Editorial: Wangchuk's arrest and Ladakh crisis

The detention of environmental activist and Magsaysay award winner Sonam Wangchuk under the stringent National Security Act is likely to reinforce the chilling message regarding the government’s approach and strategy to deal with mass protests that arise out of perceived grievances and dissent against the government’s decisions. In the present instance, the severe action is being taken not only against a well-known and widely respected person but also one who, in the past, had lent enthusiastic support to the government’s controversial decision regarding the abrogation of Article 370. The mismatch between promises and expectations on the one hand and the unfolding reality on the other could have led to disillusionment, prolonged peaceful protests, punctuated by parleys in the past couple of years.

The invocation of national security law against the popular innovator and educator becomes questionable, as it could narrow the options for future negotiation. As it is, the Centre’s dialogue with Leach leaders collapsed due to the detention. The Leach administration has accused him of “suggesting” the overthrow of the government, a la the Arab Spring and Tibetan-style self-immolation of Ladakhis. On the face of it, the accusations regarding overthrowing the government strain credulity. Maybe the administration has misread emotional political rhetoric as real, motivated threats.

Those critical of the BJP have been questioning the party’s approach, which is succinctly captured by the proverb “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. The government’s response to protests, therefore, tended to be dealing with an iron fist, given its proclivity to projecting itself as “strong” and unyielding to conciliation. The standard operating procedure appears to be unleashing the party’s social media cell and sections of pro-government broadcast media to demonise the protestors and the leadership to justify the government’s actions. It may not work all the time, as was the case in the long-drawn farmers’ agitation. A rethink in this regard could yield better results.

The BJP’s Ladakh problem is also symptomatic of its political strategy of using divisions and fault lines in society for political mobilisation and winning elections. Using this strategy in states where the consequences are limited and manageable is one thing, but it is another thing to deploy it in states with strong cultural, linguistic, and regional identities, which can be fraught with grave risk and danger. While the party’s desire to emerge as the largest party with an all-India presence is understandable, being circumspect and exercising caution would spare it the unenviable task of managing situations that inevitably spiral into crisis. The party finds itself on the wrong foot. It realised that the promises it made in Ladakh for short-term political gains cannot be fulfilled due to long-term consequences.

The way forward is to engage in a dialogue with Ladakh leaders who are now demanding the release of Wangchuk, besides a judicial probe into police firing that killed four protestors, as a precondition for talks. The mere reiteration by the Centre that its doors are open for dialogue may not be enough to bring the agitating parties — the Apex Body Leh (ABL) and Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) — to the negotiation table. The government needs to demonstrate the required flexibility after due consideration of the region’s strategic importance. There is room for dialogue, and letting the issue fester may not be a choice.