Why Arunachal is Protesting and What is the Present Situation
Protests against a proposed 11,200-MW dam on the Siang River in Arunachal Pradesh have escalated into clashes, arson and arrests. Residents fear losing their homes and ancestral land, while the government says the project is important for energy and water security. Restrictions remain in parts of East Siang as authorities offer talks.
Reading
In a Nutshell
- The protests centre on the proposed Siang Upper Multipurpose Project (SUMP), an 11,200-MW dam planned for the Siang River. The project is at the pre-feasibility survey stage and that study is not final approval to build.
- Many protesters from the indigenous Adi community fear the project could submerge villages and ancestral land, disrupt livelihoods and damage the river ecosystem. They also question the risks of a mega-dam in a seismically sensitive region.
- The government describes SUMP as strategically important, partly because of China’s proposed large hydropower project upstream on the Yarlung Tsangpo, which flows into India as the Siang.
- On October 23, local organisations called a 12-hour shutdown across Siang, Upper Siang and East Siang districts. Their demands included releasing 10 detained activists, halting surveys and withdrawing central security forces.
- Clashes broke out at Dite-Dime during the shutdown. Police used tear gas; officials said four women were injured. The bandh was largely peaceful in other areas, according to authorities.
- Violence later erupted in Pasighat. An NHPC office and a police station were set on fire, vehicles and political leaders’ homes were damaged, and about 40 security personnel were injured, police said.
- Authorities reported about 15 arrests in connection with the violence. The Centre sent around 250 additional Rapid Action Force personnel, and restrictions on public gatherings remain in force in parts of East Siang. Chief Minister Pema Khandu has renewed his offer of talks.
Context
Opposition to SUMP has built around both the proposed dam and the government’s ongoing pre-feasibility surveys. For residents, the survey is a step toward a project that could reshape the Siang Valley. They say affected communities have not had adequate consultation. The government says the current work assesses feasibility and does not itself authorise construction. India also views the project as a strategic water and energy measure in response to China’s upstream dam plans.
Tensions intensified after activists were detained and security forces were deployed to facilitate survey work. On October 23, several local organisations called the shutdown to demand the release of 10 activists and a halt to project-related activities. During the day, protesters and police clashed at Dite-Dime; later that night, violence in Pasighat damaged public buildings, vehicles and political leaders’ homes. By October 26, officials said the situation was under control, but restrictions on gatherings continued. Khandu met legislators and community groups and again called for dialogue.
Why It Matters
For the indigenous Adi community, the dispute concerns more than compensation for lost property. The river and surrounding land support farming, livelihoods and cultural identity. A project that permanently changes that landscape raises questions about who decides its future and how affected communities participate in that decision.
It is understandable that India presents the dam as a response to China’s upstream hydropower plans, bringing local concerns into a wider strategic dispute. But national-security arguments do not settle questions about displacement, seismic safety or environmental damage. The escalation from surveys to security deployments and violence shows broken trust has broken down before construction is even approved.
What We Think
National security also means protecting people who live beside the river, not only controlling its water. Arson and attacks damage peaceful protest, but force and public statements do not replace public consent. A ‘dialogue’ begins with easy access to independent review and clear answers about displacement. Dismissing people’s concerns as “misconceptions” without addressing them may only increase distrust.