Version imprimableThe latest round of repression of leading activists of the Ladakh Apex Body (LAB)---putting them under house arrest when they sought to organize a peaceful protest march---shows once again the ugly face of the Modi government. This action was earlier preceded by the unjustified and condemnable detention of Sonam Wangchuk under the draconian National Security Act (NSA) ridiculously accusing him of conspiracy to overthrow the government.
Ladakh is close to 60,000 square kilometres in size but with a total population of around 3 lakhs. Some 90% are tribals, an ethnicity that cuts across the religious difference between mostly Buddhists in the Leh region and mostly Muslims in the even more mountainous region of Kargil. This ethnic similarity has overridden so far any religio-political tensions and the other main political body, the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) has stood with the LAB to put forward four common key demands. These are first, the call for separate statehood. The second demand is for the application of the Sixth Schedule that would provide for Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) having their own legislative, executive and judicial powers to enable safeguarding of tribal land, forests and cultural rights. These rights are enjoyed by other tribal areas in the northeastern states. Third, is the establishment of a full-fledged Public Service Commission that would prioritise gazetted jobs at all levels for the local youth and population. Fourth, is the demand for two Lok Sabha seats for Leh and Kargil respectively.
When Ladakh was part of J&K the sense of ethnic separateness meant that the annulment of Art. 370 in 2019 and granting Ladakh Union Territory (UT) status was extremely popular and welcomed. Over time, however, it became clear that this was in many ways a turn for the worse. As part of J&K, Ladakh had greater autonomy with its own revenue section, Divisional Commissioner and Inspector General of Police. Art. 35A, now abrogated, then gave special rights to locals regarding job recruitment and property acquisition.
Why is the Central government behaving this way?
One can point to three main reasons. First, being a border state next to both Pakistan and Chinese Tibet, New Delhi wants to maximize its political and military control especially after its 2020 setback vis-à-vis China in the Galwan Valley of Ladakh. This aim goes counter to the granting of more local powers and rights though it could be argued that giving such rights would enhance the loyalty of Ladakhis politically and militarily. But here comes the problem. Overall, Muslims are in a slight majority in the total population of Ladakh making it the second UT (after J&K) to have this demographic character. The second reason then is that Hindutva in the longer run, and even in the shorter term, wants to alter this by encouraging entry of non-Muslims into Ladakh. Accordingly, it is to be expected that New Delhi will do its best to weaken, indeed destroy, the existing unity and collaboration between Leh and Kargil by all means including promoting religion-based conflict and polarization. Furthermore---and this is the third reason---accepting the demands in toto would reinforce the principle of asymmetric federalism which is something that has long been an anathema to this Hindutva government. It has currently had to suffer this reality in the Christian majority Northeastern states but this asymmetry is not something it is happy about or wanting to extend. Rather, the aim is to eventually eradicate it.
Now even as we recognize the Centre’s ambitions and oppose its repression of Ladakh, what would a more just resolution that we should advocate? While respecting the right to political self-determination by all parts of the original J&K province (including the Pakistan occupied part) we can, if considered necessary or desirable, express our concerns or reservations regarding the four demands as they stand.
Our Stand
Regarding statehood, Ladakh has a population less than half of that of Daman, Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli (DDDNH) that is a UT. So this demand is unlikely to be accepted. While Sikkim with a population of over 7 lakhs has statehood, this reflects its very distinctive history. After British withdrawal its protectorate status was passed on to newly independent India which meant that while Sikkim had full internal autonomy, its foreign policy and defence would be under Indian control. In 1975 this autonomy was destroyed by an unjustified military takeover that then provided the sop of statehood. In the case of Ladakh, it is quite likely that LAB and KDA would settle for the compromise of remaining a UT but having its own legislative assembly like Puducherry which has a five times higher population.
Regarding the Sixth Schedule and its rights, this should be fully supported.Automatic word wrap
The same applies to the demand for a Public Service Commission of its own that prioritizes jobs for locals but does not completely exclude others where there is an absence of qualified personnel locally.
Finally, the demand for two Lok Sabha (LS) seats contrasts with the situation prevailing in the two other more populated UTs of DDDNH and Puducherry that have just one LS seat each. Should there be one seat allotted or one each for Leh and Kargil? A reasonable case can be made either way. Having one seat would push candidates for selection to try and speak for and represent the interests of the Ladakhis across religious differences helping thereby to prevent it from becoming a religious divide. On the other hand, a Central government that continues to remain in the control of Hindutva forces could find it more difficult to oppress the Muslim community if Kargil has separate representation. Perhaps better then, the second more pragmatic perspective than the first more ideal one. Forcible imposition of any final outcome by the Centre is never a just solution and must be forthrightly condemned.
[October 19, 2025]
