Sonam Wangchuk – engineer, innovator, educator and activist – made famous when his pioneering school became the theme for the Hindi movie Three Idiots, turned an activist to press the Government of India to upgrade the Union territory of Ladakh to a state. He began a hunger strike when the talks with the representatives of the Union government failed. He broke his fast after 21 days on March 26 on the advice of his well-wishers. However, the Government of India, which split the former state of Jammu and Kashmir to create two Union territories – J&K and Ladakh – turned Nelson’s eye to it. No assurances, not even to examine the issue, were on offer.
Also read: ‘We Demand Statehood’: Shutdown in Ladakh as Protesters Call for Inclusion in Sixth Schedule
Ladakh
Ladakh became a part of Jammu and Kashmir when Dogra king Gulab Singh’s general Zorawar Singh annexed the region in 1834. On India’s independence, Ladakh naturally became part of the larger dispute of Jammu and Kashmir, which was invaded by the Pakistan Army masquerading as tribals. With the counter-offensive of the Indian army, Dras, Kargil and Leh were cleared of the infiltrators and Ladakh came under Indian control as part of Jammu and Kashmir. The status continued even after the reorganisation of states. However, the border dispute with China since 1949 that escalated into a war in 1962, Aksai Chin and Ladakh were lost, becoming a disputed territory.
Currently, Ladakh’s 59,146 sq. km are under the Indian possession. Gilgit-Baltistan, constituting 72,971 sq km, is under Pakistan’s occupation but is claimed by India as Ladakh’s territory. Siachen glacier, the world’s highest battlefield, is also in Ladakh. China controls 5,180 sq km under Trans-Karakoram Tract and 37,555 sq km under Aksai Chin, which for India are parts of Ladakh. Thus, Ladakh continues to be of strategic significance where India tackles two hostile neighbours.
The self-rule ferment
As part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh sent four members to the Legislative Assembly and one to the Lok Sabha. However, the people of the region felt discriminated against by the J&K Administration in matters of development, employment and the provision of essential human development facilities. This crystallised into the demands for greater participation in governance. The J&K government ceded the demands by creating The Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council separately for Leh (1995) and Kargil (2003) as part of the J&K government’s ‘healing touch policy’, meant to strengthen democratic and participatory governance.
Thousands of protesters rallied in Leh and Kargil districts of Ladakh on Saturday, February 3, in protest against the constitutional changes brought about by the reading down of Article 370. Photo: By Special Arrangement
However, the demand for statehood simmered in the region. Ladakh aspired for UT status while part of J&K, which was fulfilled after the abrogation of Article 370 on August 5, 2019 when the state was bifurcated into two UTs. J&K was promised statehood with a Legislative Assembly in due course, but no such promise was made to Ladakh, which has a population of 3,00,000. Even as a demoralised J&K awaits to be upgraded as a state, Ladakh, a region with a fragile ecosystem has been in ferment since February with four demands – statehood, inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian constitution, a separate public service commission and two parliamentary seats for Ladakh. Stated politically, Ladakh is asking for upgrading, special constitutional rights for development, public employment and increased representation in the Indian parliament.
Seething sentiments for sharing sovereignty
The questioning of the principles of sharing sovereignty has been in India’s political arena since the Government of India created 14 states and five Union territories following the recommendations of the Fazal Ali-led States Reorganisation Commission’s (1955) recommendation of 16 states and three UTs. ‘Administrative efficiency’ and ‘the coordination of economic development and welfare activities’ were the stated principles of the exercise.
Yet, iniquitous resource distribution amongst the regions constituting the states was flagged and the demand for greater autonomy and the demands for a separate state kept arising on a decadal basis since the reorganisation of states – some on just foundations, some pushed by politically motivated leaders on questions of identity and disparateness. Territorial reorganisations have also happened on political perception and expediency of the leader/party ruling the Centre. Currently, there are eight UTs, which may change if J&K is returned its statehood.
No wonder, the number of states has been more than doubled since 1956, a mini reorganization having taken place in each following decade – 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and in the new millennium. The second decade of the millennium witnessed the protest for Telangana, which was granted statehood in a huff by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in 2014 just before elections since the Congress thought that the new state would vote for them.
The demands for Gorkhaland, Vidarbha, Bundelkhand continue to remain dormant and the Northeast is always in ferment. The latent Gorkhaland was pushed into violence due to a power tussle between the Union government and West Bengal, ruled first by the Left Front and now by the TMC, as the local leadership and their lumpen support base was politically used. Vidarbha is as old a demand as the history of the reorganisation of states, but the powerful leaders of all the parties in Nagpur, the hub of Vidarbha, have downplayed it to keep themselves relevant in Maharashtra. Even though Manipur today is a case of a politically escalated violent stir, the Meitei-Kuki divide is an old one. However, autonomy at the local level continues to be at the mercy of states despite the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments.
The cries for discrimination and underdevelopment lose significance due to the interplay of national, state and regional politics. So, it cuts ice with the populace sometimes but not always. Significantly, social scientists do not establish a clear correlation between autonomy and development. The views are as apart as Mancur Olson arguing that democracy provides the best socio-political environment for economic development, Douglas Lummis holding that development undermines democratic ideals and Amartya Sen pointing out that the record of democracy in ensuring development in developing countries is mixed or even negative. Bruce Bueno De Mesquita has argued that the link between economic development and what is generally called liberal democracy is actually quite weak and may even be getting weaker.
The predicament of Ladakh
The predicament of Ladakh will be tied to India’s strategic considerations that will be overwhelming and the numbers that push it, an important consideration in democracy. Ladakh continued to be with J&K despite its then demands for UT status. The Congress, and later the 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 diverse India in the international forums. The NDA did not take the regions 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 it rightly thought that a dismembered J&K’s demand for the retention of the Article would be weaker.
Ladakh’s statehood demand would be placed in a similar category as that of the NCT Delhi, which has been given semi-statehood with a Legislative Assembly, a chief minister and restricted administrative and legislative domains. As the capital of India, neither the Congress, nor the BJP has so far considered Delhi a fit case for a state. Similarly, defence and security considerations will heavily weigh against the demands of Ladakh. Whether or not the Government of India develops a consensus involving the opposition parties and local stakeholders for some innovative power arrangement is to be seen.
Ajay K Mehra is a political scientist. He was Atal Bihari Vajpayee Senior Fellow, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi, 2019-21 and Principal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Evening College, Delhi University (2018).
