Editorial 1: ​​Loyalty and Ladakh

Context

Negotiations without Sonam Wangchuk’s release will lack credibility.

Introduction

The detention of Sonam Wangchuk under NSA and allegations by the BJP and government highlight rising tensions in Ladakh, a sensitive border region. His campaign for statehood and Sixth Schedule safeguards stems from years of broken promises and unmet aspirations. Blaming him for the September 24 unrest overlooks deeper grievances of alienation and neglect.

Detention and Allegations

• Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk has been detained under the National Security Act (NSA).
• The BJP and government have leveled allegations against him, worsening tensions in Ladakh, a sensitive border region.
• Wangchuk had been leading civil society groups demanding:
  • Statehood for Ladakh
  • Inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution
• The protest on September 24, 2025, turned violent, and authorities are blaming Wangchuk for the unrest.
• This approach is unwise, ignores ground realities, and fails to address deeper issues.

Background and Broken Promises

• Wangchuk initially supported the Centre’s 2019 decision to bifurcate Jammu & Kashmir into Union Territories.
• His support was based on the hope that Ladakh would:
  • Gain full statehood
  • Receive cultural and constitutional protections under the Sixth Schedule
• The BJP had publicly promised Sixth Schedule inclusion but did not deliver.
• Instead, developments after Ladakh became a UT alienated local populations.
• Although talks began and a tentative agreement was reached on May 27, 2025, they later collapsed due to mistrust.

Investigations and Allegations Against SECMOL

• Investigations launched into SECMOL, a school Wangchuk co-founded, though he no longer manages it.
• The Centre revoked SECMOL’s FCRA licence citing alleged financial irregularities.
• Wangchuk has:
  • Denied all charges
  • Welcomed transparent investigations
  • Blamed unrest on six years of unfulfilled promises, particularly:
    • Lack of job creation
    • Absence of constitutional safeguards

Political Reactions and Wider Implications

• The Congress and Opposition describe Wangchuk’s activism as peaceful and Gandhian.
• Use of CBI and ED to manage political dissent reflects a lack of statesmanship.
• Negotiations with other interlocutors while Wangchuk remains in detention will:
  • Have little legitimacy in the eyes of Ladakh and the world
• Branding Ladakhis or their leaders as “disloyal” is counterproductive and deepens alienation.

Way Forward

• The Centre must adopt a more considerate and inclusive approach toward Ladakh’s concerns.
• Respecting aspirations for statehood and safeguards will:
  • Strengthen national security
  • Promote integration
• Heavy-handed tactics may offer short-term control but risk long-term instability.

Conclusion

The Centre must adopt a constructive and inclusive approach to Ladakh’s statehood demands and constitutional safeguards. Branding leaders or people as disloyal only deepens mistrust. Genuine dialogue, not strong-arm tactics, can ensure integration and safeguard national security. Respecting Ladakh’s identity, jobs, and aspirations will bring long-term stability, unlike temporary control through detentions and investigations.