Sonam Wangchuk Exposed: Ladakh Protest Truth Uncovered

(Based on Ajeet Bharti’s YouTube video: “Sonam Wangchuk: Financial Fraud, Anti-India Talks, Inciting Riots | Ajeet Bharti Explains”)

Note: This post explains claims made in the video by Ajeet Bharti. These are allegations reported in that program. Some investigations are ongoing. Saying someone is accused or under investigation is different from saying they are guilty. I use careful words like “alleged” and “according to” to make that clear.

Who is Sonam Wangchuk?

Sonam Wangchuk is a well-known engineer, teacher, and environmental activist from the Himalayan region. He became famous for building “artificial glaciers” to help farmers and for starting schools. Over time, he also became a public voice on climate and local rights. Because of his work, he has received international attention and awards.

What are the main allegations described in the video?

Ajeet Bharti’s video lists three major concerns about Sonam Wangchuk and his organizations. I will explain each in simple words.

1) Alleged financial irregularities (FCRA / NGO funding)

• The claim: Authorities say Wangchuk’s NGOs violated rules of the FCRA. FCRA is the law that controls foreign funding to Indian NGOs.

• Specific points alleged:

  • Money received from abroad was not always handled through the correct FCRA account.

  • Small amounts (for example ~₹3.5 lakh and ₹54,600 mentioned) were treated in ways the ministry found suspicious — for example, sale proceeds recorded as cash instead of as FCRA income, or local donations being misposted to the FCRA account.

  • The government reportedly cancelled an FCRA registration and asked for explanations. CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) officers were said to be looking at financial records.

• Why this matters: FCRA rules aim to make sure foreign funds are used legally and not for activities that harm national interest. If funds are misused, the NGO can lose registration or face legal action.

2) Alleged anti-India / anti-national statements and foreign links

• The claim: Some speeches and messages by Wangchuk are said to be critical of India’s border handling and to create doubt among locals about who controls land near China.

• Examples in the video:

  • Statements suggesting the government is “giving” land to China — words that alarm people near the border.

  • Attendance and speeches at international events (the video mentions Pakistan and other foreign conferences) are presented as suspicious by critics.

• The argument from Ajeet Bharti’s side: In a border-sensitive place like Ladakh, public leaders must be careful. Strong messaging against the state or claims that land is being handed over — even if meant to raise local grievances — can be seen as helping foreign adversaries or creating instability.

• Important caution: Speaking critically of government policy or highlighting local problems is not automatically “anti-national.” But authorities and some commentators say the tone and timing of certain speeches mattered.

3) Alleged role in protests and violent events in Ladakh

• The claim: Wangchuk organized or encouraged protests which, on a specific date, turned violent. Police and officials reportedly accuse him of giving provocative speeches that “incited” the crowd.

• What happened (as reported in the video):

  • Large gatherings and a hunger strike were underway. On a particular day, a crowd left the peaceful venue and attacked government party offices and security vehicles. Fires and property damage followed.

  • Officials say around 50 people were arrested and many injured.

  • Critics say Wangchuk did not act to calm the crowd and left the scene in an ambulance when violence began.

• Legal angle: Authorities reportedly filed FIRs, and investigations by police / CBI are ongoing. If evidence links organizers to planned violence, legal charges may follow.

Why is Ladakh sensitive?

• Ladakh borders China and is strategically important. Any local unrest there has bigger security implications than it might in other areas.

• Developing roads, tunnels, and military infrastructure is essential for national defence in high mountain areas. Some activists fear environmental damage or loss of local rights from big projects.

• Local demands (like more reservation, autonomy or special status) can be politically sensitive because they affect land, resources and security.

How did things escalate?

According to the video’s narrative:

• Local leaders and community groups including Buddhists and Muslims formed alliances and raised demands (e.g., Sixth Schedule protection, statehood or more rights).

• Sonam Wangchuk staged a hunger strike and gave public speeches that critics say were inflammatory.

• Despite government talks planned with local leaders, on one day a crowd left the hunger strike venue and attacked party offices, police vehicles and public property.

• Authorities then acted: arrests, FIRs, revoking FCRA permissions and financial checks.

The video suggests the protest was deliberately timed and organized — possibly exploiting local frustration — and that outside actors or political rivals may have had a role in pushing events toward violence.

What does the government say?

• The video reports that the government said:

  • They had been engaging in dialogue with Ladakh leaders and had scheduled meetings.

  • They had increased reservation percentages and made language and other concessions.

  • The riots and arson were criminal acts; police and security forces would act.

  • Financial irregularities in NGOs are being investigated; FCRA was reportedly revoked in some cases.

What do supporters of Wangchuk say?

• Supporters view him as an activist who peacefully raised local issues.

• They point to his environmental work (artificial glaciers, schools) and international recognition as evidence he is genuine.

• Many say protests reflect long-standing grievances: jobs, development, land rights and local participation in decision-making.

Points to remember (Balanced view)

• Allegation ≠ Guilt. The video reports accusations and ongoing probes. Investigations and courts must decide facts and guilt.

• Local problems are real. Many people in border regions feel left behind or worried about local resources, jobs and culture. Those worries can be legitimate.

• Security risk is real. In border areas, unrest can become a national security issue, so authorities often react strongly.

• Freedom of speech vs. responsibility. Activists have the right to speak and protest. At the same time, leaders must avoid words or actions that could cause violence or harm national security.

• Investigations should be transparent. For public trust, inquiries into funding and public speeches should be fair, evidence-based and open to scrutiny.

What may happen next?

• Legal investigations (police, CBI) may continue. If evidence is found, charges could be filed.

• Government may re-open or continue talks with local leaders to address legitimate demands and reduce tensions.

• Public debate will likely continue: some will defend Wangchuk as an activist; others will say he crossed a line that endangered security.

Final simple summary

Sonam Wangchuk is a famous activist who helped his community with innovative projects. Recently, he has been accused — in media and by officials — of two main things: misuse of foreign funds by NGOs linked to him, and giving speeches and organizing events that critics say encouraged violent protests in Ladakh. Because Ladakh borders China and is strategically important, these allegations are taken seriously. Investigations are ongoing. It is important to wait for legal findings and to treat both local grievances and national security carefully.