We’d rather die than give up land: Siang villagers on proposed dam project

The Siang Upper Multipurpose Project, or SUMP, is a proposed 11,200 MW dam project in Arunachal Pradesh’s Siang region. Its main reservoir is reportedly planned near Geku, about 35 kilometres downstream from Yingkiong. The project matters because it could reshape the river and threaten settlements along its banks.

Twenty-seven villages in Upper Siang and Siang districts are resisting it. Geku residents fear submergence from stored or released water, along with the loss of farmland and community land. Most families depend on agriculture, including rice, oranges and vegetables. They also oppose drilling in the riverbed, which NHPC wants for a pre-feasibility report.

The resistance has become a community-wide campaign. Villagers say they would rather lose a harvest than surrender their homeland. Protests have disrupted farming and shortened the Solung festival, while security measures have intensified after an alleged attack involving a dao. The dispute may deepen if surveys or construction proceed without local acceptance.

SUMP is proposed as an 11,200 MW project, making it a mega dam for the Siang region. The article identifies Geku as the likely location of the main reservoir, about 35 kilometres downstream from Yingkiong. Its scale matters because water storage and releases could affect settlements and farmland along the river.

Twenty-seven villages across Upper Siang and Siang districts have joined the opposition. In Geku alone, nearly 1,000 households, representing about 1,000 families, depend largely on agriculture. Residents cultivate rice, oranges and vegetables on narrow strips between the hills. They fear that construction upstream or downstream could expose the township to submergence risks.

The figures describe the project’s reach, but the article does not state that every household in all 27 villages would be displaced. It does show widespread concern. Families say compensation would not replace their homeland, community land or ancestral connections. The project’s effects remain prospective, while its surveys and security response are already affecting village life.

The central opponents are Adi villagers from 27 communities in Upper Siang and Siang districts, especially residents of Geku. They want no dam survey or detailed project report and say they will not surrender their land. Their concerns include homes, farms, community land and ancestral ties. Their protests have included meetings, demonstrations and resistance to drilling.

On the other side are the government and NHPC, which wants to undertake riverbed drilling for a pre-feasibility report. Security forces have enforced heightened measures around the protests. They reportedly seized daos from villagers in Riga and Pangkang after an alleged attack on personnel with a dao. Officials’ stated position in the article is limited to advancing the project’s preparatory survey.

A broader security concern also shapes the argument. Villagers question why the government would build a mega dam nearly 300 kilometres from the Line of Actual Control if China’s dam is the threat. They ask for alternatives closer to the border. The dispute therefore combines development, land rights and national-security claims.

The villagers’ objection begins before any final dam proposal because the survey itself could move SUMP closer to approval. They do not want a feasibility report on the project. Their slogan is “No dam survey, no detailed project report.” For them, drilling is not neutral preparation; it is part of a process that could threaten their land.

Government sources say NHPC wants to drill in the riverbed while preparing the project’s pre-feasibility report. Villagers oppose that work and have resisted security measures linked to the survey. They fear that technical studies could support construction near Geku, where the main reservoir is reportedly planned. The proposed storage or release of water could create submergence risks.

Waiting for a final proposal would also leave residents reacting after key decisions had advanced. Families say they do not want compensation in exchange for losing their homeland. Their resistance has therefore targeted the earliest stage of planning, even though doing so has disrupted farming, meetings and community celebrations.

The resistance is already affecting daily life. Demonstrations and planning meetings have prevented some farmers from tending paddy fields regularly. In Geku, the Adi community curtailed Solung, normally a three- or four-day celebration, to flag-hoisting at Gidii Notko. The coming harvest could also suffer because residents may prioritize the agitation over gathering their rice.

The proposed dam creates larger possible consequences. Nearly 1,000 families in Geku fear losing homes, farmland and ancestral connections. Residents worry that construction upstream or downstream could expose the township to submergence from stored or released water. Most households rely on agriculture, and many families have lived on community land for generations.

The village’s agricultural cycle is especially vulnerable. Harvesting was expected to begin in the first week of November, but some residents said they might not go to the fields if protests intensified. Losing a harvest would cause immediate hardship. Losing land, villagers argue, cannot be repaired through compensation or relocation.

The villagers’ alternative is geographic. If China’s dam is considered a threat, they want the Indian government to explore projects closer to the Line of Actual Control. They argue that a response located near the border would address the security concern more directly than building SUMP nearly 300 kilometres away in the Siang belt.

This proposal comes from residents who oppose the proposed dam’s effects on their homeland. Panyang asked why the government should build another mega dam in the Siang region when the stated concern is China’s plan. The article does not identify a specific alternative site, project design or technical assessment. It records a demand for closer-to-border options.

The suggestion reframes the dispute. Villagers are not only rejecting the survey and project; they are challenging the location’s security logic. Their position is that development should not sacrifice Geku and surrounding communities when other places might better serve the claimed strategic purpose. No government response to this alternative is provided.

In general, a hydroelectric dam holds back river water in a reservoir. Water is released through passages under pressure, turning turbines. The spinning turbines drive generators, which produce electricity. The amount of power depends partly on the water flow and the height difference between the reservoir and the turbines. The source article does not explain this mechanism, so this paragraph uses established general knowledge.

Creating a reservoir can permanently cover riverbanks, fields, settlements and vegetation upstream of the dam. Water releases can also change the river’s timing and volume downstream. Sudden or large releases may flood low-lying areas, while altered flows can affect farming, transport and river-dependent communities. These are general consequences, not all documented outcomes in the article.

Those risks explain the fears around SUMP. Geku residents worry that stored water or released water could expose the township to submergence. The article says the main reservoir is reportedly planned near Geku, where nearly 1,000 families depend largely on agriculture. Villagers therefore oppose surveys before impacts are settled.