"Strategic necessity cannot override the principle of free, prior and informed consent." Examine this in the context of the Siang Upper Multipurpose Project.

Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) means a community decides on a project affecting its land before approval, with full information and without coercion. The Siang Upper Multipurpose Project (SUMP) in Arunachal Pradesh tests this principle. The Adi allege that their consent for its feasibility study was obtained through "deceit, force, and threats" [1]. The strategic need is real, but it cannot legitimately bypass consent.

Strategic case for SUMP

• Water security: SUMP is projected as counter-storage against China's upstream dam-building on the Yarlung Tsangpo. India has no water-sharing treaty with China.
• Multipurpose gains: the dam would supply hydropower and regulate flows for the Brahmaputra plains.

Why consent cannot be overridden

• Legal: the Forest Rights Act, 2006 gives gram sabhas authority over community forest resources [2]. In Niyamgiri (2013), the Supreme Court let gram sabhas decide on a project affecting their sacred land [3].
• Scale of loss: protesters estimate that at least 40 villages would be affected and 27 submerged [1]. The Adi see this as a threat to their civilisation, not merely their property [1].
• Quality of consent: villagers question "irrevocable" MoUs signed only for the pre-feasibility study [1]. Village-by-village deals also split the community.
• Securitisation: Central-force check posts restrict access to the river, and the agitation has turned violent [1]. Consent given under such conditions is not free.
• Self-defeating strategy: turning India's own frontier population against the State weakens the border security the dam is meant to serve.

Consent as a strategic enabler

• NHPC's Lower Subansiri project was stalled from December 2011 to October 2019 by agitations. It resumed only after NGT clearance [4]. Coercion does not save time; it delays the project.

Way forward

• Seek collective consent through the Adi's customary Kebang, and keep security forces out of the consultation.
• Carry out an independent expert review and a basin-wide cumulative impact assessment that includes downstream Assam, along with an RFCTLARR Act, 2013 Social Impact Assessment.
• Make public whether SUMP is mainly a strategic buffer or a power project. This decides how large it is and how much land goes under water.

Strategic necessity and FPIC are not rival claims. A dam built on coerced consent is neither durable nor secure. Transparent planning led by consent, in line with Article 46's duty to protect Scheduled Tribes from exploitation and with SDG 16's call for inclusive decision-making, can turn SUMP from a flashpoint into a project the frontier owns.