Who is Sonam Wangchuk, and why is he suddenly a political icon?

The attempt to transform Sonam Wangchuk from a Ladakhi innovator into a national political crusader raises more questions than answers. More importantly, it exposes the hypocrisy of sections of India’s political opposition and the selective outrage of some celebrities and activists.

Sonam Wangchuk first entered public consciousness not because of political activism, but because his life and work inspired the character of Phunsukh Wangdu in the blockbuster film 3 Idiots. Ironically, it was Bollywood actor Aamir Khan, who played the iconic character, who introduced Wangchuk to mainstream Bharat. Over the years, Wangchuk’s public interventions have increasingly acquired a political dimension, including his perceived proximity to leaders and causes associated with the Aam Aadmi Party and his participation in several politically contentious campaigns.

Today, however, Wangchuk is no longer being discussed primarily for his educational initiatives or environmental advocacy. He has become a political figure whose campaigns invite both admiration and criticism.There is nothing objectionable about demanding constitutional safeguards, statehood, or environmental protections for Ladakh. In a democracy, citizens have every right to peacefully protest and advocate for public causes. The country’s Constitution guarantees that right.

The problem begins when legitimate activism starts acquiring political overtones that seek to portray Bharat’s democratic institutions as inherently oppressive or attempt to create an atmosphere of confrontation rather than constructive engagement. Political activism cannot become a licence to destabilise public order or fuel narratives that undermine national interests.

The same political parties that are celebrating Wangchuk today conveniently forget history. Questions surrounding some of his activities and organisations were not first raised by the Narendra Modi government. Concerns had been raised much earlier during previous governments. Yet, those who once viewed him with suspicion are now projecting him as an unquestionable moral authority simply because his political positions are inconvenient for the present government.

This selective morality has become a defining characteristic of Bharat’s opposition politics. If an activist criticises the Modi government, he is immediately elevated into a democratic icon. If the same activist had faced criticism during earlier regimes, those facts are quietly ignored.

Bharat’s opposition appears increasingly dependent on activists and celebrities to wage political battles that it has failed to win electorally. Instead of strengthening its political organisation and reconnecting with voters, it seeks symbolic figures around whom anti-government narratives can be built.

No individual, however accomplished, should be placed above scrutiny. Sonam Wangchuk’s demands and methods are as open to democratic criticism as those of any elected politician or activist. Public figures must expect questions about their statements, political associations, and the larger consequences of their campaigns.

Bharat today is vastly different from what it was even a decade ago. It is a confident nation that has demonstrated both military and diplomatic resolve in dealing with external challenges. The Modi government has repeatedly emphasised that national security and territorial integrity are non-negotiable. Political activism, therefore, must operate within the constitutional framework and cannot be allowed to cross into actions that threaten public order or encourage anarchic politics.

The right to dissent is sacred in a democracy. Equally sacred is the responsibility that accompanies that right. Peaceful protest is constitutional; political theatre designed to create confrontation is not. Climate advocacy is welcome; attempts to convert every policy disagreement into a larger political movement against democratic institutions deserve scrutiny.

Bharat’s electorate has consistently demonstrated political maturity. Governments are changed through ballots, not through manufactured outrage or the romanticisation of activists. Political parties that have repeatedly lost public confidence would do well to introspect rather than searching for new faces to carry their ideological battles.

Sonam Wangchuk may remain an environmental activist, educator, and public intellectual. That is his democratic right. But no democracy should accept the proposition that activism automatically confers political infallibility or immunity from criticism.

Modern Bharat has space for dissent—but it also has every right to demand that dissent remains responsible, constitutional, and rooted in the national interest.