A war against nature? Rethinking dam construction in Arunachal Pradesh

By Himadri Priya* 

Arunachal Pradesh stands at a critical crossroads. Its vast rivers, forests, mountains and hydropower potential can undoubtedly contribute to economic growth. But development must never be confused with the indiscriminate conquest of nature. The accelerating push to construct large dams across the fragile Himalayan landscape appears increasingly ill‑advised—especially when recent disasters have shown how unpredictable and destructive mountain environments can be. The lesson is not that development should stop, but that it must remain within the limits set by nature.

The catastrophic flood on the Nepal–Tibet border is a warning every Himalayan government should heed. Scientists have linked the disaster to a massive ice‑rock avalanche and cautioned that climate change is destabilizing high mountain systems. Rising temperatures accelerate glacier melt, alter freeze–thaw cycles and weaken slopes, creating conditions in which cascading disasters can unfold with terrifying speed. In such an environment, building massive infrastructure in narrow valleys and unstable river basins demands extreme caution. A project that seems economically attractive in normal conditions can become a dangerous liability when confronted with a rare but catastrophic event.

Arunachal Pradesh is particularly unsuitable for a careless dam‑building policy. As part of the young and geologically active Himalayas, it is marked by earthquakes, landslides, intense rainfall, unstable slopes and complex river systems. The Siang and Dibang basins are ecologically rich and culturally significant. The proposed Siang Upper Multipurpose Project, for instance, has raised concerns about ecological disruption, seismic risks, displacement and the impact on indigenous communities whose cultural and economic lives are deeply tied to the river. These concerns are not obstacles to progress—they are warnings from people who understand that a river is far more than a source of electricity.

The fundamental flaw in the current approach is the belief that every river capable of producing electricity must be exploited to its maximum potential. This reflects a narrow understanding of natural resources. A river provides far more than megawatts: it carries sediment, supports fish and forests, sustains agriculture, shapes ecosystems, connects communities and holds cultural and spiritual meaning. Once a river is converted into a chain of dams, tunnels and reservoirs, its role in the landscape is permanently altered. The question should not be, “How much electricity can this river produce?” but rather, “How much can we safely and responsibly take without destroying the ecological system that sustains us?”

Communities across Arunachal Pradesh have repeatedly raised such concerns. Opposition to major hydropower projects centres on the possible loss of ancestral land, forests, traditional livelihoods and cultural continuity. In the Siang Valley, many people regard the river as far more than a geographical feature. The debate over the Siang Upper Multipurpose Project has therefore become a question of whether national strategic and economic interests should override the rights of communities that have lived with the river for generations. A government committed to democratic development must listen to these communities—not treat consultation as a formality after decisions have already been made.

There is also a dangerous assumption that dams are always instruments of flood protection. While reservoirs can reduce flooding under certain circumstances, not every extreme Himalayan flood can be safely absorbed. Sudden glacier collapses, landslides, glacial lake outbursts or debris‑rich floods behave very differently from ordinary monsoon floods. If such an event exceeds the assumptions used in a dam’s design, the reservoir could face an enormous influx of water, rock, ice and sediment. In the worst case, overtopping or structural failure could create an even greater downstream disaster. The Himalayas are changing rapidly, and historical flood records may no longer be sufficient to predict future extremes.

This does not mean Arunachal Pradesh should reject all hydropower development. Such an extreme position would be as simplistic as advocating the uncontrolled damming of every river. India needs electricity, and hydropower can play an important role in a lower‑carbon energy system. But the scale and form of development must match the region’s ecological capacity. Smaller projects, distributed energy systems, solar and other renewable sources, energy efficiency and carefully selected run‑of‑river projects may, in some circumstances, create less disruption than massive storage reservoirs. Every project must be judged independently according to its seismic risk, ecological impact, social consequences and ability to withstand future climate‑related hazards.

The principle is simple: natural resources are meant to be used, not exhausted; developed, not destroyed; and shared with future generations, not consumed by the present alone.

Arunachal Pradesh does not need a model of development that treats mountains as obstacles, rivers as machines and forests as empty land awaiting exploitation. Its greatest wealth lies in the natural systems that make it unique. Destroying those systems in the name of development would be an economic contradiction as well as an environmental tragedy.

The wiser path is one of restraint. Before approving another major dam, authorities must conduct genuinely independent and transparent assessments of seismic hazards, glacial and landslide risks, climate change impacts, cumulative environmental effects and worst‑case dam‑failure scenarios. Local communities must be given a meaningful role in decision‑making. No project should be pushed forward simply because it is large, strategically attractive or politically prestigious.

Human beings have the intelligence to transform nature, but that does not grant the right to ignore nature’s limits. Recent Himalayan disasters have shown that mountains can respond with overwhelming force when complex natural systems fail. Arunachal Pradesh should learn from these warnings before irreversible decisions are made.

True development is not the ability to build the largest dam. True development is the wisdom to know where development must stop. The rivers of Arunachal Pradesh should provide prosperity, but they must also remain alive. Nature must be respected, resources must be used within reasonable limits, and development must never become a slow war against the environment on which human society itself depends.

---

*Contact: himadripriya19@gmail.com