Why India’s mega hydropower push to counter China has sparked protests in Arunachal

The state government sees the 11,200-MW Siang Upper Multipurpose Project (SUMP) as a strategic safeguard against China’s massive hydropower development upstream, but those who call the banks of the river home in Arunachal Pradesh fear displacement, ecological destruction and the loss of ancestral land.

What began as opposition to preliminary survey activities has escalated into violent clashes between villagers and security forces, competing claims of injuries, arrests and allegations of restrictions on journalistic coverage.

While chief minister Pema Khandu insists that no decision has been taken to construct the dam and that the government is merely exploring its feasibility, protesters remain unconvinced, arguing that even allowing the initial survey could set the stage for an irreversible transformation of the Siang valley.

The Chinese project, commonly referred to as the Medog hydropower project, is expected to have an estimated generation capacity of around 60,000 MW, significantly larger than the proposed Indian project.

Beijing formally launched construction of the complex in July 2025, announcing an estimated investment of 1.2 trillion yuan.

The Yarlung Tsangpo flows into Arunachal Pradesh as the Siang, before joining other tributaries to form the Brahmaputra in Assam and eventually entering Bangladesh.

Officials have expressed concerns over the possible consequences of upstream water regulation, including changes in river flows, potential diversion and sudden releases of water.

The Arunachal Pradesh government argues that SUMP could help moderate such fluctuations by creating substantial downstream water storage.

Chief minister Khandu has sought to distinguish between hydropower generation capacity and reservoir storage, arguing that the size of a power station does not necessarily indicate how much water it can retain.

According to figures cited by the chief minister, China’s Medog project is estimated to have storage of around 5.5 billion cubic metres, while SUMP could provide approximately 9.2 billion cubic metres of live storage.

The government believes this could create a strategic buffer against sudden changes in upstream water discharge.

However, the extent to which the proposed project could mitigate the effects of China’s dam would depend on detailed hydrological assessments, final engineering designs and operational arrangements.

Also read: Arunachal media houses condemn curbs on reports about Siang hydropower project

Why is SUMP facing resistance?

At the heart of the controversy is the government’s proposed Pre-Feasibility Report (PFR), a preliminary technical exercise intended to determine whether the massive dam can be built and where it could be located.

The government maintains that the PFR is not an approval for construction but only a scientific assessment of the project’s technical and geological viability.

For the Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum (SIFF), which is leading the resistance, however, the survey represents the first step towards a project that could fundamentally alter the region’s geography, ecology and indigenous way of life.

Protesters have demanded an immediate halt to survey activities, withdrawal of security forces from affected areas and meaningful consultations with local communities.

Tensions escalated on September 30 when protesters blocked roads during Khandu’s visit to Upper Siang district. The demonstrations turned violent, with vehicles damaged or set ablaze and the residence of local MLA Alo Libang allegedly vandalised.

The situation deteriorated further on October 4, when fresh confrontations erupted between protesters and security personnel in Siang district.

Commenting on the China factor, human rights lawyer and anti-dam activist Ebo Mili questioned the government’s narrative and called for a water-sharing treaty between New Delhi and Beijing.

“I wish our diplomats had done something to establish a water-sharing treaty between India and China. A substantial portion of the Siang’s water also comes from glacial lakes within Indian territory,” Mili said.

“The justification given by our chief minister, deputy chief minister and other ministers that China intends to completely dry up the Siang is incorrect and misleads innocent villagers. I do not see any immediate water threat from China. Instead, the proposed massive 11,000–12,000 MW gravity dam poses a more immediate threat,” he added.

Mili further alleged that the state government had no mitigation plan to address the potential dangers posed by glacial lakes that, according to him, were on the verge of breaching.

In a report released on October 6, SIFF general secretary Likeng Libang claimed that 67 members of families who would be affected by the project were injured during clashes with security forces.

Police, however, reported injuries to more than eight security personnel and said five people, including two women, were arrested following the violence.

Siang Superintendent of Police Kamdam Sikom said security personnel came under attack while attempting to maintain law and order.

According to a complaint filed by Circle Officer Kalong Tasing, around 100 to 150 protesters allegedly charged at security personnel despite prohibitory orders.

CRPF assistant commandant Gajendra Singh Sonigra reportedly suffered a severe cut on his hand while attempting to defend himself against an attack.

Police said personnel resorted to a lathicharge and fired tear gas shells to disperse the protesters.

While the farmers’ forum has accused security forces of excessive action, the administration has maintained that its personnel were responding to violent protests.

The rival accounts, including the extent and circumstances of the injuries, have not been independently verified.

Speaking at a press conference on October 11, Khandu defended the detention of protesters, and stressed that violence would not be tolerated and those disrupting public order will be dealt with according to law.

He also said the state government was willing to listen to the concerns of villagers while maintaining that a section of the protesters had been misinformed.

Also read: India, China armies hold LAC talks in Arunachal Pradesh

Earlier plans envisaged separate projects on the upper reaches of the Siang, including the 6,000-MW Siang Upper Stage-I and 3,750-MW Stage-II projects.

The proposal subsequently evolved into a larger multipurpose development, combining electricity generation with water storage and flood moderation.

However, technical challenges, environmental concerns and opposition from local communities prevented the project from making substantial progress.

The current proposal envisages an installed generation capacity of approximately 11,200 MW, although government statements frequently describe it as an 11,000-MW project.

Potential locations, including Parong, Dite Dime and Uggeng, have figured in discussions, but the final site remains undetermined.

The renewed urgency surrounding SUMP is closely linked to China’s ambitious hydropower plans.

It is intertwined with their agricultural practices, cultural traditions, ancestral settlements and collective identity.

Opponents fear that a massive reservoir could submerge villages, destroy fertile agricultural land, affect forests and fisheries, and erase sites of historical and cultural significance.

Campaigners have claimed that as many as 27 villages could face submergence, while several others could experience direct or indirect impacts. The actual extent of displacement, however, remains uncertain without detailed project assessments.

Another major concern is the region’s seismic vulnerability.

Located in the highly earthquake-prone eastern Himalayas, the Siang valley has raised questions about the safety of constructing a massive dam and reservoir in an area susceptible to earthquakes, landslides and extreme rainfall.

Indigenous organisations have also questioned the government’s claims of public support for the PFR.

SIFF has alleged that the number of households shown as supporting the exercise does not accurately reflect community sentiment.

The forum has argued that obtaining signatures from individual households cannot replace wider consultations with village communities and traditional institutions.

The All Adi Youth Association has similarly called for engagement through traditional kebang institutions, withdrawal of cases against protesters and restoration of confidence between villagers and the administration.

‘No rush’ and no construction without feasibility

Amid mounting opposition, Chief Minister Khandu has repeatedly maintained that the government has not made a final decision to construct SUMP.

During his visit to Boleng on September 29, he said the administration would not proceed beyond the feasibility stage if technical experts concluded that the project was unsuitable.

The proposed PFR, expected to be conducted over three months between November 2026 and January 2027, would examine possible locations, geological conditions, seismic risks, technical requirements and the project’s potential to moderate downstream flooding.

Khandu has emphasised that the feasibility exercise is only the beginning of a lengthy process.

Any technically viable proposal would subsequently require environmental and social impact assessments, preparation of a Detailed Project Report, statutory clearances and consultations with affected communities.

The chief minister has also sought to reassure villagers that their concerns over displacement, rehabilitation, compensation and livelihoods would be addressed before further decisions.

He has offered to spend up to 10 days visiting affected villages and interacting directly with residents to explain the government’s position and hear their objections.

Following the October 4 clashes, Khandu held consultations with Adi legislators, panchayat representatives and community leaders in Pasighat on October 5.

He acknowledged the cultural and emotional significance of the Siang River for indigenous communities and stressed that dialogue remained essential.

The chief minister also appealed to panchayat representatives to help explain the PFR process, maintaining that preliminary drilling and underground rock testing were intended to establish technical feasibility rather than begin dam construction.

The government has constituted an empowered high-level committee headed by Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Minister Ojing Tasing to oversee the PFR process and facilitate stakeholder engagement.

On October 7, Tasing said the project was important for India’s water and national security but stressed that the interests of local communities must also be protected.

The government maintains that the proposed development could generate employment, improve infrastructure, create economic opportunities and strengthen long-term water and energy security.

On October 5, the Arunachal Press Club (APC) and Arunachal Pradesh Union of Working Journalists (APUWJ) expressed concern over alleged restrictions on news reports and videos related to SUMP on social media platforms.

In a joint statement, the organisations said several journalists had reported that their videos and other content concerning the project had become inaccessible in India or that access to their social media accounts had been restricted.

According to the organisations, some users encountered messages suggesting that content had been restricted under Indian information technology regulations.

The two bodies maintained that reporting on protests, environmental concerns, displacement and government decisions was an essential part of journalism and could not be curtailed merely because the issues were contentious.

They sought clarification from the state government on whether it had issued directions to social media platforms to restrict journalistic content.

For the government, it represents a potentially transformative investment in hydropower, water security, flood management and strategic preparedness against developments upstream in China.

For many indigenous communities, however, it raises fundamental questions about who decides the future of their land, how development affects their identity and whether their consent carries meaningful weight in decisions of national importance.

The recent clashes, disputed injury figures, arrests and allegations of restrictions on media coverage have further complicated efforts to bridge the divide.

With the project’s feasibility, final location, environmental implications and rehabilitation requirements still undetermined, both the government and affected communities face a critical test of trust.

The challenge is no longer simply whether a massive dam can be built on the Siang, but whether a project presented as essential to India’s strategic interests can move forward without undermining the rights, livelihoods and confidence of the people who have lived along the river for generations.

For now, the Siang continues to flow through a valley divided over its future—caught between the promise of national development and the fear of losing an irreplaceable homeland.