Explainer: Why unrest continues to simmer in Ladakh

A Union Territory carved out of Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation of the state’s special status and its bifurcation into UTs in 2019, Ladakh has been on the boil over its demand for statehood and tribal status under the Sixth Schedule. On September 24, four civilians were killed when the police and paramilitary forces opened fire on protesters who turned violent and set the BJP office in Leh on fire. The administration launched a crackdown and detained climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, who was on a fast, under the National Security Act, accusing him of instigating the protests.

Bordering China and Pakistan, Ladakh has two districts: Leh and Kargil. While the UT covers a total area of over 60,000 square kilometres — much larger than J&K — it has limited population because of the difficult geographical conditions. As per the 2011 Census, the population numbered 2.74 lakh — 1.4 lakh in Muslim-majority Kargil district and 1.33 lakh in Buddhist-majority Leh.

Varying aspirations

Leh has always demanded a separate UT status for Ladakh. Kargil, in contrast, mostly saw its future aligned with J&K and wanted a divisional status within the ambit of the erstwhile state — like that of Kashmir and Jammu divisions.

The Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA), initially formed in 1934 before Partition, was at the forefront of the demand for UT status. The LBA organised several agitations but later scaled down its demand and agreed to setting up of a Hill Development Council on the pattern of Darjeeling.

The people of Leh believed that the “Kashmir-centric” political leadership had been discriminating against Ladakh with regard to political and financial powers.

In 1995, the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council came into being. While the LAHDC was established immediately, Kargil got a council only in 2003.

New demands

When the Centre announced UT status for Ladakh, there was jubilation in Leh and protests in Kargil. However, soon, the hope of fresh opportunities coming their way seemed to be evaporating, especially for the youth. As Leh faced the “bureaucratic roils” of the new arrangement, the demand for Ladakh’s inclusion under the Sixth Schedule gained momentum.

The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution contains provisions regarding the administration of tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. It allows local communities to have a significant say in how these regions are governed.

In September 2020, the People’s Movement for the Sixth Schedule for Ladakh began its campaign, and it later coalesced into the Leh Apex Body. In August 2021, the Leh Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) decided to start a joint struggle for statehood, the Sixth Schedule, a public service commission and separate parliamentary seats for Leh and Kargil.

Identity, political agency

The grant of UT status for Ladakh, without a legislature, came as a surprise for people. They felt it had diminished the powers of the already existing Hill Councils, and that they had been deprived of a political voice.

The people of Ladakh feared that demographic change would cost them their land and jobs and thus wanted some safeguards to preserve their identity. As a result, the people of Leh and Kargil joined hands to launch a stir demanding the Sixth Schedule, that would give them powers related to land and jobs, and statehood to run their own affairs. In other words, statehood for political agency and the Sixth Schedule to protect economic and cultural interests.

According to Sajjad Kargili of the KDA, after becoming a UT, Ladakh has become voiceless and disempowered. Policies, he claims, are imposed without consent of the people. “There are no safeguards for land, unlike when Article 370 and Article 35A were in place. For the last six years, not a single person from Ladakh has been recruited for gazetted posts and there is no public service commission.”

Centre’s response so far

After intense pressure, the Centre agreed to set up a high-powered committee led by Union Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai to initiate a dialogue with the people of Ladakh. The panel has seven members each from Leh and Kargil, besides the IB Director, Chief Secretary and the Chief Executive Councillors of LAHDC and Kargil council. There have been several rounds of dialogue but not much forward movement regarding the main demands. The next round is scheduled for October 6, but the protests and killing of civilians have cast a shadow over the talks.

Mood on the ground

A notion has taken grip that outsiders are dictating and insiders are being marginalised. The locals say they are not ready to give up their demands. For many, it is a question of ownership of their future.

Former ambassador and president of the Ladakh International Centre, Phunchok Stobdan, has emphasised the “urgent need” to address the concerns raised by the people. C Phuntsog, former Chief Secretary of J&K, cautions that the government should not delay addressing people’s concerns, particularly those of the youth. “Delhi needs to listen to the people,” he says.

According to Chering Dorjay Lakruk, co-chairman of the Leh Apex Body, “Our struggle will continue until the demands are met, even it if takes a long time.”