From innovator to conspirator: How TV News twisted Sonam Wangchuk’s legacy, Ladakh protests

Ladakh is in turmoil. But primetime newsrooms have rewritten the story – tailored to your TV screens.

Famed climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, the inspiration behind the hit film 3 Idiots, has been swiftly recast by some news anchors as everything from a puppet master of violence to a secret exporter of Nepalese-style revolutions.

Wanchuk was detained on Friday under the National Security Act just two days after violent protests erupted in Leh. Internet services were suspended, curfews were imposed, and dozens of residents, including Wangchuk’s supporters, were rounded up. 

But what started as a hunger strike demanding Ladakh’s statehood and Sixth Schedule status, was quickly packaged as “foreign-funded” uprisings and “monetised dissent” by news anchors. 

Across News18, Zee News, Times Now Navbharat, DD News, and India TV, the coverage followed a familiar playbook: Frame the protest as foreign-funded, paint dissenters as anti-national, ignore legitimate demands, and deflect blame from the state.

Here’s how the news got rewritten.

1. From climate activist to instigator

When the streets of Leh filled with protesters demanding full statehood and Sixth Schedule protections, Indian TV news didn’t see a democratic movement; they saw a threat. Across channels like Zee News, Times Now Navbharat, India TV, and DD News, the core of the Ladakh agitation was rebranded from civic assertion to national sedition. Anchors fixated not on the demands of the protestors, but on who they thought was pulling the strings.

Wangchuk, once hailed as a Gandhian and climate crusader, was swiftly recast as an instigator, and even a mastermind of violent unrest. 

On Times Now Navbharat, Sushant Sinha, on his show News Ki Pathshala, claimed Wangchuk’s hunger strike and public speeches were not peaceful appeals but coded calls for uprising: “Unke anshan mein do logon ki tabiyat bigdi aur unhein aspataal le jaaya gaya. Yahi se shaantipurn pradarshan hinsak ho gaya aur Leh mein aag lagi.” (“During his hunger strike, two people fell ill and were taken to the hospital. From that point onward, the peaceful protest turned violent and fires broke out in Leh.”)

Rahul Sinha, in his show DNA on Zee News, claimed that Sonam Wangchuk was deliberately invoking movements like Nepal’s Gen Z protests and the Arab Spring to ignite similar unrest in Ladakh: “Sonam Wangchuk par seedha aarop hai ki woh Nepal ke Gen Z aandolan ki tarah Leh mein hinsa bhadkaana chahte the. Saath hi kaha gaya ki woh Leh mein Arab Spring style se pradarshan bhadkaana chahte the.” (Sonam Wangchuk has been directly accused of trying to incite violence in Leh in the style of Nepal’s Gen Z movement. It is also alleged that he wanted to spark protests in Leh modeled on the Arab Spring.)

Sinha also added that these references were not coincidental or rhetorical, but part of a calculated effort to mislead and provoke the region’s youth into violent confrontation. 

Meanwhile, India TV’s Rajat Sharma, on his show Aaj Ki Baat, cited the Home Ministry’s statement to argue that Wangchuk’s words had directly incited violence.

On DD News, Sudhir Chaudhary, during his Decode show, questioned Wangchuk’s public image, describing it as “PR aur marketing,” and hinted that his fame as the inspiration behind Three Idiots might obscure other ambitions. Chaudhary suggested that beneath his Gandhian persona could lie a more calculated influence on youth, framing him less as a hero and more as a figure whose intentions deserved scrutiny. Chaudhary said: “Woh aksar bhookh hartaal par baithkar apne aap ko ek Gandhivaadi sabit karne ki koshish karte hain..Lekin is sabke peeche, woh Ladakh ke yuvaon mein asantosh paida karke unke man mein krodh ke beej daal kar sarkar ke khilaf vidroh karna chahte hain.” (He often sits on hunger strikes to project himself as a Gandhian…But behind all this, he seeks to instill anger in Ladakhi youth, planting seeds of dissent against the government.)

2. Blaming Nepal: Foreign protestors, foreign hand

Channels like Zee News and News18 leaned heavily into the “Nepal connection”. The trigger? Reports that a handful of Nepali citizens were among the injured and detained during the Leh protests. That was all it took for primetime to run with theories of infiltration and export.

Zee News’ Rahul Sinha declared that “Leh Nepal ke bagal mein nahi hai… Kathmandu se flight pakadni padti hai” (Leh is not next to Nepal, the distance between the two is over 1,400 kilometers. People don’t just casually travel from Nepal to Leh. One would have to take a flight from Kathmandu to reach here), suggesting Nepali nationals couldn’t be there coincidentally. They called it an “outsourced protest,” suggesting Leh had become the next stop for Nepal’s ‘Gen Z’ uprising. Rahul Sinha even suggested the protests may have been "planted", linking Nepali presence with premeditated violence.

Tickers on Zee read:

“Ladakh Hinsa ke peeche..Nepal ki Gen Z hai.”

(Nepal’s Gen Z is behind the Ladakh violence)

“Andoolan ki aarh..hinsa via nepal!”

“The protest’s allegation…violence via Nepal!”)

Were displayed on Rahul Sinha’s DNA primetime show on Zee News.

News18’s Aman Chopra took it further, declaring: “Ladakh ke log aisa kar hi nahi sakte..” invoking the region’s otherwise peaceful past to argue that the violence must have been imported. The implication? The people of Ladakh were too docile to revolt, so foreigners must have done it for them. Both Rahul Sinha and Aman Chopra shifted the blame to Nepalis, saying that “more than 20 Nepali citizens are alleged to have participated.”

This framing served a dual purpose:

• Delegitimising the protesters by implying they were puppets of foreign elements.

• Justifying the state’s crackdown under national security grounds, including Wangchuk’s arrest under the National Security Act.

Yet, what this coverage left out was the context of how more than 20,000 Nepalese migrant labourers work in Ladakh, mostly in house and road construction.

3. Monetised dissent: FCRA smoke, little fire

TV coverage of the Leh protests latched onto a well-worn playbook: follow the money, even if the trail is speculative. Across News18, Times Now Navbharat, DD News, Zee News, and India TV, protests were framed less as a political movement and more as a monetised operation with Wangchuk accused of diverting foreign funds, violating FCRA norms, and running a “NGO empire” cloaked in climate activism.

The allegations were layered for maximum effect. Wangchuk’s organisations: HIAL, SECMOL, and Sheshyan Innovations were said to have received foreign donations without declaring bank accounts, violating the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). Several anchors cited figures like Rs 1.5 crore allegedly received without registration, or Rs 5 crore “diverted” across accounts from 2021 to 2024. On DD News, Chaudhary claimed Wangchuk’s 19 personal and institutional accounts, 12 of them “undeclared.” 

On Times Now Navbharat, Sinha added an international touch, pointing to Swedish contributions and “unverified” transfers.

The implication was heavy: not only was Wangchuk running an unregistered financial network, but this network was the financial fuel behind youth mobilisation and street protests.

Yet across multiple bulletins, the coverage fell short on two fronts: context and proof. There was little discussion on whether these amounts were illegal or uncommon for registered organisations, whether they were actually spent on protests, or whether the FCRA violations (if any) were technical, procedural, or deliberate. The narrative jumped from income tax notices and ED probes to violent arson on the streets of Leh, with little connective tissue.

India TV’s Rahul Sinha said: “Wangchuk ne license milne se pehle videshon se chanda liya tha aur videshon se mile paise ko divert bhi kiya gaya” (Wangchuk received foreign donations even before his NGO’s FCRA license was granted, and the funds received from abroad were allegedly diverted)

4. From protest to planned violence

Across channels, the Ladakh protests were stripped of spontaneity and urgency; instead, they were cast as part of a premeditated, militant playbook. News anchors turned civic anger into a law-and-order crisis, implying the violence wasn’t born from state neglect but from strategy, scripts, and stones placed in advance.

On News18, Aman Chopra suggested the protests were not organic but evidence of a larger plot. He called it a “suniyojit saazish.” (well-organised conspiracy) 

On Zee News, Rahul Sinha framed the protest not as escalation, but as evidence of planning. He claimed stones were allegedly planted before the protests began and declared that protestors had targeted national symbols, including the national emblem. The narrative was clear: these weren’t protestors, they were saboteurs. 

Sinha gave the stones a lot of screen time, making them look huge and dangerous. The way they showed it made it seem like someone had planned to collect these stones to hurt people (“pehle se planted tareeke se itne paththar ikattha kiye gaye the”)

Times Now Navbharat labelled Wangchuk’s speeches as “bhadkaau bhashan,” and held him personally responsible for turning a hunger strike into a riot. His reference to a “janmat sangrah Kashmir style mein” (Sonam Wangchuk has also demanded a public consultation in Ladakh “Kashmir style”),  a call for public consultation, was given a separatist spin. The segment concluded that his arrest under the NSA was a necessary step to prevent further unrest.

On DD News, Wangchuk’s NSA detention was called a “bada kadam,” not as a crackdown on dissent, but as a heroic act of national protection. Wangchuk’s actions were not questioned for intent or legitimacy, they were simply assumed to be dangerous. The state wasn’t overreacting; it was, according to Sudhir Chaudhary, finally restoring order.

India TV offered the softest variation but still suggested that Wangchuk’s statements had “bhadka diya bheed ka gussa.”

5. Tsepag and manufactured conspiracy

Stanzin Tsepag, Congress councillor from Leh, was quickly cast as a central villain in the Ladakh protest narrative. On Sushant Sinha’s show onTimes Now Navbharat, Tsepag’s name was invoked. The channel aired visuals of their reporter knocking on his locked door, suggesting he was absconding. Wangchuk, they said, not only supported him but shielded him.News18 India’s Aman Chopra used Tsepag to tie the Congress directly to the violence.

However, Alt News fact-checked these claims by reviewing Tsepag’s Facebook photos and additional footage from the protests. Comparing facial features, they found that the man in the viral image is not Tsepag, who himself denied any involvement and announced legal action against those spreading misinformation. Leh’s senior superintendent of police also confirmed that the man in the footage was not Tsepag.

6. Development as deflection

Rather than address Ladakh’s core demands for statehood, constitutional safeguards, and protection under the Sixth Schedule, TV channels sought a familiar shield: government schemes. The protests were reframed not as a cry for rights, but as ingratitude in the face of infrastructure and welfare.

On Times Now Navbharat, Sinha repeatedly emphasised that the Modi government had “delivered” for Ladakh. He listed new tunnels, improved tourism, tribal reservation hikes, and cultural recognition. “Leh mein already itna kaam ho raha hai… aap aag lagayenge toh sawal toh uthenge,” flipping the protest on its head and implying that development cancels dissent.

Even India TV’s Rajat Sharma echoed this logic, presenting a checklist of state actions: ST reservations increased from 45 percent to 84 percent, 1,800 job vacancies filled, women’s reservations in local councils, Bhoti and Purgi recognised as official languages.

Meanwhile, coverage on channels like DD News and Zee didn’t question why the Sixth Schedule was promised and never delivered. They didn’t mention how the Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance had been demanding meaningful dialogue for years.

By turning development into a defensive weapon, TV news shifted the narrative from what people of Ladakh were asking for – rights, voice, identity – to what the government had already given. It was a bait-and-switch. Civic demands were buried under cement mixers. 

Complaining about the media is easy. Why not do something to make it better? Support independent media and subscribe to Newslaundry today.