New Delhi : Climate activist and educator Sonam Wangchuk has explained why he softened his demand for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan while negotiating with the Centre to end his 26-day hunger strike.
Speaking on the PGX podcast hosted by Prakhar Gupta, Wangchuk said that by July 22, he no longer considered Pradhan’s resignation his immediate priority. His main concern had shifted to protecting students who had participated in the protests from criminal cases and other forms of legal harassment.
Wangchuk said he was also increasingly worried that continuing the confrontation could lead to violence spreading beyond Delhi.
His decision later became controversial among sections of the protesters because the resignation had been one of the central demands of the movement.
Why did Wangchuk change his priority?
Wangchuk said his thinking changed as the situation around the protest became more tense.
Initially, his demands included accountability through Pradhan’s resignation, compensation for affected students and a parliamentary discussion on reforms to the examination system. He later added a demand that peaceful protesters should not face FIRs or legal harassment.
By July 22, however, he said he began to believe that the resignation issue could be pursued by the wider movement even if he did not insist on it during his negotiations.
His immediate concern was different.
He wanted to make sure that students did not pay the price for participating in the agitation.
Wangchuk said he felt personally responsible for students who had joined the protests and wanted a clear assurance that they would not face criminal action.
One demand became non-negotiable
For Wangchuk, the crucial issue during the negotiations became protection from legal action.
He said government representatives initially offered only a verbal assurance that protesters would not face harassment.
He rejected that.
Wangchuk insisted that the assurance had to be given in writing, arguing that verbal promises would not provide sufficient protection later.
According to his account, the government eventually agreed to provide the written assurance around 11.30 pm on July 23.
For him, this was more important than securing an immediate commitment on the Education Minister’s resignation.
The shift did not mean he had abandoned the demand altogether. Rather, he chose to prioritise what he believed was the more urgent protection for students at that particular moment.
What was he afraid might happen?
Wangchuk also said the possibility of violence strongly influenced his decision.
He recalled seeing reports of a potentially violent buildup in Delhi on July 23, including heightened security around metro stations and the deployment of police and paramilitary personnel.
That reminded him of the violence that followed protests in Ladakh in September 2025.
Wangchuk feared that if the confrontation in Delhi continued and large numbers of people gathered, the situation could escalate dramatically.
He warned that if unrest spread to cities such as Mumbai and Lucknow, the consequences could become much more serious.
His concern was therefore not simply about the political future of one minister.
It was about preventing a protest over examination reforms from turning into a much wider confrontation.
The Ladakh experience shaped his decision
Wangchuk’s experience during the 2025 unrest in Ladakh was an important factor in his thinking.
He said he remained concerned about the consequences of prolonged confrontation because he had witnessed what he described as serious violence during the earlier unrest.
That experience made him particularly sensitive to the possibility of a similar situation developing in Delhi.
He therefore believed that ending his hunger strike and appealing for peace could help reduce tensions once the government had provided the assurances he wanted.
His explanation also helps clarify why he did not view the resignation demand as the only measure of success.
For him, preventing further violence and protecting students were immediate responsibilities.
Why did he insist on a written promise?
The demand for a written assurance came from Wangchuk’s concern about what could happen after the protest ended.
He said more than 80 cases connected to the 2025 Ladakh unrest were still pending a year later and claimed that even people who had tried to prevent violence had faced legal action.
That experience made him unwilling to rely solely on verbal assurances.
During the negotiations, he therefore insisted that the government formally record its commitment.
His position was straightforward: if protesters were to be protected from FIRs and legal harassment, the promise had to be documented.
Did Wangchuk abandon the resignation demand?
No.
Wangchuk said the decision to soften the demand during negotiations did not mean that he opposed the continued demand for Pradhan’s resignation.
After his hunger strike ended, the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) continued to seek Pradhan’s resignation. Wangchuk said he supported that decision.
He also argued that resignation represented accountability for what had happened, even though changing the minister alone would not necessarily transform India’s education system.
The distinction is important.
Wangchuk temporarily chose not to make the resignation a condition for ending his hunger strike, but he did not declare the demand irrelevant.
Why did he believe resignation could come later?
Wangchuk said he believed the resignation issue could resolve itself later because the government was already facing pressure over the controversy.
He felt that continuing to insist on the demand at that particular stage could prevent agreement on the more immediate issue of protecting protesters.
His calculation was therefore strategic rather than a complete withdrawal.
He essentially chose to secure something he considered urgent and achievable — written protection for students — while allowing the broader movement to continue pursuing political accountability.
He rejected claims of a deal with the Centre
Wangchuk has also faced criticism over the circumstances in which he ended his hunger strike.
Some questioned whether his decision indicated that he had reached a compromise with the government.
He rejected that suggestion.
Wangchuk argued that if he had wanted to make a deal, he could have negotiated without undertaking a prolonged hunger strike. He said he remained on hunger strike for 26 days and insisted on a written commitment before agreeing to end it.
He also said that the urgency of the situation in Delhi influenced the timing of his decision.
His fear was that waiting longer could result in violence that would be much more difficult to control.
The protest continued after his fast ended
Wangchuk’s decision did not bring the wider agitation to an end.
The CJP continued to campaign over examination-related issues and accountability, including the demand for Pradhan’s resignation. The movement has also continued to attract public attention, with Wangchuk and other public figures expressing support for student concerns.
The Supreme Court has separately dealt with issues arising from the protests, including questions surrounding FIRs against demonstrators and the protection of peaceful protesters.
The Delhi Police has now approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash 13 FIRs linked to the protests while proposing a fresh investigation involving people it says have serious criminal antecedents.
What Wangchuk’s decision really shows
Wangchuk’s explanation presents his decision as one of priorities rather than surrender.
He had entered the negotiations seeking accountability, compensation and reforms. But as the possibility of violence increased, he decided that protecting students from criminal cases was more urgent than forcing an immediate commitment on the minister’s resignation.
Whether that was the right political strategy will remain a matter of debate.
For Wangchuk, however, the choice was clear: a minister’s resignation could be demanded later, but the safety and legal protection of protesting students could not be postponed.
His explanation also highlights a larger question surrounding public protests — whether achieving every original demand is always more important than preventing violence and protecting those who participate peacefully.
For now, the resignation demand remains alive within the wider movement, while Wangchuk maintains that his decision during the negotiations was guided primarily by the need to protect students and prevent the situation from escalating.