What Ladakh asks for exactly?
What is Ladakh demanding to feel satisfied in the post–Union Territory status conferred on it since 2019? Conferred, because the people were given the UT status at a time when they had subdued their agitation for this.
The UT status for Ladakh was not a unilateral decision of the government of India. It had responded to the demand that Buddhists in the region had been making for over decades. They had not qualified the contours and content of the kind of UT they wanted. Now whatever they are asking for is founded on their basic demand. And, the Centre is weighing its options.
The answer to Ladakh’s demands may be simple, but not that simple. There is a tendency to oversimplify the answers – statehood, sixth schedule, absolute rights on land and jobs. There are beautiful logics, as it happens in such cases where demands are woven into a narrative of struggle for realization of aspirations.
These demands deserve attention for the simple reason that these have come from the people who stood by the nation in all hours of crisis since 1947 without asking anything in return. Their patriotic credentials are above board. Despite living in the remote region, they maintained deep connect with the Indian nation.
They want this reality to be acknowledged and admired.
Post–UT status, Ladakh’s villages continued to face the problems with which they wee struggling against before that.
There are many ways the Centre can win over the people of the entire Ladakh region – be it Kargil or Leh. All it has to do is to come up with a plan. Very little scope is left for any complacency after the gory incident of September 24. It is equally applicable to the people of Ladakh and their leaders. They need to understand that they too will have to do something to create conditions for the Centre to respond positively.
Centre has taken few concrete steps in decentralizing powers. It is going to create five additional districts, alongside continuing with the dialogue that it has been hosting with Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance.
The real empowerment and solution will come only when the decentralization process percolates to all the villages in the region, touch lives of villagers. These efforts at micro and macro level can provide it with many answers to the issues agitating Ladakh.
A rapid migration is taking place. Villages are getting emptied. This search for opportunities by the rural youth has crowded cities. Already sparsely populated villages cannot survive without young and able-bodied population. The crises of lack of facilities have got complicated with the diminishing resources.
It is a security risk too, especially in the border areas. On the other side of LAC, Chinese troops have settled their villagers to the frontline giving them absolute access to waters and pastures.
The rural migration has flooded the city of Leh, creating other set of problems, of housing and jobs, intensifying urban-rural concerns and competitions The tensions are escalating as to who has the first right to jobs.
The talks between the Centre and Ladakh leadership must go on, but, in the meantime, Delhi should undertake an in-depth study of conditions of villages.
For example, Changthang – the power house of Patina wool – has fallen on bad days. The nomads have lost access to most of the pastures. Chinese troops have created hurdles for them.
Pashmina goats are on verge of extinction. These kind of diminishing resources are common place everywhere. The Centre should activate resource-rejuvenating actions.
A comprehensive policy, involving locals can lead to solution of many of these issues. The vibrant villages programme, launched by Ministry of Home Affairs for the border villages, is a work in progress. More needs to be done. It is a key.
For decades Ladakh Buddhists agitated for the UT status in the belief that it would prove to be a panacea for all their problems; there were no takers among the Muslim community in Kargil district. The Buddhists and Muslims saw the life and the governance through different prisms. Buddhists felt that they were getting marginalized by the Kashmir-centric governments in Srinagar. They spotlighted their differences on the religious, cultural grounds.
Kargil Muslims were happy with the status quo. They feared Buddhist domination, and identified more with Kashmir and felt safe in the arrangement.
In 1995, when Leh Buddhists agreed to have a Hill Development Council as an arrangement to move on to the UT, Kargil Muslim leadership said, no. They saw Hill Council as something that will distance them from Kashmir.
In 1995, the state of Jammu and Kashmir (Ladakh was an inseparable part of it) was under President’s rule. Gen. (retired) K V Krishna Rao was the Governor – a military man but a democrat to the core. Had he been not there, perhaps J&K would have stayed under President’s rule far beyond 1996. The elections that year changed the mood and the landscape .
It was Mufti Mohammad Saed’s government in 2002 that persuaded Kargil leadership to have their hill council. Chief Minister played a key role in convincing the people of Kargil about the benefits of having Hill Council.
In a way, honest and sincere working of the Hill Council in Leh had evolved itself as a role model for development.
This bit of history is necessary to understand the critical dimensions of the region and how its demography is placed. Ladakh Buddhists are quite possessive about their land. They would not sell even a single inch of land to Jammu Hindus, despite their close bond with them. That attitude is still there.
On August 5- 6, 2019, after the abrogation of Article 370 and Reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir - the emergence of two UTs, Leh Buddhists did celebrate with drum beat and bursting of fire crackers, but on the very first day itself, they felt the absence of political institutions and guarantees of land and jobs.
Centre has its view point, and that is based on reality and thesis that infrastructural development, and investment from the country’s industry and business houses will enrich the region. The development is welcome. But they have their concerns too.
That explains their demand for statehood and Sixth Schedule.
Centre can explore various options: It can accept few demands, but Delhi has reservations and hesitancy in doing what the Ladakh leadership is asking for.
It is apprehensive that grant of statehood to Ladakh will have its direct bearing on Kashmir. Hypothetically, even if it agrees in principle to grant statehood to Ladakh, it will have no reason to delay the statehood for J&K. In the current context, Delhi doesn’t think that its promises obligate it to grant statehood to J&K. Therefore, the caveat of ‘appropriate time.’
It wants UT of Ladakh to stay as UT because for its own strategic requirements in the border area. It has strategic compulsions - China’s military standoff in Ladakh that lasted for more than four years has made it to move cautiously. But creating resources and opportunities in villages should not be a matter of caution – it can help it create trust and remove all the misunderstandings and misgivings. The villages hold the key.
