Sinister Designs

Leh, which is synonymous with serenity, its monasteries and mountain vistas than for violence, has been transformed into a scene of bloodshed. Four people were killed and more than seventy injured as protests over statehood and inclusion under the Sixth Schedule spiralled into arson and chaos. A BJP office was torched, a CRPF van set ablaze and a curfew has been imposed in this hitherto peaceful region.

Yet the unrest was no spontaneous eruption of frustration. Authorities have pointed to activist Sonam Wangchuk, whose incendiary rhetoric in invoking Arab Spring-style protests and Gen Z mobilisation in Nepal appears to have deliberately misled Leh’s youth. Government sources allege that Wangchuk used the platform of civic activism to pursue personal ambitions, turning idealistic young people into instruments of disorder. The Central Bureau of Investigation’s probe into alleged Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act violations by Wangchuk and his institution lends credence to the suspicion that darker motives were at play.

Even more disturbing are indications of political complicity. Congress leaders, according to officials, did not merely observe the unrest but actively encouraged it, issuing statements that verged on instructions for stone-pelting, arson, and shutdowns. This was opportunism at its most lethal - hijacking local grievances to destabilise a peaceful union territory for short-term political gain. The blueprint is eerily familiar, echoing destabilising tactics once seen in Nepal and Bangladesh.

The context of the unrest is grounded in post-2019 political reorganisation. With the abrogation of Article 370 and the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh came under direct central administration without a legislature of its own. Calls for Sixth Schedule protections, which grant tribal-majority regions legislative and financial autonomy, are not unreasonable as more than 90 percent of Ladakh’s population belongs to Scheduled Tribes. The Union government has repeatedly signalled its willingness to engage, scheduling a High-Powered Committee meeting for October 6, with the possibility of preponement to September 25–26. Despite the option for talks, confrontation was chosen.

Regrettably, Leh’s youth, whose energy and idealism could have been harnessed constructively, have been misled into chaos. Authorities are clear that the violence did not spiral on its own but was engineered deliberately.

Leh offers a cautionary tale for India. Activism untethered from responsibility, coupled with cynical political manoeuvres, has transformed a peaceful region into a theatre of disorder. If Congress and its enablers continue to seek leverage through chaos, they risk alienating the local population and undermining India’s territorial integrity. Stability cannot be achieved through slogans or imported templates of protest. It requires prudence, dialogue and the recognition of the human cost.

The violence is a reminder that India’s unity depends on vigilance against both overt aggression and subtle destabilisation. Its youth, its communities and its institutions will need to navigate this peril with resilience, clarity, and an unwavering commitment to peace. Only then can the mountains return to being witnesses to serenity rather than scenes of engineered chaos.