The escalating conflict over the proposed Siang Upper Multipurpose Project (SUMP) in Arunachal Pradesh highlights tensions between India’s hydropower ambitions, national security concerns, Indigenous land rights and environmental protection. The growing protests raise fundamental questions about development, public participation and the future of communities whose lives and livelihoods could be affected by the project.
With a proposed generating capacity of approximately 11,200 megawatts, the project is planned on the Siang River, which flows into Assam as the Brahmaputra. The government views it as a means of expanding hydropower capacity and addressing strategic concerns arising from China’s upstream dam-building plans in Tibet.
For many residents, particularly members of the Adi Indigenous community, however, the project threatens ancestral land, agricultural livelihoods, village life and a river ecosystem closely connected to their cultural identity.
In October 2026, protests intensified, activists were detained, security forces were deployed in greater numbers, and demonstrations in Pasighat escalated into violence. Reuters reported on October 27 that at least 21 arrests had been made in connection with the preceding clashes. The developments have raised questions about the authorities’ response to dissent and whether a project of such magnitude can proceed without meaningful public participation.
The arrests of villagers and activists have become a major point of contention. According to Scroll, four members of the Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum (SIFF)—Adum Tayom, Omak Paron, Oson Paron and another activist identified in different reports as Otul or Olut Paron/Paroh—were detained on October 9 under the Arunachal Pradesh Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2014. Their families reportedly faced difficulties establishing where they had been taken. Community representatives subsequently demanded their release and questioned the use of preventive detention against people opposing the project.
The authorities have cited public-order concerns and the need to prevent unlawful activities. Police have also pursued allegations involving arson, vandalism, stone-pelting and attacks on public and private property following the October clashes. Such allegations require proper investigation, and peaceful protest must be distinguished from acts of violence.
Nevertheless, the use of stringent laws against people associated with an environmental and land-rights movement raises questions about proportionality, due process and the right to peaceful dissent. Transparent disclosure of the grounds for detention, access to legal counsel and judicial scrutiny are essential. Allegations of criminal conduct should be investigated on the evidence rather than used to portray an entire movement as unlawful.
The arrests have coincided with a wider security response. A Mongabay-India report published on October 5, 2026, documented police summons, restrictions affecting activists and media pages, and allegations that protesters had been subjected to a lathi charge by police and paramilitary personnel in Uggeng village on October 4. By mid-October, restrictions on public assembly had been imposed in Upper Siang district. Following the clashes in Pasighat on October 23, Reuters reported that hundreds of additional security personnel had been sent to the region.
Residents and civil-society organisations have expressed concern that the expanded deployment could create an atmosphere of intimidation while preliminary surveys continue. The authorities, meanwhile, have a responsibility to prevent violence and protect people and property.
Maintaining public order is legitimate, but peaceful demonstrations, community consultations and opposition to land acquisition should not be equated with violence. Treating resistance primarily as a security problem risks undermining the public trust required for responsible project planning. Security deployments may contain immediate disturbances, but they cannot resolve the underlying disagreement over the river and its future.
Opposition to the Siang project is rooted in concerns about displacement, agricultural land, community life and the loss of landscapes that have sustained Indigenous populations for generations. According to Reuters and The Indian Express, community representatives estimate that 27 villages could be completely submerged, while another 40 to 50 villages could be affected. These figures are estimates reported by opponents of the project; the precise impact will depend on its final design and the proposed reservoir’s extent.
For affected residents, the potential loss goes beyond houses and property. Land provides food, livelihoods and access to forests and rivers. It also sustains customary practices, community institutions, sacred places and connections with ancestors. Compensation may not adequately address the social and cultural consequences of displacement.
The government maintains that preliminary studies are intended to establish the project’s technical feasibility, with detailed environmental and social assessments to follow if it advances. Residents, however, fear that surveys and drilling could create momentum towards construction before their objections are adequately addressed.
Technical feasibility and social legitimacy are separate questions. A project may be technically possible without being acceptable to the people whose homes and livelihoods could be affected. Meaningful consultation must therefore precede irreversible decisions rather than become a formality after the project has acquired administrative momentum.
The participation of community organisations, youth groups and Indigenous associations, including SIFF, the Adi Bane Kebang United and the SUMP Affected Area Youth Association, reflects concerns extending beyond a single project. Protests against other proposed hydropower developments in Arunachal Pradesh have also raised questions about customary land rights, the cumulative impact of dams and the distribution of development benefits.
The environmental implications are equally significant. The Eastern Himalayas contain rich biodiversity, steep mountain catchments and river systems shaped by intense rainfall, erosion and complex geological processes. A large reservoir could inundate forests, agricultural land, settlements and riverine habitats. Roads, construction camps, transmission lines and excavation could also affect areas beyond the reservoir.
Dams alter the movement of water and sediment, potentially affecting downstream riverbanks, floodplains, fish habitats and river-dependent livelihoods. Changes in water temperature, dissolved oxygen and seasonal flows may disrupt aquatic ecosystems. Since the Siang forms a major part of the Brahmaputra river system, environmental assessments must consider consequences across the basin, including downstream communities in Assam.
Geological risks also require careful evaluation. Arunachal Pradesh lies in a seismically active region, where earthquakes, landslides, steep slopes and intense rainfall complicate the construction and operation of large reservoirs. Assessments must examine seismic hazards, slope stability, sediment accumulation, extreme floods and reservoir safety. The cumulative effects of multiple hydropower projects, roads and transmission lines also need to be considered, since individual assessments may overlook wider damage to forests, habitats and river flows.
These risks do not automatically establish that the project is unsafe or environmentally unacceptable. Their magnitude must be determined through transparent, independent scientific assessments, with underlying data and findings available for public scrutiny.
The government’s case is also linked to China’s proposed hydropower development on the Yarlung Tsangpo in Tibet, which enters India as the Siang. Chinese plans have raised concerns in India about potential changes to transboundary water flows, seasonal availability and strategic vulnerability. New Delhi views the proposed Indian project as a means of strengthening hydropower generation and storage capacity, potentially helping manage downstream flood risks.
However, the effects of China’s infrastructure on downstream water availability and flooding depend on technical, operational and hydrological factors. Claims about deliberate water releases or the extent to which an Indian reservoir could mitigate such risks require careful examination.
National security must also account for the security of people living closest to the proposed project. For residents of the Siang Valley, security includes homes, farms, food supplies, cultural institutions and the river on which everyday life depends. Strategic considerations cannot substitute for public consultation or justify dismissing local concerns.
The October clashes further illustrate the consequences of prolonged disputes and declining trust. Reports of stone-pelting, arson and vandalism involving a police station, a National Hydroelectric Power Corporation office and private property underline the need to protect public safety. Attacks on people and property cannot be justified as environmental protest. At the same time, violence does not erase the grievances that preceded it. The circumstances surrounding the clashes, including the conduct of security forces and responsibility for specific acts, require evidence-based investigation.
A responsible way forward must address both the immediate unrest and the underlying dispute. Authorities should ensure lawful detention, investigate allegations of misconduct and protect the right to peaceful protest. Affected communities should receive accessible information about the proposed reservoir, likely displacement, environmental consequences and alternatives before irreversible decisions are made.
Independent environmental and seismic assessments should examine biodiversity, river flows, sediment transport, geological hazards and cumulative impacts across the basin. Indigenous land and cultural rights must be recognised in rehabilitation planning, which should consider livelihood security, cultural continuity and access to customary resources rather than relying solely on monetary compensation.
The government should also explain the project’s expected benefits in relation to its costs and risks, including whether alternative energy sources, smaller hydropower projects, energy-efficiency measures or other water-management approaches could meet some of the same objectives.
An independent dialogue involving affected villages, Indigenous organisations, environmental experts, government agencies and project authorities could provide a forum for examining evidence and resolving disagreements. Such a process should neither presume that construction must proceed nor rule out further investigation without considering its purpose and implications.
The Siang crisis highlights the risks of pursuing major infrastructure projects without establishing public trust. India’s energy needs and strategic concerns deserve consideration, but so do Indigenous rights and the ecological vulnerability of the Himalayas.
Development cannot be measured by generating capacity alone. It must also be judged by the security of affected populations, the protection of ecosystems and the fairness of decisions that shape their future. The central question is not simply whether the Siang River should be dammed, but whether a decision of such profound consequence can be reached through a transparent process that respects both the wider public interest and the rights of the people who call the valley home.
---
Neha Desai is a graduate of Jawaharlal Nehru University based in Arunachal Pradesh. An independent writer, she focuses on social research, particularly issues concerning society, religion, ethnicity and women. She has published articles and reports on dams
Comments