Growing sense of drift in Ladakh

THE mood in Ladakh seems to be changing over three years after it was conferred with the status of Union Territory. It is seeking much more in the form of a tribal status and protection under the Sixth Schedule. Ladakh being an advanced society and a relatively well-integrated part of the country, such a demand raised by the Ladakhi civil society baffles many. A crisis has stirred up due to several reasons.

The current confusion has less to do with the government’s negative intent and more to do with lack of clarity.

Firstly, the UT of Ladakh came as an upshot of the abrogation of Article 370, and not through a gradual, directional political process. While Ladakhis’ demand for UT status is old (predating even the Telangana Movement), nobody expected it to come so suddenly in 2019. While the Shias of Kargil rejected the new arrangement, the Buddhists, too, soon understood that a UT without legislature would be meaningless.

Secondly, they feared that it would lead to the influx of outsiders that would, in turn, change the region’s demography, identity and protection of land and jobs, etc. The initial euphoria has turned into despair.

Thirdly, the UT structure meant undermining the powers of pre-existing two local Hill Councils. The powers got shifted to the Lt Governor (L-G) and his apparatus. Therefore, the elected council members felt disempowered. This resulted in incongruity, and people started feeling alienated. Even the senior local BJP leadership quit the party. The loss of power led to the Shias of Kargil and the Buddhists of Leh, who are otherwise not known for projecting a united face, to come together to share their anxiety.

Fourthly, the Centre had no clear strategy to shape the UT formation. The bureaucratic structure created there was not backed by political mechanisms for people to air their grievances. The 2019 J&K Act, that underlined a provision for the L-G to be assisted by the political adviser(s), has been evaded.

Fifthly, the crisis is a derivative of poor understanding of the region. The Centre lacked the expertise to deal with Ladakh having a complex ethnic, political, security, and border dimension. It hasn’t either created even an expert group to formulate policy recommendations. It neither tried to dispel the lingering political discontent nor did it build an alternative narrative.

Sixthly, UT is still in the infancy stage. It is a work in progress that will take time to function fully. But the current crisis is a case of political failure to manage public perception.

Seventhly, the Centre probably feels that Ladakh’s longstanding demand has been fulfilled, so why tread the same weary protectionist path?

The stalemate between the Centre and Ladakh continues. The government may be faced with technical and legal hurdles to provide Sixth Schedule status to an area falling outside the Northeast. For the BJP, turning the clock back to the pre-2019 position would cause a backlash, especially from its own constituencies, which had demanded the revocation of Articles 370 and 35 A.

As talks with the MHA face an impasse, the outcome is not preordained. In 2019, I was part of the Consultative Committee constituted by the Hill Council where the BJP leadership mooted the idea of the Sixth Schedule, while I was in favour of adopting the Himachal Pradesh Amended Act of 1968 and the Land Act of 1972. I expected the committee to seek a more urbane framework rather than a Bodoland-type legal status for Ladakh.

While Ladakh does require a special consideration to safeguard its identity, any misguided notion to bring it under customary tribal law will have negative consequences. A better panacea is a framework that would be commensurate with Ladakh’s historical profile as a Western Himalayan Kingdom, its vital strategic location, and as the only territorial Buddhist region of the country. A prudent policy would be to protect Ladakh under the ambit of preserving the Himalayan heritage — its people, culture, environment, and security.

However, the Sixth Schedule as the best arrangement is already being set in the popular mind. Ladakhi demands are in conflict with the BJP’s ideology of ‘one nation, one law’ based on the principle of equality that it espouses.

Ladakhis were integrated with India emotionally and politically since the times of the Mughal period. It was Aurangzeb who protected Ladakh from the Sino-Tibetan invasions in 1682. Ladakh’s association with Hindustan is 300-400 years old. Historically, the idea of Ladakh extended from Saswaat (Dardistan) to Kailash Mansarovar. There is a growing sense of drift now. Any mishandling will subdue the spirit of integration among the otherwise patriotic people of Ladakh.

Ladakh has become vulnerable since the demise of its tallest leader, Kushok Bakula, in 2003. It has now become a playground for myriad invisible suitors and actors to test their agenda. Sadly, for decades, the Centre has been allowing Ladakhi profile to be colour-washed through external influence. It is facing problems within and from outside. Consequently, the mood among people has been changing. On social media, people are expressing uncomfortable thoughts. More and more dissent and schismatic expressions are coming to the fore.

Externally, the UT status seems to have miffed China. It has started spinning a new narrative of Ladakh being historically a part of Tibet.

The current confusion has less to do with the government’s negative intent and more to do with lack of clarity. One hopes that the formation of new structures does not militate or weaken the process of integration. A national commission is urgently needed to review the issue. An amicable way is to establish a Ladakh UT Advisory Council with elected members from Kargil and Leh, backed by law that will support the L-G. The council can enact laws and have a voice in governance and development with Sixth Schedule-like features that give autonomy.