Arunachal Pradesh Protests: Siang Dam, Indigenous Rights and Activism

Arrests, more forces and a first round of talks Latest

By 24 October police had registered at least three FIRs and said 15 people were arrested or detained, according to Inspector-General of Police Hibu Tamang; he said police had information that could identify others involved (Down To Earth). Police said around 40 security personnel were injured, and authorities restricted public gatherings (Business Today). Additional CRPF personnel, including two Rapid Action Force companies, were moved into the Siang valley, and demonstrations spread to Upper Subansiri district (Nation Path).

On 25 October Chief Minister Pema Khandu met legislators and Indigenous organisations (Business Today). Protesters’ demands include halting pre-feasibility work, releasing those held, quashing the FIRs and withdrawing central forces (Arunachal Times). Arrests are not findings of guilt, and the figures may change.

Bandh turns into clashes in Pasighat Protest

Four organisations, the Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum, the SUMP Affected Area Youth Association, Adi Bane Kebang Youth and the Adi Galo Welfare Society, called a 12-hour bandh. The Bogong Banggo Kebang of Pasighat did not back it, saying it had not been told in advance (Down To Earth; Arunachal Times). It was largely peaceful by day. Between about 5pm and 6:30pm, police said 200–300 people threw stones at police and a magistrate, and police used tear gas.

Reports say an NHPC office was set on fire, part of Pasighat police station was damaged, at least nine police vehicles were damaged, and the homes of MLAs Oni Panyang and Ninong Ering and BJP state president Kaling Moyong were attacked (Down To Earth). Sit-in participant Otul Jerang said the violence was “completely contrary to our movement’s ideology and objectives.”

24-hour sit-in at Miracle Ground Protest

A 24-hour dharna began at 2pm on Thursday 22 October at Miracle Ground, organised by the Save Siang, Save Indigenous Rights Committee, with the administration’s permission (Arunachal Times). Its demands: halt pre-feasibility reports and surveys, release detained activists, quash the FIRs and withdraw central armed police. Former chief minister Gegong Apang repeated his call to scrap the project and urged Adi-belt legislators to join the movement.

Youth meeting in Pasighat, then a march Protest

A consultative meeting of young people in Pasighat on 18 October began the mobilisation. The East Siang administration denied permission for a rally on 19 October (Arunachal Times). A march nonetheless went from Daying Ering School ground to Gandhi Chowk on 20 October (Down To Earth).

Arrests under a state anti-unlawful-activities law Official move

At least 10 people were arrested from 9 October, four of them under the Arunachal Pradesh Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2014 (Down To Earth). On 10 October protesters took to the streets in Geku, Upper Siang, demanding the release of the four; the SIFF Youth Wing urged a boycott of government consultations (The Indian Express). Two days before, Union minister Kiren Rijiju had called for dialogue with senior Adi members.

Forces move in; MLA’s house attacked; lathi-charge alleged Protest

On 14 September the state sent hundreds of police and paramilitary personnel to Uggeng and Komkar, two of the three proposed dam sites, and residents blocked roads (Mongabay India). Summons were issued to at least three SIFF-linked protesters under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. On 30 September, during Khandu’s visit, protesters allegedly attacked an MLA’s house and set vehicles on fire; on 4 October protesters alleged excessive force and security forces alleged arson at Uggeng (The Indian Express). On 5 October, news pages covering the protest sites were reported blocked.

MoU claim, and a CBI notice to a protest adviser Official move

In June Khandu said 110 households from Geku had signed an MoU backing the pre-feasibility report. On 20 August the CBI served a notice on Bhanu Tatak, legal adviser to the SIFF, in an FIR alleging ₹17.6 lakh in foreign contributions was received without FCRA permission; the SIFF Youth Wing called it harassment (Mongabay India). On 21 September Khandu said he had told the Chief Secretary to act against government employees opposing the project (The Indian Express).

Adi clans hold a supreme council after 25 years Protest

After a gap of 25 years, a Bogum Bokang Kebang, a supreme council bringing together Adi clans, was held at Geku in Upper Siang to oppose the dam and its pre-feasibility studies. The SIFF says the reservoir could submerge 27 villages, affect dozens more and displace 1–1.5 lakh Indigenous people (The Indian Express). Those figures are the community’s estimate, not an official assessment, which is still to be made.

China approves its own giant dam; India says it is monitoring Official move

Beijing approved its 60,000-MW lower Yarlung Tsangpo project in December 2024, five cascade stations near the Indian border (The Indian Express). In March 2025 the Ministry of External Affairs told Parliament it was monitoring China’s plans (Business Today). Khandu has framed the Siang project as protection against sudden water releases (Deccan Herald). China says its project will not harm downstream areas.

Activists detained before a minister’s visit Protest

Police detained activists Ebo Mili and Dugge Apang before Union power minister Manohar Lal Khattar’s visit; they had planned to hand over a memorandum opposing the project, and were released after a few hours. On 22 June the Upper Siang administration had asked panchayat members and headmen of 12 potentially affected villages to cooperate with pre-feasibility surveys, citing national interest (Scroll.in). In March 2024 about 1,500 residents had protested NHPC’s corporate-social-responsibility funding.

Survey complaint, a funding approval and a forest-law change Official move

On 24 May 2023 the Union power ministry approved ₹350 crore for social development works in the region; in July the SIFF filed a police complaint alleging NHPC surveyed Parong without villagers’ consent. The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 allows forest diversion for strategic projects within 100 km of international borders without forest clearance (Scroll.in). The Act does not by itself clear any project.

NHPC is assigned the pre-feasibility report Official move

The Ministry of Jal Shakti assigned NHPC to prepare the pre-feasibility report (Business Today). A pre-feasibility report is not final construction approval; the Social Impact Assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment and Detailed Project Report would follow if it finds the project feasible (Mongabay India).

NITI Aayog merges two stages into one large project Official move

NITI Aayog proposed replacing the planned Siang Upper Stage-I and Stage-II projects with a single storage project (The Indian Express), which would have been India’s largest hydropower project at 10,000 MW (Scroll.in). It has since grown into the 11,200-MW project now disputed.

Lower Siang protests and a lathi-charge Protest

On 10 March 2010 several organisations gathered at the District Collector’s office in Pasighat and submitted a memorandum against the Lower Siang Hydroelectric Project and other mega-projects on the Siang. Before the scheduled public hearings, strikes and demonstrations spread across Pasighat and the valley. On 26 May 2010 protesters and villagers from Pongging were lathi-charged by the CRPF; two women were seriously injured and the hearing was cancelled (Katwal study). The Lower Siang plan was 2,700 MW, developed by Jaypee Arunachal Power Limited, a Jaiprakash Associates subsidiary, with a reservoir of 51.51 sq km.

Siang Upper declared a National Project, then split Official move

In 2008 the 9,500-MW Siang Upper was declared a National Project; in 2009 NHPC divided it into two stages of 6,000 MW and 3,750 MW to reduce submergence (The Indian Express). Local protests against the dam began around this time (Scroll.in). Changes to the design did not settle whether the risks were acceptable to affected villages.

Supreme Court bars eviction of Chakmas pending citizenship Refugee dispute

In National Human Rights Commission v State of Arunachal Pradesh, decided 9 January 1996, the Supreme Court dealt with a petition for about 65,000 Chakma/Hajong people and a report that the All Arunachal Pradesh Students’ Union had issued “quit notices” to alleged foreigners to leave by 30 September 1995 (Indian Kanoon). The court directed that while an individual’s citizenship application is pending, the state shall not evict or remove that person.

On 17 September 2015 the court again said they could not be discriminated against pending formal conferment of citizenship (The Indian Express).

Arunachal Pradesh becomes a state Identity

Arunachal Pradesh became a state in 1987, and control of Inner Line Permit administration passed from the Centre-appointed Lieutenant Governor to the state government (Shiv Nadar University). By then the AAPSU had built a strong movement against settling Chakmas and Hajongs in the state (The Indian Express).

Chakma and Hajong families are settled in NEFA Refugee dispute

The Chakmas and Hajongs fled the Chittagong Hill Tracts in the 1960s after their land was submerged by the Kaptai dam; some also faced religious persecution. The Indian government moved most of them to what is now Arunachal Pradesh: 14,888 people in 2,748 families were settled in 1964–69 (The Indian Express). The 2011 census counted 47,073 Chakmas in the state (Wikipedia). Arunachal has opposed their citizenship, citing demography and resources; they have faced long uncertainty about status.

Brahmaputra Board proposes a dam on the Siang Official move

The Brahmaputra Board proposed a dam on the Siang in 1982, and Upper, Middle and Lower Siang dams followed in the 1990s (The Indian Express). The Katwal study notes that apprehensions about damming the Siang date from the Board’s plans in the late 1970s and 1980s (Katwal study).

The Inner Line system begins Identity

The Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation of 1873 created the Inner Line Permit system, originally to protect rubber and elephant dealers in Cachar and Sylhet; it was not designed mainly to protect frontier tribes. After independence it was treated in NEFA as a tool for protecting Indigenous rights and culture, and Parliament debated its validity in the 1950s and 1960s, with Ram Manohar Lohia opposing it in 1958 (Shiv Nadar University). Arunachal still regulates the entry of Indian citizens who are not Indigenous residents.