Government must talk to Sonam Wangchuk, that’s its duty

As Sonam Wangchuk’s hunger strike at the capital’s Jantar Mantar enters yet another day, the government holds on to its hard silence. Wangchuk is no stranger to the political establishment he seeks to address, again. Last year, the profusely awarded innovator, education reformer and climate activist was arrested after a section of the protests he led in Leh — demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule safeguards for Ladakh — turned violent. The man celebrated for breaking the mould was accused of instigating the violence, labelled “anti-national”, slapped with the stringent NSA. In March this year, after about 170 days in jail, Wangchuk walked free after the government revoked his preventive detention, only days before it was to come up in court. It was actively engaging in a dialogue to address the people’s aspirations and concerns in Ladakh, the government said, through a high-powered committee and other platforms. Today, Wangchuk’s demand has changed — along with the Cockroach Janta Party, he is demanding accountability and educational reform in the wake of the NEET paper leak. But the government’s instinct and playbook remain the same — it has set its face against the protesters. As of now, it is not clear whether or when it will take the next step and relent and engage.

The BJP-led government needs to reflect on its own response pattern. The Wangchuk-CJP protest cannot be compared to other instances, it is very much a product of its moment. But be it the farmers’ agitation against the farm laws being pushed through without consultation, or demonstrations against a citizenship law more discriminatory — civil society protests have almost always shone a light on the government’s inability to reach out. It cannot find the words and language to talk to those who disagree with it. This reinforces the impression that it is uncomfortable with anything that involves give and take. It is only at home talking to others, it seems, when it is striking deals with them in the political backrooms to add to its growing numbers in Parliament. Talking and listening, dialogue and negotiation, is a government’s bounden duty in a democracy — not an instrument it uses only to swing a transaction. The government needs to talk to Wangchuk and his supporters at Jantar Mantar.

Whether it does so or not, Wangchuk has made his point. The NEET leak did not just affect those who took the exam, it has drawn attention to a broken educational system, and the need to set it right. Those changes will take patience — and more men and women like Wangchuk, dedicated to a cause that resonates wide and deep in a country of the young. That’s why he must end the fast and why the government must find a way to talk to him.

Overall Analysis

The editorial argues that the government should engage in dialogue with Sonam Wangchuk instead of maintaining silence over his hunger strike. The central message is that in a democracy, governments are expected to communicate with peaceful protesters rather than ignore or suppress them. The author presents dialogue not as a political choice but as a constitutional and democratic responsibility.

The editorial begins by revisiting Wangchuk’s earlier protests in Ladakh, reminding readers that he was previously detained under the National Security Act despite being widely respected as an innovator and environmental activist. This background establishes a contrast between his peaceful public image and the government’s harsh response. The language is persuasive, using words such as “hard silence”, “anti-national” and “stringent NSA” to create an impression that the government’s actions have been disproportionate.

The author then shifts attention to Wangchuk’s present protest over the NEET paper leak, arguing that while the issue has changed, the government’s attitude has not. The editorial criticizes what it sees as a recurring pattern of avoiding conversations with dissenting voices. By referring to earlier movements such as the farmers’ protest and demonstrations against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the writer broadens the discussion beyond one individual and suggests that the inability to engage with critics has become a governance issue.

A significant linguistic feature of the editorial is the repeated emphasis on words such as “dialogue”, “listening”, “negotiation” and “accountability”. These words reinforce the democratic principle that governments must remain accessible to citizens. The editorial also contrasts political negotiations for gaining parliamentary support with the government’s reluctance to negotiate with ordinary citizens. This comparison strengthens the criticism while maintaining a formal and reasoned style.

Towards the end, the editorial acknowledges that Wangchuk has already succeeded in drawing national attention to deeper flaws in India’s education system. It argues that the NEET controversy is not merely about one examination but reflects systemic weaknesses requiring long-term reforms. The concluding appeal is balanced: it urges Wangchuk to end his fast while simultaneously urging the government to open meaningful discussions. This ending gives the editorial a constructive rather than confrontational conclusion.

Overall, the language is clear, persuasive and balanced. Instead of relying on emotional rhetoric alone, the author combines factual references, comparisons with past events and democratic principles to build a logical argument that dialogue is the most effective response to peaceful dissent.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Relent – to become less strict or finally give in.
2. Accountability – the obligation to take responsibility for one’s actions.
3. Resonates – creates a strong emotional or intellectual connection with people.
4. Bounden Duty – a moral or official responsibility that must be fulfilled.
5. Instigating – encouraging or provoking others to take action, often leading to conflict.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial concludes that democratic governments cannot afford to remain silent in the face of peaceful public protests. It argues that engaging with citizens through dialogue is essential for good governance and that meaningful reforms in education require cooperation rather than confrontation. While advising Sonam Wangchuk to end his fast, the editorial places greater responsibility on the government to initiate constructive discussions.

Tone: Critical, persuasive, democratic, and constructive.