Sunil Sharma
writetomlapadder@gmail.com
India’s federal structure, based on constitutional values and shared authority, has remained resilient despite immense diversity. However, the challenges to national integration are evolving. In the past, separatist movements often relied on visible cultural symbols and overt political mobilisation. Today, separatist intent is more subtle and frequently manifests through activism. Among these, environmental activism has become a prominent tool, at times blurring the line between legitimate ecological concerns and political agendas seeking greater autonomy.
Environmental advocacy is indispensable in a democracy, ensuring accountability and sustainability. Yet, problems arise when environmental arguments are framed to advance demands for special treatment or autonomy. In such cases, it becomes difficult to distinguish between genuine ecological concerns and political intentions. The Indian government now faces the challenge of differentiating legitimate environmental activism from movements that use ecological concerns as a pretext for separatism.
A striking example of this shift can be seen in the case of Sonam Wangchuk, an engineer and environmental activist from Ladakh. Widely admired for his contributions to education and climate adaptation, Wangchuk recently called for constitutional guarantees and special protections for Ladakh. His advocacy, though framed in terms of tribal rights and sustainable development, quickly transitioned into a political demand that echoed calls for autonomy seen in other regions of India. This demonstrates how grievances rooted in local issues often evolve into demands for autonomy or special privileges.
The government’s response, though criticised by some as excessive, reflects a broader reality: threats to national unity today arise less from physical confrontation and more from ideological, cultural, and legal strategies. Rights, environmental concerns, and cultural identity are increasingly used to contest integration, making subversion harder to detect and counter.
To manage these tensions, the Constitution provides important guidance. Article 246 empowers both Union and State legislatures to legislate on matters of national and state significance, including land, forests, and water, within their jurisdictions. Furthermore, Article 39(b), under the Directive Principles, directs the State to distribute resources for the “common good.” Together, these provisions suggest that while local communities are vital stakeholders, the ultimate responsibility for resource management rests with democratically elected governments.
India’s interdependence reinforces this principle. Energy generated in Himachal Pradesh may be consumed in Delhi. Urban food security relies on agricultural production from distant states. Military logistics often require access to ecologically sensitive areas. In such a context, unilateral obstruction of national initiatives under the guise of environmentalism can disrupt not only development but also strategic preparedness and constitutional order.
This does not mean local voices should be ignored. Processes like environmental impact assessments, participatory planning, and other consultative mechanisms-already mandated by Indian law-ensure that communities are heard. However, the State must retain preeminence in decision-making, as it bears constitutional responsibility to balance competing interests: environmental, economic, social, and national.
Another growing concern is the role of foreign-funded non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and international advocacy groups. While not all external support undermines India’s interests, there are numerous cases where foreign assistance has fueled dissent, particularly in protests against nuclear facilities and national infrastructure projects. In response, the government has tightened scrutiny of foreign funding, aiming to ensure that activism does not become a vehicle for disruption. Critics argue that these measures restrict free speech, but the government maintains that the goal is not to silence dissent, but to prevent its misuse as a political gambit against the constitutional order.
India’s federal government has been consistent in its approach to separatism, whether in Jammu and Kashmir, the Northeast, or newly sensitive regions like Ladakh. Engagement with civil society is encouraged, but only so long as it does not undermine national unity. Legal instruments such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act have been introduced to neutralise movements that exploit democratic freedoms while undermining democratic consensus.
At the same time, India has actively pursued sustainability initiatives such as the National Solar Mission, Namami Gange, and afforestation drives under CAMPA. These demonstrate that environmentalism and development are not mutually exclusive but can complement one another. The challenge lies in governance-ensuring that environmental goals are achieved without compromising progress, national security, or unity.
As India’s geopolitical significance grows, internal cohesion becomes more crucial. Ideological fragmentation-whether in the name of identity or ecology-weakens the State’s capacity to act decisively, especially in ecologically sensitive and strategically vital border regions. The case of Sonam Wangchuk’s arrest illustrates this tension. At first glance, it may appear to be a dispute involving a single activist. In reality, it reflects the State’s response to an evolving form of separatism-one that disguises itself in the language of global causes while potentially threatening the integrity of the republic.
India must remain a vibrant arena for activism, but not at the cost of national unity. The central challenge lies in drawing the line-clearly, lawfully, and unapologetically-between legitimate dissent and disguised separatism.
(The author is the Leader of the Opposition and a Member of the Legislative Assembly in Jammu and Kashmir)
The post Environmentalism and the of Separatist Intent appeared first on Daily Excelsior.