Editorial By CCN News | Published: Sep 27, 2026
Image Source: CCN News
What happens when a climate activist begins asking questions about justice, governance and the use of state power?
That is perhaps the most useful question to ask as Sonam Wangchuk marks one year since his detention under the National Security Act and returns to the public debate over what happened in Ladakh.
At his latest press conference today, Wangchuk again spoke about truth, justice and accountability. He questioned why the judicial inquiry into the September 2025 violence in Leh has not yet made its findings public. He also raised questions about compensation for families of those who died, criminal cases arising from the violence and the responsibility of officials who exercise extraordinary powers.
But to understand why Wangchuk is asking these questions today, we need to look at the journey that brought him here.
From Education And Ice Stupas To Questions Of Governance
For many people outside Ladakh, Sonam Wangchuk became widely known through his work on Ice Stupas and climate adaptation. But his public work began much earlier, through the Students' Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh, or SECMOL, where he worked on education reform.
His approach was rooted in local problems. The Ice Stupa was developed as a way of storing winter water as ice and making it available during the warmer months when farmers need it. It became a widely recognised example of a locally designed response to water scarcity.
But water inevitably leads to a larger conversation in Ladakh. What happens when temperatures change, glaciers retreat, snowfall patterns shift and traditional water sources become less predictable? And once those questions arise, the discussion naturally moves towards land, infrastructure, tourism, energy and the protection of a fragile mountain ecosystem.
That is where Wangchuk's activism began to intersect with governance.
The question is no longer only how Ladakh should respond to climate change. It is also about who decides where infrastructure is built, how land and natural resources are used, how tourism is managed and how local communities participate in those decisions.
And Then Came Jodhpur
There is another reason the word "accountability" has acquired a personal meaning for Wangchuk.
On Sept. 26, 2025, he was detained under the National Security Act, two days after violence in Leh that left four people dead. He was taken to Jodhpur Central Jail and remained there for nearly six months.
The Union government said the detention was ordered "in the backdrop of the serious law and order situation that arose in the peace-loving town of Leh on 24 September 2025, with a view to maintaining public order". On March 14, 2026, the government revoked the detention and Wangchuk was released.
There is an important legal distinction here. His release does not establish that the detention was unlawful, and there was no final judicial finding that he had been falsely charged. The Supreme Court disposed of the habeas corpus petition challenging his detention as "infructuous" after the government revoked the order, without adjudicating on the legality of the detention.
But Wangchuk's argument is about something that the legal outcome does not automatically resolve: the value of the time that was lost.
He has said that the months spent in detention cannot be returned. From that experience, he has raised a broader question about extraordinary powers: if an investigation establishes that a detention or prosecution was unlawful, malicious or grossly negligent, should accountability end when the detention order is withdrawn?
His stated position is that responsibility should follow the decision and not simply disappear when an official is transferred, promoted or moves to another position.
That is an institutional question rather than only a personal one. It also explains why his recent comments about accountability extend beyond his own case.
Image Source: Social
Why Should The Rest Of India Care About Ladakh?
Now consider the geography, yes, the geography of India.
Ladakh sits along India's sensitive northern frontier and shares borders with China and the wider India-Pakistan security environment. Since the India-China military tensions of 2020, the region has received heightened attention for roads, bridges, tunnels, airfields, communications and other strategic infrastructure.
But Ladakh is important for another reason that receives less attention in security discussions: climate.
The region forms part of the wider Himalayan high-altitude ecosystem. Its glaciers, snowfields, springs and rivers are closely linked to local water availability and livelihoods. Scientific research has documented warming and changes in snow and water systems across the Himalayas, although the effects vary considerably from one location to another.
So India faces a complicated policy challenge in Ladakh. The region requires infrastructure for national security and connectivity. It also has potential for renewable energy, tourism and scientific research. At the same time, development must take place in an environment where water is scarce and ecological conditions are particularly sensitive.
This is where the Ladakh debate becomes relevant beyond the region itself. The question is not simply whether development should take place. It is how security, development, environmental protection and local interests can be addressed together.
Why Does Wangchuk Keep Raising Different Issues?
Look at Wangchuk's trajectory and a pattern becomes visible.
His early work focused on education. Water scarcity brought him into climate adaptation. Environmental concerns expanded the discussion towards land, development and natural resources. After Ladakh became a Union Territory in 2019, questions of political representation and constitutional safeguards became increasingly prominent in his public activism.
These issues may appear separate when viewed individually. But they are connected by a common concern: who participates in decisions that shape Ladakh's future?
And this is not a debate involving Wangchuk alone. The Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance have also raised demands relating to political representation, constitutional safeguards, land, employment, culture and environmental protection.
The government has responded through dialogue and has announced measures relating to reservation, recruitment, language and local institutions. In September 2026, the Centre proposed Article 371(K), a special constitutional arrangement for Ladakh, though key questions over the powers of the proposed elected body remain unresolved. At the same time, several broader demands remain part of the continuing political discussion.
So the picture is more complex than a simple confrontation between an activist and the government.
The Turning Point: September 2025
The events of September 2025 added a new and much more serious dimension to the debate.
Four people died and 59 to 89 civilians, along with 22 to 30 police and CRPF personnel, were injured during violence in Leh on September 24, 2025. More than 50 people were arrested and subjected to criminal proceedings. The government subsequently established a judicial inquiry headed by former Supreme Court Justice B.S. Chauhan to examine the circumstances surrounding the incident and the use of force.
That inquiry matters because there are competing accounts of what happened.
The Union government has attributed the violence to the circumstances surrounding the protests and what it described as provocative conduct, while Wangchuk and others have questioned the use of force and demanded accountability. These competing claims should ultimately be assessed through evidence and the findings of the inquiry rather than political assertions.
However, the final report has not been publicly released.
Is this why its publication has become one of Wangchuk's central demands at the first anniversary of the violence. At anniversary events on September 24–25, 2026, Wangchuk also demanded Union Home Minister Amit Shah's resignation over the incident and said he feared an "encounter" if he continued speaking out. These are political demands and allegations, not established facts, but they underscore the intensity of the debate.
The administration has since approved ₹1.52 crore in compensation for the families of the four people who died and for injured people. The breakdown is ₹15 lakh each for the next of kin of the deceased, ₹3 lakh for each of 24 major injury victims and ₹1 lakh for each of 20 minor injury victims. It has also approved the withdrawal of criminal cases against 20 people following a review.
Those developments are significant, but they do not by themselves answer every question raised by the violence or settle the wider debate over accountability.
Climate Change, National Security And Justice Meet In Ladakh
Perhaps this is the larger story behind Wangchuk's continuing activism.
Ladakh brings together several challenges that India will have to manage simultaneously: climate change, water security, national defence, renewable energy, tourism, infrastructure, employment, local participation and institutional accountability.
That combination makes the region unusually important.
It also explains why Wangchuk's public journey has moved beyond education and climate innovation. His concerns have increasingly entered the areas where environmental policy meets governance and where governance meets individual rights.
The debate does not require everyone to agree with Wangchuk. It does require that his claims, like those of the government and other stakeholders, be examined against evidence and established through appropriate institutions.
Now, the questions he is raising are therefore larger than one individual.
How should infrastructure and national security requirements be balanced with the ecological limits of a fragile region? How much say should local communities have over decisions affecting their land and livelihoods? What safeguards should accompany the use of preventive detention? And when public authority causes serious consequences for individuals, what mechanisms ensure that responsibility can be established when wrongdoing is proven?
These questions will not be answered at a press conference.They require institutions, evidence and due process.
But perhaps that is precisely why Wangchuk continues to raise them.
His journey from education reform and climate adaptation to questions of justice and accountability reflects the changing nature of the Ladakh debate itself.
And in a region that is strategically important to India and increasingly exposed to climate pressures, the conversation is unlikely to end with one activist or one protest.
It is ultimately a conversation about how India wants to govern one of its most sensitive, fragile and strategically important regions.
Advertisement
