The recent disaster in Nepal has revived apprehensions among residents of Lahaul, Kullu-Manali and Mandi over the proposed Chenab-Beas River Link Project. Locals and public representatives are warning that diverting water into the Beas basin could heighten flood risks in an already fragile Himalayan region.
Chenab-Beas link project details and flood risk concerns
The Rs 2,356-crore project envisages diverting water from the Chandra river into the Beas through an approximately 8.7-km tunnel beneath the Pir Panjal range. The project is reportedly aimed at generating around 4,000 MW of electricity.
However, growing concerns over extreme weather events, landslides and recurring floods have prompted calls for a fresh assessment of its safety and environmental implications. The Nepal disaster has served as a stark reminder of how quickly mountain regions can turn dangerous when water systems are altered.
Local opposition grows after Nepal disaster
Kargil War hero and Brigadier Khushal Thakur (retd) said the disaster in Nepal has made it clear that Himalayan regions need extra caution. He and other public representatives are now asking for a thorough review before any work moves forward.
The core worry is simple: moving large amounts of water through tunnels in a geologically unstable area could increase the chance of floods downstream. Residents in Kullu, Lahaul and Mandi have lived with seasonal flooding before, and they do not want to see those risks grow.
"The disaster in Nepal has revived apprehensions among residents of Lahaul, Kullu-Manali and Mandi over the proposed Chenab-Beas River Link Project." — Original story
What locals are asking for
- A fresh assessment of the project's safety before construction proceeds
- Clear evaluation of environmental implications for the Beas basin
- Better understanding of how extreme weather events could interact with the water diversion
Our Take: Safety must come before power generation
To put it plainly, this project shows a classic tension between development and safety. Generating 4,000 MW of electricity is a big prize, but not at the cost of putting thousands of lives at risk in Kullu, Lahaul and Mandi.
The Nepal disaster is a warning that cannot be ignored. Himalayan regions are fragile, and the weather is becoming more unpredictable. Diverting rivers through tunnels under mountain ranges is not a small engineering feat — it is a permanent change to the natural landscape.
In our view, the right move is to pause and listen to the locals. They know their land better than anyone. A fresh, transparent safety assessment is not a delay — it is a necessity. If the project cannot guarantee safety, it should not move forward.
This is not about stopping development. It is about making sure that development does not turn into disaster.