Ladakh is currently in the spotlight, not due to China, but because it is facing internal unrest. However, the issues involved are misrepresented; the people’s concerns are primarily administrative rather than political. Activists, such as Sonam Wangchuk, may have exaggerated these concerns, attracting excessive attention to a relatively minor problem.
Ladakh’s political issues have traditionally been shaped by elite lama discontent with Dogra rule, a situation that has been aggravated by developments in Jammu and Kashmir since 1949. The first political movement in Ladakh was initiated after the 1931 Glancy Commission, resulting in the creation of the Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA) in 1934.
In 1949, the LBA sought governance under, or merger with, East Punjab from Maharaja Hari Singh and Jawaharlal Nehru, but was disregarded. Nehru subsequently permitted Sheikh Abdullah to include lama leader Kushok Bakula in the drafting of the J&K Constitution under Article 370. Bakula supported Ladakh’s development from the 1950s to the 1990s, fighting against discrimination and advocating for autonomy, which progressed from a “NEFA-type” administration to Union Territory status.
Distrust grew between Srinagar and Leh, fuelled by external influences and leading to communal tensions, particularly between Muslims and Buddhists. Ladakh sought support from Delhi to address feelings of marginalisation, but Srinagar’s responses were inconsistent. Additionally, the central government’s dealings with China have complicated Ladakh’s pursuit of autonomy.
Lamas loyal to the Dalai Lama opposed Abdullah’s land reforms. In 1952, Bakula sought exemptions for monasteries, warning that inaction could align Ladakh with Communist China. Joseph Korbel noted that Abdullah exploited fears of communism, emphasising the difficulties faced by Tibetans.
Evidently, reports from the State Commission highlighted significant discrimination in Ladakh, where Valley leaders exploited local sentiments, while Indian authorities neglected the existing tensions. Ladakh’s discontent ended when it became a Union Territory in October 2019, but the absence of legislative authority and protective provisions, like Article 35A, fell short of expectations, and the BJP’s decision to exclude local leaders from governance exacerbated public discontent. The violent protest in Leh on September 24 took the nation by surprise, considering the region’s historically peaceful Buddhist background.
Nevertheless, it is essential to recognise the historical importance of Ladakh as a Himalayan Kingdom. The people here have proficient abilities to manage their interests because of their historical interactions with the Chinese, the Tibetans, the Turks, the Kashmiris, the Mughals, and the Sikhs.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Qing Empire utilised intelligence and political strategies to engage with Ladakh and protect Tibetan interests. The Ladakhis skillfully navigated this landscape, maintaining a level of independence while aligning with Chinese interests to mitigate pressure from the Mongols and the Kashmiris, and to counter Tibet’s dominance. Despite formally pledging loyalty to Kashmir, they continued to enjoy beneficial trade relations with Tibet and Xinjiang.
It is said that the Sino-Tibetan authorities frequently bribed Ladakhi rulers to monitor Dzungar Mongols and Islamic forces threatening Tibet through the Aksai Chin corridor. In 1820, English explorer William Moorcroft uncovered an important dispatch from the Chinese Emperor, sealed with the imperial signet. Accompanied by lavish gifts for the King of Ladakh, the letter inquired about the military maneuvers of the Khodja of Kashgar.
The route to Khotan from Aksai Chin remained closed until the late 1800s, when British explorers opened the access route, ending restrictions on the Ladakhi Changpas collecting essential salt and using grazing lands.
Ladakh’s strategic importance in the Anglo-Russian Great Game was recognised, but it was Moorcroft who proposed a “treaty of allegiance” to protect British interests from Russian and Chinese influence and to leverage the Pashmina wool trade. Even Tsar Alexander I of Russia once aimed to strengthen ties with Ladakh by sending an envoy and planning a crucial trade route through Ferghana to Leh.
Ladakh’s natural barriers and local defenders, supported by skilled European or Indian officers, would thwart any military incursion. Alexander Cunningham noted that the Karakoram Mountains hindered Chinese ambitions in Ladakh and deterred Kashmir’s rulers, leading Ladakhi foreign policy to prioritise ties with Balti, Rudok, Yarkand, Kashmir, and Lhasa. In 1842, Gulab Singh gained rights over Ladakh’s Menser villages located near Mount Kailash, but the Ladakhis insisted that they pay tribute to Tibet (China), challenging British sovereignty and prompting a re-evaluation of Ladakh’s geopolitical role.
Kailash Mansarovar is important for Ladakh, but since the 1960s, India has allowed Tibetan influence to grow in the region, which benefits China and complicates New Delhi’s response. Yet, Ladakh’s importance is often overlooked, making it more vulnerable to threats from China and Pakistan, necessitating urgent attention.
The unrest in Ladakh and Nepal appears to be influenced by external forces aiming to destabilise India-China relations after Modi’s Tianjin visit, with potential disruptive groups exacerbating border tensions. Sonam Wangchuk should have considered the possibility of foreign manipulation in the protests.
There are concerns of potential collusion in promoting the Sixth Schedule to change governance in Ladakh based on tribal rights, aiming to replicate the situation in the northeast region for creating a sub-state within a state with characteristics of insurgency and a missionary agenda.
Various ethnic groups, including Kukis, Nagas, Manipuris, Nepalis, and Tibetans, already inhabit the vast area of Ladakh. The government needs to clearly explain why implementing the Sixth Schedule in Ladakh is impractical but it appears ill-prepared to manage the complexities of the region.
The writer is the President of the Ladakh International Centre, Leh
