The Arunachal Pradesh government had been claiming that the majority of people in the Siang Valley were in favour of the Pre-Feasibility Report (PFR) survey being carried out to determine the viability of a proposed Siang Upper Multipurpose Project, envisaging a large dam on the Siang River with a capacity of 11,000–12,500 MW. However, a visit by Chief Minister Pema Khandu to Yingkiong, the district headquarters of Upper Siang, towards the end of September provoked people to burn several government vehicles, set fire to a Central Armed Police Forces camp comprising CRPF, ITBP, SSB, RAF and IRBM personnel, vandalise the house of MLA Alo Libang in Yingkiong, and prevent Deputy CM Chowna Mein, Cabinet Ministers Ojing Tasing and Nyato Dukam, and Advisor Ninong Ering from attending the CM’s meeting with government officials and community representatives.
People carrying placards with slogans such as ‘No PFR, No Survey’ and ‘Go Back CM’ questioned the CM’s motive for meeting officials rather than the people who would be affected by the project. The protests in September and October have left little doubt about the Adi community’s opposition to the project, contrary to the government’s claims.
Before entering India, the Siang flows through Tibet, where it is known as the Yarlung Tsangpo. China is building the Medog hydropower project on this river, with a capacity of 60,000 MW. The Government of India claims that the dam on the Siang is a response to the Medog dam. The argument is that if China were to suddenly release water from the Medog reservoir, with a capacity of 5.5 billion cubic metres, the dam on the Siang, despite having a lower power-generation capacity but a larger reservoir of 9.2 billion cubic metres, would be able to hold the incoming water. However, this assumes that sufficient space would be available in the Siang reservoir to accommodate the water released from Medog. One shudders to think of the possibility of such a release when the Indian dam is already full, as could happen during the rainy season.
The Indian dam would only add to the misery caused by the Chinese dam. Building a dam on a river is a sure-fire way of inviting havoc, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in Uttarakhand and Nepal, most recently in the recent disasters. Hence, the Indian dam could compound the disaster. Communities both upstream and downstream of the Siang dam will be adversely affected.
The CM has said that the PFR does not necessarily mean that the dam will be built. Even if the PFR favours the dam, a Social Impact Assessment, an Environmental Impact Assessment and a Detailed Project Report would have to be completed before construction begins. There was a time in this country when people had some say in public hearings conducted as part of social and environmental impact assessments and could influence the fate of projects.
However, the BJP government has done away with the practice of public hearings in several categories of projects. Some professionals will complete these assessments, but we can never be sure whether their reports will reflect reality, given the Modi government’s casual attitude towards environmental concerns. We witnessed the death of Professor G.D. Agrawal in 2018 while he was on his sixth fast in Haridwar against hydropower projects in the upper reaches of the Ganga, amid the lack of response from an insensitive Modi government. Prof. Agrawal, who had become a sage and adopted the name Swami Sanand, had held Modi responsible for his imminent death in his fourth letter to the PM, none of which elicited any response. Modi tweeted his condolences immediately after Agrawal’s death at AIIMS, Rishikesh. Thus, it became clear that the government would favour corporate interests over those of the people.
The government is trying every way to influence public opinion. A package of Rs. 350 crore was initially offered as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds, then as an Outreach package, and finally as a Special Development Package, as the government appeared unsure what to call it. The package was offered to those who signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) consenting to the PFR. The MoU, interestingly, states that this consent is irrevocable, betraying the government’s ulterior intentions.
During an ITBP lathi charge on protesters on 4 October, 67 people were injured, including a 70-year-old woman who was hit by a stone that fractured her ribs. One police personnel also sustained an injury to his hand. Six people were detained in Riga. The people of Arunachal Pradesh have never seen such a large presence of security forces in their area.
Dubit Siram, General Secretary of the Youth Wing of the Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum, has questioned whether water security is the only kind of security the government is concerned about. BJP Member of Parliament from Arunachal Pradesh Tapir Gao has repeatedly claimed over the past several years that China’s People’s Liberation Army has occupied Indian territory across the McMahon Line and built roads and settled villages. However, as with similar claims concerning Ladakh made by Sonam Wangchuk, the Government of India has rejected these allegations. The reality is that the open borders are vulnerable to incursions, while soldiers merely patrol the border.
The All Adi Youth Association, a tribal youth body, has demanded the withdrawal of Central Armed Police Forces and State Police personnel from the Siang Valley, as well as the revocation of the suspension of several village chiefs, known as Gaon Burrahs, who supported the anti-dam movement. The Deputy Commissioners have thus shown utter disregard for traditional tribal customs.
The Adi community has long been known for resolving disputes through its traditional Kebang system, a collective deliberative process. The people want to make their decision in the same manner rather than have the government thrust the project upon them against their will. Around 27 villages will be directly affected and 45 indirectly, impacting a population of roughly 150,000. People fear the submergence of their lands and forests, the loss of biodiversity, livelihoods and community life, as well as a new threat arising from the construction of a dam in an active seismic zone. Dubit Siram says that if Riga is submerged, the migration history of the Adi community will be lost.
Both ecology and culture are at stake for the Adi community, explaining its hostile response to the government’s attempts to impose the project on them as a fait accompli.
---
Sandeep Pandey is Secretary General and Niya Tapo is Secretary of Socialist Party (India)
Comments