Nearly six months after his arrest, the Indian government has released the Ladakhi activist and innovator, Sonam Wangchuk, ending his preventive detention. While Mr Wangchuk’s release will be a matter of relief for his supporters, his prolonged detention has revived long-standing questions over the use — or abuse, in the eyes of many human rights lawyers and activists — of draconian laws to punish political opponents. Although the Union home ministry has not clarified why the charges against
Mr Wangchuk were dropped, it has signalled that the decision was taken after a review of the case. He was initially arrested last September after being accused of delivering inflammatory speeches during a hunger strike that he was leading, seeking greater autonomy for Ladakh — including statehood or constitutional guarantees protecting the interests of the region’s tribal communities, and its land and environment. It is safe to assume that India’s law enforcement agencies would not have released him from detention if they had found any evidence to pursue their case against Mr Wangchuk. Even though the home ministry has said that it remains committed to dialogue with all stakeholders, anger simmers in Ladakh, and the manner in which Mr Wangchuk was treated is unlikely to ease tensions.
In many ways, his case epitomises a much deeper malaise in the Indian judicial system. Preventive detention laws are routinely used to arrest people in Kashmir, in particular, but also in other parts of the country. By definition, these are not people who have committed a crime — but are individuals whom the State claims could commit crimes or instigate others to violate the law. And far too often, people are kept in custody for weeks, months or even years without a trial before being released. Other draconian laws, such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, are also often used to arrest individuals accused of having links to terrorism. But there again, courts often — including as recently as January in Punjab — acquit accused individuals because of a lack of evidence after they have been incarcerated for years without a trial. The process is the punishment, and innocence is no guarantee of justice. Mr Wangchuk’s case is a reminder of why laws that allow governments to hold people without due process for long periods of time must be reviewed urgently. New Delhi must also re-engage with the concerns that Mr Wangchuk has consistently raised. That alone can help the Central government regain credibility in Ladakh.