On 24th September, Leh, Union Territory of Ladakh, witnessed a sudden and violent turn in its ongoing agitation. The call for a shutdown by the youth wing of the Leh Apex Body spiralled into street clashes, arson, and chaos. Protesters, who have been demanding statehood for Ladakh and its inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, resorted to aggressive action that shocked the region. The local BJP office was set on fire, a police van was torched, and demonstrators clashed with security forces right in the centre of the city.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has directly accused a Congress leader of being part of the rioting. This allegation has intensified the political blame game in Ladakh at a time when public anger was already boiling over.

The incident represents the most serious escalation yet in the statehood agitation that has been driven by activist Sonam Wangchuk, who has been on a hunger strike since early September to demand constitutional and political rights for the people of Ladakh. His campaign, which he had insisted would remain peaceful, has now been overshadowed by a wave of violence.

The situation forced Leh’s District Magistrate Romil Singh Donk to invoke emergency powers under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023. The order banned gatherings of more than four people, prohibited rallies, and restricted the unauthorised use of loudspeakers. These steps were taken to prevent the unrest from spreading further and to restore calm in the troubled town.

How the violence unfolded

According to multiple media reports, the tension had been building since the previous evening, when two elderly protesters on hunger strike collapsed and were rushed to hospital. Their sudden illness sparked widespread anger among students and youth activists, many of whom had already been voicing disappointment over the Centre’s delay in restarting serious talks with Ladakhi representatives.

On Wednesday morning, large crowds began gathering near the hunger strike site before marching toward the BJP office in Leh town. Anticipating unrest, the police and paramilitary forces had been deployed in advance and barricades were placed to hold back the agitators. However, as the protesters attempted to break through, stone pelting began. In response, security personnel fired tear gas shells to control the crowd.

The confrontation quickly turned into chaos. A police van was set ablaze, creating panic and triggering further clashes. Soon, protesters stormed the BJP office, setting it on fire while chanting slogans in support of Sonam Wangchuk and against what they described as the Centre’s “failed UT experiment.” Several other vehicles were also damaged as the violence spread through the area.

Ground reports suggest that dozens of people were injured during the clashes. There were also unverified claims at the time of reporting that three to five young protesters were killed in police firing, although official confirmation had not yet been made.

Wangchuk ends hunger strike, appeals for peace

After the violence, activist Sonam Wangchuk expressed sorrow over the events and announced an end to his fast. Posting on X, he wrote, “Very sad events in Leh. My message of peaceful path failed today. I appeal to youth to please stop this nonsense. This only damages our cause.”

Wangchuk described the situation as a “Gen Z revolution”, suggesting that it was the frustration of the younger generation that pushed the protests into a violent direction. He explained that the hospitalisation of the two elderly hunger strikers had deeply angered Ladakhi youth and drove them onto the streets. He further stressed that the repeated neglect of Ladakh’s demand for statehood and constitutional safeguards had created widespread unrest. By blaming Gen Z—“the same demographic credited with toppling KP Oli’s government in Nepal”—Wangchuk appeared to be distancing himself from responsibility, even though he has been leading the protests for years.

Later in the day, Wangchuk held a press meeting and ended his 15-day hunger strike citing the deteriorating situation. He said, “Three to five young people have been killed because there was police firing. We have reports that many people have been injured. We don’t know the exact count. This is not the way forward. We have decided to end the hunger strike.”

Wangchuk reminded that he has been at the forefront of the agitation for more than five years, seeking statehood and constitutional protections for Ladakh. Although he insisted his methods were peaceful, he admitted that his message had “failed today.”

Political responses and calls for dialogue

The violence immediately drew sharp political reactions. BJP IT Cell Chief Amit Malviya accused the Congress of fuelling the unrest. On X, he wrote, “He can be clearly seen instigating the mob and participating in violence that targeted the BJP office and the Hill Council. Is this the kind of unrest Rahul Gandhi has been fantasising about?” Malviya claimed that a rioter was identified as Phuntsog Stanzin Tsepag, Congress Councillor for Upper Leh Ward, and accused him of directly taking part in the violence.

However, Wangchuk defended the Congress and rejected the BJP’s claim. He said, “Congress doesn’t have such influence here that it can manage to get 5000 youth on the roads…A Congress councillor yesterday reached a hospital in anger because two people from his village were brought injured to the hospital…”

Meanwhile, opposition leaders used the opportunity to criticise the Central Government’s handling of Ladakh. Sajad Kargili of the Kargil Democratic Front posted on X, “Whatever is happening in Leh is unfortunate. Ladakh, once peaceful, is now gripped by frustration & insecurity due to Govt’s failed UT experiment. The onus lies on the Govt, resume dialogue, act sensibly & fulfil Ladakh’s demand for Statehood & Sixth Schedule without delay.”

The National Conference (NC) also joined in the criticism. Senior leader Sheikh Bashir Ahmad said, “This is very unfortunate. Our belief is that the 5 August 2019 decision was never accepted by the people of Leh or Jammu and Kashmir. They have been demanding autonomy and legislative rights ever since. The Centre’s indifference has led to this explosion of anger.” Another NC leader, Tanvir Sadiq, added, “It is a matter of deep sorrow that everything is being mishandled. What happened in Jammu and Kashmir is happening again in Ladakh. We condemn the violence but call upon the central government to open its doors for meaningful dialogue.”

The demand for statehood and Sixth Schedule

The roots of the agitation trace back to August 2019, when Article 370 was abrogated, and the state of Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir with a legislature, and Ladakh without one. While UT status was initially welcomed by many in Leh, activists like Wangchuk soon began highlighting the risks of a system without legislative power or constitutional safeguards.

With more than 90% of Ladakh’s population belonging to Scheduled Tribes, activists argue that the region is a natural candidate for inclusion under the Sixth Schedule, as in many northeastern states. This would allow the formation of autonomous district councils empowered to protect land, culture, and resources. Without these safeguards, Ladakhis fear losing control over their land and jobs, and worry about the erosion of their cultural identity due to outside interests.

Two coalitions—the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA)—comprising religious, social, and political organisations, have led the agitation. Since 2020, they have staged several protests and held multiple rounds of talks with the Centre. The most recent meeting, on 27th May this year, resulted in a domicile policy for Ladakh. But despite this, the core demands for statehood and Sixth Schedule inclusion remain unresolved.

Centre’s meeting with Ladakhi representatives scheduled for 6th Oct

The Union Home Ministry, on 20th September, announced that talks with Ladakhi representatives would resume. The next meeting is scheduled for 6th October in New Delhi. Earlier, on 2nd January 2023, the Centre had formed a high-powered committee (HPC) to examine these demands. Yet, Ladakhi representatives continue to describe the progress as slow and unsatisfactory.

Wangchuk himself voiced scepticism, calling these meetings “non-result-oriented” and accusing the Centre of dragging its feet. He maintained that his hunger strikes were meant to alert the people of India to Ladakh’s plight. But the outbreak of violence on 24th September has cast a shadow on the upcoming talks.

The Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) has also called for another shutdown, intensifying pressure on the Centre. With elections for the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) due next month, political stakes in the region have risen sharply.

District Magistrate’s order

In light of the spiralling unrest, District Magistrate Romil Singh Donk issued prohibitory orders under Section 163 of BNSS 2023, emphasising the urgent need to protect public order and maintain peace. The order explicitly banned any processions, rallies, or marches without prior permission, prohibited the use of loudspeakers, and forbade statements likely to disturb communal harmony. Most importantly, gatherings of five or more people within Leh district were strictly prohibited.

According to the order, “Immediate prevention and remedial measures are necessary to maintain public order and tranquillity.” It also warned of strict action under Section 223 of BNSS 2023 against anyone found violating the restrictions.

The violence in Leh has transformed what had been a largely peaceful agitation into a dangerous flashpoint. For years, leaders like Wangchuk projected the movement as non-violent, drawing moral strength from hunger strikes and symbolic marches. But the events of 24th September—burnt offices, torched vehicles, clashes with police—have shaken that claim.

Now, with lives reportedly lost, properties destroyed, and political blame being exchanged, Ladakh’s demand for statehood and constitutional safeguards has become even more complicated. Instead of pushing the Centre towards dialogue, the violence may harden its approach, leaving Ladakh at a critical crossroads.