Editor,
I wish to draw attention to a matter of pressing importance concerning the proposed 1,200 MW Kalai-II hydroelectric project on the Lohit river in Anjaw district, being undertaken by THDC India Limited in collaboration with the Government of India and the state government.
The Kalai-II project, at the cost of approximately Rs 14,000 crore, is designed as a run-of-the-river scheme with an installed capacity of 1,200 MW. It forms part of India’s broader strategy to harness hydropower potential in the Northeast. With an estimated annual generation of nearly 4,800-5,000 million units of electricity and significant investment outlay, it is expected to contribute to clean energy production, regional infrastructure development, and strengthening India’s strategic presence in sensitive border regions like Anjaw.
At the outset, it must be acknowledged that the Mishmi community residing along the Lohit basin is peace-loving, resilient, and deeply conscious of national interests. They understand the importance of such projects not only in terms of economic growth but also in reinforcing India’s geopolitical positioning, especially in a frontier district where external territorial assertions have periodically emerged. In this spirit, the community has shown a willingness to cooperate with development initiatives.
However, this situation presents a profound ethical dilemma – one that lies at the intersection of development, environmental sustainability, national geo-strategic priorities, and the rights of the indigenous people. While the project symbolises progress and strategic foresight, it simultaneously raises critical concerns regarding justice, equity, and the human cost of such advancement.
The affected indigenous communities are being asked to part with their ancestral lands, homes, and agricultural fields – resources that are not merely economic assets but the very foundation of their identity and survival. For the Mishmi people, the river, forests, mountains, and streams are sacred and deeply embedded in their cultural, spiritual, and social life. Their traditional practices and livelihoods have evolved in harmony with nature over generations.
It is particularly concerning that fair compensation is reportedly being denied on the grounds that these lands fall under ‘reserved forest’. Notably, a significant portion of the left bank of the Lohit river falls within the Kamlang reserved forest. This classification has further complicated the issue of land ownership and compensation, leading to growing dissatisfaction among the people of Anjaw, particularly the left bank landowners who feel excluded from just rehabilitation measures.
Such a stance appears unjust when viewed in its historical context: the declaration of these areas as reserved forest in 1989 was undertaken without the knowledge or consent of the indigenous inhabitants, who have lived there since time immemorial. Historical records, including the Government of India’s census documents and British-era administrative accounts, clearly affirm their longstanding presence in the region.
The issue, therefore, is not merely administrative but fundamentally ethical. It calls for recognition of customary rights, respect for indigenous identity, and acknowledgment of their inseparable bond with the land. Ignoring these aspects risks alienating communities that have otherwise remained peaceful and cooperative.
In sensitive regions such as Anjaw, where national security and territorial integrity are closely intertwined with local realities, a people-centric approach becomes even more crucial. Development that overlooks the concerns of local communities may inadvertently weaken trust and social cohesion – both of which are essential components of national strength.
Therefore, a balanced and humane approach is urgently required. While safeguarding the nation’s developmental and strategic interests, equal emphasis must be placed on ensuring justice for marginalised communities whose lands are at stake. Fair compensation, transparent dialogue, culturally sensitive rehabilitation, and genuine participation of local stakeholders must be ensured.
In conclusion, the people of Anjaw, despite their concerns and grievances, continue to place their trust in the government and remain hopeful for a just and positive resolution. It is this trust that must be upheld through timely, fair, and compassionate action, ensuring that development becomes a shared journey rather than a source of displacement and discontent.
Tititso Lap