The recent detention of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk and his peaceful supporters by the Delhi Police on October 13, 2024, marks yet another instance of the state curbing constitutionally protected rights. What began as a peaceful hunger strike and protest in New Delhi to demand Ladakh’s inclusion in the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution quickly turned into an act of state suppression. As per multiple media reports, Wangchuk and his supporters were detained outside Ladakh Bhawan, where they had gathered to voice their demands for greater autonomy for the Union Territory. The heavy-handed response by the authorities reveals a deeper, systemic issue—one where dissent is treated as disorder and democratic rights are consistently undermined. (Previous reports detailing Sonam Wangchuk’s protest can be read here, here and here)
A peaceful protest met with force
The protests outside Ladakh Bhawan were part of a larger movement led by Wangchuk, who began an indefinite hunger strike on October 6. His primary demand is the inclusion of Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India, which would grant the region constitutional safeguards similar to those afforded to tribal areas in the north-eastern states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram. These provisions establish autonomous councils with legislative, judicial, executive, and financial powers, giving these regions control over their own affairs and protecting their cultural identities.
Despite the peaceful nature of the demonstration being led by Wangchuk, the Delhi Police detained Wangchuk and about 20 to 25 protesters, including women, who had come to express solidarity with the cause. Pursuant to the detention, the Delhi police, which comes under the control of the union home minister, cited the absence of permission to protest outside Ladakh Bhawan, emphasising that the application to hold a protest at Jantar Mantar was still under consideration. By 11 a.m. on Sunday morning, approximately 100 supporters had gathered at the protest site. However, the police began blocking roads and making detentions around 10:30 a.m., effectively stifling the gathering. The protesters, who maintained that they were not raising slogans but merely sitting peacefully, were forcefully removed and taken to various police stations.
Article 19 of the Constitution under blatant attack
This state action against Wangchuk and his supporters is not just an isolated event—it strikes at the heart of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees citizens the fundamental rights to freedom of speech, expression, and peaceful assembly. The police’s justification for their actions was the imposition of Section 163 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, a law often used to prevent large gatherings and maintain public order. However, the overuse of Section 163of the BNSS, which is the equivalent of Section 144 of the CrPC, especially in situations where no immediate threat to law and order exists, raises serious concerns about the state’s willingness to uphold democratic rights.
In his public statements, Wangchuk expressed his deep disappointment in the state’s actions, calling it “a sad day for democracy.” He rightly pointed out that Section163 of the BNSS, in its original intent, is meant to be a temporary measure invoked only in exceptional situations. Its permanent imposition in New Delhi’s district, as reported by Wangchuk, is contrary to the democratic spirit of the country and a clear violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 19.
Wangchuk’s protest, which had been a silent fast to “Save Ladakh, Save Himalayas,” was not only a call for statehood and special constitutional protections for Ladakh but also a broader critique of the government’s failure to engage constructively with marginalised communities. The imposition of force against non-violent demonstrators represents an alarming trend in India, where peaceful protests are increasingly met with state-sanctioned repression.
The push for Ladakh’s inclusion in the Sixth Schedule
At the core of Wangchuk’s protest is the demand for Ladakh’s inclusion in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. This inclusion would grant the regions indigenous and tribal communities’ greater autonomy over their land, resources, and cultural identity. Following the abrogation of Article 370, Ladakh has been left in a vulnerable position, and the local population fears the loss of their traditional rights. Wangchuk, along with the Leh Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance, has been advocating for statehood, the establishment of a public service commission for Ladakh, and separate Lok Sabha seats for Leh and Kargil districts.
The group’s demands are not new—they have been persistently pushing for these changes ever since Ladakh was carved out as a Union Territory in 2019. Wangchuk’s march from Leh to Delhi, which culminated in the current protest, is an attempt to draw the attention of top leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, to these critical issues. However, instead of engaging in dialogue, the government’s response has been to suppress the movement through detentions and legal manoeuvres. (Detailed reports may be read here and here)
A pattern of state overreach
The detainment of Wangchuk and his supporters on October 13 was not their first encounter with the police. On September 30, while marching to Delhi from Leh, the group was detained at the Singhu border by the Delhi Police and only released on the night of October 2. This repeated use of force against peaceful demonstrators is emblematic of a larger pattern of state overreach. In a democracy, peaceful dissent is a vital component of governance, but the state’s response in these instances appears to be aimed at stifling the voices of those who challenge its authority.
The Delhi High Court is now involved, with the Leh Apex Body filing a petition seeking permission for the protesters to hold a peaceful demonstration at Jantar Mantar. The court has ordered responses from the Delhi Police and the government by October 16, with a hearing scheduled for October 22. This legal battle will serve as a litmus test for the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democratic freedoms.
The erosion of democratic values
Wangchuk’s hunger strike and the protest outside Ladakh Bhawan highlight the deepening crisis in Indian democracy. The increasing use of legal provisions like Section 163 of the BNSS to stifle dissent, the detainment of peaceful protesters, and the state’s refusal to engage with legitimate demands all point to a dangerous erosion of democratic values. The right to peaceful assembly and free expression is at the core of any democratic society. When the state repeatedly undermines these rights, it signals a move towards authoritarianism, where dissent is treated as a threat rather than a vital component of governance.
Wangchuk’s statement that the detentions were not only “sad for us but sad for democracy” underscores the gravity of the situation. By silencing those who peacefully express their concerns, the state is effectively turning its back on the very constitutional principles it is meant to uphold. Instead of finalising a meeting with Wangchuk and hearing the citizens of India out regarding their demands, the union government is focussing on trampling their constitutional rights.
The detention of Sonam Wangchuk and his supporters is more than just an isolated event—it is a symptom of a broader problem in India’s democratic framework. The struggle for Ladakh’s inclusion in the Sixth Schedule, the demand for statehood, and the protection of tribal rights are all legitimate issues that deserve attention, not suppression. As India continues to navigate its complex political landscape, it must remember that the true strength of its democracy lies in its ability to tolerate, respect, and engage with dissent. When the state instead resorts to detentions and force, it is not just choking individual rights but on the very foundations of democracy itself.
Related:
Delhi Chalo padyatra: Sonam Wangchuk begins indefinite fast at Ladakh Bhawan
When the state turns rogue even protests dry up, Salutes & Apologies Professor Saibaba!
Major need for reform in information commissions: RTI report card on the performance, 2023-24
“Hungry Cannot Wait”: SC sets final deadline for Ration Cards to Migrant Workers