Climate, riverine and Indigenous movements from across India have expressed solidarity with communities opposing large hydropower projects in Arunachal Pradesh, while calling for an end to what they describe as intimidation and coercive measures against activists and community organisations involved in the Siang movement.
In a statement issued on September 20, 2026, the National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM), National Alliance for Climate and Ecological Justice (NACEJ) and All-India Rivers' Forum (AIRF) said they stand with communities in Arunachal Pradesh resisting the proposed construction of multiple mega-dam projects on their ancestral lands, rivers and forests. The organisations also expressed support for the Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum (SIFF), as well as environmental lawyers and activists Bhanu Tatak and Ebo Mili.
The organisations' statement focuses particularly on a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Tatak under provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA). The groups characterised the investigation as part of a broader pattern of measures that, in their view, have been used to pressure organisations and individuals involved in opposition to large infrastructure projects. They argued that the proceedings risk intimidating and weakening a movement that has sought to raise concerns through democratic and community-based forms of protest.
The statement comes amid continuing controversy over the proposed Siang Upper Multipurpose Project (SUMP), a large hydropower and multipurpose project in the Siang region of Arunachal Pradesh. The organisations said the project, described in recent reporting as having a proposed capacity of 12,500 MW, could have significant consequences for settlements, agricultural land, forests, riverine ecosystems, livelihoods and the cultural landscape of the Indigenous Adi population.
According to the organisations, opposition to large dams in the Siang valley has existed for decades and should not be characterised as a recent development or as a movement created from outside the region. They pointed to academic research and the history of community mobilisation in the Siang basin as evidence of longstanding disagreements between state-led hydropower development and Indigenous communities.
The groups also raised concerns about the deployment of Central Armed Police Forces in areas where activities associated with SUMP surveys and pre-feasibility studies have been undertaken. They referred to reports from 2025 concerning the presence of security personnel in villages including Beging, Geku, Yingkiong and Boleng, where villagers and SIFF had protested against the deployment. They said project-affected communities had called for the withdrawal of security forces and for an end to actions against community representatives.
The statement said similar concerns had been raised again in September 2026, when SIFF publicly objected to the deployment of security personnel for activities related to SUMP pre-feasibility work. According to the organisations, affected families have sought the withdrawal of security forces from villages and reversal of actions taken against community-level representatives.
The three organisations argued that disputes over major infrastructure projects should be addressed through democratic consultation rather than treated primarily as security or law-and-order issues. They said the deployment of armed personnel in communities opposing a project can create an atmosphere of coercion and undermine the ability of residents to participate freely in decisions affecting their land, livelihoods and environment.
At the centre of the dispute is the relationship between the Siang River and the cultural and ecological life of the Adi people. The statement stressed that the valley is inhabited and actively used for agriculture and other livelihoods, challenging what it described as the treatment of the area as an “empty valley” available primarily for infrastructure development.
For the Adi people, the organisations said, the Siang is not simply a water resource but part of an interconnected cultural and ecological landscape comprising the river, forests, mountains and agricultural areas. The river is referred to as “Ane Siang”, or the sacred river. The statement also cited the Adi Bane Kebang's opposition to SUMP and its demand for the withdrawal of Central Armed Police Forces deployed for project-related activities.
Project-affected communities have raised concerns over potential displacement, loss of ancestral land, destruction of forests, disruption of livelihoods and impacts on cultural identity. The organisations said research on the region has also documented the importance of Indigenous agro-ecological practices and landscapes to cultural continuity.
The statement situated the Siang dispute within a wider debate over hydropower development in Arunachal Pradesh. It referred to opposition to other large projects in the Dibang and Siang-Siyom river systems and cited the long-running resistance to the Dibang Multipurpose Project as an example of the conflicts that can arise when large infrastructure projects intersect with Indigenous land, forests and livelihoods.
The organisations argued that the question of community consent should remain central to decisions over such projects. They rejected an approach in which security forces are deployed during project-related activities before communities have been able to participate freely in decision-making. They said that if authorities maintain that communities support SUMP and other mega-dam projects, affected residents should be given an opportunity to express their views freely and without intimidation.
The organisations' statement also broadened its criticism to the FCRA framework and its application to civil-society organisations. It alleged that the law has increasingly been used to scrutinise and pressure people's organisations and their leaders. The statement contrasted this with what it described as the historical treatment of foreign donations received by political parties and referred to amendments to the FCRA in 2016 and 2018 following litigation concerning foreign contributions to political parties.
The statement specifically referred to a 2014 Delhi High Court judgment in litigation involving EAS Sarma and the Association for Democratic Reforms concerning donations received by the BJP and Indian National Congress from Vedanta and its subsidiaries registered in England and Wales. It said subsequent amendments to the FCRA retrospectively altered the legal framework concerning foreign contributions. These assertions concern the organisations' interpretation of the political and legal history of the FCRA and form part of their broader criticism of its present use against civil-society groups.
NAPM, NACEJ and AIRF said that the central issue raised by the Siang movement is whether large infrastructure projects that have potentially significant environmental and social consequences can proceed without meaningful participation and consent from affected communities. They maintained that development decisions should not override the rights and interests of Indigenous populations living in the project areas.
The organisations have called for an immediate end to measures against local communities, SIFF, Bhanu Tatak, Ebo Mili and other community leaders and activists, including what they describe as misuse of the FCRA against Tatak. They have also called for the withdrawal of armed forces and other security personnel from Indigenous villages, demilitarisation of areas affected by project-related activities and restoration of space for democratic participation in government decisions concerning livelihoods, ecology and the future of local communities.
They further demanded free, fair and transparent consultations at the village level, conducted in the presence of neutral observers, and called for the revocation of clearances and permissions granted to hydroelectric and power projects in the region where, according to the organisations, legal and democratic processes have not been adequately followed.
The organisations concluded by saying that civil-society and people's movements across India are closely monitoring developments in Arunachal Pradesh and will continue to scrutinise government decisions affecting local communities and their environments.
Comments