Sonam Wangchuk denies deal behind ending hunger strike.
Wangchuk said he ended his 26-day fast only after receiving written assurances, denying any deal and prioritising peaceful student protesters.
- Wangchuk said he ended his fast to prevent violence and a possible crackdown.
- He said his priority was protecting protesting students from legal action.
- He said he was treated like a prisoner after being moved to hospital.
- He said the Centre gave written assurances on no cases, parliamentary discussion, and possible compensation.
Sonam Wangchuk says he ended his 26-day hunger strike not because the movement is over, but because he feared the situation could turn violent. He says the written assurances from the Centre gave him enough reason to step back, but not enough reason to stop caring.
What comes through most clearly in his message is fear for the students. Wangchuk said he was watching the situation in Delhi and was reminded of the 2025 firing in Ladakh, which made him worry that a crackdown on protesters could happen again. That fear shaped his decision more than any political deal. He insisted that his priority was to protect students from violence and legal action, not to negotiate a personal win.
He also pushed back strongly against criticism that ending the fast in the presence of Union ministers meant he had compromised. His response was simple and human: if he had wanted a deal, he would not have stayed hungry for 26 days. He said he could have sat in comfort and negotiated instead of fasting in Delhi’s heat. That line matters because it shows how personally painful the fast had been.
Wangchuk’s account of being moved to Safdarjung Hospital adds another layer of tension. He said he was treated like a prisoner, with limited freedom of movement and little access to the outside world. Those claims, whether viewed as protest language or literal complaint, reveal how strained and suspicious the atmosphere around the hunger strike had become. Even after shifting to Medanta, he said delays and restrictions made the experience more difficult.
The Centre’s written assurance was the key turning point. Wangchuk said the government agreed to avoid cases against peaceful protesters, discuss exam reforms in Parliament, and consider compensation for families affected by alleged NEET-linked suicides. But he made clear that he would not end his fast until the no-case assurance was given in writing, not just spoken aloud. That insistence tells you how little trust remained.
There is also sadness in the way he described the moment his fast ended. He said he had hoped to stop in the presence of MPs, CJP supporters, and representatives from Ladakh, but many were not allowed to meet him. That left him with what he called the biggest sorrow in his heart. It is a small detail, but it makes the story feel less like a political headline and more like a difficult, lonely night.
At the same time, Wangchuk was careful not to weaken the larger movement. He said the demand for Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation would continue, and that the struggle had already grown beyond one person or one fast. In other words, he is stepping back from the hunger strike, not from the cause.
That is why his message feels so layered. It is about protest, yes, but also about fear, responsibility, and the fragile line between pressure and escalation. The movement may have changed shape, but it has not lost its anger or its purpose.