By Khrawborlang Kharkongor
Shillong, Oct 16: On Saturday, a procession will march from Last Stop, Laban, to the Shillong Peak Ropeway site on Lum Shyllong, demanding that the project be scrapped. Some marchers are sincere, and some of their concerns deserve answers. But those who will not march have a stake in this hill too: the shopkeeper in Laban, the homestay owner on the city’s outskirts, the young graduate who wants to work in her own city, and the family that cannot drive or climb to the Peak.
Their silence should not be mistaken for indifference. Nor should a cleared, funded and partially constructed project be abandoned simply because opposition has grown louder. The debate over the ropeway rests on three central claims: that it threatens Shillong’s water sources, destroys forest cover, and was pushed through without adequate consultation. Each deserves scrutiny. None should be accepted or dismissed without examining the record.
What is actually being built
The Shillong Peak Ropeway will stretch 896 metres, with two terminals and 13 cabins designed to meet European CEN safety standards. It is expected to carry around 600 passengers an hour to the Peak in roughly four minutes. The project costs Rs 151 crore, comprising Rs 80.89 crore from the New Development Bank and Rs 70.11 crore from the Ministry of DoNER under PM-DevINE.
This is not a project conceived behind closed doors. The Chief Minister announced it as an iconic tourism project in his Independence Day address in 2020. It received funding in the 2021-22 state Budget. The President of India laid its foundation stone in January 2024, the tender was floated publicly in March 2024, and construction began on October 15, 2025.
The project has also undergone several rounds of scrutiny. The Union Environment Ministry granted forest clearance on October 24, 2024, for the diversion of 2.3257 hectares, with an equal area earmarked for compensatory plantation. The Airports Authority of India, the Indian Air Force and the Army issued no-objection certificates. IIT Delhi reviewed the design and safety aspects.
These clearances do not make the project immune to criticism. They do, however, make it difficult to dismiss the ropeway as a reckless undertaking without examining the evidence behind such a charge.
Water: a real problem, but is the ropeway the culprit?
Shillong’s water crisis is real. Anyone who has struggled to fill buckets during the dry months knows that. But framing the debate as a choice between water security and a ropeway risks oversimplifying a much larger problem.
First, the funding is project-specific. The New Development Bank loan and the PM-DevINE grant have been sanctioned for the ropeway. Cancelling it would not automatically redirect the money to Shillong’s water infrastructure. The state would need to identify separate funding and financing arrangements for that purpose.
Second, the scale of forest diversion must be considered alongside the location of the alignment. The project involves 2.3257 hectares on a much larger hill range. The alignment was designed to avoid the main catchment, and during a site inspection on August 8, the Tourism Department stated that the Patakhana and Wahingdoh water sources would not be affected. That assurance should be tested through independent monitoring, not treated as a substitute for it.
Third, the spring near the project site is not a concern that emerged only after construction began. It was flagged during the 2022 public consultation, which recommended its protection as a condition. If the risk was identified at the outset, the priority should be to enforce safeguards and monitor the spring’s health.
Fourth, Shillong’s water stress has deeper roots, including unregulated construction on catchment slopes, encroachment and an ageing distribution network. Cancelling an 896-metre ropeway would not resolve these longstanding problems.
The ropeway’s limited ground footprint at its towers and terminals also offers a different way to transport visitors up the hill. The alternative is to continue relying on road traffic along Upper Shillong’s approach to the Peak. That does not, by itself, settle the environmental debate, but it deserves consideration alongside the project’s risks.
There is another point worth recalling. As recently as July, the Joint Action Committee (JAC) reportedly said it did not oppose a ropeway in principle but objected to its location. The demand has since hardened into a call for outright cancellation. The public is entitled to ask what changed, and whether relocation, additional safeguards or other corrective measures were adequately considered before the demand became absolute.
Trees: the numbers need scrutiny, not selective accounting
Opponents cite 545 trees felled, compared with an earlier estimate of 324. The discrepancy deserves a clear explanation and transparent documentation. When engineers encountered trees around 25 metres tall along the alignment, the design was revised and the cabins and stations raised to further reduce tree felling.
But the debate cannot end with the number of trees removed. The approved plan requires ten trees to be planted for every tree felled, amounting to more than 5,000 saplings. The critical questions are where these saplings will be planted, how many will survive, and who will be held accountable if the plantation fails.
The Meghalaya High Court, hearing a public interest petition concerning the tree felling, was informed that central clearance had been obtained. The court-appointed Special Officers examined whether compensatory afforestation could take place around the project site and reported that it was feasible.
That creates an opportunity to turn a contentious project into a test of accountable environmental management. Planting on Lum Shyllong itself, where feasible, publishing annual survival rates and allowing independent audits would offer a more meaningful measure of ecological responsibility than simply counting saplings on paper.
Scrapping the ropeway would not restore the trees already felled. Nor would completing it automatically justify the environmental costs. The task now is to ensure that the damage is minimised, restoration is effective and the commitments made on paper translate into measurable results on the ground.
The consultation that did happen
The JAC has argued that people were not adequately informed about the project. The available record, however, points to consultations and local-level agreements that must be taken into account.
On September 27, 2022, the Meghalaya Institute of Governance held a public consultation at Lumshatsngi with executive members of seven localities under the Riat Laban Dorbar Pyllun. Its report recorded that most respondents knew about the project and responded positively, while the headmen welcomed it.
On January 16, 2023, the Dorbar Pyllun signed a lease with the Tourism Department for 7,416.95 square metres of land. The President’s foundation-stone ceremony and the public tender were also formal, public events.
These records complicate the claim that the project proceeded entirely without consultation. However, evidence of consultation does not necessarily establish that every affected household, clan or stakeholder was adequately informed or agreed with every aspect of the project. That distinction matters, particularly where customary land and community interests are involved.
The JAC’s own account also raises questions about the timing of the opposition. According to its secretary’s statement, the committee mobilised after trees were seen being felled. Meanwhile, the Raid Laban Dorbar Pyllun, the traditional body representing the localities involved, has publicly backed the ropeway.
The Hima Mylliem’s call for clan views to be fully documented should be taken seriously. The government must ensure that customary processes are respected and outstanding concerns are addressed.
At the same time, the authority of established traditional institutions cannot be brushed aside. If the Dorbar that signed the lease supports the project, a committee formed later must explain the basis of its objections and the extent of the interests it represents. Likewise, any outside organisation intervening in a dispute over customary land should be clear about its mandate and the communities it speaks for.
The issue is not whether dissent should be allowed. It must be. The issue is how competing claims of representation are resolved without disregarding either customary institutions or the rights of affected residents.
A recurring politics of cancellation?
The Green Tech Foundation’s role in the agitation invites a broader examination of its approach to development projects. It has opposed the eco-tourism contract at Nongkhyllem and, in April, its members protested at the Secretariat against the Lumpongdeng resort at Umiam. They were detained and later began a hunger strike, even after the government assured them that no permanent construction would be allowed on the island.
The Lumpongdeng campaign ended with the island being taken out of the project, with opposition parties and pressure groups joining the agitation along the way. Lum Shyllong now faces a similar demand for cancellation.
Environmental organisations have every right to challenge public projects, question clearances and demand accountability. But they must also be willing to explain their positions. What specific evidence justifies cancellation rather than redesign or stronger safeguards? Would the same objections apply to any ropeway, regardless of its location and environmental footprint? What alternatives have been examined, and at what cost?
Questions about funding, political affiliations and institutional interests may also be legitimate where evidence warrants them. But they should be raised through documented facts, not insinuation. The same standard of transparency must apply to campaigners, government departments and project proponents alike.
The wider stakes are significant. Meghalaya needs investment, jobs and sustainable tourism. It also needs credible environmental safeguards and public institutions that command trust. A project with multiple clearances is not beyond challenge, but neither should every dispute end in cancellation without a serious examination of alternatives.
Investors and lenders will watch how the state handles projects that have secured funding and undergone statutory scrutiny. Repeated cancellations can undermine confidence. Equally, ignoring legitimate community concerns can damage public trust and expose projects to further disputes. Meghalaya’s long-term interests require both procedural fairness and the ability to deliver responsibly.
Finish it, and finish it well
The choice facing Meghalaya should not be between protecting Lum Shyllong and creating opportunities for its people. Both objectives matter, and a credible approach must pursue them together.
A practical way forward would include:
Independent spring monitoring: Publish water-quality and flow readings every quarter, with clear procedures for responding to any adverse change.
Transparent compensatory afforestation: Prioritise planting on Lum Shyllong where ecologically appropriate, and publish annual survival rates with independent verification.
Local livelihood opportunities: Give eligible local youth fair access to jobs in ropeway operations and create transparent opportunities for local vendors at both terminals.
Community oversight: Establish a standing monitoring committee involving the Dorbar Shnong representatives of the seven localities, relevant experts and government officials.
Public disclosure: Make environmental safeguards, monitoring reports and compliance updates accessible to residents.
Saturday’s marchers deserve to be heard, courteously and fully. Their concerns should be answered with evidence, not dismissed as obstruction. But a demand for cancellation must also be judged against the project’s record, the options available and the consequences for the wider community.
If the clearances stand, customary processes are respected and environmental safeguards can be independently verified, the priority should be to complete the ropeway responsibly rather than abandon it under pressure.
The post Lum Shyllong deserves facts, not fear appeared first on Hub News.