Shillong, August 10: The Thma U Rangli Juki (TUR) has strongly opposed the proposed ropeway project on the slopes of Shillong Peak, describing it as an expensive “showpiece” that could threaten water sources, the environment, and the safety and livelihoods of communities in Raid Laban and other parts of Shillong.

Questioning the necessity of the project, TUR said the fundamental issue that needs to be addressed is whether Shillong requires such a ropeway at all.

The organisation clarified that its opposition should not be interpreted as opposition to development. Rather, it said it opposes projects undertaken without adequate consideration of their social and environmental consequences and which, in its assessment, fail to provide meaningful benefits to the wider population.

TUR alleged that the proposed ropeway is poorly conceived and would do little to strengthen Shillong’s tourism sector.

According to the organisation, tourists are attracted to Shillong primarily by its natural landscape, clean air, pleasant climate, rain, winter mist and the distinctive character of the hill city. It argued that uncontrolled concrete construction and other infrastructure have already altered much of Shillong’s traditional landscape.

Instead of investing heavily in the ropeway, TUR suggested that public funds should be used to improve, beautify and preserve walking trails leading towards Shillong Peak. Such an initiative, it said, could also create livelihood opportunities for local youth by training and engaging them as guides for trekking and nature-based tourism.

Raises Concern Over Felling of 545 Trees

TUR rejected assurances that the ropeway would have minimal environmental impact, arguing that forests on the slopes of Shillong Peak play an important role in protecting water sources, biodiversity and the ecological stability of the area.

The organisation expressed particular concern over the proposed felling of 545 trees, claiming that the loss of vegetation could affect groundwater recharge, natural springs and the movement of water across the slopes.

It argued that even if trees are not felled directly over water catchment areas or springs, removing vegetation from surrounding slopes could still alter the area’s ecological system and hydrology.

TUR further maintained that compensatory plantation elsewhere cannot immediately replace mature forest ecosystems or replicate their role in protecting water sources.

The organisation pointed out that communities on and around Shillong Peak are not the only ones dependent on water originating from the area, claiming that several localities in Shillong also depend on water sources connected to the hill.

It also warned that clearing vegetation on steep slopes could increase the risk of soil erosion and landslides during the monsoon, while disturbing wildlife habitats.

Questions ₹151-Crore Cost and Traffic Benefits

TUR also questioned the reported investment of around ₹151 crore for the ropeway project, arguing that such expenditure is difficult to justify when many residents continue to face shortages of reliable drinking water, inadequate roads and pedestrian infrastructure, and insufficient public transport.

According to TUR, the proposed ropeway, measuring around 896 metres, would not provide a meaningful solution to Shillong’s traffic congestion.

Instead, it claimed that the project could increase pressure on narrow local roads if large numbers of tourist vehicles travel through residential areas to access the ropeway.

TUR also dismissed suggestions that the ropeway could be used by farmers to transport agricultural produce, describing such claims as misleading and unrealistic.

Questions Public Consultation and Traditional Institutions

Another major concern raised by TUR relates to the process through which the project was conceived and approved.

The organisation alleged that there had been inadequate public consultation with residents and communities in Shillong and adjoining areas before the project was taken forward.

It claimed that no meaningful public meetings were held to allow affected residents to express their views or give their consent.

TUR said discussions with a limited number of individuals or office-bearers of traditional institutions should not automatically be treated as consent from the wider community.

The organisation stressed that Dorbar Shnong and Dorbar Pyllun represent the broader body of residents and not merely their office-bearers. It therefore called for greater transparency regarding the role played by traditional institutions in decisions concerning the project.

TUR also raised questions over references to “Riat Laban” in government documents relating to the project, asking whether the term was intended to refer to Raid Laban, which falls under Hima Mylliem.

It sought clarification on when and how the name Raid Laban was allegedly changed to Riat Laban, and whether the ropeway proposal originated from Raid Laban, Riat Laban or another authority.

TUR further questioned who initially approached the government seeking the ropeway project and whether the wider community had ever formally endorsed the proposal.

The organisation alleged that the government and other authorities, including traditional institutions involved in the process, may have bypassed customary decision-making practices.

It said the government’s claim that the project had been proposed through local traditional institutions should be examined in light of opposition from residents who, according to TUR, were either unaware of the proposal or had not been adequately consulted.

TUR Demands Scrapping of Project

TUR demanded that the ropeway project be stopped altogether, saying it was not convinced by the technical assurances provided by those involved in planning the project and did not believe the scheme would substantially improve the economic condition of the wider population.

It warned that the potential consequences — including depletion of water sources, increased landslide risks, environmental degradation and the alleged weakening of traditional community decision-making processes — could have long-term implications.

According to TUR, these risks outweigh the projected benefits of the project.

The organisation further expressed apprehension that the costly infrastructure could eventually become another underutilised or failed project, benefiting only a limited number of private interests rather than the people of Meghalaya as a whole.

TUR maintained that development in Shillong should prioritise essential public needs, environmental protection and sustainable livelihood opportunities instead of projects that, in its assessment, are expensive, environmentally risky and of limited public benefit.