Indija: Policija premjestila aktivistu Sonam Wangchuk u bolnicu na sudski nalog

Indian activist Sonam Wangchuk, 59, was forcibly removed from a protest site at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi on the 21st day of his hunger strike and transported to a government hospital on court orders. The move came amid growing tensions surrounding a planned demonstration targeting the Indian Parliament on July 20, aimed at pressing demands related to an entrance exam scandal affecting millions of students. The activist’s removal sparked immediate controversy, with his political allies accusing authorities of unlawful action, while the police maintained that the operation was conducted in accordance with judicial directives and medical advice. Wangchuk initiated his hunger strike on June 28 in support of students and youth activists affiliated with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), a youth-led political pressure group. By the time of his hospitalization, he had reportedly lost approximately 8.7 kilograms (19.1 pounds) and exhibited severe signs of weakness and muscle loss. His decision to continue the strike despite worsening health conditions drew attention from both supporters and critics. On the day of his removal, Wangchuk expressed his stance clearly, stating that his fast was a voluntary act and not a medical issue. The New Delhi deputy commissioner of police confirmed the transfer via a post on X, asserting that the move was based on the high court’s orders and expert medical recommendations. The police also noted that some protesters attempted to obstruct the process, leading to minor disturbances, though authorities emphasized that they acted with restraint. Following the incident, officials requested that protesters vacate the historic Jantar Mantar site. Abhijeet Dipke, founder of the CJP, strongly criticized the police actions, claiming that Wangchuk was taken to an undisclosed location against his will. A video shared by the CJP showed unidentified individuals in civilian clothes approaching Wangchuk’s platform, prompting a confrontation with supporters. Dipke, who was not physically present during the incident, alleged that he too was subjected to police harassment and detention. In response, Dipke announced an indefinite hunger strike, vowing continued resistance. He also escalated the protest demands, shifting focus from the Education Minister to the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. The Delhi High Court had earlier mandated that both the central and state governments monitor Wangchuk’s health and ensure timely medical care. This directive followed a petition seeking legal intervention, including the possibility of force-feeding the activist, referencing past instances where similar measures had been used to sustain protesters’ lives. However, the court did not explicitly endorse the idea of force-feeding. Political figures across the ideological spectrum voiced concerns over the handling of Wangchuk’s case. Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi of the Congress party, condemned the removal as an affront to democratic principles and non-violent protest. Other leaders echoed similar sentiments, highlighting the need for dialogue and transparency. Notably, neither Prime Minister Narendra Modi nor Union Home Minister Amit Shah issued public comments on the incident. Following Wangchuk’s hospitalization, the Delhi High Court denied a request from his wife, Gitanjali Angmo, to transfer him to a private facility. The court reaffirmed that the government hospital was the appropriate setting for his treatment, emphasizing that Wangchuk had not voluntarily opted for private care despite his declining health. A follow-up hearing was scheduled for July 24 to assess his condition further. Meanwhile, protests against proposed infrastructure developments continued elsewhere in India. In Madhya Pradesh, police dispersed a 15-day-old protest concerning river water transfer projects, detaining several activists. In Uttarakhand, public pressure led to the suspension of tree-cutting operations for a road expansion project in Dehradun. These incidents underscored the broader context of civil unrest and the challenges faced by local authorities in managing diverse forms of dissent. The CJP also raised concerns about potential infiltration of its protest by individuals aligned with the ruling BJP and Delhi Police. The group warned of disruptive elements attempting to incite conflict and urged participants to remain vigilant. Reports indicated increased police presence at the protest site, with additional resources deployed to manage the situation. Despite these developments, the CJP remained resolute in its commitment to the planned demonstration on July 20, insisting that the movement would proceed as intended.