why-does-the-stalemate-over-ladakh-s-demands-continue

In October 2019, when Ladakh was carved into a UT out of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir, its regional capital Leh took to the streets with drum rolls. To the extent that at the time, local BJP MP Jamyang Tsering Namgyal said that the region finally “got Independence from Kashmir.” 

 

The mainstream media ran the news during prime time, the hopes ran high as did the expectations. A large number of voters in the Buddhist-majority Himalayan region had reportedly been fatigued by the discrimination by Kashmir-based leadership. A new identity meant new beginnings. Then what went wrong? Ironically, now the people are out on the streets again. Protesting. 

 

For Ladakh, the joyride didn’t run long enough as the locals felt that the government’s decision to run the territory from Delhi did not factor in the nuanced issues and distinct identity of the region.

 

Concerns about the region's democratic marginalisation, lack of say in the infrastructural decisions, developmental projects and its militarization have been festering for a long time now. 

 

What do the people of Ladakh want? 

 

After more than three years of protest by locals and close to ten months of deliberations, the Ministry of Home Affairs constituted a committee to look into the issues of the Ladakh region. In December 2023,  in the first official meeting, the Centre’s committee and socio-political leaders from both Leh and Kargil came together on the table, including representatives from Apex Body Leh (ABL) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA). 

 

They put together their concerns, specifically demanding four things; namely Statehood for Ladakh, inclusion of Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, setting up of a separate public service commission for Ladakh and fourthly, two Parliamentary seats. The MHA agreed in theory to negotiate and look into the last two demands, but the ministry downright rejected the key demands of statehood and inclusion into the Sixth Schedule. Home Minister Amit Shah agreed to look into concerns like, “jobs, land, culture,” and offered to even extend Article-371 like protections but refused the demands for statehood and inclusion into the Sixth Schedule.  

Why does the Government say no? 

 

More importantly, what does the Sixth Schedule guarantee to the locals? After the repeal of Article 370, Ladakh has been constituted into a separate UT but one “without a separate legislature.” UTs like New Delhi and Pondicherry have their own separate Legislative Assemblies. The Sixth Schedule provides for the administration of tribal areas in the states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. Ever since the separation, organisations like ABL and KDA have been vocal about their demand for inclusion under the Sixth Schedule. 

 

Articles 371 and 371(A) provide for special provisions to give representation to religious and social minorities for them to have autonomy over their affairs without interference by state and central governments. However, the provisions under Article 371 are nothing like the widespread autonomy that the Sixth Schedule provides.

 

On March 6, hundreds of people gathered in Leh after the round of talks with the Centre resulted in a deadlock, making the Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk launch a 21-day fast unto death unless the locals’ demand for devolution of power and constitutional protections were not granted. In his interviews given to various media outlets during the following weeks, Wangchuk said the region’s people and leaders had lost political representation in the bureaucratic set-up of the Centre. As a result, they had little say in the matter. “I want to follow peaceful methods…so that our government and policymakers take notice of our pain and act.” 

Environmental concerns of the locals 

 

The region, located at an altitude of 5730 metres above sea level, is known for its picturesque beauty, snow-capped peaks, and lush grasslands and therefore, is ecologically sensitive unlike any other region in India. Its glacial lakes and glaciers are a major source of water for the region and among the very few frozen freshwater resources left in the world. Climate changes and increased tourist footfall have put pressure on the limited local resources. The residents in Leh and Kargil feel insecure and threatened by Delhi and fear the loss of their tribal identity. 

 

The ‘development’ that locals fear

 

It is not development per se, but unsustainable development, loss of identity and culture, and fear of being exploited and then sidelined that the local bodies and activists are concerned about. 

The convenience that development brings but the cost at which development is brought about is what Wangchuk has pointed out. “No one is interested in development without democracy,” he said, echoing concerns of many that Ladakh would be the next hot spot of industrial groups, the playground of the rich capitalists, without regard for the eco-sensitive nature of the region and identity of its people. “They are not interested in the well-being and future of our people and preservation of our culture,” said Wangchuk of the federally administered set-up. New laws passed allow outsiders to come and set up shop. The region, which is rich in borax, granite, limestone and marble, has all the potential to attract capitalists only interested in bottom lines and balance sheets. 

 

Then there are the complex issues of the environment and militarisation of the area. The locals have lost considerable and key pieces of land due to the roads, bridges and under-construction military infrastructure amid tensions with China. The government’s boost to tourism and the resultant unchecked unsustainable development has alarmed the locals. 

 

What next? What now? 

   

This year is not the first time protests have been breaking out. In January last year too, Wangchuk held a five-day fast to highlight how the unchecked mining and industrial development without any say of the locals pose a threat to the eco-sensitive region. Nine rounds of talks between the Centre and leaders and activists from Ladakh have failed. On April 13, Sonam Wangchuk announced that the march would be undertaken for sure, as for the dates, he said, “They will be announced very soon.” On April 7, the LAB had called for a Pashmina march “to highlight the plight of farmers” who had lost prime pasture land due to industrial activity, mining and Chinese encroachment but had called off the march after the authorities imposed prohibitory orders including Section 144 and curtailed the speed of the internet. 

 

It is time to debate and sort out the issue before it escalates. Several lawmakers and veteran army personnel have jumped into the national debate.  Major General Dr GD Bakshi has opined on the matter, “Ladakh is a hyper-sensitive state. In such a situation if there is such a state that people have come down to the streets and we have respected people like Sonam Wangchuk trying to say something, we must give them a patient hearing. Let us address the problem before the Chinese start taking advantage.” Food for thought before the next march and reason enough for the next round of talks.