In recent weeks, the Ladakh administration’s decision to cancel the land allotment given to the Himalayan Institute of Alternative Learning (HIAL) has turned into a major controversy. What should have been seen as an internal administrative action has now been turned into a social media campaign, with several Pakistani handles extending their support to ‘activist’ Sonam Wangchuk.

The controversy gained momentum after Wangchuk, who had travelled to Pakistan earlier in February 2025 to attend a so-called ‘climate conference’, reacted strongly to the cancellation. He went on to describe the decision of the local administration as “an attack on Ladakh.” Very quickly, Pakistani social media accounts picked up his statement and began amplifying the narrative that Wangchuk was being “victimised” by the Indian government.

Screengrabs of tweets by Pakistani users show coordinated attempts to portray the Ladakh administration’s step as politically motivated. They have been characterising the cancellation of land allotment as a “political move to silence voices demanding statehood.” These claims, however, are not only misleading but also an example of how internal administrative matters of India are being twisted across the border to spread disinformation.

The Background of the Controversy

The issue goes back to 2018, when the local administration allotted about 135 acres of land in Phywang village of Leh to ‘activist’ Sonam Wangchuk and his organisation, the Himalayan Institute of Alternative Learning (HIAL). The allotment was made on lease for 40 years, with the expectation that the land would be developed into an educational institution that could serve Ladakh.

However, problems began to surface soon after. On 21 August 2025, the Deputy Commissioner of Leh cancelled the land allotment altogether. The reason was straightforward—the land was not being used for the purpose that had been agreed upon.

Even years after the allotment, Wangchuk had failed to establish an accredited university on the 135 acres of land. Moreover, he had neither executed the lease agreement nor formally handed over the land to the Tehsildar, as was required. In his order, Deputy Commissioner Romil Singh Donk pointed out, “The allotment order has lapsed on 5-5-2019 and is deemed to have been cancelled as per condition No IV of the allotment order.” He further clarified that the land “stands escheated to the State” and directed the Tehsildar to “remove all the encumbrances” from the allotted land and update revenue records.

This meant that, in the eyes of law, the land was no longer under Wangchuk or HIAL’s possession and had reverted back to the State.

Fake Claims About a ‘Witch Hunt’

Despite the clear legal and administrative reasons behind the decision, Sonam Wangchuk has projected the cancellation as an attack on his activism. He alleged, “The decision to cancel the land allotment to HIAL has been taken when people of Ladakh are demanding their rights, safeguards and democracy. It seems to be a witch-hunting process.”

His claims found an echo in certain local political groups such as the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), who have tried to link the cancellation to Ladakh’s ongoing demand for statehood and constitutional safeguards. But the facts reveal a very different story—one of repeated non-compliance, ignored notices, and financial defaults.

The Truth That Sonam Wangchuk Doesn’t Want to Highlight

Administrative records reveal that Wangchuk has not paid rent for the allotted land for several years. The land in question, 135 acres, today has a market value of between ₹27 and ₹30 crores. Despite repeated notices from the Deputy Commissioner under Clause 4(b) of the lease conditions, no payment was made.

Further, the lease agreement required that a university be set up within one year of the allotment. Not only was this ignored, but HIAL also waited until 2022—four years after the allotment—to even apply for university status. This shows a clear violation of the agreed terms.

Interestingly, HIAL did not approach the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) for three years, even though the council is the proper authority for such matters. Instead, it tried to bypass the council and reach out directly to the Deputy Commissioner.

Another claim made by Wangchuk was that HIAL had been given a waiver of ₹14 crore premium. However, records show that the LAHDC never accepted such a request. As such, no exemption was granted. The supposed waiver exists only in Wangchuk’s statements, not in official documents.

Concerns about misuse of the land were also raised at the local level. In February 2020, the Sarpanch and Nambardar of Phyang village wrote to LAHDC, pointing out violations of land use by HIAL. These complaints add further weight to the administration’s decision.

Given these circumstances—years of non-payment, failure to execute agreements, absence of a university, and formal complaints from local representatives—the Ladakh administration had little choice but to cancel the allotment. Despite this, Wangchuk continues to portray himself as a victim of political vendetta.

The violations are now thoroughly documented in administrative records, notices, and statements by the Executive Councillor of LAHDC. Far from being a witch hunt, this is an example of accountability being enforced after repeated violations.

Pakistan’s Role in Amplifying the Narrative

While Wangchuk’s disappointment at losing the land is perhaps natural, what is worrying is the manner in which the issue is being used by Pakistan-based handles. By presenting this as a case of “political suppression,” they are attempting to create divisions within Ladakh and India at large.

The fact that Sonam Wangchuk’s claims are being championed across the border should raise concerns. It suggests that what is essentially a local administrative matter is being internationalised with the aim of stirring unrest. Unfortunately, by not being transparent about his own failures in complying with the lease, Wangchuk is indirectly helping this propaganda.

The controversy surrounding Sonam Wangchuk and HIAL is not about silencing voices or targeting activism. It is about the repeated violations of a land lease agreement, failure to set up the promised university, non-payment of dues, and bypassing local authorities. The Ladakh administration’s action is rooted in these facts, not in political vendetta.

Yet, the matter is now being misused by Pakistani social media handles to spread conspiracy theories and create unrest. What is unfolding is not a case of witch hunt, but a test of whether facts can prevail over narratives designed to mislead.