Snow leopard politics: Where peripheral voices are dependent on military sympathy

Sri City: The 27th of September would be an eventful day in Ladakh. Following the local ruling party’s offices and a police van being set ablaze by a violent mob, internet shutdowns have followed in the region and several protestors were killed by riot police. Sonam Wangchuk, a pacifist leader in the region, and also a major advocate for Ladakhi statehood would attract shock after he was arrested for being accused as a conspirator in the violence in a mostly peaceful movement. 

Amidst the outrage of Wangchuk's arrest, and the deaths of protestors, the most noticeable coverage by both digital and mainstream media alike have been the comments of jawans (soldiers) and generals who expressed condolences to the family of a 1999 Kargil war veteran who was killed. The veteran’s father in an interview with the Indian Express would comment “is this how we treat patriots?” implying a sense of betrayal that many ladakhis have recently felt from vilification by mainstream media.

While the tragedy of the loss of a jawan has and is to be heeded, what is also highlighted is a noticeable trend on how protests and societal movements seem to gather national legitimacy only if there’s a military filter in the name of patriotism. The usage of the deceased veteran and past photos seemed to be an effort to humanise the demands for statehood, rather than a diverse view of the protests that was composed of ordinary civilians from all backgrounds from the humble cattle herder and hospitality worker, to influential buddhist monks and muslim clergy from Kargil to Leh. 

This recurring pattern has been observed on multiple occasions in Ladakh’s coverage. When Wangchuk isn’t being character assassinated as a foreign agent, he’s not being recognised in a holistic view. Rather than focusing on his efforts for environmental conservation and education, he’s primarily focused upon through his assistance to the military in terms of technology like ice stupas and solar heated tents. Even in pro government circles, in an interview by Republic TV, major general ‘GD Bakshi’ quoted that “India can’t afford grievances in Ladakh” where despite the surface level commentary on the need to heed to civilian demands, he mainly legitimizes it through Ladakhis’ military participation and Ladakh’s strategic importance in the aftermath of border skirmishes with the China in 2021 rather than a holistic view of the region. 

This has been a noticeable trend even in protests and societal movements in India’s recent history and even in public reactions to global events. Between late 2020 to early 2021, during the height of the farmer’s protests, many veterans protested in support of the farmers, but at the same time many were also brutalised which contributed both further support and outrage for the farmers protest. In May 2024, a former Indian army officer, Waibhav Anil Kale, was murdered by the Israeli military while serving in UN security coordination in Gaza. His death would be one of many events that brought attention from many sections of the Indian public to the ongoing genocide in Gaza. 

In both cases however, support and empathy was seemingly conditional on patriotism and the seeming greenlight is tragedy afflicted on an army man. Protesting farmers were seemingly unable to earn support from large sections of the public due to relentless character assassinations by mainstream media questioning patriotism, it wouldn’t be until the participation and grievances of veterans that this would be challenged. Even with their participation, the army provided advice to veterans opposing participation in protests, which would make them a stakeholder in solidarity and support. The empathy for suffering Palestinians was seemingly conditional, with many people choosing to support the Israelis due to military cooperation. This conditional empathy impacts how India reacts to conflicts and protests both domestically and internationally. 

In a 2023 pew research survey on opinions on representative democracy, 85% of Indian respondents mentioned how they would prefer authoritarian rule with 29% favouring military rule. The military in the popular imagination seemingly became a dominant force in political sympathy and contributed to ideological rhetoric in how patriotism is expressed and whose voice to heed to, and the consequence is how certain voices gain traction and others remain marginalised even if they’re citizens of the same soil and protest for the same issue.

While the military is an honoured institution in public imagination due to service and protection, the events and coverage of Ladakh unfortunately reflect how it’s being used as a criterion to support and grant legitimacy for demands of statehood. Rather than looking at civil society voices who’ve been part of Ladakh’s quest for statehood for the past 4 years, an army service man’s tragedy gets whitewashed and hence gets more priority due to the idea of inherent patriotism due to service, rather than the patriotic act of already being a living citizen. Despite its aims of humanisation at a time when patriotism is being questioned in all directions, this marginalises environmental and cultural concerns for many civilians, and doesn’t negate the relentless character assasination that protestors and figures like Wangchuk face. Citizens in the end, shouldn’t have had to serve in the military to prove their patriotism or to have their grievances heard in national politics.