The proposed 11,000-MW Siang Upper Multipurpose Project in Arunachal Pradesh has become the subject of a public dispute over whether technical feasibility studies should precede explicit consent from affected indigenous communities. The Arunachal Pradesh Congress Committee criticised the state government on Wednesday, while Chief Minister Pema Khandu said the preliminary feasibility report is only a technical exercise and that the project will not proceed if it is found unfeasible.
The project, known as the Siang Upper Multipurpose Project, is at the centre of questions about how large infrastructure proposals should be taken forward in areas where local communities may be directly affected. The immediate disagreement is not over a construction start or a final approval, but over the sequence in which technical assessment and community consent should take place.
In a statement, APCC general secretary and spokesperson Kon Jirjo Jotham questioned why the preliminary feasibility report, or PFR, was being prioritised before obtaining the explicit consent of affected indigenous communities. The Congress committee argued that seeking consent only after technical studies are completed could leave local residents facing a fait accompli.
The criticism followed assurances given by Chief Minister Pema Khandu on Tuesday. According to the report, Khandu said the PFR is strictly intended to determine whether the project is technically feasible. He also said the project would not move forward if the technical assessment found it unfeasible.
A preliminary feasibility report is an early-stage technical assessment. In the context described by the chief minister, its purpose is to establish whether the proposed project can be taken forward from a technical standpoint. The report supplied by the Times of India does not provide details of the PFR’s scope, the agencies preparing it, its completion timeline or the technical parameters that will be assessed.
The report also does not indicate that construction has begun, that a final investment decision has been taken or that consent from affected communities has been formally granted or rejected. The central issue raised by the APCC is therefore the relationship between technical due diligence and participation by indigenous communities before the project advances.
The disagreement highlights the administrative importance of sequencing in major infrastructure projects. A technical study can determine whether a proposal is viable from an engineering perspective, while consent-related processes address how affected people are informed and involved. In this case, the government’s stated position is that the PFR does not itself commit the state to implementing the project. The APCC’s position is that completing such a study before securing consent could shape the later decision-making process.
The proposed project has a planned capacity of 11,000 MW, making it a major infrastructure proposal for Arunachal Pradesh. However, the supplied report contains no further details on the project’s location, land requirements, affected settlements, financing structure, environmental assessment, rehabilitation framework or implementation schedule. Those details will be important for assessing how the project could affect communities and the wider region.
For now, the state government’s stated next step is the preparation or consideration of the preliminary feasibility report. The chief minister has said that the project will not proceed if the report finds it technically unfeasible. The APCC is seeking clarity on why the technical process is being undertaken before explicit consent from affected indigenous communities.