The Siang Upper Multipurpose Project (SUMP), a proposed hydroelectric project on the Siang River with an estimated installed capacity of 11,000–12,500 MW, has raised significant concerns about its potential impact on the ancestral lands, cultural heritage, livelihoods, and ethnic identity of the Adi people.
For the Adi community, the Siang is more than a river. Revered as Aane Siang or Ane Siang — Mother Siang — it is central to their agricultural practices, traditional knowledge, spiritual beliefs, and collective identity, which is closely linked to their primordial ancestor, Abo Tani. For generations, the Adi have developed ways of life shaped by the river and its surrounding ecosystem, including terraced wet-rice cultivation, jhum farming, orchards, and extensive knowledge of local flora and fauna.
The proposed project has raised concerns about the potential submergence of villages, agricultural land, and culturally significant sites. According to community estimates, the reservoir could submerge around 27 villages, affect dozens more, and displace or severely disrupt the lives of an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 Indigenous people. These figures require verification through transparent and independent assessments, but the potential scale of the disruption warrants serious consideration.
The loss of fertile agricultural land, ancestral homes, paddy fields, and historical sites could have consequences extending far beyond physical displacement. For the Adi, land is closely connected to cultural continuity, customary institutions such as the kebang (traditional community council), and the intergenerational transmission of knowledge and practices. Financial compensation may address some immediate material losses, but it cannot necessarily replace ancestral connections, communal traditions, or culturally significant landscapes.
A central concern surrounding the SUMP is whether the affected communities have been adequately consulted and whether their free, prior, and informed consent has been obtained. Meaningful consultation requires more than the dissemination of project information; it involves enabling communities to understand the proposed project's implications, participate in decision-making, and express their concerns without coercion. These considerations are particularly important where development could permanently alter Indigenous territories and established ways of life.
Traditional organisations, including the Adi Bane Kebang and the Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum (SIFF), along with village councils, have voiced opposition to the project. Reports of security personnel being deployed in connection with surveys have also contributed to concerns and distrust among sections of the local population. Such circumstances underline the importance of transparent engagement, public accountability, and an approach that avoids escalating tensions between communities and the authorities.
The arguments in favour of the SUMP are linked to national priorities, including energy security, flood moderation, and strategic water management. These objectives are relevant to India's development planning, particularly in a region with substantial hydropower potential. However, the scale of a project's generating capacity alone cannot determine its overall public value. Its economic and strategic benefits must be assessed alongside its environmental consequences, social costs, seismic risks, and long-term implications for affected communities.
Experience with large infrastructure projects in the Northeast has also highlighted the challenges associated with displacement and rehabilitation. The consequences can include the loss of agricultural livelihoods, disruption of community networks, and changes to cultural practices. Rehabilitation packages may provide housing, financial assistance, or alternative livelihood opportunities, but their effectiveness depends on whether they account for the social, cultural, and economic realities of the communities concerned.
For the SUMP, a comprehensive and independent assessment of these issues is therefore essential before irreversible decisions are made. Such an assessment should examine the project's cumulative environmental impacts, geological and seismic risks, downstream consequences, displacement estimates, and effects on Indigenous cultural heritage. It should also include meaningful participation by affected villages and representatives chosen by the communities themselves.
The project's future would benefit from a transparent process that clearly establishes the extent of its potential impacts and the options available to address them. This should include examining alternatives that could meet energy and water-management objectives while reducing the need for displacement and minimising harm to the Siang Valley's ecological and cultural landscape.
The constitutional and customary rights of the Adi people over their land, forests, and cultural heritage must remain central to this process. Applicable legal safeguards and standards concerning Indigenous rights should be carefully considered, including the principles of free, prior, and informed consent wherever relevant. Respect for these rights is not separate from development planning; it is an important measure of whether development is equitable and sustainable.
Ultimately, the debate over the Siang Upper Multipurpose Project raises a broader question about the relationship between national development priorities and the rights of Indigenous communities. The challenge is not simply to determine how much electricity a major dam can generate, but to establish whether its anticipated benefits justify its social, environmental, and cultural costs.
For the Adi people, the Siang is both a source of livelihood and a foundation of identity. Any decision that could transform the river and its valley on such a scale requires careful scrutiny, credible evidence, and genuine public participation. A development process that recognises these realities is more likely to produce decisions that are socially responsible, environmentally informed, and respectful of the communities whose lives would be most directly affected.
---
*Contact: sharmalohit@proton.me
Comments