Kamal Ghorui
Wangchuk’s release highlights the key problem of arbitrary use of harsh laws
GOI dropping the most serious allegation, against climate and statehood activist Sonam Wangchuk, raises even more questions for authorities, than his detention did six months ago. From time he was picked up, last Sept, and lodged in Jodhpur jail, it was clear the draconian National Security Act had been invoked without much thought. Wangchuk was accused of inciting a Gen Z protest in Ladakh, supposedly along the lines of Bangladesh and Nepal, and even Arab Spring was referenced. His actions were termed “prejudicial to the security of the state”. He was on his fifth protest fast (Delhi Chalo Padyatra) for statehood, and inclusion of Ladakh in Sixth Schedule. Yet, instead of letting a peaceful protest carry on, authorities jailed him for six months – half the maximum period of detention without charges, allowed under NSA. And linked him to the deaths of protesters, on Sept 24, in police action.
Wangchuk’s release comes after govt concluded that “Ladakh’s problems” must be resolved through “engagement and dialogue”. Are we to conclude that fundamental freedoms are vulnerable to this extent to a govt’s shifting frameworks for governance? Surely not. Of course, it is welcome that govt finally recognises that crackdowns and heavy-handed responses foment trouble, while peaceful protests form the beating heart of a healthy democracy. Dialogue is everything.
But the real question remains: how fickle are fundamental freedoms? It is good that govt realised jailing Wangchuk hurt its own cause for peace in the new UT. Crackdowns on protests, arrests, and routine invocation of toughest laws, have long been knee-jerk reactive policing of Indian cops, blessed by their political masters. Dialogue after detention is really an admission of excess. And it is a fact that a law like NSA, which must be used judiciously and sparingly, loses its legitimacy, when it is used to police dissent.
END OF ARTICLE
