Sonam Wangchuk’s wife rejects allegations, calls detention part of a ‘witch hunt’

Leh/New Delhi: Gitanjali J Angmo, the wife of detained climate activist and education reformer Sonam Wangchuk, has rejected the allegations made by the Centre against her husband.

She described the charges as part of a “witch hunt” that she said began four years ago, after Wangchuk started demanding a legislature for Ladakh and its inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

Angmo said it had been more than 48 hours since her husband was taken away from Ladakh, and she had received no official word on his whereabouts.

Wangchuk is currently facing charges under the National Security Act (NSA), a law that allows long detention without bail.

She alleged the harassment began when officials warned that foreign funding licences for their non-profit organisations could be withheld if Wangchuk continued pressing for statehood.

One of their initiatives, the Himalayan Institute of Alternatives, Ladakh (HIAL), never received clearance for foreign contributions, while the licence of the Students’ Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SECMOL), founded in 1988, was recently cancelled. The Ministry of Home Affairs cited five violations, including the use of funds to “study national sovereignty,” which Angmo dismissed as a misrepresentation.

She clarified that the work related to “food sovereignty,” referring to communities growing their own food.

According to her, the disappointment in Ladakh began when expectations of receiving a legislature and Sixth Schedule protections after becoming a Union Territory in 2019 turned into an indefinite wait, despite wide support for the BJP at the time. She said Wangchuk himself had voted for the party and that Ladakhis had placed faith in its promises.

Responding to allegations from Ladakh’s police chief that Wangchuk had links to Pakistan, Angmo argued that if such claims were true, it reflected a failure on the part of the Ministry of Home Affairs.

She explained that her husband had travelled to Pakistan for a United Nations-backed conference on climate change, where he spoke as a scientist. She said his visit was aimed at regional cooperation on environmental issues that transcend national borders, adding that Wangchuk had publicly praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi during that event for initiatives to combat air pollution and reduce carbon emissions.

On accusations that her husband’s speeches provoked violence during the recent protests, Angmo insisted that he had immediately stopped his fast and condemned the unrest because he did not want anyone to be harmed. She pointed out that families who lost loved ones in the clashes did not blame Wangchuk and maintained that he was not even present at the site of the violence.

She further clarified that funds received by SECMOL had been modest — around four lakh rupees — and used strictly for their intended purposes. She also noted that when Wangchuk had launched earlier hunger strikes, intelligence officials frequently visited them and hinted that their foreign funding applications could be blocked if protests continued.

The Centre has maintained that Wangchuk incited the mob with provocative remarks and left the protest site in an ambulance without making serious efforts to prevent escalation. However, Angmo countered that narrative, saying her husband’s actions consistently showed a commitment to peaceful protest.

Wangchuk himself had previously stated that their organisations did not accept foreign donations but carried out business transactions with international bodies such as the United Nations and European organisations, paying all applicable taxes. He said these transactions were wrongly classified as foreign contributions.

Initial celebrations in Ladakh over Union Territory status in 2019 have given way to unease about the absence of a legislature and fears of unregulated exploitation of local resources. The situation has brought together political and religious groups across Leh and Kargil in a rare show of unity, amplifying the demand for constitutional safeguards under the Sixth Schedule.