Potential wrongdoers may be asked to sign a bond by the executive magistrate to ensure good behaviour. With various nuances, about possible breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity, this is the essence of Sections 107 and 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These are easy to weaponise and are now being used against Sonam Wangchuk, the Magsaysay award-winning environmentalist from Ladakh, who went on a peaceful fast to draw the Centre’s attention to the rapid melting of glaciers in his Union Territory. Building for industry and tourism is one big reason for the impending ecological disaster — only the government can correct that. Mr Wangchuk’s fast has come against the background of a wider movement in Ladakh, in which the Buddhist and Muslim sides, Leh and Kargil, are together for the first time. They are demanding for their new UT — deprived of special status since the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019 — protection for land, jobs, resources and ecology as well as statehood and consideration for some autonomy under the Sixth Schedule. Evidently, this context has turned Mr Wangchuk into a potential violator of peace in the State’s perception. Perhaps the bond is exemplary, perhaps punitive, that is immaterial. What is clear is that it is a frank restraint on freedom of expression and on movement too, according to its specified conditions.

The bond is a weapon intended for pre-emptive control of known criminals or troublemakers, but an intolerant government can use it against anyone it decides might protest or dissent in the future. Its use against Mr Wangchuk shows how smoothly the government has appropriated all silencing tools present in law. The sweeping arrests and house confinements of leaders and politicians in Jammu and Kashmir before its special status was rescinded were followed by the promise of freedom on condition of signing bonds that silenced them. The use of the bond suggests that potential political opposition and someone who fasts to save an environment being destroyed by government-sponsored ‘development’ need to be muffled, unlike known troublemakers poised to cause unrest and violence. Mr Wangchuk’s bond is a message to Ladakhis that their demands have displeased the Centre. The upending of democratic values and use of coercion are not new; Mr Wangchuk’s case shows that incongruity or disproportion does not matter.