Opinion Detaining Sonam Wangchuk will only worsen tensions between Centre and people of Ladakh

It is deeply saddening to learn that the sporadic outbreak of violence in Leh, Ladakh, has resulted in the loss of life and the arrest of innocent people in the last three days. Violence in any form must be condemned and rejected in a civilised society. Yet, the immediate cause of this unrest lies in the conflict between the people of Ladakh and the ruling authorities — both the Union Territory of Ladakh and the Union of India. Unfortunately, the agitated youth, in the events leading to the violence, first targeted the office of the ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), before vandalising government offices and public property around Leh.

The current agitation, which has led to violence by the youth, is the culmination of a prolonged struggle for full statehood, regional autonomy to safeguard the fragile ecology, and tribal status under the Sixth Schedule — a demand that has been maintained for the past five years. The violence is a tragic turn for a region historically known for peace-loving communities.

I had the privilege of teaching at a university located in the conflict zones of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. In my interactions with students from Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh since 2005, Ladakh consistently stood out as a place of peace, in stark contrast to the turbulence of the Kashmir Valley and the Jammu border areas. Sadly, this popular perception no longer holds true.

The political upheavals of recent years have shattered the image of Ladakh being a peaceful place and triggered an atmosphere of crisis. The rise of tourism in the 1970s, the creation of an autonomous hill council in the 1990s, and, more recently, the granting of Union Territory status, did not bring any substantial change to the lives of people in one of the most remote areas of the nation. The abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy, the bifurcation of the state into two Union Territories, and the curtailing of local governance have deepened the democratic crisis in the entire region. The government’s top-down, state-sponsored development narrative has failed to reflect the genuine needs of the people in Ladakh. The educated youth, in particular, have begun articulating alternative visions of development. The birth of the Students’ Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SECMOL) in 1988 was the alternative voice and hope for the new generation that the regime often dismisses. The refusal to listen to these concerns has fuelled resistance, leading to the rise of movements such as the Leh Apex Body (LAB), which continues to press for Ladakhi interests.

Cost of suppressing dissent

At a recent academic seminar in Leh, scholars highlighted the challenges faced by Ladakh’s youth after Ladakh was declared a Union Territory. In an era of rapidly expanding knowledge, how do they situate themselves and build the capacity to address emerging challenges? Civil society groups, particularly the educated youth, have voiced Ladakh’s social and cultural aspirations. However, these aspirations are increasingly shaped — and at times distorted — by external forces, undermining genuine local concerns. The recent violence and vandalism in Leh reflect this clash, as youth find themselves caught between imposed narratives and suppressed realities.

Violence, however, can never offer a solution. Behind the curtain, oppressive forces exploit the sentiments of nationalism to legitimise their actions. The regime, equipped with repressive state apparatus, continues to manufacture conditions of suffocation and uncertainty. In such an atmosphere, the true causes of unrest are obscured and innocent people are targeted, leaving ordinary citizens feeling less free. The declaration of a curfew-like situation once again suppresses the voices of the people to express their genuine grievances in a time of crisis.

The decision by Wangchuk to end his hunger strike soon after violence erupted reflects both maturity and high moral responsibility, offering a step toward restoring peace. Meanwhile, civil society organisations have sharply criticised the ruling party, holding it responsible for the unprecedented violence. Even senior BJP leaders in Ladakh have alleged that security forces fired on innocent youth, effectively turning Leh into a war zone, and have equally extended support for civil groups defending local concerns.

The ultimate responsibility for this crisis lies with those in power. Resorting to coercion against the people risks destroying opportunities for dialogue and peacebuilding. Suppressing dissent carries an enormous cost — one that Indian democracy cannot afford any more. History shows that silencing voices of resistance never ensures stability; instead, it will only produce an uncertain future. Though the government holds the solution to the problems that it itself created, it now has to follow non-violent methods, listen to the people and continue to make dialogue possible to sustain peace in the region.

The writer teaches at the Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, School of Social Sciences, JNU, New Delhi