Silence is not governance (letter on Sonam Wangchuk’s hunger strike)
Delhi High Court monitoring in Sonam Wangchuk’s hunger strike highlights the limits of judicial supervision when governance requires political engagement.
- Sonam Wangchuk’s indefinite hunger strike lasted 19 days, and his health had deteriorated during the protest.
A reader has criticised the governance response to Sonam Wangchuk’s 19-day indefinite hunger strike, saying that deteriorating health during a protest is a serious democratic failure. The letter says the Delhi High Court deserves credit for ordering regular medical monitoring, but argues that court-ordered health checks cannot replace sustained political engagement.
The central argument is that a democracy must listen to citizens and open dialogue when a protest escalates, rather than wait until medical intervention becomes necessary. The letter treats judicial monitoring as a limited safeguard and says governance must address the grievance itself.
UPSC may frame Sonam Wangchuk’s hunger strike around the quality of democratic governance when citizens resort to hunger strikes, the role of courts in safeguarding life and health, and the limits of judicial supervision in place of executive engagement. The issue also fits questions on peaceful protest, accountability, and the ethical duty of the state to respond before a situation becomes medically critical.
