Siang dam strategic necessity for national security: Rijiju
Guwahati: Union minister and MP from Arunachal Pradesh
Kiren Rijiju
Tuesday said the proposed 11.2-gigawatt (GW) Siang Upper Multipurpose Project (SUMP) in the state's Upper Siang district bordering the LAC is a "strategic necessity" for India's national security and a huge opportunity for the state's development.
This high-stakes, multi-billion-rupee initiative which is set to be India's largest hydropower project, carries major implications for the nation's energy security and is seen not just a power generation initiative but also a strategic countermeasure to China's aggressive hydropower activities, which includes construction of a massive 60 GW hydro station (Medog Dam) on the Yarlung Tsangpo less than 50 km upstream from the LAC which could impact India's water security and downstream river flows.
The Yarlung Tsangpo river, which originates in Tibet, becomes Siang on entering India and forms the main stem of the Brahmaputra in Assam.
W
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Düsseldorf: GEERS sucht 700 Testhörer für Hörgeräte ohne Zuzahlung
GEERS
Undo
hile the project promises substantial benefits, it faces significant hurdles from local opposition. Recently, 30 NGOs and organizations nationwide have expressed solidarity with the Siang Indigenous Farmers' Forum (SIFF), which is spearheading the protest in the state.
"China has the engineering capacity to divert rivers, even build 1,000-km-long tunnels to drain water. That's the level of risk we face," Rijiju said while addressing a gathering in Itanagar to mark the completion of 11 years of the Narendra Modi govt in office.
He urged people opposing the project in the state to have an open mind about it, asserting that their culture, land and livelihoods will be protected.
Describing the project as a strategic countermeasure, Rijiju said under international law, once India initiates its own project, it can prevent China from unilaterally diverting the river's flow.
"This project is a matter of national interest. It is crucial not just for power generation, but also for flood control across Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, and even Bangladesh," he said.
"For years, we struggled to bring investment into hydropower projects here. We had to plead, but no one came forward. But Prime Minister Modi changed that. He said India will invest and ensure Arunachal's potential is realised," Rijiju said.
The MP of Arunachal West constituency acknowledged concerns raised by the indigenous Adi community about the dam and assured that "projects must go forward, but not at the cost of people's identity." He added, "Their culture, land, and livelihoods will be protected."
"Some opposition may stem from misinformation or vested interests. These are our own people, we must engage with them and ensure they understand the long-term benefits," Rijiju said.
"Jobs for youth, infrastructure, and economic growth — these will all come through hydropower. Arunachal Pradesh has no other major natural resource to fuel its development," the minister added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
How Trump's visa crackdown is threatening Harvard's 7,000 plus international students and what the court just ruled
Federal court blocks Trump's move to restrict Harvard's international student enrollment. (AP Photo) President Donald Trump's administration has escalated efforts to restrict international students at Harvard University, directly affecting over 7,000 foreign students and casting uncertainty over one of the nation's most prestigious universities. This crackdown targets nearly a quarter of Harvard's student body, shaking the university's global standing and raising significant legal and educational concerns. However, recent court rulings have temporarily stalled some of these moves, leaving the fate of Harvard's international students unresolved. The Trump administration's push against Harvard's foreign enrollment represents a broader policy effort to tighten controls on international students in the US. Central to this effort is the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) attempt to revoke Harvard's certification to host foreign students under the Student Exchange and Visitor Program. This program authorizes universities to issue the necessary documents for foreign students to study in the US, making it critical for Harvard's international enrollment. Federal judge halts homeland security's attempt to block international students In a significant development, U.S. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo District Judge Allison Burroughs temporarily blocked the DHS's ban on Harvard hosting foreign students, citing irregularities in the government's process. The judge's preliminary injunction prevents the administration from withdrawing Harvard's participation in the visa program until the lawsuit filed by the university is resolved. According to Harvard, the ruling 'does not affect the DHS's ongoing administrative review,' but the court's intervention provides temporary relief for more than 7,000 students relying on the program, as reported by the Associated Press. The Trump administration claims that revoking Harvard's certification is a lawful exercise of its authority to regulate foreign student visas. Usually, such action is reserved for clear violations like loss of accreditation or failing to operate as a bona fide institution of learning. However, Harvard argues the administration's efforts are politically motivated retaliation over campus protests and alleged failures to control antisemitism, which the university disputes. Harvard President Alan Garber has stated the university has taken measures to combat antisemitism and will not concede to the administration's demands, according to the Associated Press. Blocking entry of incoming students and increased visa scrutiny In addition to attempting to revoke Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students, President Trump issued a proclamation to block entry for incoming Harvard students, invoking authority to deny entry to groups deemed detrimental to national interests. Harvard has challenged this in court, arguing that targeting only Harvard students does not constitute a valid 'class of aliens,' and Judge Burroughs has paused the entry ban for now. Further complicating the situation, the US State Department has intensified social media vetting for visa applicants attending Harvard and other universities, searching for signs of hostility toward the US. This policy expansion means more scrutiny for thousands of foreign students hoping to study at American institutions. The State Department also instructed consulates to prioritize visa approvals for students enrolling at schools with less than 15% foreign student populations, a threshold Harvard exceeds, as reported by the Associated Press. Harvard's international student body and the stakes International students make up approximately 26% of Harvard's total student body, with certain programs being even more dependent on foreign enrollment. For example, 49% of students at the Harvard Kennedy School hold F-1 visas, a third of the business school's students come from abroad, and 94% of the master's program in comparative law consists of international students. This crackdown threatens not only the students' ability to remain in the US but also Harvard's identity as a global academic leader. Conservatives supporting the administration's policies criticize Harvard as a hub of liberalism and antisemitism, but the university insists the government's actions are illegal retaliation, as reported by the Associated Press. As the court case unfolds, Harvard's 7,000 plus international students remain in limbo, highlighting the complex intersection of immigration policy, education, and politics under President Trump's administration. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Scroll.in
36 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
The paradox of English: It is both a foreign tongue and a deeply embedded Indian language
Alongside their offensive against Urdu, India's language nationalists appear to have turned their ire on English. That is what one could conclude from the declaration by Union Home Minister Amit Shah at a book launch in New Delhi on Thursday, when he predicted that 'soon a time would come when those speaking English will feel ashamed'. 'In our lifetime, we will see a society in which those speaking English will feel ashamed, that day is not far,' he said. 'I believe that the languages of our country are the ornament of our culture. Without them, we would not have been Bharatiya. Our country, its history, its culture, our dharma – if these have to be understood, it cannot be done in foreign languages.' Shah's statement quickly sparked a political backlash. Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, countered forcefully: 'English is not a dam, it is a bridge. English is not shameful, it is empowering. English is not a chain – it is a tool to break the chains.' Other opposition figures, including Trinamool Congress leaders Derek O'Brien and Sagarika Ghose, echoed this sentiment, slamming the home minister for what they saw as a regressive and divisive stance. Echoes of Mulayam Singh Shah's remarks recall a moment 35 years ago when Mulayam Singh Yadav, who was then chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, launched his own crusade against English. In May 1990, Yadav infamously declared English to be 'the language of foreigners and the elite', blaming it for perpetuating socio-economic disparity and cultivating feelings of inferiority among non-English speakers. His one-point mission: Angrezi hatao. Banish English. In a curious twist, Yadav, a self-declared supporter of Urdu urged Urdu-speaking communities to unite with Hindi speakers to oppose English. Urdu, having only recently been granted official status as Uttar Pradesh's second language, was now being weaponised against a new linguistic rival. This contradiction is not out of character for Indian politics, where language often becomes a proxy for identity, power and culture. The disdain for English in some Indian political circles can be traced back to the 1950s and '60s, to socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia and even earlier, to Mohandas Gandhi and the Indian National Congress. Gandhi viewed English as an alien imposition that had displaced indigenous languages from their rightful place in Indian society. At Independence, the Indian Constitution made Hindi the official language, but allowed English to continue for a transitional period of 15 years. This compromise was pragmatic, not sentimental. English was seen as a necessary link language in a culturally and linguistically diverse nation. However, the efforts to impose Hindi on South India in the 1960s sparked widespread resistance and deepened the North-South linguistic divide. Even today, English continues to be viewed by many as a colonial vestige, despite its extensive indigenisation. The Lohia doctrine Lohia considered English to be not just a colonial leftover, but a barrier to original thought and mass education. He argued that true educational reform and people-oriented governance were possible only if conducted in the people's languages. Recognising India's cultural diversity, Lohia made exceptions for South Indian states, allowing them to retain English for inter-state and central communication for 50 years. However, his nuanced vision was distorted by his followers. The anti-English frenzy gained renewed vigour in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, leading to draconian steps like removing English from school curricula altogether. In Bihar in the 1970s, Chief Minister Karpoori Thakur reduced English to an optional subject, resulting in a generation of students branded as the 'Karpoori class' – matriculates without English proficiency. Mulayam Singh Yadav resurrected the campaign in the 1990s, giving it a political legitimacy that had long-lasting social consequences. Misplaced stereotypes Yadav's campaign also triggered unwarranted attacks on Christian institutions, which were accused of using English as a tool for religious conversion and elitist education. This conflation of English with Christianity mirrors the equally irrational equation in the Hindi heartland of Urdu with Islam. Such logic ignores the complex realities of Indian linguistic identity. English may have arrived with colonial Christians, but it soon became a key vehicle for political awakening and nation-building. It was through English that India's founding leaders – from Raja Rammohun Roy to Nehru – engaged with global currents of nationalism, democracy, liberty and modernity. The same language, intended by the British to produce obedient clerks, ended up producing freedom fighters, thinkers and reformers who led India's struggle for independence. More Indian than foreign? Despite its origins, English in India has long shed its colonial skin. It is the medium of scientific advancement, legal systems, administrative governance and higher education. It has played a vital role in the country's post-Independence progress – particularly in the globalisation era. Ironically, many politicians who publicly denounce English still prefer to send their children to English-medium schools. Even in the Hindi heartland, English remains a key administrative language. Today, English enjoys a paradoxical status: both a foreign tongue and a deeply embedded Indian language. English is also the mother tongue of the Anglo Indian community, a recognised minority in India, and serves as an official language in states like Nagaland. As globalisation continues to shape India's economic and cultural landscape, English remains the country's primary interface with the world. To treat it as a threat to Indian identity is to ignore the multifaceted reality of modern India. Language should be a medium of unity, not a tool of discord. English, like all Indian languages, must be valued for its integrative potential, not vilified for its past. The country does not need another round of linguistic chauvinism. Instead, India should recognise the multilingual richness of English – and the maturity to embrace it.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
'Yet another example': US govt reacts to Mahmoud Khalil's release, says district judge has no authority
Trump administration said the district judge was not authorized to release Mahmoud Khalil. The Department of Homeland Security condemned the decision of district judge to release Columbia University graduate and activist Mahmoud Khalil and said only an immigration judge has the authority to decide if Khalil should be released or detained. "It is a privilege to be granted a visa or green card to live and study in the United States of America. The Trump Administration acted well within its statutory and constitutional authority to detain Khalil, as it does with any alien who advocates for violence, glorifies and supports terrorists, harasses Jews, and damages property. An immigration judge has already vindicated this position. We expect a higher court to do the same," the DHS said in a statement. — DHSgov (@DHSgov) "On the same day an immigration judge denied Khalil bond and ordered him removed, one rogue district judge ordered him released. This is yet another example of how out of control members of the judicial branch are undermining national security. Their conduct not only denies the result of the 2024 election, it also does great harm to our constitutional system by undermining public confidence in the courts," the statement added. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Mahmoud Khalil released on bail after more than three months in detention Michael Farbiarz of New Jersey, in his verdict, said Khalil is a lawful permanent resident and was neither a flight risk nor dangerous. His prolonged detention since March was potentially punitive. Speaking to journalists before heading to New York from Louisiana, where he was held, he said he was most eager to see his wife and his son, who was born during his 104 days in detention. "The only time I spent [with] my son was a specified one-hour limit that the government had imposed on us," he said. "So that means that now I can actually hug him and Noor, my wife, without looking at the clock." He also criticised the Trump administration for targeting him for protesting against Israel's military actions in Gaza: "There's no right person that should be detained for actually protesting a genocide." White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson accused Mr Khalil of engaging in "fraud and misrepresentation" and "conduct detrimental to American foreign policy interests". "We expect to be vindicated on appeal, and look forward to removing Khalil from the United States," Jackson said.
