Ladakh: Is something brewing up?
Something is brewing up in Ladakh. Two senior leaders of Apex Body of Leh - Thuspstan Chhewang and Rigzin Zora suddenly decided to disassociate themselves from the High Powered Committee (HPC) that was engaged in the process of dialogue with Centre around the outstanding issues concerning Ladakh since the reorganisation of the region as Union Territory. Thupstan Chhewang, the Chairman of Apex Body of Leh, not only resigned from his position of Chairman of this Body but also from the HPC. In a separate move, Rigzin Zora, senior Congress leader, similarly resigned from the HPC and also the subcommittee that was scheduled to attend meeting with the officials of the home Ministry.
The High Powered Committee, chaired by Minister of State for Home Affairs Sh. Nityanand Rai was constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs in January 2023 with the purpose of addressing issues related to Ladakh, particularly those related to protecting the region’s unique culture; ensuring protection of land and employment for the people of Ladakh and other issues related to empowerment of Ladakh Autonomous Hill District Councils of Leh and Kargil. The formation of this Committee was necessitated in the background of the prevailing anxieties in Ladakh regarding political representation, land, jobs, culture, heritage, environment on the one hand and the demands raised by the two key representative bodies of Ladakh: the Apex Body of Leh and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), on the other.
The disassociation of these senior leaders, particularly Thupstan Chhewang is bound to create a leadership vacuum with implications not only for Apex Body of Leh but also for the whole dialogue process of Ladakh. Importance of Chhewang needs to be understood with reference to changed nature of Ladakhi identity politics and the strategy for negotiations after the reorganisation of Ladakh as the UT. Marking a break with the internally fractured and mutually exclusive Leh vs Kargil politics of the pre-2019 period, the new politics sought to bring the two sub-regions together for a combined fight for the interest of Ladakh as a whole. One may remember that till the formation of the UT of Ladakh in 2019, the two sub-regions of Leh and Kargil were pursuing different direction of politics. While Leh’s leadership demanded the UT status, the Kargil leadership was opposed to it. Political divergence between Leh and Kargil often led to irritations and tensions between the two sub-regions of Ladakh. Many a time such tensions also reflected the communally divisive tendencies. With Buddhist-Muslim binary overlapping the Leh-Kargil binary - there had evolved two mutually exclusive and conflicting identities within Ladakh - the Ladakhi Buddhist identity and Ladakhi Muslim identity This internal divergence was clearly reflected when the decision related to UT status was announced by the Centre. While Leh celebrated the decision, Kargil protested.
With the formation of the UT without a legislature and without constitutional guarantees for protection of its land and culture, the leadership of both the sub-regions realised the need to give a coordinated and joint fight for their demands. Steering their politics away from the internal conflict, the Leh based Apex Body and Kargil based KDA decided to come together to fight for Ladakh’s interest. It was in December 2020 that efforts started being made by the two organisations to come together on the common platform and work for a joint strategy for the fulfilment of their demands. A few leaders of Apex Body including Thupstan Chhewang and Chering Dorjay visited Kargil to engage KDA leaders Asgar Karbalie and Qamar Ali Akhoon. Though a full fledged consensus on the issues and strategies could not be developed in this meeting, it was agreed to continue the talk. By August 2021, the differences between the two bodies were sorted out and they came out with joint agenda of demands. This joint agenda now comprised the demand of full-fledged statehood for Ladakh, constitutional safeguards whether under 6th Schedule or under Article 371 of the Constitution, two Lok Sabha and one Rajya Sabha seat for Ladakh and immediate filling of government jobs vacancies pending since the establishment of UT. To wage the common struggle, it was decided to hold the dialogue with the Central government only through a joint committee representing whole of Ladakh.
Certainly, it was the matured leadership of Ladakh (both of Leh and Kargil) which took the great leap of overcoming the binary of Leh vs Kargil identity politics and shifting its nature to an inclusive Ladakhi identity politics. Thupstan Chhewang, as one of the senior most leader of Ladakh had a major role to play in this shift of strategy. Having been active in Ladakh’s politics for decades (twice a Member of Parliament; he was the first Chief Executive Counsellor of LAHDC, Leh and a prominent leader who had a role in formation Ladakh Union Territory Front), he had both the wisdom and authority needed to sustain the precarious unity of Leh and Kargil leadership.
It was the sheer fact of the unity between Leh and Kargil that Ladakhi leadership was able to resist till now any kind of policy decision that was contradictory to the goals defined by the Apex Body and the KDA. While changes were being introduced in the neighbouring Jammu and Kashmir - whether those related to domicile policy or the land policy or the like - no such policy could be introduced in Ladakh without the process of negotiation. Though their major demands including the Sixth Schedule Protection and Statehood for Ladakh - remain elusive, yet the leadership has been able to negotiate many decisions as per their choice. Their basic concerns related to recruitment and reservation have been largely addressed in various HPC meetings held so far. Of these, the most important being those related to 100% job reservation for locals in case of non-gazetted position and 95% in case of gazetted jobs -85% reservation mostly for ST and another 10% for Economically Weaker sections. (This leaves only 5% jobs for non-local domiciles.) They have also been able to get a language policy as per their demands. Most importantly, the Domicile policy has also been negotiated to the satisfaction of Ladakhis with a requirement of prospective fifteen years residency period in Ladakh.
It is in the light of the outstanding issues that have been raised by Leh and Kargil leadership that would be discussed in the forthcoming HPC meetings that the issue of leadership crisis in Apex body of Leh assumes importance. What is at stake is not only the precarious unity between Leh Apex body and the KDA but also the pressure that these two bodies were able to build on the Centre. It needs to be understood that the Ladakh’s leadership had continuously sustained its pressure on the Central government - by remaining active within Ladakh and by taking the issues out of Ladakh - through public protests not only in Leh and Kargil but also in Jammu and Delhi. The joint actions of LAB and KDA and their refusal to be engaged in isolation of each other - remained the strength of the leadership.
It is in this context that the decision of Chhewang and Zora to resign from HPC has raised concerns about the leadership vacuum in Apex Body and its implications for the ongoing dialogue process. The issue of leadership vacuum in LAB has been sought to be addressed by including Sonam Wangchuk, a well-known climate activist as HPC member as well as requesting Chhewang to reconsider his decision related to his resignation. It remains to be seen if Chhewang would reconsider his decision. Zora has meanwhile committed his support to the cause being pursued by the Apex Body. The question however remains : Would Ladakhi leadership be able to overcome this moment of crisis and sustain the momentum it has built for an inclusive Ladakhi identity politics?
The author is former Professor of Political Science, University of Jammu.
