Gangtok: Sikkim’s recent inclusion in the Brahmaputra River Board has triggered concern, with the state government describing it as an opportunity to secure funds for river protection works, while activists and opposition voices warn that it could pave the way for more hydropower projects on the ecologically fragile Teesta River.
State Water Resources Minister Sonam Lama said Sikkim officially became a member of the board on May 8, 44 years after its constitution, and that the state has already sought financial assistance for river protection projects.
“We have recently become a member of the Brahmaputra River Board, with Sikkim’s inclusion taking place on May 8, 44 years after the board was constituted. On behalf of Sikkim, I have placed a demand of ₹289 crore before the board and have urged them to sanction the full amount as we celebrate 50 years of statehood,” he said.
Lama said the proposed funding would be used for construction of drainage channels, protective walls and river protection works across the state.
“This funding will be used for construction of drainage channels, protective walls, and river protection works, which will greatly benefit the people of Sikkim. I requested the board to kindly consider our proposal, and Union Minister C.R. Patil, Ministers of State, and ministers from the Northeast have extended their support,” he said, adding that he was hopeful the Government of India would approve the request for the benefit of Sikkim and its people.
However, Teesta river activist Gyatso Lepcha raised concerns that inclusion in the board could increase pressure for new hydropower projects in the Teesta basin.
PREMIUM STORIES FROM EASTMOJO
2000+ readers have backed us to keep journalism free. You can too.
SUPPORT US
“This is a big concern for us. I think the Teesta River being included in the Brahmaputra Board is a major concern because this will obviously push for more hydropower projects. We have seen this board pushing for more dams in other states like Manipur and Tripura,” he said.
Lepcha argued that the Teesta’s ecological and geographical characteristics are distinct and should not be treated in the same framework as the Brahmaputra.
“Teesta is completely different. The Brahmaputra and Teesta cannot be treated in the same way because every river has its own characteristics. Teesta is a different entity and needs to be understood separately,” he said.
He said Sikkim has already been facing an ecological crisis on the river for more than a decade and warned that further hydropower expansion could worsen the situation.
“At the same time, this is threatening for people who love rivers and for the people of Sikkim at large, because they may once again come up with the idea of pushing Stage IV projects,” he said.
Lepcha also highlighted the transboundary significance of the Teesta, noting that the river flows beyond Sikkim into downstream regions of West Bengal and eventually reaches Bangladesh, making its management a broader ecological and geopolitical issue.
Citizen Action Party spokesperson Mahesh Rai also criticized Sikkim’s inclusion in the board, alleging that it could weaken the state’s ecological safeguards and constitutional protections.
“Basically, the Brahmaputra River Board was not constituted to safeguard rivers, preserve ecosystems, or protect river ecology. It has purely been created to streamline interstate management of water bodies, and by incorporating Sikkim and its rivers into this framework, they have started something that is a very suicidal step,” Rai said.
He said Sikkim, already impacted by hydroelectric development, could not afford more such projects.
“From a geological and ecological perspective, this is a very dangerous step,” he said, adding that the party believed the move could dilute safeguards under Article 371F.
Rai also criticized what he described as a focus on financial assistance over ecological concerns.
“But what is money here? Money is not everything. If Sikkim does not remain as Sikkim, if the state is destroyed because of our own missteps, then that money will not benefit us in any way. The land is more important,” he said.
Calling on the Government of India to reconsider the move, Rai said Sikkim’s ecological sensitivity and the wider geopolitical significance of the Teesta required a more sustainable and carefully researched approach.
