Social activist Sonam Wangchuk has dismissed allegations that he struck a deal with the Centre to end his 26-day hunger strike, asserting that his decision was driven by fears of an imminent crackdown on protesters similar to the one witnessed in Ladakh in 2025. He said his primary concern was preventing violence against students and ensuring that peaceful demonstrators did not face legal action.
In a video message released after ending his fast, Wangchuk explained that he accepted the government’s written assurances only after prolonged negotiations and insisted that there was no political compromise. According to him, protecting the lives and future of the protesters took precedence over continuing the indefinite fast.
The clarification comes amid criticism from some quarters that his decision to end the protest indicated a settlement with the government.
Wangchuk Denies Any Deal With the Centre
Rejecting claims of a backroom agreement, Wangchuk said he had not entered into any deal with the Centre before ending his fast.
He maintained that the only reason for calling off the protest was the written assurance provided by the government that no legal action would be initiated against peaceful protesters. He stressed that he continued negotiating until those assurances were put in writing.
“I insisted on a written assurance and did not relent until they agreed,” Wangchuk said in his video message.
According to the activist, safeguarding the students participating in the movement remained his foremost priority throughout the negotiations.
Fear of a Ladakh-Like Crackdown
Explaining his decision, Wangchuk said he feared a repeat of the September 2025 incident in Ladakh, where security forces allegedly opened fire on protesting youths.
Recalling those events, he said he did not want a similar situation to unfold in Delhi, particularly with thousands of students continuing to participate in the demonstrations.
He stated that ending the hunger strike became necessary to avoid any escalation that could result in violence or harm to peaceful protesters.
The activist argued that protecting human lives was more important than prolonging the protest for symbolic reasons.
Written Assurances Led to End of Fast
Wangchuk said the Centre’s written commitments played a decisive role in his decision to conclude the 26-day hunger strike.
According to him, the assurances included a commitment that no criminal cases would be filed against peaceful protesters, discussions in Parliament on examination reforms and paper leaks, and positive consideration of compensation for families of students who allegedly died by suicide following the NEET controversy.
He said these commitments provided sufficient confidence that the movement’s concerns had been formally acknowledged.
Criticism Over Decision to End Protest
Following the conclusion of the fast, some supporters questioned whether Wangchuk had compromised with the government by ending the agitation before all demands were fulfilled.
Responding to the criticism, Wangchuk said those making such allegations failed to understand the risks faced by the students participating in the movement.
He reiterated that the decision was taken only after carefully considering the safety of protesters and the possibility of a forceful police action.
The activist maintained that ending the fast did not mean abandoning the movement’s larger objectives.
Students Remain the Priority
Throughout his statement, Wangchuk repeatedly emphasised that students remained at the centre of his campaign.
He said his hunger strike was never about personal recognition or political gains but about securing justice, transparency, and accountability in India’s examination system.
According to him, preventing legal action against peaceful protesters was one of the most important outcomes achieved during the negotiations.
He also urged students to continue pursuing democratic and non-violent methods while pressing for reforms.
Regret Over How the Fast Ended
Wangchuk also expressed disappointment that several colleagues, Members of Parliament, and supporters who had stood by him throughout the protest were unable to be present when he officially ended the fast.
He claimed many supporters were prevented from meeting him before Union ministers arrived, describing it as one of the saddest aspects of the conclusion of the movement.
Despite this, he thanked the thousands of students and citizens who had supported the protest over nearly four weeks.
Movement for Reforms to Continue
Although the hunger strike has ended, Wangchuk said the broader movement for examination reforms and accountability would continue.
He expressed confidence that sustained public engagement would ensure that issues related to examination transparency, paper leaks, and student welfare remain on the national agenda.
He also stated that democratic dialogue must continue until meaningful reforms are implemented and public confidence in the examination system is fully restored.
Focus Shifts to Government Action
With the 26-day hunger strike now concluded, attention has shifted to the implementation of the assurances provided by the Centre.
Wangchuk’s clarification that there was “no deal” with the government seeks to address criticism while reaffirming that the decision was motivated by concern for the safety of protesters rather than political compromise. His remarks also underline the importance he attached to securing written commitments before ending the fast.
As the government begins discussions on the promised reforms, students, civil society groups, and political observers will closely monitor whether the assurances made during the negotiations translate into concrete action. For Wangchuk, the conclusion of the fast marks not the end of the movement but the beginning of a new phase focused on ensuring accountability and lasting reforms in India’s education system.