"My dear Prime Minister Narendra Modi, I am here to tell you Ladakh ki mann ki baat. All is not well in Ladakh."
Sonam Wangchuk, who inspired Aamir Khan’s character in 3 idiots – the Bollywood film, also famous for its iconic song ‘All is Well’ – said this over a week ago in a video, where he also declared that he would begin a five-day hunger strike, starting 26 January.
In the same video, the renowned engineer, educationist and reformer from Ladakh – argued that with the melting of glaciers, an environmental catastrophe was inevitable in the region. He also warned against the disastrous impact of mining and unplanned development in Ladakh.
Wanghcuk’s climate fast ended on Monday, 30 January – over the course of which, he has alleged that he was put under house arrest and made to sign a bond which mandated that he must:
“not make any comments or issue statements or make public speeches, hold or participate in any public assembly or any activity related to recent events in the Leh district.”
So, what were his demands during the protest? What next for those demands? And what is the legality of the bond he was asked to sign? We explain.
Hunger Strike & 'Legal' Bond: Why 'All is Not Well' in Ladakh & What Next?
1. What is He Demanding?
Protection for the people of Ladakh under the sixth schedule of the Indian Constitution, to ensure that they have control over their demography, jobs and land, is the central demand of Wangchuk’s hunger strike.
Essentially, the sixth schedule under Article 244 of the Constitution allows the formation of autonomous administrative divisions within a state. Governed by autonomous councils, these divisions are aimed at protecting the cultural identity and interests of India’s tribal population.
At the moment, the sixth schedule is operative in Assam, Mizoram, Meghalaya and Tripura.
The protections he is demanding under the sixth schedule, were granted to the people of Ladakh through Article 370, which has now been abrogated.
Article 370 was read down by the BJP-led union government on 5 August 2019, which then went on to reorganise the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir into two union territories – one of which was Ladakh.
Expand2. But is This the First Time That This Demand is Being Raised?
No, the demand has been raised several people in the past – including BJP MP from Ladakh Jamyang Tsering Namgyal in 2021 in the parliament.
In fact, earlier this month the Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance – the umbrella political, social and religious groups in the Leh and Kargil districts, spearheading the agitation over these demands – decided to skip meetings of a committee constituted by the Union home ministry because their demands of statehood and Sixth Schedule were not in its agenda.
“When the Centre made Ladakh a UT without a Legislative Assembly, we thought it will be further empowering the existing autonomous hill councils of both Leh and Kargil districts. Instead, the government started diluting the hill councils,” Nawang Rigzin Jora, who is at present the co-chairperson of Leh Apex Body, told The Indian Express earlier this month.
Expand3. So, Can Ladakh Be Included in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution?
“The only way for Ladakh to be included in the sixth schedule is through a constitutional amendment enacted by the parliament,” Anumeha Mishra, a Constitutional Law Professor at Delhi University told The Quint.
Why amendment? Because, right now the the sixth schedule under article 244 of the constitution, mentions only four specific northeastern states and for changing any of that, a constitutional amendment will be necessary.
Is Ladakh eligible to be included under the sixth schedule? In September 2019, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes recommended the inclusion of Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule, noting that the new UT was predominantly tribal (more than 97%).
As pointed out by Mishra, for a region to be declared a scheduled area, it has to have more than 50 percent of tribal population.
“Further, it makes all the sense to include Ladakh because it is in line with the federal feature of the Constitution. Federalism does not mean that every state shares the same relationship with the centre. Instead, it considers the needs and requirements of a diverse population, and makes way for different kinds of relationships with the centre,” she added.
Expand4. The Legal 'Bond' & What It Says
Over the course of the protests, Wangchuk has claimed that the Ladakh administration asked him to sign a legal bond agreeing to not make comments, speeches or statements about the recent developments, on 28 January, the third day of his hunger strike.
According to the document, these activities have the “potential to endanger peace and tranquility in the district" and Wangchuk is liable to pay Rs 1,00,000 on breaching the bond.
Consequently, Wangchuk took to social media to seek legal advice about the bond which was invoked under section 107 of the CrPC which empowers a magistrate, in cases of emergency when a breach of the peace is imminent, to order an accused to furnish a security pending the completion of enquiry.
“That I undertake that I will not make any comment(s) or issue statements(s) or make public speech(s)hold or participate in any public assembly(s)/any activity related to recent events in Leh district, at the present times, since it has the potential of endangering the peace and tranquility and law and order in the district or any part thereof for a period of one month (sic),” reads the bond, shared by Wangchuk on his Twitter handle.
Undertakings which mainstream Kashmiri political leaders were asked to sign after 5 August 2019, were reported to have been similarly worded too.
According to media reports, those documents too, said that they will “not make any comment(s) or issue statement(s) or make public speech(s) hold or participate in public assembly(s) related to recent events in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, at the present time, since it has the potential of endangering the peace and tranquility and law and order in the state or any part thereof for a period of one year.”
And, that’s not all.
Wangchuk has also claimed that he was put under house arrest and detained while protesting -- claims which have been disputed by the administration.
Expand5. But How Legal is the 'Legal' Bond? And Can it Be Challenged in Court?
Section 107 of the CrPC clearly states that it is applicable only when “breach of peace is imminent.”
The use of the phrase, however, is broad, vague and can be used heavy handedly according to experts.
“What is a breach of peace can be different for me and different for someone else. It is very subjective and that is the problem,” Mishra said.
However, this can be challenged in a court of law on the grounds that Section 107 is being wrongfully applied and is violating his fundamental right to speech and expression, she added.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)
Expand
What is He Demanding?
Protection for the people of Ladakh under the sixth schedule of the Indian Constitution, to ensure that they have control over their demography, jobs and land, is the central demand of Wangchuk’s hunger strike.
Essentially, the sixth schedule under Article 244 of the Constitution allows the formation of autonomous administrative divisions within a state. Governed by autonomous councils, these divisions are aimed at protecting the cultural identity and interests of India’s tribal population.
At the moment, the sixth schedule is operative in Assam, Mizoram, Meghalaya and Tripura.
The protections he is demanding under the sixth schedule, were granted to the people of Ladakh through Article 370, which has now been abrogated.
Article 370 was read down by the BJP-led union government on 5 August 2019, which then went on to reorganise the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir into two union territories – one of which was Ladakh.
But is This the First Time That This Demand is Being Raised?
No, the demand has been raised several people in the past – including BJP MP from Ladakh Jamyang Tsering Namgyal in 2021 in the parliament.
In fact, earlier this month the Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance – the umbrella political, social and religious groups in the Leh and Kargil districts, spearheading the agitation over these demands – decided to skip meetings of a committee constituted by the Union home ministry because their demands of statehood and Sixth Schedule were not in its agenda.
“When the Centre made Ladakh a UT without a Legislative Assembly, we thought it will be further empowering the existing autonomous hill councils of both Leh and Kargil districts. Instead, the government started diluting the hill councils,” Nawang Rigzin Jora, who is at present the co-chairperson of Leh Apex Body, told The Indian Express earlier this month.
So, Can Ladakh Be Included in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution?
“The only way for Ladakh to be included in the sixth schedule is through a constitutional amendment enacted by the parliament,” Anumeha Mishra, a Constitutional Law Professor at Delhi University told The Quint.
Why amendment? Because, right now the the sixth schedule under article 244 of the constitution, mentions only four specific northeastern states and for changing any of that, a constitutional amendment will be necessary.
Is Ladakh eligible to be included under the sixth schedule? In September 2019, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes recommended the inclusion of Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule, noting that the new UT was predominantly tribal (more than 97%).
As pointed out by Mishra, for a region to be declared a scheduled area, it has to have more than 50 percent of tribal population.
“Further, it makes all the sense to include Ladakh because it is in line with the federal feature of the Constitution. Federalism does not mean that every state shares the same relationship with the centre. Instead, it considers the needs and requirements of a diverse population, and makes way for different kinds of relationships with the centre,” she added.
The Legal 'Bond' & What It Says
Over the course of the protests, Wangchuk has claimed that the Ladakh administration asked him to sign a legal bond agreeing to not make comments, speeches or statements about the recent developments, on 28 January, the third day of his hunger strike.
According to the document, these activities have the “potential to endanger peace and tranquility in the district" and Wangchuk is liable to pay Rs 1,00,000 on breaching the bond.
Consequently, Wangchuk took to social media to seek legal advice about the bond which was invoked under section 107 of the CrPC which empowers a magistrate, in cases of emergency when a breach of the peace is imminent, to order an accused to furnish a security pending the completion of enquiry.
“That I undertake that I will not make any comment(s) or issue statements(s) or make public speech(s)hold or participate in any public assembly(s)/any activity related to recent events in Leh district, at the present times, since it has the potential of endangering the peace and tranquility and law and order in the district or any part thereof for a period of one month (sic),” reads the bond, shared by Wangchuk on his Twitter handle.
Undertakings which mainstream Kashmiri political leaders were asked to sign after 5 August 2019, were reported to have been similarly worded too.
According to media reports, those documents too, said that they will “not make any comment(s) or issue statement(s) or make public speech(s) hold or participate in public assembly(s) related to recent events in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, at the present time, since it has the potential of endangering the peace and tranquility and law and order in the state or any part thereof for a period of one year.”
And, that’s not all.
Wangchuk has also claimed that he was put under house arrest and detained while protesting -- claims which have been disputed by the administration.
But How Legal is the 'Legal' Bond? And Can it Be Challenged in Court?
Section 107 of the CrPC clearly states that it is applicable only when “breach of peace is imminent.”
The use of the phrase, however, is broad, vague and can be used heavy handedly according to experts.
“What is a breach of peace can be different for me and different for someone else. It is very subjective and that is the problem,” Mishra said.
However, this can be challenged in a court of law on the grounds that Section 107 is being wrongfully applied and is violating his fundamental right to speech and expression, she added.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)