Arunachal tense as anti-Dam protests turn violent over proposed Siang Mega-Dam exposing a deep divide between the government and the people
October 26, 2026: Protests against the 11,200 MW Siang Upper Multipurpose Project (SUMP) turned violent in Pasighat on October 23, with an NHPC office and a police station reportedly targeted by arson, vehicles damaged and the homes of political leaders vandalised. More than 40 police personnel were reportedly injured, prompting the Centre to order the deployment of approximately 250 Rapid Action Force (RAF) personnel to reinforce security.
Behind the scenes of the unrest lies a fundamental question: who gets to decide the future of the Siang River and the communities whose lives are bound to it?
The Siang mega-project: development versus indigenous rights
The proposed Siang Upper Multipurpose Project is planned on the Siang River, which enters Arunachal Pradesh from Tibet, where it is known as the Yarlung Tsangpo, before flowing into Assam and becoming part of the Brahmaputra river system.
With a proposed capacity of 11,200 megawatts, the project is being presented by the government as a strategic investment in hydropower, flood management and India’s water security. It is also viewed in the context of China’s plans for a massive hydropower project upstream on the same river system.
For the Adi community and other indigenous residents, however, the debate is not simply about electricity generation or national strategy. It concerns ancestral land, potential village displacement, agricultural livelihoods, ecological damage and the future of communities that have lived alongside the river for generations.
Local organisations, including Adi Bane Kebang United and the Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum, have opposed the project and demanded that preliminary survey work be halted. Protesters have also called for the release of detained activists and residents, the reinstatement of suspended village leaders and the withdrawal of central security forces from affected areas.
The government maintains that the current work involves preparing a pre-feasibility report, an early stage of technical and environmental assessment rather than construction of the completed dam. Chief Minister Pema Khandu has expressed willingness to engage with organisations and discuss the project’s possible benefits and adverse impacts.
Yet the continuing resistance indicates that many residents want more than assurances. They want their concerns heard before decisions affecting their land, culture and future become irreversible.
Pasighat violence: a protest movement reaches a dangerous turning point
The agitation intensified through October, with public meetings, rallies, sit-ins and a bandh across parts of East Siang, Upper Siang and Siang districts. On October 23, tensions escalated in Pasighat after the bandh ended.
Police said protesters pelted security personnel with stones and that tear gas was used to disperse the crowd. Some demonstrators, meanwhile, alleged that the use of tear gas escalated the confrontation.
The subsequent violence damaged public buildings and vehicles and targeted the residences of three political figures: state BJP president Kaling Moyong and MLAs Oni Panyang and Ninong Ering.
Authorities reported that more than 40 police personnel were injured. By October 24, at least 15 people had reportedly been arrested or detained in connection with the unrest.
Importantly, some participants have publicly distanced the movement from the violence. Pasighat resident Otul Jerang said the destruction contradicted the movement’s objectives and that the agitation had been driven by demands for the government to listen to local communities.
The distinction matters. Opposition to a development project is a legitimate subject of democratic debate, while arson, assault and destruction of property require investigation and accountability.
The violence must be investigated, but it should not become a reason to dismiss the concerns that brought people onto the streets in the first place.
250 RAF personnel deployed as tensions rise
Following the clashes, the Union Home Ministry ordered the deployment of approximately 250 Rapid Action Force personnel from Navi Mumbai to Arunachal Pradesh. The deployment was intended to reinforce security in the affected areas after the violence in Pasighat.
Khandu described the incidents as regrettable, stressed that peaceful protest is an essential part of democracy and appealed for calm. He also reiterated the government’s willingness to engage with organisations opposing the project.
The immediate challenge is to prevent further violence without allowing the security response to overshadow the substantive questions raised by local communities. Dialogue will mean little if residents believe their concerns are being heard only after confrontations erupt.
Can strategic development proceed without public trust?
The Siang project presents the government with a difficult but unavoidable challenge. India has strategic and energy interests in the river basin, particularly given China’s hydropower plans upstream. But national security and infrastructure ambitions cannot, by themselves, settle questions about displacement, environmental risks, local livelihoods and meaningful consultation.
Equally, the destruction witnessed in Pasighat cannot be justified simply because residents have legitimate concerns. The authorities must establish individual responsibility for the violence while ensuring that peaceful demonstrators and affected communities are not collectively treated as lawbreakers.
The way forward requires transparent disclosure of the project’s assessments, meaningful engagement with affected villages, credible answers about environmental and displacement risks, and a clear explanation of the project’s costs and benefits. Any allegations of misconduct by security forces must also be investigated impartially.
The Siang River is more than a source of electricity or a strategic asset on a map. It is part of a living landscape, a local economy and the cultural inheritance of indigenous communities.
The government now faces two tests: restoring peace in Pasighat and rebuilding trust among the people whose lives could be transformed by the project. Deploying additional forces may help contain immediate unrest, but it cannot substitute for consultation, transparency and accountability.
A project of this scale cannot be judged by its megawatt capacity alone. Its true measure must also include the cost to the people, land and environment that will bear its consequences.
JANPATH NEWS NETWORK (JNN)
Independent. Fearless. On the People’s Path
