Recently, protests in Ladakh have intensified, with demonstrators demanding statehood and inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

• Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk ended his 15-day hunger strike after appealing to youth to maintain peace in the five-year-long movement for autonomy.

Background of the Issue 

• 2019 Reorganisation: Following the abrogation of Article 370, the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act divided the former state into two Union Territories — Jammu & Kashmir (with a legislature) and Ladakh (without a legislature).
• Initial Reaction: Unlike J&K, which witnessed unrest, Ladakh initially welcomed UT status, hoping for direct representation and greater autonomy from J&K.

Core Demands of the Ladakh Protest

• Statehood: Full statehood for Ladakh to restore Legislative Powers and  secure Self-Governance. 
• Sixth Schedule: Inclusion under the Sixth Schedule to protect tribal identity and rights.
  • Over 90% of Ladakh’s population belongs to Scheduled Tribes.

Employment: Establishment of a separate Public Service Commission to tackle rising unemployment.

• Representation:  At present Ladakh has only 1 Lok Sabha seat.
  • Demand for two Lok Sabha seats (Leh & Kargil separately) and one Rajya Sabha seat for greater voice at the Centre.

Drivers of the Protest

• Loss of Autonomy: reduced autonomy of the Hill Development Councils, the curtailment of decision-making powers under direct central administration.
  • Protesters argue existing Hill Development Councils are subordinate to the Lieutenant Governor and lack real autonomy.
• Environmental Stress: Fear of indiscriminate mining and industrialisation in ecologically fragile valleys.
• Border Security: Chinese presence along the LAC and loss of grazing lands for Pashmina shepherds.
• Democratic Deficit: UT status without legislature under direct central administration curtails local participation in governance.
• Job Shortage: the shortage of employment opportunities after delinking from J&K’s recruitment boards.
  • A government survey shows 26.5% of Ladakh graduates unemployed, the second-highest in India after Andaman & Nicobar (33%).

Broader Implications

• Federalism and Regional Aspirations: Highlights the challenge of balancing strategic security imperatives with democratic demands for autonomy.
• Unity of Leh and Kargil: Rare Buddhist–Muslim solidarity through LAB–KDA, emphasising the seriousness of demands.
• Internal Security: Escalation of peaceful movement into violence risks destabilisation in a strategic border region.

Government Response

• On Statehood: The Centre maintains Ladakh already gained UT status, which was its earlier demand.
• On Sixth Schedule: The government highlights existing safeguards under Hill Development Councils, though protesters view them as ineffective.
• Strategic Concerns:
• • Ladakh’s location on the contested LAC with China makes the Centre reluctant to devolve powers.
  • Statehood may complicate troop movements, infrastructure projects, and border security.

Way Forward

• Expanded Hill Council Powers: Strengthen the Leh and Kargil Hill Development Councils by granting greater legislative and financial autonomy.
• Job and Land Safeguards: Introduce special reservations and legal protections to secure tribal livelihoods and prevent land alienation.
• Incremental Autonomy: Explore models of enhanced Union Territory status, short of full statehood, similar to the Delhi model, to balance national security concerns with local aspirations.
• Dialogue and Trust-Building: Resume structured talks with Leh Apex Body (LAB) and Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), ensuring representation of both Leh and Kargil.
• Long-Term Compromise: The Centre may retain Ladakh as a UT for strategic reasons but offer concessions on governance, jobs, and land — a middle path between statehood and status quo.

Conclusion

The Ladakh Protest reflects local aspirations for autonomy, representation, and safeguards. Constructive dialogue and institutional reforms are crucial to maintain stability. 

DOWNLOAD PDF