Anti-dam protests spread in Arunachal Pradesh; villagers point to potential submergence of sacred Mishmi tribal cultural
A society representing several villages wrote to the Dibang Valley district authorities on May 29, voicing its 'strong and reasoned objection' to the 400 megawatt Mihundo (Mihumdon) Hydroelectric Project proposed on the Dri River.
Scheduled to be commissioned in 2026, this run-of-the-river project was assigned to the Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam.
The Ekhomey Mowo Welfare Society, based in Anini, the district headquarters, said the project was illegal as the mandatory free, prior, and informed consent was not obtained from the Gram Sabha or the residents of Angrim Valley who would be affected.
The society's general secretary, Morey Molo, and treasurer Aisi Mow underlined the district's seismic and ecological vulnerability, asserting that the locals 'do not want dam-based development on our ancestral lands'.
Opposition to the Dri River project
The opposition to the Dri River project was a day after the residents of the remote Nukung and Mla villages aired their resistance to the proposed 1200 MW Kalai-II Hydroelectric Project on the Lohit River in the Anjaw district during a public consultation and social impact assessment review.
According to the social impact assessment report prepared by the GB Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment, Nukung and Mla villages would be severely affected by the project.
In a letter to the Anjaw Deputy Commissioner, the Nukung Welfare Society said the project was unacceptable to the indigenous communities in the area. 'The total obliteration of our ancestral land by a project we did not consent to is unacceptable and illegal,' Roshan Tawsik, the society's chairman, said.
The villagers pointed out that the potential submergence of sacred Mishmi tribal cultural and spiritual sites by the mega-dam was of particular concern. These sites include Kutung Graam, the abode of the community's supreme deity and Parshuram Kund in the downstream.
Meanwhile, the Siang Indigenous Farmers' Forum vowed to intensify its agitation against the proposed 11,000 MW Siang Upper Multi-purpose Project and the 'militarisation' of the targeted sites along the Siang River. The government has been pushing this project to be executed by the NHPC, arguing that it would help minimise the adverse impact of a 60,000 MW hydroelectric project China has been planning on the Yarlung Tsangpo River upstream.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
08-07-2025
- Hindustan Times
Religious conversion racket: Dist admn begins razing bungalow of kingpin, aides in Balrampur
The Balrampur administration initiated the demolition of a sprawling bungalow constructed on main Utraula-Mankapur Road, on Tuesday, after issuing three notices regarding illegal construction done on government land, local authorities confirmed. Jalaluddin Shah alias Chhangur Baba (HT File Photo) The move follows the arrest of Balrampur-based religious conversion racket kingpin, Jalaluddin Shah alias Chhangur Baba and his close accomplice, Neetu Naveen Rohra, alias Nasreen. The authorities said the action was taken in the presence of a heavy police force and administrative officials, with five bulldozers deployed for the operation. Balrampur additional SP Vishal Pandey said, 'The entire demolition process will take at least two - three days to complete. The demolition began today at 10 am and continued till late in the evening.' Meanwhile, barricading was done around the property to avoid locals gathering during the demolition process. The property, located in Madhpur village under Utraula tehsil, was built on Gram Sabha land listed as Gata number 337/370. 'Our government is fully committed to the dignity and security of our sisters and daughters. Preliminary investigations have revealed that the activities of the accused, Jalaluddin, are not only anti-social but also anti-national. The Uttar Pradesh government will not show any leniency in maintaining law and order. The properties of the accused and all the criminals associated with his gang will be confiscated, and strict legal action will be taken against them,' chief minister Yogi Adityanath posted on X on Tuesday, while reacting to the Balrampur action, adding, ' There is no place in the state for those who disrupt peace, harmony, and women's safety. They will be given such punishment according to the law that it will set an example for society'. The palatial bungalow, spread over nearly three bighas and estimated to be worth over ₹3 crore, had extensive living facilities for over 50 people and was equipped with CCTV surveillance systems. Moreover, iron fencing was done on the wall raised around the sprawling campus and electric current was run at night so that no one could breach the campus. The notice stated that the property was in the name of Neetu Naveen Rohra, wife of Naveen Rohra. A senior police official said that Neetu alias Nasreen was arrested along with Jalaluddin Shah by UP Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) on Saturday in connection with the case registered under sections 121A, 153A, 417, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 5(1), 5(2), 5(3), and 8(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 in October 2024. He said Neetu alias Nasreen and her husband Naveen Rohra alias Jamaluudin and their minor daughter, who were originally Sindhis, were residents of Mumbai and they shifted to Balrampur after embracing Islam a few years ago. Naveen Rohra was arrested by UP ATS on charges of religious conversion on April 8 earlier this year. 'Three notices were issued to Neetu Naveen Rohra by the office of Utraula Tehsildar, Satyapal Prajapati. The first notice was issued on May 17, the second notice was issued on June 17 and the third notice was served on July 7 (Monday). The demolition process on encroachment was initiated on Tuesday after getting no reply from the illegal occupants,' said Balrampur district magistrate (DM), Pawan Agarwal. Balrampur superintendent of police (SP), Vikas Kumar, said the police force has been asked to remain on alert to avert any possible trouble by supporters of Chhangur Baba.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
08-07-2025
- Business Standard
Wildlife clearance not required for basic public facilities, MoTA clarifies
The Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) has written to the environment ministry clarifying that wildlife clearance is not automatically required for constructing essential public facilities such as schools, anganwadis and roads on forest land under the Forest Rights Act (FRA)- 2006, provided they are recommended by the Gram Sabha. In an office memorandum issued on July 2, MoTA offered a detailed clarification on Section 3(2) of the FRA, which allows diversion of forest land for basic facilities such as schools, roads, health centres and irrigation projects for the benefit of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs). "Section 3(2) of the FRA states that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Central government shall provide for diversion of forest land for facilities (including schools, health centers, roads, etc)... on forest land. The clearance of such a developmental project shall be subject to the condition that the Gram Sabha recommends the same," it said. In a letter issued in October 2020, the environment ministry had said that Section 13 of the FRA, which says the law is "in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force", implies that "wildlife clearance will be required for implementing Section 3(2) of the Act". The environment ministry letter had said that provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, remain unaffected by Section 3(2) of the FRA. However, the Tribal Affairs Ministry has now made it clear that Section 3(2) of the FRA is rooted in constitutional rights and safeguards, including Articles 14, 19(1)(e) and 21 of the Constitution, as well as the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, which protect tribal rights. The ministry cited landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Samatha vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) and TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India (1997), to emphasise that the FRA is a legal instrument to balance tribal rights, development needs and environmental concerns. The letter further said that the right to divert forest land under Section 3(2) must be read along with Sections 2(e), 4(1), 4(2), and 4(7) of the FRA. These provisions affirm that forest rights are "vested" in tribal and forest-dwelling communities to correct "historical injustices". Addressing concerns about potential conflicts with wildlife conservation, the ministry said, "Section 4(2) of the FRA specifies the permissible self limitation. It introduces the self-limiting exception, to the modification or resettlement of forest rights for wildlife conservation, only in Critical Wildlife Habitat." Referring to a joint 2009 guideline with the environment ministry outlining procedures for forest land diversion for non-forest purposes under Section 3(2) of the FRA, MoTA said that the stipulated procedure provides a "clear understanding that the wildlife clearance is not automatically mandated". The memorandum said that the rights granted under Section 3(2), when read with other relevant sections of the Act, are "a statutory entitlement deriving its mandate from the Constitution's Fundamental Rights, not contingent on external clearances unless explicitly stated in the FRA". Researcher C R Bijoy said a 2020 letter from the environment ministry has been widely used by forest officials to block basic facilities in forest villages under Section 3(2) of the FRA, despite no formal orders being issued to states. Forest rights experts claim forest villages have long been denied services like schools, roads and health centres that are available in regular revenue villages. Forest officials often block such projects, saying they are not legally allowed or citing forest conservation reasons. As a result, these villages remain some of the most neglected in the country. In many cases, even after the district-level committees approved the projects, forest officials stopped them, triggering protests. In some instances, courts have even issued stay orders based on the 2020 letter.
Indian Express
02-07-2025
- Indian Express
Proving ‘detrimental for farmers', review land reform law, Revenue dept in Delhi told
In a meeting of Chief Minister Rekha Gupta with Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena on Tuesday, the Delhi government's Revenue Department was asked to review certain sections of the Delhi Land Reforms (DLR) Act 1954. The specific provisions being reviewed by the government — sections 81 and 33 — deal with the use and sale of agricultural land in Delhi. Lowdown on provisions Both sections place restrictions on owners of agricultural land. Section 33 bans the sale, gift, or transfer of agricultural land in any transaction that can leave the owner with less than eight acres. The rationale behind the rule is to ensure that agricultural holdings are not fragmented into sizes that are uneconomical for farming. Under Section 33, transfer of land is only permitted to a religious or charitable institution, or any person in charge of the Bhoodan movement (reference to attempt to persuade landowners to give up their land). Section 81 states that a landowner will be ejected 'for using land for any purpose other than a purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry, which includes pisciculture and poultry farming…' Such land will be vested in the Gram Sabha, the Section states. Discussion at meeting The Revenue Department was asked 'to take a fresh look' at 'several sections and provisions of the DLR Act, including sections 81 and 33,' which are being implemented by the department. The justification for the move was that the provisions 'were proving to be detrimental to farmers in the city, by way of making transfer/sale of land/mutation almost impossible.' Concerns among landowners The landowners have raised concerns about the provisions. 'If I have to sell one acre of land for my children's wedding or their education, or an emergency, I can't do that. Should I sell all of my land then?' With regards to Section 81, Surender Solanki, head of Khap panchayat Palam 360, had previously told The Indian Express, 'A case will be registered against me if I build a room or a boundary wall. This is my land… Why should I go to court for building something on my land?' Exorbitant land prices in the Capital, coupled with inadequate support from the Central government in the form of input subsidies for fertilisers, farm equipment, and cheap electricity, are compelling landowners to consider selling their land holdings. Even if the provisions are not repealed, farming in Delhi is on its way out as the majority of Outer Delhi, where agriculture is still practiced, falls under land pooling areas, where large-scale planned urban development is envisioned.
