A recent article published in The Arunachal Times suggested that India should rely on transboundary water treaties rather than building strategic infrastructure to secure the Siang river basin. However, this argument misreads the geopolitical realities of transboundary water management and the sentiments of the indigenous communities in Arunachal Pradesh.
While forging a unified Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna ecological treaty may seem like an elegant solution, relying solely on international diplomacy while halting crucial physical infrastructure ignores the immediate threats posed by the upstream Chinese dams. This proposition ignores the existential threats and leaves India’s Northeast vulnerable.
The opposition to the Siang Upper Multipurpose Project (SUMP) relies on the assumption of universal local resistance, citing the destruction of ancestral lands and culture. However, this narrative is shaped by external observers rather than the affected communities themselves. A meeting of project-affected families who support the proposed project’s pre-feasibility report was held in Boleng, resulting in the constitution of the Siang Development People’s Forum (SDPF).
The project has proceeded through extensive consultative processes and sustained dialogues across villages of likely project-affected families of both districts. Consequently, MoUs for the PFR have reportedly been signed by a substantial majority of the likely project-affected villages. In a democratic society, the voices of these directly affected communities must be respected.
Critics who frame the SUMP primarily as an ecological hazard overlook the greater danger cascading down from the Yarlung Tsangpo. The ongoing construction of major hydropower projects by China on the upstream reaches of the river threatens to fundamentally alter the river’s flow regime. The local indigenous population recognises that in the event of an extreme flood or an emergency release of water by Beijing, downstream communities face catastrophic risks.
Therefore, the issue is primarily one of safety, security, and the long-term welfare of the Adi people, with power generation being the other aspect of the project. Far from the SUMP being an aggressor, it is a vital water shield necessary for the downstream communities to plan their future settlements, livelihood activities, and disaster preparedness.
Furthermore, the assertion that India can neutralize Beijing’s water weaponisation by presenting a unified diplomatic front at global forums completely ignores historical precedent. Critics may need to look at the Mekong river, where six countries reside downstream of China’s extensive cascade of mega-dams. Despite decades of multilateral diplomatic pressure, China remains unbound by water-sharing treaties and routinely manipulates the river’s flow, devastating downstream agriculture and ecosystems.
True security cannot be achieved by relinquishing India’s right to build necessary, protective infrastructure in the fleeting hope that an international tribunal will rein in a superpower that actively rejects customary environmental law. India must prioritise the physical security and disaster preparedness of Arunachal Pradesh. By listening to the pragmatic voices of the local communities and securing the region with the Siang Upper Multipurpose Project, the nation can establish a robust, physical defence of its sovereignty and its citizens.
