rich, Strategically impactful, which gives me hint that Jairam Ramesh did not write this document. There may be a big invisible ecosystem behind this protest 1-2

Was destroying Hasdeo Aranya supposed to make India stronger against China? Was crushing tribal rights part of some “national security” masterplan? Is flattening the Aravallis also aimed at countering Beijing? Or is China just a convenient excuse, the perfect ghost to justify every act of destruction? Because the truth is simpler. And uglier. China is already inside our borders, especially in Arunachal Pradesh, building, expanding, asserting claims. And the Modi government’s response? Silence. After the Galwan Valley clash and the sacrifice of 20 soldiers, what we saw wasn’t a resolve, it was denial. “Na koi ghusa hai, na koi ghus aaya hai.” A film by Salman Khan on Galwan, on our soldiers’ sacrifice? Not allowed, lest China gets offended. The MEA even admitted the obvious, China is a bigger economy. So we tiptoe. But the moment Shri Rahul Gandhi raises concerns about forests and ecological damage in Andaman & Nicobar, suddenly it’s all about the “Chinese threat.” Convenient. Destroy forests. Displace tribals. Hand over resources, all in the name of fighting China. What a strategy. Will anything be left for future generations to breathe, to live? Same script. Same players. Same beneficiaries. Call it what it is: The Great Corporate Plunder of a naturally wealthy India.