Muzzling people’s voice

When Ladakh was constitutionally severed from Jammu & Kashmir and declared a Union Territory on October 31, 2019, one figure came to symbolize the region’s conscience was an engineer, environmentalist and rights activist Sonam Wangchuk. Then hailed as a local hero, Wangchuk’s rise paralleled hopes that New Delhi would honor assurances made to Ladakhis-among them, clearer constitutional guarantees, more autonomy and eventual statehood. Five years on, those promises remain unfulfilled, and the man who would remind the Centre of them has been now arrested, jailed and damned by ruling party loyalists as a troublemaker. Wangchuk’s latest act of dissent was precise and austere beginning with a indefinite hunger strike from September 10, demanding Sixth Schedule protections, enhanced autonomy and a clear pathway to statehood. The Sixth Schedule, designed to protect tribal areas with special legislative and administrative safeguards, is an attractive proposition to many Ladakhis anxious about preserving cultural identity, land rights and environmental stability amid increasing strategic and commercial pressures. Tensions boiled over on September 24, when demonstrations in Leh descended into violence that left four dead and scores wounded. Mobs reportedly set fire to a BJP office and several vehicles. Curfew and an internet shutdown followed as authorities struggled to contain unrest and restore order. In the aftermath, the state responded sharply by accusing Wangchuk of incitement, with Home Ministry sources pointing to his references to mass protest movements abroad – the Arab Spring and youth-led demonstrations in Nepal – as having inspired violence. This narrative is debatable but what followed was predictable and damaging. Hyper-nationalist rhetoric quickly painted Wangchuk as dangerous, and specious suggestions of cross-border links surfaced. Ladakh’s police chief even signaled an inquiry into possible Pakistan links, citing Wangchuk’s earlier travel and conversations with officials beyond the Line of Control. Such insinuations merit skepticism since any allegations need to be back with proof and evidence. Activists who travel, learn and speak with diverse actors-domestic or international-do not become traitors by default. What is less ambiguous is the popular mood in Ladakh. Large segments of the population back demands for constitutional safeguards precisely because they fear cultural erosion, unchecked exploitation of fragile ecosystems and marginalization in the political economy of the region. For many, Wangchuk is not a provocateur but an articulate conduit of long-standing frustration with promises unmet by the Centre. Those frustrations have simmered since August 2019, when statehood was superseded by a Union Territory format that centralized decision-making in New Delhi. The handling of this crisis reveals a dangerous pattern- the transformation of legitimate grievance into a security problem and the reflexive dismissal of dissent as disloyalty. That approach will not solve Ladakh’s structural anxieties but only deepen alienation and create openings to India’s enemies to fish in troubled waters. New Delhi should not view it through political prism and criminalize a popular voice. It should engage substantively, fast-track credible dialogue, lay out a time-bound plan for constitutional guarantees, and consider Sixth Schedule protections where appropriate. Reserved rights and responsibilities, grounded in local consultation, can preserve Ladakh’s unique identity while ensuring security and development. Sonam Wangchuk is asking New Delhi to keep its promises, protect communities, and govern with accountability. For the Centre, honoring that plea is not only a political obligation but a strategic imperative.