Editorial: Ladakh’s legitimate concerns
Any dilly-dallying by the government may not only worsen the situation but also trigger feelings of alienation among people
India cannot afford to allow the unrest in Ladakh to spiral out of control and snowball into a Gen-Z-led Nepal-type crisis. The Centre must recognise the urgency of the task to restore peace and tranquillity in the Himalayan region and make all-out efforts to address the legitimate concerns of the local people, particularly the youth who are increasingly frustrated over the lack of opportunities. By blaming climate activist Sonam Wangchuk and the opposition Congress for the recent outbreak of violence, the government is missing the larger point. It can no longer bury its head in the sand. Instead, it must take all stakeholders into confidence to find a lasting solution. It must be borne in mind that India has two hostile neighbours that are always ready to fish in troubled waters. With no legislature and limited powers for local bodies, Ladakh’s current governance framework fails to meet public expectations. For the last several years, Ladakhis, led by local civic bodies, have been taking out peaceful marches and going on hunger strikes demanding greater constitutional safeguards. They want the power to elect a local government. The Centre had fuelled the hopes of Ladakhis for statehood during the parliamentary elections. Any dilly-dallying by the government may not only worsen the situation but also trigger feelings of alienation among people. Wangchuk, the educator, has led five hunger strikes in the last three years, demanding constitutional protections for Ladakh. He is also the most well-known face of the protests in Ladakh, having a wider reach due to his past sustainability innovations.
The major demands of the protesters are statehood for Ladakh, its inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which grants autonomy to tribal areas, reservation in jobs for locals, and greater political representation. The Ladakh protests have been championed by two major civil society coalitions — the Leh Apex Body (LAB), representing Buddhist-majority Leh, and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), representing Muslim-majority Kargil. The shutdown called by the youth wing of LAB recently turned violent in Leh, which included the burning of the office of the BJP and vandalising the headquarters of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC). One of the key issues has been the reduced powers of the LAHDCs for Leh and Kargil. These councils, each comprising 26 elected members, traditionally exercised legislative and financial authority. Under the new UT framework, their role remains ambiguous, leading to growing discontent over political disempowerment. The Centre has blamed Wangchuk, among others, for instigating violence and also hinted at the involvement of foreign elements. Since Ladakh is a sensitive region from the perspective of national security, it is all the more important that the people of the region are taken into confidence, even while troublemakers are brought under control. The legitimate aspirations of the people must be addressed without compromising India’s security requirements.
