Ladakh and the Autonomy Conundrum

The Union government finally took a welcome and long overdue step to resolve the issues of a restive Ladakh. A team led by minister of state for home affairs Nityanand Ray met three representatives from Ladakh – representatives of the Apex Body, Leh (ABL) and Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) – and environmental activist Sonam Wangchuk (charged under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, he was incarcerated in Jodhpur jail for six months) on May 22, 2026.

The negotiations between the sparsely populated cold desert of India and the representatives of the Union government to discuss Ladakh’s demand for statehood and the Sixth Schedule status was significant considering the fact that low revenue situation of the Union Territory was earlier cited as the reason for not granting it statehood.

While the negotiations on May 22 in New Delhi have been described as a ‘positive step’ and the MHA and the Ladakh team are optimistic, KDA co-chairman Sajjad Kargili stated on May 24 that no final agreement had been reached with the MHA.

In his post on X, Kargili  said, ‘Negotiations are a continuous process, and discussions are still underway. As of now, no final agreement or concrete outcome has been reached. We had shared out draft proposals demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule status, and the Government has not responded with certain suggestions. They are expected to come up with a formal draft before the next meeting.’

Understanding Ladakh and its demand

A high altitude cold desert spread over 59,000² kilometres, Ladakh is little known across the country. Except for the fact that in the 1962 war, India lost 38,000² kilometres of Aksai Chin. This beautiful component of the erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) since it was conquered by Dogra king Gulab Singh’s general Zorawar Singh in 1834 and integrated into the state in 1846 remains an enigma. In 1947 it became part of India. China claimed Ladakh soon after it annexed Tibet in 1950. 38,000² kilometres of the territory still remains under China’s control.

As an integral part of the Jammu and Kashmir state, Ladakh was governed under Article 370, which was read down in August 2019 by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Union government. Ladakh was governed by the constitution of the state and provisions of the Indian constitution as applicable to J&K. It was represented with four seats in the state’s Legislative Assembly. It was bound by the legislations of the legislature and of the Indian Parliament. Following the repeal of Article 370, and its conversion to a Union Territory, it is represented by a lone MP in Lok Sabha and has no Rajya Sabha seat. Little wonder that even after becoming a UT, Ladakh is restive for a representative government and more substantive voice in New Delhi.

Ferment in the region brought a 30-member Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (LAHDC) to Ladakh in 1995; and a similar body to Kargil in 2003. The Councils now exist in name and remain dormant. Following the reading down of Article 370, they have lost their relevance. No wonder, the both Ladakh and Kargil regions have been agitating for statehood ever since the creation of these bodies and the grant of the Sixth Schedule protection.

Environmental activist Sonam Wangchuk’s prolonged agitation for Ladakh’s statehood and constitutional safeguards under the Sixth Schedule, the protection of indigenous land and cultural rights did not go well with the Union government. Consequently, he was arrested for allegedly inciting violent protests in Leh and was incarcerated for 170 days.

The restructuring of states and UTs since independence

The Ladakhis' demands for a representative government must be viewed in the context of unfolding of India’s autonomy conundrum. The nascent Indian democracy in 1947 simultaneously needed unity and coherence in the country’s internal map. Thus, India’s restructuring into fourteen states and six Union Territories by the States Reogranisation Commission chaired by Justice Fazal Ali from thirteen centrally governed provinces and 552 princely states in 1955, could not be the final.

In less than a decade, demands for a fresh look began to emerge, citing iniquitous resource distribution amongst the regions, some on linguistic or cultural basis kept arising on a decadal basis. The reorganisation of India’s north-east has led to the creation of Nagaland, Manipur, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh between 1963 and 1972. Political perception and expediency of the leader/party ruling the Centre have many times led to territorial reorganisation.

No wonder, the number of states has been more than doubled since 1956. Currently, there are 28 states and eight UTs. Mini reorganisations have taken place in each decade – 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and in the new millennium. We have witnessed the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh leading to the creation of Telangana in 2014. Some of the stirs have been violent. Now dormant, the violent agitation for Gorkhaland separating the Darjeeling district from West Bengal had shaken the Union government. The demands for Vidarbha and Bundelkhand are dormant, but the feelings among the people for separation on the logic of both self-rule and underdevelopment are strong. Even though Manipur today is a case of politically escalated violent stir, the Meiti-Kuki-Naga divide in the state is an old one, which the Narendra Modi government has failed to resolve.

The interplay of national, state and regional politics drown the cries of discrimination and underdevelopment. The local populace sometimes are swayed by these many times, but not always. Significantly, a clear correlation between autonomy and development could not be established by social scientists.

Mancur Olson has argued that democracy provides the best socio-political environment for economic development. On the other hand, Douglas Lummis has argued that development undermines democratic ideals. Amartya Sen has pointed out that democracy has not always ensured development in developing countries. For Bruce Bueno De Mesquita the link between economic development and ‘liberal democracy’ is actually weak and is getting weaker.

The predicament of Ladakh

Even though the Modi government has not yet linked the predicament of Ladakh to strategic considerations of the country, and we can hope that current negotiation will lead to a mutually acceptable solution it is an important consideration that can be flaunted whenever convenient. Ladakh remained with J&K for a long time despite its demands for UT status. But currently the demand for statehood, which is being sidelined due to its inability to raise sufficient revenue – which could be the case with several states – could remain a strong consideration for a long time.

The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) did not give ears to its gripe of discrimination because it considered that Ladakh in J&K added to its legitimate political stance of a diverse state being part of a plural India. The BJP did not take the region's call into consideration first because its focus on J&K was Article 370-centric. And later, because it thought that separating it from the state while repealing the Article will make a dismembered J&K’s demand for the retention of the Article weaker. The Modi government had done precisely that

The Modi government would perhaps place Ladakh’s statehood demand in similar category as that of the National Capital Territory (NCT) Delhi. Delhi with a Legislative Assembly, a chief minister and restricted administrative and legislative domains has been given semi-statehood. As the capital of India, neither the Congress, nor the BJP ever considered Delhi a fit case for a state. Similarly, defence and security considerations will heavily weigh against the statehood demand of Ladakh. Whether or not the Government of India develops a consensus involving the opposition parties and local stakeholder for some innovative power arrangement is to be seen.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.