New Delhi: The confrontation over Arunachal Pradesh’s proposed Siang Upper Multipurpose Project has entered a more contentious phase, with a prominent Adi tribal activist rejecting the government’s national security justification for the megadam and declaring that indigenous communities would not surrender their ancestral lands under any circumstances. The warning comes as New Delhi and the Arunachal Pradesh government seek to advance a strategically important hydropower and water-storage project intended partly to safeguard India against potential disruptions from China’s massive dam development upstream in Tibet.
Katon Moyong, an environmental engineer and outspoken opponent of the project, said the Adi community had resisted attempts to construct a large dam on the Siang river for nearly five decades and would continue to do so regardless of political pressure. Addressing a news conference in Itanagar on Thursday, he warned that the authorities would have to eliminate the community before imposing the project against its wishes, reflecting the depth of opposition in parts of the Siang valley.
Moyong challenged the chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Pema Khandu, to acknowledge the historical opposition to large dams on the river, arguing that successive governments had pursued essentially the same objective under different justifications. He maintained that the Adi people were not opposed to development or hydropower generation in principle but regarded the main course of the Siang as inseparable from their cultural identity, ancestral settlements and traditional livelihoods.
The activist said his community would consider supporting smaller hydropower projects on tributaries but would not accept a massive structure across the Siang itself. He also questioned the deployment of security personnel in areas inhabited by indigenous communities, arguing that people who had historically protected India’s sensitive northeastern frontier should not be treated as adversaries merely because they opposed a government-sponsored infrastructure project.
His remarks have brought renewed attention to an increasingly difficult policy question for India – how to strengthen water security and strategic infrastructure along the Chinese frontier without alienating the communities whose cooperation remains important to the stability and development of the border region. The controversy also comes at a sensitive time for Arunachal Pradesh, where Beijing’s territorial claims and growing infrastructure investments across the line of actual control (LAC) have made the management of transboundary rivers an important national security concern.
Why government says Siang project strategically important
The proposed Siang Upper Multipurpose Project, with an envisaged generating capacity of 11,200 megawatts, is among India’s most ambitious hydropower proposals and is expected to involve an investment potentially reaching ₹2 lakh crore. Apart from electricity generation, the project is intended to create substantial water-storage capacity that could help regulate downstream flows, manage floods and strengthen India’s ability to respond to changes in the river’s hydrology.
The strategic argument has acquired greater urgency following China’s decision to proceed with an enormous hydropower complex on the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo river in Tibet, which enters Arunachal Pradesh as the Siang before joining the Dibang and Lohit to form the Brahmaputra. On July 19, 2025, China formally launched construction of the project, which is designed to exploit the river’s steep descent through the Himalayan gorge near the Indian border.
The Chinese development, involving five cascade hydropower stations, is projected to generate approximately 300 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually, making it considerably larger in annual output than existing hydropower installations worldwide. Beijing maintains that the project will not significantly compromise downstream water availability, but India has legitimate concerns about the potential effects of upstream storage, altered seasonal flows, sediment movement and sudden water releases.
From New Delhi’s perspective, a major reservoir on the Indian side could provide additional operational flexibility if upstream developments affect the timing or volume of water entering the country. However, the extent of that protection would depend on the reservoir’s usable storage, operating rules, the characteristics of any upstream release and the geological safety of the proposed structure.
The frequently invoked possibility of China using river infrastructure as a strategic instrument also requires careful technical assessment, since the ability to influence downstream flows does not automatically establish the capacity to unleash a catastrophic flood. Nevertheless, China’s control over major upstream water infrastructure gives India a reason to examine its vulnerabilities, particularly when the countries have unresolved border disputes and competing strategic interests.
Project faces resistance despite assurances
The Arunachal Pradesh government has repeatedly stressed that the Siang project remains at the preliminary feasibility stage and that no final decision has been taken to construct the dam. In a statement, Khandu reiterated that the government was seeking technical information rather than preparing to displace communities without consultation and promised that subsequent decisions would involve discussions with affected residents.
The chief minister has argued that rejecting the project before examining its technical feasibility would prevent the government from determining whether the proposed reservoir could meaningfully protect downstream populations. He has also maintained that the project must be evaluated for its environmental, social and seismic implications before decisions are taken on construction, land acquisition and rehabilitation.
The state government’s statement on September 30 said the preliminary feasibility report would examine potential locations, geological conditions and the structure’s ability to withstand seismic risks in a region classified under India’s highest earthquake-hazard zone. If the project proves technically viable, further stages will include social and environmental impact assessments, preparation of a detailed project report and consultations under applicable procedures.
The government has also highlighted the possible economic gains from a major infrastructure investment, including improved connectivity, employment and opportunities for local contractors and businesses. Such benefits, however, remain contingent on the project proceeding and would have to be weighed against the permanent social and ecological consequences of creating a large reservoir in an inhabited Himalayan valley.
Tribe fear displacement, loss of ancestral heritage
For many Adi families, the dispute extends beyond conventional questions of land compensation or relocation assistance, because the Siang valley contains agricultural holdings, traditional settlements, burial grounds and places of considerable cultural significance. Protest organizations have warned that the proposed reservoir could erase entire communities and disrupt relationships with ancestral territories that cannot easily be restored through financial compensation.
According to the Siang Indigenous Farmers Forum, as many as 27 villages could be completely submerged, with several dozen more facing varying degrees of disruption if the project proceeds in its proposed form. These are estimates advanced by opponents rather than confirmed outcomes of a completed project assessment, since the final location, reservoir dimensions and detailed engineering design have not yet been established.
The project is being examined at three potential locations – Parong and Dite Dime in Siang district, and the Ugeng-Komkar area of Upper Siang district. According to media reports, preliminary topographical and geophysical investigations had been undertaken, but resistance from villagers had prevented essential core drilling at the identified locations.
Opposition groups have also disputed the government’s claims regarding consultations, alleging that landowners and community representatives were not adequately informed before agreements supporting preliminary surveys were pursued. The administration has rejected allegations that such agreements were secured through coercion, highlighting a widening disagreement over whether the proposed project enjoys meaningful local consent.
The dispute has consequently become as much about public trust as engineering feasibility, with residents fearing that allowing initial drilling could eventually make the project’s construction unavoidable. Government representatives insist that a feasibility study does not amount to project approval, but that distinction has yet to convince sections of the population already suspicious of earlier development proposals.
Protests, arrests intensify tensions
The latest confrontation follows weeks of demonstrations, arrests and clashes in the Siang region, including violence during protests in Pasighat in late October. Security personnel were deployed after protesters allegedly attacked public property, including a police facility and an NHPC office, prompting the authorities to step up measures to prevent further disturbances.
A 36-hour shutdown beginning on November 2 affected parts of Upper Siang, Siang and East Siang districts, with organizers demanding the release of detained protesters, withdrawal of additional security personnel and suspension of survey activities. Mobile internet services were temporarily suspended in Upper Siang during the agitation, further aggravating concerns about restrictions imposed in response to the protests.
A subsequent shutdown in the Itanagar Capital Region on Wednesday ended peacefully, following what organizers described as a positive response from the government to several demands. Despite that development, disagreements over the proposed dam and the presence of security forces have remained unresolved, as illustrated by Moyong’s uncompromising statements the following day.
Khandu has sought to defuse the confrontation through meetings with legislators, community organizations and representatives of indigenous groups, emphasizing that the government’s national security responsibilities must be considered alongside the interests of the valley’s residents. The state cabinet has also established a high-level committee to coordinate the preliminary feasibility process and facilitate engagement, although opponents continue to question whether the consultations can produce outcomes acceptable to both sides.
The Siang controversy nevertheless presents a complex challenge for the Centre, which must weigh the consequences of allowing China to expand upstream water infrastructure against the risks of building an exceptionally large reservoir in a seismically active and socially sensitive region. Stronger hydrological monitoring, transparent technical assessments and meaningful participation by affected communities could help clarify whether a major storage dam is necessary and what alternative arrangements might be available.
For the Adi people, the immediate question remains whether their ancestral land and cultural inheritance can be protected if the project proceeds, while for New Delhi the larger concern is ensuring that India’s downstream water security is not left vulnerable to decisions taken across the border.
Reconciling these competing priorities will require more than assurances or security deployments, particularly when the government’s strategic objectives ultimately depend on maintaining the confidence of the people living along one of India’s most sensitive frontiers.