From an important trade route (till 1960) to a tourists’ delight (since 1979) to a long-cherished Union Territory (in 2019), today Ladakh is a platform for political slugfest. The strategically located UT of Ladakh, a beautiful place inhabited by beautiful people, witnessed last month violence, arson and deaths which was totally avoidable.
The history
The people of Ladakh had been raising the demand for a territory separate from J&K since 1930s. The first formal protest against the dominance of Kashmiris was witnessed in 1964 and, later, a mass agitation for a separate Union Territory (UT) took place in 1980. At the core of the agitation was discriminatory treatment meted out to the people and the territory of Ladakh at the hands of governments that ruled J&K. The year 2019 saw two UTs being created. J&K with an assembly and Ladakh without one. The move was welcomed by all in Ladakh. Presently, the UT of Ladakh is headed by a Lieutenant Governor. For various functional areas of governance, two Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (LAHDC), one each for Leh and Kargil are there which consist of 30 elected members each.
Understanding the issues.
Besides the problems inherent in managing a hilly UT like Ladakh bordering a LOC and a LAC, de-linking from J&K brought its own set of issues. In its earlier avatar, Ladakh drew from opportunities and resources in the areas of infrastructure, business, tourism and employment in the un-divided J&K. There is no gainsaying that there were biases and lack of equity in sharing opportunities and resources with Ladakh in the undivided J&K. But Ladakh was still somewhat cushioned. As an independent geographic and administrative entity, the challenges before the UT are many. Without doubt, the same need to be discussed, debated and agreed upon by all stakeholders. Let’s put the key demands of the activists in perspective i.e., full statehood, inclusion in the Sixth Schedule, representation in Rajya Sabha, greater representation in Lok Sabha, Public Service Commission (PSC), land and job-security.
Full statehood.
This means Ladakh also having a legislative assembly of its own. The arguments in favor of full statehood are that it fosters accountability, involves wider representation and reduces the democratic-deficit through self-governance. Presently there are eight UTs in India, including Ladakh, but only three have their own legislative assemblies. Inventorying the population estimates for 2023 for the UTs that have their own assemblies, Puducherry (16.46 lakhs), Delhi (2.13 crore) and J&K (1.36 crore) figure far above the estimates for Ladakh.
Ladakh has seven districts and a population of three lakhs. If one considers the lowest population-to-MLA ratio of the three UTs that have assemblies, it comes to about 50,000 per MLA. Going by the ratio, an assembly in Ladakh will have, say, six or seven elected members. Contrast this with the current structure wherein there are a total of sixty elected representatives in the two LAHDCs. Evidently, the issue is not wider representation or democratic-deficit as the current arrangement is far more representative than an assembly. At the core, the problem is devolution of power. The important question is if the LAHDCs have adequate power to decide on the issues concerning the people and the geographies they represent. Believing the activists, they don’t. The UT is currently headed by a Lieutenant Governor who is assisted by the bureaucracy. At the risk of unintended generalization, it’s well known that bureaucracy has a huge preoccupation with controls. Like a dog in the manger. At times of their own free volition but more often at the prompt of their political masters. The Central Govt. needs to ensure devolution of power to the LAHDCs comprehensively.
Having said as above, does it make any economic sense to have an assembly for Ladakh and add assembly-related expenses to the UT’s overall spend. Ladakh is heavily dependent on the Central Govt. for financial resources for its operating expenses as well as developmental work. Also, one needs to be heedful that the other four UTs which were established over 50 years back and have (but for Lakshadweep) much bigger populations, may have similar aspirations.
Inclusion in the Sixth Schedule.
On the face of it, it is a reasonable (but self-harming) demand. The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India provides a framework for tribal self-governance via recognition of customary laws & practices, safeguarding tribal resources, prohibiting transfer of land to non-tribals and to promote cultural & social identity of tribals. This is done through Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) in the districts which have tribal population in majority. Presently the Sixth Schedule includes Assam (3 ADCs out of 35 districts), Meghalaya (3 ADCs out of 12 districts), Mizoram (3 ADCs out of 11 districts) and Tripura (1 ADC out of 8 districts).
But Ladakh is unique. With 97% tribal population, practically the entire UT is tribal. By extension, all seven districts shall have to have ADCs if Ladakh is included in the Sixth Schedule. One wonders how practical the scenario would be. Surviving on the central grant (Rs. 6,000 crores in 2024-25), Ladakh needs to find ways and means to generate respectable revenues from within. To that end, businesses will need to be promoted. But such businesses may find the ADCs-based governance at cross purposes due to prohibition on transfer of land. Is the UT ready for this. Having said that, amendments in the prescribed framework shall be required if Ladakh is to be included in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which will be a long-drawn affair.
Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha.
Owing to the prevailing system of indirect elections, only the UTs having assemblies of their own (Delhi, J&K and Puducherry) can have representation in the Rajya Sabha. This is anomalous. If the objective underlying the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution was to have the UTs too represented in the Rajya Sabha, the method of indirect elections should have been tweaked to accommodate the UTs without assemblies. As things stand presently, the remaining 5 UTs, including Ladakh, cannot have any representation in the Rajya Sabha. The Govt. of India will need to amend the provisions of the Fourth Schedule. In the interim, the Central Govt. could consider inducting Rajya Sabha members from the unrepresented UTs from the nominations-quota, assuming that there is room there. This can only be a stop-gap arrangement.
The Constitution mandates that the allocation of seats in the Lok Sabha should be based on the population of each state so that the ratio of seats-to-population is, to the extent possible, equal across all states and UTs. The objective is to ensure that each person’s vote carries roughly the same heft, irrespective of the state or UT she / he lives in. The lowest population-to-Lok Sabha seats ratio among the UTs (excluding Lakshadweep) is 2.92 lakhs population to one Lok Sabha seat. Given the ratio, there is no argument for Ladakh (population 3 lakhs) to have another Lok Sabha seat, in addition to the one it already has. Unless, of course, the Central Govt. decides to have a re-look at the principle of near similar ratio of population-to-seats.
Land, job-security and Public Service Commission.
The issue of protection of land ownership of Ladakhis predominantly depends upon how do Ladakhis themselves envision their financial future as. Do they want to be totally dependent on the Central Govt. or achieve financial self-sufficiency to a respectable extent. It would be easy to prohibit transfer of ownership of land to a non-domicile individual. But businesses today require land-ownership. Inclusion of all seven districts in the Sixth Schedule will be a major disincentive for businesses as there will be a total prohibition on transfer of land ownership. The issue of transfer of land to businesses on case-to-case basis needs to be factored in if Ladakh doesn’t want to be always at the mercy of the Central Govt. for funds.
Presently 85% of posts in UT are reserved for those domiciled in Ladakh. The domicile status has also been clearly defined to avoid any ambiguity. One believes that the remaining 15% open to non-domiciles shall ensure that people with the skills and the experience not residing within Ladakhis come in and contribute to development of the UT.
Coming to the Public Service Commission (PSC), one is not sure as to why the issue forms part of the agenda. Across the country, the PSCs are tasked to screen candidates (through exams and interviews) for appointment to various services / posts. As the demographics specific to Ladakh are not available, the national data is relied upon here to further the discussion. Excluding the age groups of 0-18 years & above 60 years (totalling 45%) and those gainfully engaged in agriculture & allied sector (41%), one is left with an employable universe of 14% (0.42 lakhs). Countrywide, it is estimated that the government jobs account for about 2-3% of total jobs. For argument’s sake let’s assume this figure at 5% for Ladakh for it being the newest UT. How wise and financially viable would it be for Ladakh to establish a PSC for a candidates-universe of 42,000 people for 2,100 job openings. Wouldn’t it be better to seek outsourcing-linkages with the neighbouring J&K or Himachal Pradesh to that end.
Promising the un-promissable.
The activists claim that they were promised addressal of all their demands at the time of formation of the UT and also during subsequent general elections. One is sure that electoral politics must have taken precedence over prudence if that was actually the case. Though not a done thing in politics, the activists should name the names who made the promises, particularly on the issues of full statehood, inclusion in the Sixth Schedule and representation in the Lok / Rajya Sabhas. Let them collect corroborative material (speeches, interviews, media bites, videos, party literature etc.) against those who made these promises, hold them accountable and morally obligate them to resign their positions. Those who led Ladakhis up the garden path should have, at the least, unequivocally qualified the promises as they involve reference to both houses of parliament to seek amendments to various provisions of the Constitution. These promises have profound, country-wide implications. The other bigger and older UTs may have similar aspirations, and no UT can be taken up on a standalone basis.
Pragmatically speaking.
The country takes pride in the role of Ladakhis in assisting the armed forces in guarding the borders in high altitudes during the conflicts with hostile neighbouring countries. It is also to be acknowledged that being a border state and having a predominantly tribal population, the UT needs protection of its key interests. The demands of activists are well-intentioned but all have to be mindful of the constitutional framework within which everyone has to work.
- The issues of land-protection, job-security, PSC and devolution of power comprehensively to the elected bodies are the lowest-hanging fruits and need to be addressed immediately.
- Having an assembly is not a practical proposition.
- Representation in Rajya Sabha needs to be ensured. A stop-gap arrangement can be explored till the Constitution is amended.
- The demand for an enhanced representation in the Lok Sabha has no merit as the decision shall have a bearing on the larger principle underlying the population-to-seats ratio and will impact other states and UTs.
- Inclusion in the Sixth Schedule is outside the realm of practicality. But the apprehensions relating to recognition of customary laws & practices, safeguarding tribal resources, prohibiting transfer of land to non-tribals and to promote cultural & social identity of tribals can be adequately addressed through comprehensive empowerment of LAHDCs.
Beware. Wangchuk is an anarchist.
There is a High-Powered Committee (HPC) which is ceased of all issues relating to Ladakh. The HPC consists of representatives of the Central Govt., UT Govt., Member of Lok Sabha from Ladakh, LHADCs, Leh Apex Body (LAB) and Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA). One may have nothing to write home about the progress achieved by the HPC so far but the fact remains that the resolution to issues will come through discussions only. Not through violence, arson and killings.
Coming to the recent violent incident, one gets a sense that there is more than what meets the eyes. Sonam Wangchuck went on a hunger strike on 10-September-2025. On 20-September-2025, the next meeting of the HPC was fixed for 6-October-2025. Days into the fast, the health of some of the activists started deteriorating. But instead of deferring / halting the fast to avoid more people falling ill, his associates went about town insisting on preponement of the meeting. How very considerate of them of the falling health of the fasting activists. Whilst on the subject, why did Wangchuk end the fast a few days later on 23-September-2025 (after unfortunate death of two activists). Had he achieved the objectives underlying the fast prompting him to end the same. Or it finally dawned on him that his shenanigans could lead to more deaths. With these unfortunate developments in the background, one had expected Wangchuck to counsel all to wait just for another fortnight for the meeting. But that was not to be. This is where one gets suspicious of his intentions. On 24-September-2025 the activists marched through the town, raising slogans in support of their demands and indulged in violence which saw four dead, ninety injured, vehicles torched, and buildings vandalized. One hopes and prays that Wangchuk’s Machiavellian ways do not permanently vitiate the environment for resolution of legitimate demands of Ladakhis.
He may be the God’s gift to mankind but Wangchuck, like Arvind Kejriwal, is an anarchist. Kejriwal raised the bogey of corruption in politics to ride the gravy-train of politics. Wangchuck appears to have violence in his repertoire. Prior to his hunger strike he provocatively drew parallels with agitations by youth in Bangladesh and Nepal in his speeches. Apparently, he, for self-aggrandizement, thinks that he can misuse the power of youth as a weapon to extract solutions through sheer physicality, not discussions. Have no illusions, Wangchuck is a blackmailer. He openly threatened that the Chinese wouldn’t be stopped from crossing the LAC and entering India next time if the demands are not met. If Wangchuck believes that the present dispensation is not serious about the demands, he is free to take recourse to all lawful means and build a case with the civil-society, media and judiciary. Within and outside Ladakh. But the instigators of violence must face the laws of the land. If he is alleged to have indulged in banking malpractices or has violated FCRA or has done some mischief as regards land allocated to him or has dubious Pakistani / Bangladeshi connections, he needs to be investigated into without any hesitation. If the apologists call this a vendetta, so be it. No one is above the law.