Loyalty and Ladakh: On the detention of Sonam Wangchuk
Talks while keeping Sonam Wangchuk in jail will lack legitimacy
The detention of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act and the volley of allegations hurled at him by the BJP and the government mark a further deterioration of the situation in Ladakh, a sensitive border region. Mr. Wangchuk had been spearheading a movement on behalf of civil society groups demanding Statehood for Ladakh and its inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which turned violent on September 24, 2025. To pin the blame on him for the violence, as the government and the police appear to be doing, is unwise and flies in the face of facts. This is no way to address the issues that have led to the unrest. Mr. Wangchuk has been a supporter of the Centre’s decision, in 2019, to bifurcate the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir into Union Territories (UT), in the hope that Ladakh would be granted full statehood and its indigenous culture and heritage protected by inclusion in the Sixth Schedule subsequently. The BJP did make a public commitment, at least on the question of the Sixth Schedule. Developments following the carving out of Ladakh as a UT followed an opposite pattern, leaving the native population feeling alienated. The Centre did start negotiations and arrived at a tentative agreement with the groups on May 27, 2025, which unravelled for reasons that remain unclear. But the mistrust among the protesters, and with the Centre is apparent. The Centre is now planning to continue with talks even as Mr. Wangchuk is in jail in Jodhpur.
Investigations have been launched against SECMOL, a school he co-founded, though he is not associated with its management anymore. The Centre has revoked its FCRA licence for alleged financial irregularities. He has denied all allegations and welcomed any investigation. He has said the unrest stemmed from six years of unkept promises, especially on job creation and constitutional safeguards. The Opposition, led by the Congress, has termed Mr. Wangchuk’s activism as peaceful and Gandhian. The use of the CBI and ED to overcome a political situation, the violence notwithstanding, betrays a lack of statesmanship. The situation is such that any agreement with other interlocutors while Mr. Wangchuk remains detained will carry little legitimacy in the eyes of the world or Ladakh. It is also extremely counterproductive to accuse the people or the leaders of the movement in Ladakh of disloyalty to the nation, as many allies of the BJP are doing brazenly. The Centre should be more considerate toward the concerns of Ladakh, and such an approach will advance national security and integration much more than any strong-arm measures can achieve in the short term.