When the Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case against Arunachal Pradesh lawyer and environmental activist Bhanu Tatak last month, many expected the community she had spent years defending to stay quiet. They were wrong.
The Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum Youth Wing (SIFFYW) came out swinging on September 16, issuing a sharp condemnation of the CBI action and calling it exactly what they believe it is — harassment. Not a legal matter. Harassment. That choice of words tells you a lot about the mood on the ground.
Tatak is no ordinary name in Arunachal’s activist circles. As a lawyer and legal adviser to the Siang Indigenous Farmers’ Forum (SIFF), she has been front and centre in the fight against the proposed Siang Upper Multipurpose Project and the Dibang Multipurpose Hydropower Project — two massive dam proposals that have kept communities in Siang and Upper Siang districts on edge for years. The rivers these projects threaten are not just rivers to the people here. They are lifelines, identity, memory.
“As a true daughter of the Abor land, she has spoken fearlessly for our rights, identity and future,” the SIFFYW statement said. It is the kind of language that does not emerge from a press release template. It comes from people who feel cornered.
The CBI registered the case on August 20, alleging that Tatak received foreign contributions in violation of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act — the FCRA. The agency claims that Rs 20.94 lakh was credited to her State Bank of India account in Roing through foreign exchange transactions between 2022 and 2025, allegedly channelled from overseas organisations and individuals to fund anti-dam protests. Tatak has denied any wrongdoing and says she is cooperating with investigators.
The allegations are yet to be proven. That is important to say clearly. But the youth wing does not think this is really about money.
What stings them most is the timing. The SIFFYW statement openly questioned why the case surfaced now, suggesting it was designed to create division within SIFF ranks and break the solidarity of a community that has refused to back down on the hydropower issue. “We refuse to fall for such tactics,” the statement said plainly. There is a particular defiance in those five words that does not need elaboration.
The group also said it was a matter of “deep shame” that Tatak, who has stood for the legal defence of ancestral land for years, was being singled out this way. And then came the declaration that cuts to the heart of what this moment means for people in the valley: “Bhanu Tatak is not alone.” The statement said villagers across Siang and Upper Siang districts are standing firmly with her, demanding the CBI case be dropped immediately.
Authorities, they argued, had chosen to criminalise concern instead of listening to it — a charge that resonates in communities where questions about development, displacement, and ecological damage have gone unanswered for too long.
The investigation continues. So does the resistance.
When people who farm the land, drink from the river, and bury their dead in its soil say they will not be divided — that is not political theatre. That is something deeper, and it demands attention.
