NHPC’s reported contracts reveal an extensive campaign to influence perceptions of the controversial Siang dam. But can a publicity strategy substitute for meaningful consultation with Indigenous communities?
The Blink | Investigations | October 26, 2026: As Indigenous communities in Arunachal Pradesh continue to oppose the proposed Siang Upper Multipurpose Project, a new controversy has emerged over public-sector spending on promoting the mega dam.
Documents examined by The Arunachal Times reveal that state-owned NHPC awarded an ₹8.73-crore public relations contract to Mumbai-based Concept Public Relations India Limited in July 2025.
An additional contract worth ₹2.18 crore followed in August 2026, taking the combined contractual value to ₹10.91 crore.
The project itself, with a proposed capacity of around 11,000 MW, remains controversial over fears of displacement, environmental damage and threats to the ancestral lands of Indigenous Adi communities.
What was the PR money meant to achieve?
According to the reported contract documents, NHPC’s communication strategy included engaging influential community members, village leaders, NGOs and journalists, producing sponsored digital content and monitoring public sentiment.
The stated objective was to counter negative perceptions and build support for the project.
But when a public-sector company spends nearly ₹11 crore on shaping opinion around a disputed project, an obvious question arises: Is the priority to address public concerns or manage public opposition?
The documents reportedly identify engagement with prominent national journalists as a separate activity.
NHPC must disclose which media organisations, influencers and other intermediaries received payments, what services were delivered and how much of the contracted amount has actually been spent.
A contract worth ₹10.91 crore does not, by itself, establish that the entire amount has been paid.
The consent question
Opposition to the Siang project is not merely a communication problem.
Affected communities have raised concerns about displacement, loss of agricultural land, ecological damage and their right to participate meaningfully in decisions affecting their ancestral territory.
The Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum has repeatedly questioned project-related surveys and demanded consultation with affected residents.
NHPC maintains that the proposed project serves important national objectives, including hydropower generation, water security and flood moderation.
On October 25, Chief Minister Pema Khandu met community organisations, arguing that misinformation about the project needed to be addressed through facts and dialogue.
But public relations, consultation and legally required consent procedures are not interchangeable.
Who is accountable for the spending?
The controversy raises four questions that NHPC and the Union government should answer:
1. How much of the ₹10.91-crore contractual commitment has actually been paid?
2. Which journalists, media organisations, NGOs and community influencers were engaged, and on what terms?
3. What measurable public benefit justified this expenditure?
4. How will affected communities participate in decisions before the project advances?
The contract does not establish illegal expenditure or prove that mandatory consultation procedures were violated. Those questions require further documentary scrutiny.
But the principle is straightforward.
Public money should help people understand a project—not be used to manufacture the appearance of their approval.
For the Siang dam, the real test is not whether NHPC can improve its public image.
It is whether the people who may lose their land, livelihoods and ancestral homes have been genuinely heard.
