When Ladakh was elevated to Union Territory status in August 2019, Sonam Wangchuk folded his hands in gratitude to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

That image now stands in stark contrast with the leader’s recent call to resort to violence and pelt stones. Ladakh—a land celebrated for its peaceful landscapes—is now riddled with turmoil. Lives have been lost, buildings torched, and a master plan seems to have been quietly executed, with the instigator returning to his village while chaos unfolded.

Recent footage and images show a Congress councilor actively inciting people while carrying weapons. In Ladakh, where the UT status was formally announced on 5 August 2019, stone-pelting and arson broke out on 24 September, as citizens demanded that Ladakh be granted full statehood. During these protests, four people died and many were injured. Demonstrators set ablaze BJP offices and security vehicles; stone-pelting was reported in various parts of the region.

Sonam Wangchuk’s Shift: From Celebrating UT to Leading Agitation

Sonam Wangchuk is central to the recent unrest that unfolded during his hunger strike. Along with his supporters, he has been pushing for complete statehood for Ladakh. Yet he is being blamed for instigating the agitation, despite previously celebrating the creation of the Union Territory.

On 5 August 2019, when Article 370 was revoked and Jammu & Kashmir was split into two Union Territories—one being Ladakh—Sonam Wangchuk thanked the central government. He expressed gratitude to Prime Minister Modi, saying that it fulfilled “Ladakh’s longstanding dream.” He also recalled that “It was exactly 30 years ago in August 1989 that Ladakhi leaders launched a movement for UT status. Thank you all who helped in this democratic decentralization.”

Wangchuk was not alone in rejoicing that day. Organizations like Anjuman Moin-ul-Islam also extended thanks to PM Modi, the Home Minister, and the central government through a letter, which Wangchuk shared on his X account. Back then, Leh celebrated with singing and dancing, the mood far removed from today’s violence and flames.

The Long Road to Union Territory Status

The joy in August 2019 had deep roots. The people of Ladakh had long sought a distinct identity. In June 2019, before UT status was granted, BJP MP Jamyang Tsering Namgyal told media: “The call for Ladakh to be separated from Jammu and Kashmir is not a recent phenomenon; the people of Ladakh have sought a distinct identity since 1948.” In 1949, Chewang Rigzin, chairman of the Subject Committee of the Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA), presented a memorandum to Prime Minister Nehru, urging “self-governance” for Ladakh.

In 1964, the movement for UT status was revived under the leadership of Buddhist saint and then-Chief Lama, Kushok Bakula Rinpoche, but without success. In 1989, protests resurfaced. The LBA submitted a memorandum for autonomy and organized public rallies. Later, in 1995, the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) was formed to meet some demands.

The struggle persisted. The central government believed the issue was tied to amending Article 370—a move the Congress government hesitated to take. In 2016, the All Religious Joint Action Committee (ARJAC) passed a resolution demanding UT status for Ladakh. In 2019, the Modi government delivered.

From UT to Calls for Full Statehood: Rising Discontent

After Ladakh became a Union Territory, the central government initiated development efforts: a university, a hotel management institute, and various professional colleges were permitted. A multi-crore financial package was announced, and roads and bridges were built. But not all welcomed the change.

Some feared that big corporations would seize land. Others feared people from outside Ladakh would settle there. In early 2023, Sonam Wangchuk began protesting by sleeping outdoors, demanding “constitutional safeguards for Ladakh.” Over time, the protest gained strength. The Leh Apex Body (LAB) and Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) joined in support. In March 2024, Wangchuk and allies, including LAB-KDA associates, launched another strike in Leh. In September 2024, the LAB began the “Dilli Chalo Padyatra” march toward the capital.

Sixth Schedule – Are Talks Meant To Lead to Full Statehood?

Leaders in Ladakh have laid out four demands before the Home Ministry. These include: granting full statehood for Ladakh, placing it under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, creating a separate Public Service Commission, and providing two parliamentary seats. From these, the Home Ministry has tentatively approved the latter two requests.

Meanwhile, protesters in Ladakh insist on inclusion in the Sixth Schedule. Simply put, the Sixth Schedule grants special autonomy to tribal areas—it is intended to protect their culture, land, and resources.

This demand is now part of the BJP’s manifesto, which suggests the party is seriously considering how to carry it forward. Discussions are underway with the central government to respond to the protesters’ demands. Even before Sonam Wangchuk launched his protest in March 2024, a delegation from Ladakh met with Union Home Minister Amit Shah. In response to those talks, the Home Ministry stated, “Amit Shah assured the delegation that the government, led by PM Modi, is dedicated to offering the essential constitutional protections to the Union Territory of Ladakh.”

That meeting was not a one-off event. On 24 September, the Home Ministry issued a press release saying, “The Government of India is actively collaborating with the Apex Body Leh and Kargil Democratic Alliance regarding these matters. Several meetings have been conducted with them through the official channels of the High Powered Committee and its sub-committees, as well as through various informal discussions with leaders.”

The central government also noted that further discussions with Ladakhi leaders are to take place on 25th and 26th September, and that the High Powered Committee will convene on 6th October. However, these plans exist alongside allegations that unrest in Ladakh was being provoked before any of these meetings could happen.

Did Wangchuk Engineer the Violence?

The acts of arson and stone-pelting on 24 September in Leh did not emerge out of nowhere—there are claims the stage was set earlier. At a press conference in September 2024, Sonam Wangchuk warned of possible upheaval: “The government has restricted their freedoms by denying them democracy, and simultaneously, by withholding employment, it has incapacitated them. The circumstances in Ladakh, which borders Pakistan and China, could escalate into a crisis.”

Wangchuk, already under scrutiny for foreign funding, also invoked the term GenZ in connection with the protests. GenZ had become a prominent label because in Nepal, recent youth-led protests involving arson, looting and stone-pelting had seen several deaths, even ministers being attacked, and the government being toppled.

This raises a key question: Is Wangchuk trying to justify violence by linking his movement to the Nepal protests? It is not just Wangchuk under scrutiny—a Congress councilor has been accused too. The BJP has released images and videos showing councilor Stanzing Tsepang inciting violence.

Questions abound: Where was Wangchuk when people were needed to calm things down? The Home Ministry also claimed, “Despite several leaders urging him to terminate the hunger strike, he (Wangchuk) continued his hunger strike and misled the public by making incendiary references to protests reminiscent of the Arab Spring and Gen Z protests in Nepal.”

Such strategic innuendo and the timing of the violence—alongside ongoing demands and scheduled government talks—suggest that the unrest might not have been spontaneous. In a democratic system, dialogue should be the only route. That some parties appear to be pushing chaos instead points to a deeper discomfort with peace. At times they lean on GenZ narratives; at others they draw parallels to unrest in Bangladesh or Sri Lanka.