Four Killed in Ladakh Protests After Years of Unanswered Calls for Rights

Firing Follows Hunger Strikes and Long Struggle for Democratic Representation

September 26, 2025

Four young people were killed and dozens injured in Leh after police opened fire on youth-led protests during a hunger strike on Dept. 24, demanding statehood and constitutional protection for Ladakh, which sits at India’s Himalayan frontier, bordering China. The violence shows a serious failure of governance, where the central government’s refusal to meaningfully engage with six years of peaceful demands has now led to the breakdown of non-violent civic mobilisation.

Ladakhis are demanding statehood and the application of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which grants tribal areas autonomy over land and governance. The region, which is over 90 percent tribal, lost its legislature in 2019 when the central government reorganised Jammu and Kashmir. Since then, Ladakh has been governed directly by the Centre, with no elected body representing the people.

Joblessness has worsened, and policies that once protected local employment have allegedly vanished. Protesters point to these combined losses of representation, rights, employment and land security as the root of the current anger.

Residents fear that land belonging to local communities could be taken over or reassigned without consultation. Earlier this year, the Centr-led Ladakh administration cancelled the land allotment granted to the Himalayan Institute of Alternative Learning, a civic education project led by local activist Sonam Wangchuk. The move shocked many because it seemed to confirm the government’s readiness to override commitments without explanation.

Protesters now worry that land in Ladakh could be opened up to commercial interests or handed over to outside corporations with no public oversight. In a remote frontier region where land is closely tied to identity, livelihood and autonomy, the sense of dispossession begins with the loss of power to decide what happens to the land in the first place.

For years, Ladakhi civil groups, religious leaders and youth have been appealing to New Delhi through fasts, marches and delegations. The protest on Sept. 4 was part of this same effort, marking the 15th day of a hunger strike led by the Ladakh Apex Body, a coalition of political, religious and social groups coordinating demands for Ladakh’s statehood and constitutional safeguards. Two elderly hunger strikers had already been hospitalised when calls for a local shutdown went out.

A group of young protesters that day moved away from the strike site and towards official buildings, including the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) office, raising slogans, as reported by Al Jazeera. What followed was a violent clash with the police in which four young people died. One remains in critical condition and many others are injured. The police said they opened fire in self-defence after security personnel were attacked by what they described as an “unruly mob.”

The violence is a turning point in Ladakh’s political history. For decades, protests have remained peaceful even when grievances were sharp. The site of the hunger strike was the Martyrs’ Memorial Park, which itself commemorates earlier deaths in protests from the 1980s. But the scale and anger of this new wave marks a shift. Leaders like Wangchuk, who have long argued for non-violent resistance, say this was an “outburst of youth,” triggered by the sense that peaceful means have failed.

In a functioning democracy, the state is expected to respond to dissent through institutions that give citizens avenues to present their demands and seek redress. These institutions include elected bodies and courts, supported by legal frameworks and structured processes of consultation. Since 2019, Ladakhi civic groups have organised marches, hunger strikes and petitions within that democratic tradition. Yet, according to protest leaders, the central government has delayed dialogue, dismissed concerns or placed blame on those leading the mobilisation. The police firing suggested an erosion of democratic space, with citizens left struggling to have their voices recognised.

Governance rests on both authority and legitimacy. Authority provides the state with power, while legitimacy depends on the consent and trust of the governed. In Ladakh, authority has been exercised in ways that many view as lacking legitimacy. A region with a 97 percent literacy rate, strong civic traditions and a distinct tribal identity has continued to call for constitutional protections. Repeated denial or absence of meaningful engagement has a cost. Political alienation takes root, and in such conditions the likelihood of violence rises, especially among young people who see no channel for dialogue or resolution.

Social contract theory, one of the oldest foundations of political thought, holds that people consent to be governed in exchange for protection of their rights and a role in shaping decisions that affect their lives. In Ladakh, many feel they have been denied both. They are governed by bureaucrats they did not elect and face shrinking access to jobs and land. This has created a perception that the social contract has broken down, with no visible effort from the state to restore trust. The protests, including their escalation, reflect a demand to be recognised as citizens with rights, rather than subjects under remote administration.

The home ministry has accused Wangchuk of inciting the protests by referring to the Arab Spring and recent youth uprising in Nepal. The accusation came despite his repeated public appeals for peaceful resistance. Such a response suggests discomfort with organised civic mobilisation and a pattern of portraying dissent as provocation. Instead of examining why young people with no background in violent politics reached this breaking point, the government chose to target the individual who had spent years warning of rising frustration.

Ladakh’s location alone should have made political engagement an urgent priority. The region shares a long and sensitive border with China and plays a key role in India’s military logistics and preparedness. Following the 2020 clashes between Indian and Chinese forces, it became a focus of national security planning. In such a setting, sustained public discontent creates risks that cannot be addressed through administrative control alone. A frontier region requires meaningful local participation, particularly when strategic tensions are high. The absence of such engagement has turned Ladakh into a site of growing domestic unrest.

The young protesters in Ladakh should not be seen by the government as adversaries of the state. Their mobilisation began with peaceful methods, and their grievances were raised through sustained civic engagement. The violence and deaths could have been prevented through timely political dialogue and credible negotiation.

The strength of a democracy is measured by how it responds to those at its margins. The events of Sept. 24 point to a serious failure on that front. Restoring democratic engagement and public accountability is now essential to prevent deeper instability.

You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.