The basis of good governance and democracy is that it provides enough leeway and wherewithal to address issues related to national security. The smart way to address a problem that started as a legitimate demand for greater autonomy in governance is not by misusing laws that allow for preventive detention against peaceful dissenters but by finding a route to defuse it. That does not mean that those who indulged in violence and arson in Ladakh during the protests for Statehood and Sixth Schedule status should be spared the long arm of the law. Yet, the Centre’s detention of climate activist and social reformer Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA), in response to the protests, is wrong. Mr. Wangchuk has been a consistent and peaceful advocate for the legitimate democratic aspirations of Ladakh, which have found resonance across Leh and Kargil districts, as well as religious, ethnic and political identities. His recourse to non-violent dissent, with sustained agitations for a legislature to address Ladakh’s environmental and livelihood concerns, is in keeping with the historical ethos of Indian politics established during and after the freedom movement. Invoking a law that is intended to counter a threat to the security of the Indian state against a peaceful dissenter reveals a problematic intolerance for democratic expression.
In recent judgments, the Supreme Court of India has repeatedly clarified that a clear distinction must be made between a “law and order” issue and a threat to “public order”. The NSA, which is meant to address “public order”, pertains to acts that disturb “the even tempo of the life of the community”. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Wangchuk’s activism reaches this benchmark. The Centre appears to have failed to apply its mind and reach a “requisite subjective satisfaction”, as demanded by the Court, to show that his actions posed any real threat to “public order”. The Centre’s response has clearly sought to conflate dissent with acts akin to sedition. Mr. Wangchuk’s case is not an isolated one, as in the past, similar Acts were used to stifle dissent and bypass due process, as was the case with the detention of Kashmiri politicians following the abrogation of the special status of erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir. Ladakh’s aspiration for self-governance is genuine and requires the Centre’s nuanced and empathetic response, more so as it is a sensitive border region. The Centre must revoke Mr. Wangchuk’s detention immediately and re-engage in a meaningful dialogue with the people of Ladakh. Not doing so will only precipitate another crisis.