The Siang Upper Multipurpose Project in Arunachal Pradesh and the Shillong Ropeway Project in Meghalaya are very different in scale, yet the concerns raised by the tribal communities affected by them are strikingly similar.
The Siang project is an 11.2-GW mega project conceived as a strategic response to China’s aggressive development of a 60-GW mega-dam in Tibet on the Yarlung Tsangpo, which becomes the Brahmaputra in India.
New Delhi fears that Beijing may be able to divert flows to cause drought downstream or release water en masse to trigger catastrophic floods in Arunachal Pradesh and Assam.
The Shillong Ropeway Project, by contrast, is a much smaller, urban infrastructure project. It is not driven by national security or transboundary water politics, but by tourism and urban connectivity.
Yet for those opposing it, its impact is no less serious, because it touches Shillong’s water sources, its environment, and the religious and cultural significance of Lum Shyllong.
In both cases, the state has adopted a top-down approach that has deepened mistrust. In Siang, security forces have been deployed to guard survey teams and the State Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act has been imposed against activists. The move, critics say, only validates fears among locals that the state will grab their land.
In Shillong, too, those opposing the ropeway allege that those in power have benefited by compromising the rights of the indigenous people, and that their voices have not been given due weight in decision-making.
The nature of opposition also reveals both a similarity and a difference. In Siang, resistance has come from Adi community members and civil rights groups, and it is part of a wider indictment of Arunachal Pradesh’s model of hydroelectric power development, which also includes sustained protests against the Subansiri Upper Hydroelectric Project (SUHP).
In Shillong, unlike other issues which are mainly opposed by pressure groups, the opposition to the ropeway is being led by women. They have alleged that the project will affect not only Shillong’s water sources but beyond, and have spelled out the religious and cultural significance of Lum Shyllong.
However, unlike the Siang project, not many are showing interest in the opposition to the ropeway project, although almost all are against it. The Siang issue has drawn national and even international attention because of its geopolitical dimension and its enormous ecological footprint. The Shillong issue, though smaller, remains largely local, despite raising the same fundamental questions about consent, culture and livelihood.
Ecologically, both projects are located in fragile landscapes. The eastern Himalayas are among the most tectonically active and erosion-prone landscapes in the world. The mega-dam in Tibet will comprise five cascading power stations over the river’s roughly 2,000-metre fall over 50 km.
Beijing has maintained the dam will not harm countries downstream but has declined to share crucial engineering details.
The Shillong Ropeway, though insignificant in comparison to Siang in terms of size and strategic importance, raises a similar ecological anxiety.
The women opposing it fear irreversible damage to water sources that sustain the city and its surrounding areas. For them, Lum Shyllong is not just a hill, but a sacred space central to Khasi belief and identity.
Any disturbance there, they argue, is not merely an environmental issue, but a cultural and spiritual one.
