Latest: IGP says over 40 police hurt and mob of 200-300 pelted stones; gatherings banned in three towns
Protests against the proposed Siang Upper Multipurpose Project turned violent in Pasighat on Friday night after a 12-hour bandh, with an NHPC office, a police station and police vehicles set on fire and the homes of BJP state president Kaling Moyong and MLAs vandalised. Police say personnel were hurt by stone-throwing, with one report quoting the IGP as citing more than 40 injured police and at least nine damaged vehicles, while protesters allege excessive force and the Congress seeks an independent inquiry into tear gas use.
Chief Minister Pema Khandu condemned the violence and offered talks, and gatherings were banned in Pasighat, Mebo and Ruksin. By 27 October, IG Hibu Tamang told Scroll that 69 people were arrested and four detained, with 55 cases filed under the state's unlawful activities law, while residents and activists raise concerns over heavy deployment and FIRs. Summary updated 28 Oct, 18:16 IST
Why it matters: The dispute over a major hydropower project on the Siang river involves land, livelihoods and a strategic border region, and the mass arrests under a special state law raise questions about civil liberties and how the Centre and state handle local opposition.
Winding down: no new coverage since 28 Oct. It will be archived on 4 Nov unless new coverage appears.
This matter is before the courts or under investigation. Nazariya reports what was said and alleged; it does not decide guilt or the outcome.
New developments are added here, newest first. When the headline, summary or other sections change, the earlier version is kept under “See earlier version”.
Headline before this update: Khandu offers talks after violent Siang dam protest in Pasighat
Summary before this update: Protests against the proposed Siang Upper Multipurpose Project turned violent in Pasighat on Friday night after a 12-hour bandh, with an NHPC office, a police station and police vehicles set on fire and the homes of BJP state president Kaling Moyong and MLAs vandalised. Police say personnel were hurt by stone-throwing, while protesters allege excessive force and the Congress seeks an independent inquiry into tear gas use. Chief Minister Pema Khandu condemned the violence and offered talks. By 27 October, IG Hibu Tamang told Scroll that 69 people were arrested and four detained, with 55 cases filed under the state's unlawful activities law, while residents and activists raise concerns over heavy deployment and FIRs.
Note before this update: Most outlets are neutral and rely on police and official accounts. One outlet focuses on the arrests, the use of the state law and residents' complaints. Outlets differ on damage, injuries, project capacity and use of force.
“What's missing” before this update:
Based on 14 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.
Large outlets read: 5 of 15 (Hindustan Times, India Today, Times Now, Dainik Bhaskar, Jagran).
Most outlets are neutral and rely on police and official accounts. One outlet focuses on the arrests, the state law and residents' complaints, while others stress police injuries and violence. Outlets differ on damage, injuries, the number of villages at risk and use of force.
Why: Stresses use of anti-terror-style law, militarisation and local residents' opposition, with civil-liberties and indigenous-rights concerns; the state's side beyond police figures is thin. Sourcing leans toward protesters.
Why: Straight report of protest violence over a dam; gives both police and protester claims without loaded wording. Touches state security and local rights only lightly, so score stays at centre.
Why: Reports violence and protester demands neutrally; notes local concerns over land and river without endorsing either side. Touches security and development lightly, so score stays near centre.
Why: Relays a local police appeal on protest conduct; sympathetic to residents' concerns but takes no side on the dam. Barely touches security or statism dimensions, so scores centre.
Why: Reports violence by protesters using official sources (DC, CM) and calls the crowd 'उग्र'; gives little voice to local grievances. Mild security-order lean; dam touches state-led development lightly.
Why: Mostly police and government accounts of violence, with the state's national-security case for the dam and the Congress and protesters' demands also included. Mild security-leaning framing, balanced overall.
Why: Reports violence and both police and protester accounts evenly; includes tribal grievances and state's 'misinformation' claim. Mild tilt toward local indigenous concerns and civil liberties, but mostly factual, so near centre.
Why: Mostly official accounts of the violence, with balanced context on the dam's strategic rationale versus indigenous displacement fears. Slight security-framing lean, but protester demands are included.
Why: Balanced account of police, protesters, CM and Congress positions; touches security versus indigenous rights and consultation but gives both sides space, so it sits near centre.
Why: Leans on police accounts of violent protesters with weapons; protesters' and Congress views come later. Touches security framing and the state's China-linked national-interest case for the dam; mild right tilt.
Why: Mostly a factual incident report from police sources, with protester demands and a Congress response added. It touches security and indigenous rights lightly, with no loaded framing or clear lean.
Why: Stresses violence, armed mobs and police injuries; gives the state's security and water-safety case against China's dam more space than the protesters' grievances. Mild security lean; little religion or caste content.
Why: Frames the dam as a China-countering national-security project and labels protesters 'उपद्रवी' (rioters), but also gives villagers' displacement fears and the protesters' lathi-charge allegation. Mild right tilt on security framing.
Why: Leans on police account of violent, drunk mobs and 'no clear demand'; villagers' flooding fears get little space. Security and big-dam development framing, with order stressed over local grievances.
Critical, Neutral or Supportive, scored separately. It refers to the Union government unless the story is about a state. On the spectrum strip, each dot is an article: its position is the ideology score and its colour is the stance.
If an article would score differently with the parties' roles reversed, that signal is partisanship. It goes into the stance tag, not the ideology score.
High, Medium or Low, based on how much of the article was read, how many clear signals it has, and whether they agree.
Stories with fewer than five articles are marked. A blindspot is a contested story where we found coverage from only one side.
Articles that touch none of the three dimensions, such as a car launch or a match report, carry no ideology score.
This prototype is refreshed by hand (last on 17 Oct, 03:00 IST). At launch:
| Wires and the top 20 outlets | checked every 5 minutes |
| All other outlets | checked every 15 minutes |
| New story | goes up at 3 articles from 2 or more outlets, marked Limited coverage |
| Live stories | new articles added every 15 minutes; summary rewritten at most hourly |
| Home page order | every 15 minutes |
New facts go into a dated update log at the top of the story. New articles carry an “Added” tag. If a note or list changes, the earlier version stays viewable.
A story is Live while coverage arrives, Winding down after about 2 days without new coverage, and Archived after about 7. Nothing is deleted: links never change, archived scores are frozen, and stories stay on their issue pages and in search.
NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Indian Express, News18, ABP, Times Now and Mint block the reader used for this prototype, so their articles are missing. Each story shows how many of India’s 15 largest outlets we read. The launch pipeline will read outlets’ public feeds, TV transcripts and Hindi articles.
Editor-in-charge: S. Kalra, editor@thenazariya.com. The editor-in-charge sets Nazariya's editorial rules, reviews the AI desks' daily decisions, and is responsible for everything we publish.
How we work: AI reads and scores every article against our published rubric; an AI standards desk checks accuracy and fairness; people set the rules, review decisions and handle complaints.
Grievance officer under the IT Rules, 2021: to be confirmed (based in India). Until then, write to grievance@thenazariya.com. Complaints are acknowledged within 24 hours and resolved within 15 days. To report a factual error: corrections@thenazariya.com. Other questions: support@thenazariya.com.
Ownership: Nazariya is independently owned by S. Kalra, an Indian citizen.
Funding: Nazariya is currently funded entirely by its founder. It carries no advertising and takes no money from any political party, government or party-linked organisation. In future it will be supported by optional reader memberships. Any other funder, grant or investor will be listed here, with the amount and date.
Independence: No owner, funder or member can change a story, a score or a correction. Scores follow the published rubric, and anyone can appeal them.
Anyone, including the outlet that published an article, can appeal a score: tap any score on a story page, then "Appeal this score" to write to the editor. Outlets can also dispute a summary. The editor reviews every appeal, and any change is recorded below. Appeals: appeals@thenazariya.com.
No detail that could identify a child or a survivor of sexual violence (Juvenile Justice Act, POCSO, BNS section 72). Court cases are reported as what was said and alleged. No analysis of a poll in the 48 hours before voting there (Representation of the People Act, section 126). Press Council and NBDSA norms on communal incidents.