China’s mega-dam and Arunachal’s political U-turn: Why Siang valley is up in arms again

Itanagar: A proposed 11,200-MW dam project in Arunachal Pradesh has set off a fierce standoff in the Siang Valley. Local Adi tribes are blocking security forces and survey teams over fears that the mega-dam will submerge their lands, homes and ancestral livelihoods.

The protests have intensified in recent weeks over the issue that has divided Arunachal Pradesh for years. On October 10, four residents were detained under the Arunachal Pradesh Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2014. It led to demonstrations in Geku, in Upper Siang district, with protesters demanding their release. The youth wing of the Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum (SIFF) also called for a boycott of government consultations on the project. 

The state administration has cited his alleged involvement in violence, arson and damage to public and private property while defending the preventive detention orders. The dispute had turned violent in late September, during Chief Minister Pema Khandu’s visit to the region.

Protesters attacked a local MLA’s residence and set a police vehicle on fire. Clashes broke out again on October 4, following claims that protesters set fires and security personnel used excessive force.

The deployment of security forces to facilitate survey work has become a major point of contention. Residents have opposed the movement of machinery and personnel into the affected area, arguing that the process is proceeding without their consent. 

The government’s effort to prepare a pre-feasibility report has therefore become the immediate test of whether officials can carry out fieldwork while addressing the objections of the people living around the proposed site. 

Union Minister Kiren Rijiju, who is from Arunachal Pradesh, called for talks with senior members of the Adi community on October 8. “If we sit down and talk, technically, everything will be clear. We have to talk. We have to move forward,” he said.

A dam project that has divided parties across govts

The Siang dispute has crossed several governments and political eras. In August 2010, Ojing Tasing, then chairman of the Siang Peoples’ Forum and a prominent opponent of large dams, met the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh in New Delhi to seek the scrapping of hydropower projects in the river basin. The meeting followed a police raid at his residence in Itanagar.

He later wrote to then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about the objections raised during a public consultation in Guwahati. Some groups, he said, argued that Arunachal Pradesh should not become “a pawn in the race between India and China”.

Opposition to large dams also found an ally in BJP leader and former Rajya Sabha MP Tarun Vijay. In May 2012, he challenged the suggestion that people opposing projects might be acting at China’s behest. 

“If people from China are indeed instigating an agitation… the government has an even greater responsibility to send a Union minister to speak to those people,” he told the Rajya Sabha.

Campaigning in Pasighat in February 2014, before becoming prime minister, Narendra Modi acknowledged local opposition to large dams and favoured smaller hydropower projects that would protect the environment.

Political leaders have since changed their stand on the Siang project. Arunachal Pradesh Congress Committee President Bosiram Siram argued in a memorandum submitted in July that China’s upstream projects should not take precedence over the free, prior and informed consent of tribal communities. 

In September, Indian Youth Congress National General Secretary Tarh Johny called the state and central governments’ approach “dictatorship” and demanded transparency and meaningful consultation.

Khandu, whose BJP government now backs the project, said on September 21 that he had instructed the chief secretary to take action against government employees opposing it.

Tasing has also moved to the other side of the debate. Now Arunachal Pradesh’s rural development and Panchayati Raj minister and a close ally of CM Khandu, he has defended the dam on strategic grounds. “If we don’t construct our dam, what will be the impact on us if China uses its dam as a water bomb on India?” he said.

China’s dam plans upend regional security

The project’s supporters cite China’s plans for the Yarlung Tsangpo, the name given to the Siang upstream in Tibet. India first proposed harnessing the Siang and Subansiri rivers in 1982, before Brijig’s plans became the defining strategic argument in the debate.

In 2002, India and China agreed on a system for Beijing to share hydrological data during the flood season. A year later, the Union government launched a national initiative to develop 50,000 MW of hydropower, with around 27,000 MW envisaged from Arunachal Pradesh.

In 2011, the government informed Parliament about a Chinese run-of-the-river project upstream of the Siang and called for Arunachal Pradesh and Assam to harness the Brahmaputra’s waters. India raised objections to additional Chinese projects in 2013.

In 2017, NITI Aayog proposed combining the planned Siang Upper Stage-I and Stage-II projects into one large storage project. That proposal developed into the present 11,200-MW plan. 

In 2008, the government declared the 9,500-MW Siang Upper project a National Project. A year later, the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) split it into two stages of 6,000 MW and 3,750 MW to limit the area that would be submerged.

China has prepared plans for a much larger project. Beijing approved a 60,000-MW hydropower project on the lower Yarlung Tsangpo in December 2024. The project comprises five cascade power stations and is intended to use a steep section of the river near the Indian border, where the elevation drops nearly 2,000 metres over 50 km.

Indian officials and supporters of the Siang project cite the Chinese development while arguing for greater control over downstream water resources. The possibility of sudden releases and changes in river flows has prompted calls for a large storage facility in Arunachal Pradesh.

Experts question whether building a dam would secure India’s position under international water law. Himanshu Thakkar, coordinator of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People, argued that international law offered little basis for claiming a “first user right”. He said India should seek details of China’s project and consider a joint assessment of its effects rather than push ahead with a dam against the wishes of local communities.

Dispute begins with land

The project’s possible effects go beyond power generation and water security. The Adi community’s objections relate to the future of villages, agricultural land and a way of life built around the Siang.

_{The Adi community’s objections relate to the future of villages, agricultural land and a way of life sustained by the Siang. A Bogum Bokang Kebang, a supreme council that brings together Adi clans to address major collective issues, is rare. In August 2025, the community held one in Geku after a gap of 25 years. The gathering opposed the proposed dam and the studies being conducted for it.}

According to the SIFF, the proposed reservoir could submerge 27 villages, affect dozens of others and displace between 1 lakh and 1.5 lakh indigenous people. The affected areas include paddy fields, orchards and land used for jhum cultivation, all of which support local livelihoods.

The Adi relationship with the land also has a spiritual dimension. The community regards the land as belonging to Abo Tani, its primordial ancestor, and reveres Ane Siang or Mother Siang as a source of cultural identity. Residents who oppose the dam fear displacement would mean losing places and traditions passed down through generations.

Fears about the loss of cultural life and the right to make decisions about their future are major reasons behin opposition to large dams. Ecological and seismic risks are also real.

The Siang dam row pits India’s strategic interests over China’s hydropower plans against local fears of displacement and loss of control over ancestral land. Decades of opposition and the detention of four residents have made the government’s push for preliminary studies more contentious.