About Us Contact Us
IndiaRights

Arunachal’s anti-dam protests intensify as arrests, militarisation and threats to press freedom fail to silence resistance

sabrangindia    
Communities resisting the proposed 11,200 MW project fear the loss of ancestral land, livelihoods and cultural heritage, with activists detained under the APUAPA
Image: newindianexpress.com

The resistance against the proposed Siang Upper Multipurpose Project (SUMP) in Arunachal Pradesh is no longer confined to villages along the Siang River. What began as a sustained movement by indigenous communities opposing a mega-dam has expanded into a wider mobilisation across the state, drawing students, youth organisations, farmers, civil society groups and journalists into a confrontation with the government. And as the protests gather momentum, the state’s response has become increasingly coercive: arrests of protesters, detention of activists under anti-terror legislation, the deployment of hundreds of paramilitary personnel, restrictions on movement and an alarming attempt to bring journalists within the ambit of criminal investigations.

Yet, despite the expanding security presence and the threat of criminal prosecution, the protests have not subsided. Instead, resistance has spread beyond the directly affected villages, with solidarity demonstrations in Itanagar and renewed opposition to other proposed hydropower projects. The message from the protesters is increasingly clear: the threat of arrest, intimidation and state action will not persuade communities to surrender their land, rivers and ancestral identities without being heard.

The crackdown has also extended to journalists, lawyers and those associated with the anti-dam movement. In a move that has raised serious concerns over press freedom and the right to legal representation, Arunachal Pradesh Police has sought search warrants against four people, including Tongam Rina, Deputy Editor of The Arunachal Times, advocate Sunny Tayeng, and activists Otul Jerang and Tajong Talom. In an application submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of East Siang on October 27, the investigating officer sought permission to search their residences and seize mobile phones, digital devices, photographs, video recordings and clothing allegedly connected to the violence in Pasighat. The application was filed under Section 96 of the BNSS, 2023, and the court’s decision was not immediately available.

The inclusion of Rina’s name has triggered strong objections from the Arunachal Pradesh Union of Working Journalists, the Arunachal Press Club and the Arunachal Publishers and Broadcasters Guild. The press bodies have warned that investigative powers must not become instruments to intimidate journalists reporting on contentious public issues. Meanwhile, Tayeng has expressed concerns about alleged surveillance and the implications for the confidentiality of lawyer-client communications. As Scroll.in reported, Rina has said that the alleged intimidation would not stop her from writing or pursuing her activism.

The immediate flashpoint was the violence that erupted in Pasighat on October 23, following a 12-hour bandh called by organisations opposing the proposed project. An NHPC office and a police station were allegedly set on fire, while the residences of political leaders, including two MLAs and the state BJP president, were vandalised. However, the events in Pasighat cannot be understood in isolation from the prolonged conflict over the project, the government’s attempts to facilitate preliminary surveys despite local opposition, and the growing resentment over the militarisation of affected villages. More importantly, alleged violence cannot become a justification for indiscriminate arrests, the criminalisation of an entire movement or the suppression of legitimate political and journalistic expression.

What are the protests about?

At the centre of the agitation is the proposed 11,200-megawatt Siang Upper Multipurpose Project, a massive hydropower and water-storage project on the Siang River, which flows into Arunachal Pradesh from Tibet and eventually becomes the Brahmaputra in Assam. The project, proposed by the Union government’s policy think tank NITI Aayog in 2017, is being advanced by the Centre as a strategic necessity in response to China’s proposed 60,000-MW hydropower project on the Yarlung Tsangpo, the river that enters India as the Siang. The government argues that the proposed dam would strengthen India’s water security, provide flood moderation and help counter the potential consequences of China’s upstream infrastructure.

However, for communities living along the Siang, the project represents a threat that cannot be reduced to questions of hydropower generation or national security. Residents of more than 27 villages have raised concerns about the possible submergence of ancestral settlements, agricultural land, forests and culturally significant sites. The Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum (SIFF) has warned that the project could affect approximately 1–1.5 lakh people. The potential consequences extend beyond displacement in its conventional understanding. For the Adi community, the river, known as Ane Siang or Mother Siang, is deeply connected to its cultural identity, spiritual beliefs, agricultural practices and collective memory.

The river is not merely a resource to be harnessed for electricity or strategic advantage. It is central to a way of life sustained across generations. The possibility of losing ancestral land, burial grounds, terraced paddy fields, forests and religious sites therefore raises questions about the survival of indigenous culture itself.

In an interview with Frontline, residents and activists described the project as a threat to their relationship with the land and river. One young protester emphasised that the community’s identity was inseparable from the Siang, while Tadak Nalo of the Arunachal Frontier Tribal Front questioned the government’s approach to obtaining consent from affected residents.

Environmental concerns compound these anxieties. The proposed project is located in a highly seismic region of the Himalayas, with the Siang Valley falling in Seismic Zone V. Environmentalists and dam experts have warned that large infrastructure projects in ecologically fragile and earthquake-prone regions require independent and comprehensive assessments of their environmental and social consequences.

Himanshu Thakkar, coordinator of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People, told Frontline that the adverse consequences of large dams have become increasingly evident and called for an impartial assessment of the proposed project. Supreme Court senior advocate and transboundary water law expert Mohan Katarki also cautioned against treating a counter-dam as an automatic solution to the risks posed by China’s upstream project, emphasising the need for bilateral engagement and a joint environmental impact assessment.

The government’s national security argument, therefore, does not resolve the questions being raised by affected communities. Nor does invoking China’s hydropower ambitions establish that the proposed project is environmentally sustainable, socially just or acceptable to the people whose lives would be directly affected.

The resistance has also been fuelled by the manner in which preliminary survey activities have been pursued. The government maintains that the pre-feasibility report (PFR) is only an initial exercise to assess the technical, geological and hydrological viability of the project and does not constitute final approval for construction. Residents, however, fear that allowing drilling and survey machinery onto their ancestral land would effectively pave the way for the project.

ThePrint reported from Komkar that villagers had erected barricades to prevent drilling equipment from reaching the proposed sites. For residents, the issue is not simply whether a dam has received final approval. It is whether the state can proceed with activities that could fundamentally alter their land before their objections have been meaningfully addressed.

The controversy has deepened further over allegations that villagers were misled into signing documents connected to the proposed project. Some residents have alleged that they were asked to provide Aadhaar cards and bank account details and sign documents under the impression that they were enrolling in a government livelihood scheme. They subsequently suspected that their signatures had been used in connection with memorandums of understanding relating to the PFR. These allegations have not been independently verified.

ThePrint also reported that Upper Siang Deputy Commissioner Ashok Tajo acknowledged that the administration had failed to adequately explain the livelihood scheme and the associated documents to residents. The Rs 350-crore Special Development and Livelihood Programme, announced by the Centre and the state government, had not resulted in any disbursement when he spoke to the publication. Tajo admitted that the administration’s approach to communicating the scheme had contributed to the present situation, telling ThePrint: “If the approach was right, then this situation would not have come.”

Such an admission raises serious questions about the government’s insistence that the opposition is primarily the result of misinformation. When residents do not understand what they are being asked to sign, when promised assistance remains undisbursed and when survey activities proceed amid sustained objections, the resulting mistrust cannot simply be dismissed as an information deficit.

The protesters have repeatedly maintained that they are not opposed to development. Their demands include better roads, schools, hospitals and access to essential services. What they reject is a model of development that requires them to sacrifice their land, livelihoods and cultural existence while having little control over decisions that directly affect them. As one young protester told Frontline, the government repeatedly invokes national interest, but the interests of the people living in the region must also count.

Arrests, hunger strikes and the use of anti-terror legislation

Rather than resolving the underlying conflict through sustained consultation, the government’s response has increasingly relied on policing and criminal proceedings. Following the allaged October 23 violence, the East Siang police initially reported the arrest of 26 people, including five juveniles, and the detention of six others for questioning. Eight cases had been registered in connection with the incidents, according to a statement issued by East Siang Superintendent of Police Pankaj Lamba on October 26.

The scale of the crackdown subsequently appeared to widen considerably. As Scroll.in reported, Inspector General of Police Hibu Tamang stated that 69 people had been arrested and four detained in connection with the violence. Police had registered 55 cases across Upper Siang, Siang and East Siang districts. The arrests and detentions were being pursued under the Arunachal Pradesh Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2014 (APUAPA).

The distinction between those arrested in connection with specific incidents of violence and those detained for their participation in the wider anti-dam movement is crucial. The existence of criminal offences warrants investigation, but it cannot provide the state with an unrestricted mandate to treat opposition to a development project as a threat to national security.

The use of the APUAPA is particularly alarming. Four activists from Geku, Adum Tayom, Omak Paron, Okut Paloh and Oson Paron, were detained under the state law on October 9 for opposing the pre-feasibility studies. The detention of activists under anti-terror legislation in connection with opposition to preliminary survey activities raises fundamental questions about the threshold being applied by the authorities and the distinction between dissent and criminal conduct. ThePrint reported that the administration had confirmed the government’s approval of detention orders against four people under the APUAPA, with their cases scheduled for review by an advisory board headed by a retired judge.

Invoking a law carrying the language and implications of unlawful activities against people resisting a proposed dam is not an ordinary policing measure. It risks transforming a dispute over land, consent, displacement and environmental protection into a question of security and public order, where the people raising objections are increasingly treated as potential threats rather than citizens exercising their democratic rights.

The allegations emerging from Geku are especially disturbing. Young protesters have told ThePrint that they fear being picked up from their homes or detained while going about their everyday activities. Some have alleged that they face multiple FIRs, with certain individuals claiming to have as many as 25 cases registered against them. Others have reportedly started staying in surrounding forests to avoid arrest.

Residents have also described frequent security checks, restrictions on movement and the questioning of people travelling to their agricultural fields. One resident told ThePrint that villagers could not even carry their traditional dao, a farming tool routinely used to clear vegetation and harvest crops, without attracting suspicion.

The security presence has fundamentally altered everyday life in these villages. The deployment of forces is no longer experienced merely as an arrangement to prevent violence. For many residents, it has become an intrusive presence in spaces that have historically been their homes, fields and community lands. The scale of deployment is significant. According to police accounts reported by Scroll.in, 30 companies of Central Armed Police Forces, alongside three companies of the Assam Police and Arunachal Pradesh Police personnel, were deployed across the affected districts. ThePrint also reported the deployment of additional Rapid Action Force personnel following the violence.

The Centre further rushed two RAF companies to Arunachal Pradesh on October 24. As reported by PTI, approximately 250 personnel were flown out of Navi Mumbai in an Indian Air Force aircraft. For residents who have spent years opposing the project, the sight of such a substantial security deployment has reinforced the perception that the government is attempting to facilitate the survey through force rather than consent.

The situation has also taken a deeply troubling turn with the arrests of activist and lawyer Ebo Mili and youth leader Otul Jerang. Both surrendered at Pasighat police station on October 24, reportedly to condemn the violence and appeal for restraint among young protesters. They subsequently began hunger strikes while in police custody. According to Down To Earth, Mili continued his hunger strike in custody, while Jerang ended his fast after his health deteriorated. Jerang, who has pre-existing health conditions and requires prescribed medication, had reportedly been fasting since October 25.

Their detention and the hunger strikes underline the extent to which the confrontation has moved beyond the immediate question of the dam. The release of detainees, withdrawal of police cases and removal of additional security personnel have become central demands of the movement. The protesters are not simply demanding that the government abandon the project. They are also demanding that the state stop treating opposition to it as a law-and-order problem.

Journalist Tongam Rina brought into police investigation

The crackdown has also raised serious concerns about the independence of the press and the ability of journalists to report on a movement that has become politically sensitive. The inclusion of senior journalist Tongam Rina in a police application seeking search warrants is particularly disturbing. Rina, Deputy Editor of The Arunachal Times, was among four people named in an application submitted by the investigating officer of Pasighat Police Station before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of East Siang on October 27. The application, filed under Section 96 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, sought permission to search the residences of Rina, advocate Sunny Tayeng, activist Otul Jerang and Tajong Talom.

The police sought permission to seize clothing allegedly worn during the violence, mobile phones, digital devices containing photographs or videos and other materials considered relevant to the investigation. According to the application, these materials could help establish individual roles, reconstruct the sequence of events and corroborate witness statements. The court’s decision on the application was not immediately available. The question, however, is why a journalist known for reporting on governance, indigenous rights and environmental issues has been included in an investigation into the violence.

There has been no publicly established evidence in the material available linking Rina’s journalistic work to the alleged offences. The inclusion of her name in a search-warrant application therefore warrants immediate scrutiny, particularly when the investigation concerns protests on an issue of significant public interest.

The Arunachal Pradesh Union of Working Journalists (APUWJ) and the Arunachal Press Club (APC) strongly condemned the move, warning that it could amount to an attempt to intimidate the press and misuse investigative powers. The organisations made it clear that reporting on protests cannot itself be treated as criminal conduct. While condemning the violence and destruction in Pasighat, they insisted that investigations must remain evidence-based and must not become instruments to suppress critical reporting.

The complete statement may be read here.

The Arunachal Publishers and Broadcasters Guild (APBG) also expressed serious concern, calling upon the police and state government to ensure that any investigation involving a journalist is conducted with transparency and appropriate safeguards. The Guild emphasised that a journalist’s professional responsibilities cannot, by themselves, become grounds for suspicion or punitive action. It also raised concerns about the protection of confidential sources, unpublished reporting and journalistic material during searches.

 The complete statement may be read here.

The implications extend beyond Rina. If journalists reporting on an agitation can be drawn into criminal investigations without clearly established grounds being made public, the message to the rest of the media is unmistakable: reporting on state action, questioning official narratives or documenting the experiences of protesters may expose journalists to investigative scrutiny.

Frontline also reported allegations by young protesters and local journalists that social media accounts had been restricted or suspended while they were sharing information about the agitation. Some young people claimed that their content remained visible outside India but was inaccessible within the country. These allegations require independent verification, but they add to the concerns about the shrinking space available for reporting and communication.

In a conflict where residents allege intimidation, arbitrary detention and restrictions on movement, independent journalism becomes especially important. It is journalists who document the ground situation, question official accounts and ensure that the experiences of affected communities do not disappear behind government statements and police briefings. Targeting or intimidating journalists at such a moment risk depriving the public of precisely the information it needs to assess the government’s actions.

From Siang to Itanagar, resistance refuses to retreat

The government’s increasingly coercive response has not contained the movement. Instead, the agitation has acquired a wider political and social character. On October 29, members of several youth and social organisations gathered at Indira Gandhi Park in Itanagar for a solidarity rally in support of the Adi community and those opposing the proposed SUMP.

As reported by The Hindu, the demonstrators demanded the release of detained protesters, withdrawal of security personnel from the affected region and scrapping of the proposed project. They raised concerns about the protection of ancestral land, rivers, indigenous identity and fundamental rights.

The mobilisation was significant because the opposition was no longer limited to villages directly affected by the proposed reservoir. The movement had travelled to the state capital, drawing support from organisations and citizens who view the government’s response as a broader question of democratic rights. Protesters insisted that they were not opposed to development but rejected the idea that the government could impose a project with potentially devastating consequences on indigenous communities without their meaningful participation.

One representative of the affected communities told The Hindu that they were fighting for their land, culture, fundamental rights and existence, but were being treated like second-class citizens. The solidarity rally also demanded the withdrawal of security personnel deployed to facilitate the PFR surveys. The protesters argued that the state was attempting to conduct preliminary studies by militarising the region.

The Arunachal Christian Forum has also appealed to Chief Minister Pema Khandu to initiate meaningful dialogue with the Siang Indigenous Farmers Forum and other concerned stakeholders. Along with the Arunachal Indigenous Tribes Forum, it has offered to facilitate discussions between the government and the protesting organisations.

The spread of the movement is also evident in the opposition to the proposed 1,605-MW Subansiri Upper Hydroelectric Project, popularly known as the Menga Dam, in Upper Subansiri district. On October 26, a 12-hour shutdown called by student and community organisations led to the cancellation of a public hearing. Violence was also reported from Daporijo and other areas, according to The Hindu.

The widening protests suggest that the conflict is no longer being viewed solely as a dispute over one hydropower project. It is increasingly about how decisions concerning land, natural resources and indigenous communities are being made, and whether those communities can meaningfully challenge the state without facing the threat of criminalisation.

The politics of fear is meeting its limits

Perhaps the most significant development in the Siang movement is that the growing threat of state action has not produced the silence that the security-heavy response might have been expected to create. There is no denying that the crackdown has generated fear. Young protesters have reportedly changed their phone numbers, become reluctant to appear on camera, restricted their online activity and avoided returning home because they fear arrest. Some have allegedly faced repeated FIRs, while others have questioned whether they can continue their daily lives without being monitored.

Yet the protests continue.

From road blockades in Komkar and Geku to solidarity demonstrations in Itanagar, the movement has continued to find new forms of expression. The arrest of activists has not ended the mobilisation. The detention of young people has not extinguished opposition. The deployment of additional security forces has not convinced residents to abandon their demands.

This resistance is particularly significant in a region where the relationship between land, identity and community is inseparable. For the people opposing the dam, the threat is not limited to the loss of individual homes or agricultural holdings. It is the possible destruction of an entire cultural and ecological landscape.

The message emerging from the villages is that the fear of illegal or arbitrary state action cannot be allowed to become a substitute for consent. The possibility of arrest cannot determine whether people are entitled to question a government project. Nor can the invocation of national security automatically render every objection suspect.

A democratic government cannot demand that citizens demonstrate their patriotism by remaining silent about decisions that threaten their homes and livelihoods. Indigenous communities do not cease to be citizens when their concerns conflict with the state’s infrastructure or strategic priorities. Their rights cannot become conditional upon their willingness to accept a project.

The government has repeatedly invoked the importance of the SUMP in countering China’s upstream hydropower ambitions. But national security cannot be understood exclusively through infrastructure and strategic competition. It must also account for the security of people living in border regions, their livelihoods, their cultural continuity and their confidence that the state will protect rather than intimidate them. A government that seeks to strengthen India’s position along its international borders cannot afford to alienate the very communities whose lives and lands sustain those regions.

Chief Minister Pema Khandu has expressed concern over the violence and offered to hold discussions with protesting groups. He has also stated that the project would proceed only with public consent. Such assurances, however, must translate into a credible process in which affected communities can question the project, access independent information, examine its environmental and social consequences and participate in decisions without coercion.

Dialogue cannot be meaningful when one side is negotiating under the threat of detention, criminal cases and a heavy security presence. Nor can consent be considered genuine when villagers remain uncertain about the documents they have signed, the purpose of the surveys or the implications of the project.

Related:

Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission

Police detain Adivasi students for second day, force them out of Mumbai

From Nashik to Mumbai: Adivasi students’ protest meets police detentions

Trending

IN FOCUS

IN FOCUS

Related Articles

ALL STORIES

Load more

ALL STORIES

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Join our mailing list to get the latest human rights news that matters, straight to your mailbox.

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Join our mailing list to get the latest human rights news that matters, straight to your mailbox.

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT

Email: sabrangind@gmail.com

© Sabrang | All Rights Reserved