Editor,

First of all, it pains me to see how the government, intellectuals, opposition parties, and social activists are turning what could have been a constructive discussion into a forest fire, with everyone adding fuel instead of seeking solutions.

The real question is: What do the actual landowners and people likely to be displaced want? The people of the Siang belt are looking for clarity and assurance. They want the government to remove the clouds of fear and uncertainty surrounding their ancestral land, livelihoods, and future.

If the SUMP is expected to be a major breakthrough for Arunachal Pradesh' economy, why is it facing resistance at such an early stage? In my opinion, four major factors are responsible.

1. Lack of trust: Inconsistencies in the statements of local MLAs and ministers, particularly before and after elections, have raised doubts about the government's intentions. When political statements appear to change with time and circumstances, people naturally begin to question the credibility of the assurances being made.

2. Clarity of purpose: Presenting the construction of the dam primarily as a countermeasure to China's dam project may not be convincing enough. Whether this argument is strategically necessary or not, the government must explain the genuine economic, developmental, and strategic rationale for the SUMP with facts and transparency.

3. Lack of transparency and consultation: A project of this magnitude demands extensive village-level consultations involving all genuinely affected families. Failure to conduct proper consultations before moving forward creates a perception that the opinions and sentiments of ordinary villagers are being undermined. The people whose ancestral land and livelihoods are at stake must be treated as stakeholders whose voices matter, not merely as people expected to accept decisions made for them.

4. Absence of a clear SOP: Where is the clear standard operating procedure (SOP) to address the grievances, immediate losses, compensation, resettlement, and livelihood concerns of the affected families? Verbal assurances that alternative land, houses, and agricultural facilities will be provided later cannot replace a concrete, transparent, and time-bound plan.

What could have been done differently?

1. Give genuine reasons for the project: Arunachal possesses abundant hydropower resources that can contribute significantly to the state's economy. The government must communicate the actual benefits, potential risks, and long-term implications of the SUMP, rather than allowing uncertainty to dominate the discussion.

A true Arunachali would naturally want the state to prosper. However, patriotism should not be measured by whether someone supports or opposes a particular project. People can aspire for economic development while remaining concerned about the loss of their ancestral land. These two feelings are not contradictory.

2. Make compensation and resettlement arrangements concrete: Instead of making general assurances such as "Resettlement toh arrange ho jayega, farm ke liye bhi jagah de denge, aur ghar bhi aapke choice ke hisaab se bana denge," the government should take concrete steps to address the concerns of affected families.

3. Alternative land and LPC: Identify suitable alternative land according to the preferences and requirements of each affected family, complete the necessary land documentation, and provide land possession certificates (LPCs) to establish legal security over the allotted land, wherever applicable.

4. House construction assistance: Prepare a transparent budget for each family's house construction and provide the approved financial assistance, so that families can construct their homes according to their needs and preferences.

5. Cultivable land development: Allot suitable agricultural land to affected families and provide adequate financial assistance to develop the land for cultivation, enabling them to restore their livelihoods.

These arrangements should be supported by clear timelines, adequate funding, and legally enforceable commitments before affected families are expected to make sacrifices involving their ancestral land and livelihoods.

People are not merely asking for compensation; they are asking for certainty about their future.

Guarantee sustainable benefits for the Siang belt

The people who bear the greatest costs of development should also receive a fair share of its long-term benefits. The state legislature could consider enacting a law earmarking 1% of the revenue generated from the dam exclusively for the development of the Siang belt and the welfare of its people.

The legislation should clearly define the revenue base, allocation mechanism, and accountability measures. The fund could support education, healthcare, roads, drinking water, agriculture, and livelihood generation.

Are we addressing the real problem?

Arunachal has capable IAS officers, technical experts, and experienced administrators. However, the present situation raises questions about whether sufficient attention has been given to transparency, consultation, and the concerns of the affected families.

Ancestral land is not merely property that can be replaced with monetary compensation; it carries history, identity, emotions, and memories passed down through generations. Can political pressure or administrative authority resolve a situation in which people's fears remain unaddressed and their opinions feel undermined?

Perhaps the real failure lies in trying to convince people to accept a decision without first adequately addressing their concerns and making them feel heard.

The way forward

The government, opposition parties, intellectuals, and social activists must move beyond political narratives and focus on the concerns of the affected people. Neither supporting SUMP should be considered proof of patriotism, nor opposing it a rejection of development. The need of the hour is to ensure that the voices of the affected villagers are heard, their concerns are addressed, and their rights and interests are duly considered before any decision affecting their future is taken.

Tarh Babu,

Naharlagun