Beyond conventional engineering assessments: Why SUMP needs a measurable integration of scientific evidence, indigenous knowledge and lived river experience.
Continued from last edition...
Dr M L Gaur
The lesson is equally applicable to the Siang.
The project should not import an engineering template from the Three Gorges, the Mekong or the Narmada and assume that it will automatically work in the Eastern Himalayas. International experiences should inform the investigation, but the final knowledge architecture must be Siang-specific.
The question should always be: what has the technology predicted, what has the field revealed, and what have we changed because of the difference?
A new social contract looks inevitable for infrastructure decisions
The current status of SUMP reinforces the importance of this approach. The PFR remains an investigative stage, with three alternative locations under consideration. Reporting by The Print on 31 October 2026 indicated that core drilling had not yet commenced because of opposition at the proposed sites, although preliminary surveys and geophysical investigations had been undertaken.
This situation should not be interpreted merely as an administrative delay. It presents an opportunity to strengthen the relationship between technical investigation and public confidence.
A project of this magnitude requires a transparent process in which participation is meaningful, customary and statutory rights are respected, and economic benefits are examined alongside the distribution of social and environmental costs.
A credible assessment must be capable of recommending redesign, alternative sites or even non-progression if evidence warrants such conclusions. Equally, concerns should be addressed through verified information rather than assumptions or competing narratives.
The ultimate test: What works, for whom and for how long?
The future of the Siang should not be decided by the sophistication of a model alone, the scale of an investment, the intensity of a protest or the strength of a political argument.
It should be decided through an evidence system that combines engineering precision with ecological understanding and community intelligence.
The proposed Ground-to-Model Concordance approach offers one way forward. It can make the PFR more locally accountable, inform subsequent environmental and social assessments, and eventually improve the quality of a DPR if the project advances.
The river has a scientific record, but it also has a human memory. Both deserve to be examined.
After 42 years of working with natural-resource systems, I would place one principle above all others: the true value of knowledge is not what it claims on paper, but what it demonstrates in the field.
The Siang could become an opportunity to establish a more meaningful benchmark for infrastructure planning in India—one in which technological intelligence does not overshadow ground intelligence, and development ambition does not become detached from the people and landscapes that sustain it.
Let us not merely ask whether the project is feasible. Let us establish whether its feasibility is demonstrable, locally grounded, socially credible and sustainable over generations.
(The author is Vice Chancellor, The Assam Kaziranga University.)