The project was declared a national initiative in 2008, with official aims including hydropower generation, flood moderation, and maintaining river flow. In recent years, the dam has also been presented by the state as strategically important, especially in the context of China’s dam-building activities upstream on the Yarlung Tsangpo. However, while government narratives often frame the project in terms of national security and regional development, local opposition has focused on a different concern: the manner in which decisions are being pushed forward without meaningful public consent.
Over the past few years, tensions have grown as the government has moved toward initiating preliminary feasibility and pre-feasibility studies. In several villages, Memorandums of Understanding have been signed to facilitate these early processes. Officials have described these MoUs as proof of community cooperation and local support, but many residents and anti-dam groups argue that such agreements do not reflect collective consent. In their view, consultation has been insufficient, and in some cases only a small number of individuals have been approached or influenced, while broader community voices remain excluded. This has created division within villages and reinforced a sense that the project is being advanced in a top-down manner.
Promises of development packages and future benefits have also been used to justify the project’s progress. Government statements have highlighted possible improvements in infrastructure, livelihoods, and economic opportunity. Yet many local people continue to raise the question of what these promises overlook. Communities fear that farmers will bear the greatest costs through loss of land, disruption of livelihood systems, displacement, and irreversible impacts on the fragile Himalayan ecology. For many, compensation and short-term packages cannot replace what is at stake the river’s relationship with culture, identity, and survival.
The resistance to the Siang dam, therefore, is not simply opposition to development, but a demand for a development process that respects Indigenous rights, transparent consultation, and community-led decision-making. The conflict reflects a deeper issue in Arunachal, whether large-scale infrastructure can be pursued legitimately when those most affected feel unheard. As you visit the region, the Siang valley offers a critical lens into the broader tensions between mega-project driven narratives of progress and the lived realities of communities who have been defending their land and river for years.