Uddhav Thackeray Condemns BJP Over Sonam Wangchuk’s Hospital Transfer, Says Government Should Burn to Ashes

On Sunday, Uddhav Thackeray, the veteran leader of Shiv Sena (UBT), turned his fury toward the Union government following the controversial transfer of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk from the Jantar Mantar protest site to Safdarjung Hospital. In a spontaneous address in Dadar, the 80‑year‑old chief declared, "What we see today is a blaze; this government ought to be reduced to ashes." He contrasted Wangchuk’s contributions—solar‑powered tents for troops in extreme cold—with what he described as the BJP’s “theft of donations, votes and the nation’s future.”

Thackeray didn’t stop at rhetoric. He accused the ruling party of being “cronies of industrialists,” and lamented the absence of any high‑level dialogue with the protester. "The Sangh once talked about dialogue with Pakistan; why can’t Modi’s government talk to Wangchuk?" he asked, invoking historic moments when leaders met dissenters, such as Anna Hazare’s hunger strike, to underline the current administration’s silence.

The senior leader also cast a skeptical eye on Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, suggesting that the minister’s stature was inflated by a loyalist network rather than genuine public service. "When Sonam’s father fasted, Indira Gandhi visited. When the British were forced to leave, the people stood united. We must be patriots, not blind devotees," Thackeray warned.

Joining his father, MLA Aaditya Thackeray condemned the move as an affront to democracy. He announced that young people from across Maharashtra had gathered in Mumbai to back Wangchuk and promised a similar surge of enthusiasm in Delhi’s upcoming march. “Our demand is simple: Pradhan must resign. The youth’s voice will not be silenced,” he told reporters.

Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court weighed in, noting that the decision to shift Wangchuk to a government hospital was not “arbitrary” and was taken to safeguard his health. The court declined to order his transfer to a private facility, concluding that his personal liberty had not been violated.

The episode has reignited a broader debate about how dissent is handled in the capital, with opposition figures accusing the centre of stifling protest, while the government maintains that the health of the activist was the primary concern.