Interview/ Sonam Wangchuk, Ladakhi activist
Q/ You went from being seen as an environment hero to a disruptor, including facing detention under the National Security Act.
It was never my goal to be a hero or a villain. I have always done what was needed which, in this case, was raising the issues of Ladakh. I saw our leaders were struggling, getting an unfair deal compared to what had been proposed. I felt I had a certain reach, so I became a medium to share with the rest of the nation that here was a case of injustice. When my voice became effective, they slapped the NSA. But even before that, they tried ‘saam, daam, dand, bhed’. First they called me and offered me positions. I declined. Then came the threats. Then came the agencies—ED, CBI, whatever was possible. They could not find anything. When nothing worked, they used the NSA.
Q/ What do you think about the violence that broke out during the protests on September 24 last year?
I don’t know. The best way to describe it is that it erupted out of frustration among the youth. It was not something anybody had planned. During the five-week fast, some people began falling critically ill, while the government was insensitive enough to say that talks would happen only weeks later. That may have triggered them. Some say the youth were already angry and that the tear gas attack provoked them. Others say it was planned, as security forces had already been brought in. We don’t know. It could have been orchestrated or spontaneous. Either way, it was not to our liking and was never part of our plan.
Q/ Since then, has trust with the Centre declined?
Yes, the trust has declined drastically. Meanwhile, it has led to greater unity—between Buddhists and Muslims, Leh and Kargil—on a scale never seen before.
Q/ Was it a better arrangement when Ladakh was part of the Jammu & Kashmir state, with constitutional safeguards?
In 2019, people were jubilant. They thought they were rescued from Kashmir. They did not realise they had fallen from the frying pan into the fire. Having said that, comparing the pre- and post-2019 periods is difficult because we are only seven years into the new arrangement. Under Jammu & Kashmir, we were unhappy. From being a kingdom, Ladakh had become an insignificant, remote region. We wanted freedom from that arrangement. In fact, there was no reason for Ladakh to be clubbed with J&K apart from the conquest by the maharaja of Jammu in the 1830s.
At the same time, we never wanted to separate from India, even though we believed we had every right to, as a historical kingdom, like Bhutan. But now, Ladakh is being termed anti-national. Yet it was Maharaja Hari Singh who, at the time of partition, did not want to join India immediately. Today, Jammu is viewed as hyper-nationalist, while Ladakhis are branded anti-nationals.
Q/ What does the Centre get wrong about Ladakh?
It does not misunderstand Ladakh. Rather, it knows Ladakh’s patriotism and strategic importance. I think it is being pressured by corporate and industrial interests into not keeping their promises. The BJP pledged, both ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha polls and the 2020 Hill Development Council elections, to include Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule. So what changed? Likely pressure from mining, industrial and corporate lobbies.
Q/ Are corporate and industrial interests already making inroads into Ladakh?
Corporate power companies are already taking major tracts of prime pasture land. Mining will come later. Tourism is another gold mine. The question is whether it benefits local people, who have only four to six months of earning opportunity each year, or large chains that can profit elsewhere, too. Let Ladakh develop as a family-run eco-tourism model. If the floodgates open, Ladakh will be lost.
Q/ How does addressing Ladakh’s concerns benefit India strategically and ecologically?
Ecological consequences may take time to show, but strategic consequences can come very quickly. I worry about a situation where people feel so hurt and neglected that, if something happens at the border, they feel, ‘since nobody cares about us, we will also behave like people elsewhere’.
Here, people actually go to the borders as non-uniformed soldiers. If you don’t see them as an asset, you may lose them. Having said that, I have confidence in the strength of the people that despite everything, they will not be affected. But imagine if they are affected and there is aggression on the border. The Army alone cannot defend these frontiers. You can double the number of soldiers, but if local sentiment and strength are halved, the net result will not be stronger.
Q/ What pragmatic outcome can we hope for in the May 22 talks?
Sixth Schedule status and statehood, or the restoration of democratic representation, remain the main demands. We are looking for a mutually acceptable solution, and not being bulldozed.
Q/ What if the talks fail?
It will be decided by the Leh Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance.