Opinion Ladakh protest is an opportunity for New Delhi to strengthen Indian federalism and democracy

In August 2019, the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir and the creation of Ladakh as a Union Territory without a legislature sparked a wave of celebration in Leh. Ladakhis, now relieved from Srinagar’s control, started yearning for direct engagement with New Delhi, with hope for a better share in redistribution, and to achieve an acknowledgement of Ladakh’s distinctive culture and identity.

However, within months, the initial optimism gave way to a sense of unease. Ladakhis found themselves lacking influence over their own governance due to the absence of a legislative body. The two Autonomous Hill Development Councils in Leh and Kargil found themselves constrained by a lack of substantial powers. The issues of employment, land entitlements, and the protection of local cultural heritage remained an urgent concern. In 2020, civil society groups in Leh took a stand, advocating for their inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution to secure vital tribal and ecological protections.

The narrative in Kargil, however, unfolded differently. The Kargil residents expressed scepticism from the outset, perceiving the UT status as a compromise to their political autonomy. For many years, Leh and Kargil have expressed contrasting perspectives, shaped by their distinct religious and political identities. But the ongoing movement has united both the Leh Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance, signalling a new turn in Ladakh’s politics.

Notably, the growing alienation and distrust among the youth did not emerge overnight; it is the culmination of a series of ineffective negotiations between the leadership of Ladakh and the High-Power Committee (HPC) established by the Ministry of Home Affairs, chaired by Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai. These discussions have been going on since 2023, with the next round of talks scheduled for October 6.

Against this backdrop, the protest is also a strong call for political empowerment. The people of Ladakh are calling for a legislative body or, at the very least, more robust local institutions that truly represent their aspirations. The immediate outcome of the movement is a notable upliftment of grassroots leadership. As civil society leaders, student activists, and local councillors, they are filling the political void left by the lack of a functioning legislature.

One must not forget that the delicate ecosystem of Ladakh is under siege from rampant tourism, mining activities, and militarisation, leading to widespread concern that its cultural identity may be compromised in the absence of constitutional safeguards. The protest highlights a deep trust deficit, stemming from the belief that New Delhi is not giving sufficient attention to their concerns, that promises of progress have been overstated, and that genuine representation has been neglected.

However, it involves certain potential challenges as it may intensify feelings of disconnection among young people, particularly in an area already characterised by physical isolation and financial limitations. In the absence of formal avenues for voicing concerns, demonstrations could escalate, further fuelling separatist narratives. Moreover, the strategic positioning of Ladakh, adjacent to China’s Tibet Autonomous Region, indicates that any political turmoil carries significant consequences for national security.

The current situation is a crucial test for the leadership in Ladakh as well as New Delhi. Successfully manoeuvring through this landscape demands a keen awareness of political nuances, a forward-thinking perspective, and a willingness to find common ground. New Delhi’s initial move should undoubtedly be to engage in dialogue involving organised, clear, and trustworthy representatives from both Leh and Kargil. Furthermore, the government must evaluate the need for institutional safeguards thoughtfully. Expanding the protections of the Sixth Schedule or creating a unique framework for Ladakh would provide much-needed assurance to the people that their land and culture remain safeguarded from commercialisation. Third, it is essential to transfer powers to the Hill Councils, guaranteeing that governance is not merely a matter of bureaucratic decree from Delhi. Development must be approached with a focus on sustainability and inclusivity. Ladakh’s delicate ecosystem is ill-equipped to withstand the pressures of extensive industrial development. It is imperative that our policies focus on green energy initiatives, promote responsible tourism practices, and safeguard the livelihoods of indigenous communities.

On the other hand, the Ladakhi leadership faces the crucial task of fostering unity and promoting constructive engagement. Protests may serve to highlight urgent issues, yet effective negotiation hinges on articulating demands within a framework that is both constitutional and practical. The Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance should steer clear of sectarian divisions, as their legitimacy depends on their ability to represent the entirety of Ladakh. A clear roadmap is essential, one that harmonises the desire for statehood or autonomy with the pressing developmental needs at hand.

The protests in Ladakh represent not a threat, but rather a significant opportunity. New Delhi must show that democracy in India transcends mere parliamentary numbers; it is fundamentally about listening to the voices from even the most distant corners of the nation. This moment is a pivotal opportunity to forge a new federal agreement that safeguards Ladakh’s distinct identity while simultaneously reinforcing its connection to the Indian Union.

Sharif teaches at GDC Kargil, University of Ladakh. Singh is a professor, Central University of Haryana