Ladakh Protests Turn Violent: 4 Dead, Dozens Injured After Shutdown in Leh.
Ladakh’s LEH — At least four people were killed and numerous others were injured in Leh on Wednesday, September 24, 2025, when protests calling for statehood and constitutional protections for Ladakh turned violent as protesters clashed with government authorities during a shutdown organized by local student groups.
What Happened
The Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) backed the protest, which was started by the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and was a part of a larger campaign calling for Ladakh to be added to the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution and granted full statehood.
Sonam Wangchuk and other activists have been demanding these demands for weeks by going on a 15-day hunger strike. The health of some demonstrators reportedly declined; two were admitted to the hospital on Tuesday, which increased public discontent.
The hunger strikers’ health issue and the lack of progress in talks with the Center prompted the LAB’s youth wing to demand a total shutdown in Leh on Wednesday.
Violent Escalation & Clashes
The protest and blockade swiftly descended into violence. In addition to throwing stones at police, protesters in Leh set fire to cars and the BJP headquarters in certain locations. There were also reports of a police van being set on fire.
Tear gas, baton charges, and occasionally gunfire (though reports vary on live bullets vs. warning shots) were used by police to try to put an end to the disturbance.
Casualties, Injuries & Admin Response
Over 70 people were hurt, and at least four people died (depending on the source, some accounts place the number between 50 and 70, while others place it close to 30).
In accordance with Section 163 of the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita), 2023, the Leh government issued prohibitory measures in the wake of the violence. Curfew-like restrictions were imposed, and public meetings of more than five persons were prohibited.
Key Demand: Sixth Schedule & Statehood
Protesters’ two primary demands are:
Ladakh’s statehood would transform it from a Union Territory without a legislature into a complete state.
extension of the Constitution’s Sixth Schedule provisions, which would give tribal and indigenous populations more protection, local self-governance, and autonomy. Over 90% of people living in Ladakh are Scheduled Tribes.
Since August 5, 2019, when the Indian government withdrew Article 370, split Jammu & Kashmir, and declared Ladakh a UT without a legislature, the political status of Ladakh has been a point of debate. At first, the reorganization was hailed by many in Leh, but worries about the absence of elected representation and the restricted local authorities soon surfaced.
Sonam Wangchuk’s Role & Appeal for Peace
After the violence broke out, Sonam Wangchuk, a well-known statehood activist and climate activist, called off his 15-day hunger strike. He had been one of the main proponents of statehood and inclusion in the Sixth Schedule.
Wangchuk canceled the fast and then pleaded for peace, telling the young people not to commit acts of violence, arson, or damage. He underlined that discussion is still the way forward and that violence might undermine the movement’s legitimacy.
What Happens Next
To discuss these demands, the Center has set a new round of negotiations with Ladakh representatives, including LAB and KDA, on October 6, 2025. However, given the urgency and escalating tensions, protesters want these meetings to be accelerated.
Administratively, the government has increased security in Leh and banned public gatherings and protests. Authorities have issued a warning that incendiary statements or gatherings could result in harsh punishment.
Why It Matters
There is more to the Leh protests than just a neighborhood uprising. They are a reflection of Ladakhis’ long-standing worries about environmental fragility, cultural deterioration, lack of political representation, and demands for the protection of tribal rights. Along with statehood, the Sixth Schedule call aims to guarantee protections and decentralization in both governance and indigenous people protection. Other regions with comparable requests may be influenced by the Center’s response, which favors discussion over crackdown.
