Mentor’s Comment

The debate on Ladakh’s statehood is not merely about administrative restructuring, it is about the soul of Indian federalism. It combines questions of representation, tribal identity, border security, and constitutional safeguards. This issue is now a case study in balancing national interests with local aspirations.

Introduction

Ladakh, separated from Jammu & Kashmir in 2019 and designated a Union Territory (UT), was expected to gain autonomy and focused development. Instead, it has witnessed deepening resentment. The recent violence in Leh (September 24, 2025), which left four dead and led to the arrest of climate activist Sonam Wangchuck under the NSA, highlights the widening trust deficit. Civil society platforms like the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) demand statehood, inclusion under the Sixth Schedule, a Public Service Commission, and separate Lok Sabha representation.

Why in the News?

This is the first major violent episode in Ladakh since its conversion to a UT, bringing the region’s discontent into national focus. While the Centre insists that measures like reservations and recruitment drives are underway, locals argue these are executive orders, not constitutional guarantees. The clash exposes the failure of the UT model in ensuring democratic accountability, despite Ladakh’s strategic importance on the China–Pakistan frontier.

Democratic Deficit in Ladakh

1. Loss of Voice: Earlier part of J&K Assembly; now Ladakhis cannot influence laws or leadership.
2. Dominance of Bureaucrats: Short-term officials override local voices, bypassing elected Hill Councils.
3. Recruitment Vacuum: No Public Service Commission; six years without gazetted officer recruitments.

Tribal and Land Safeguards at Risk

1. Earlier Protection: Article 370 & 35A guaranteed land and job protections.
2. Post-2019 Vacuum: Absence of safeguards raises fears of demographic change.
3. Constitutional Demands: LAB & KDA demand Sixth Schedule — protection for tribal culture, language, land rights, beyond mere executive orders.

Sixth Schedule vs Statehood

1. Government Stance: Argues Sixth Schedule inclusion is a logical first step before statehood.
2. Counter View: Sajjad Kargili stresses that Sixth Schedule alone is insufficient; democracy needs statehood.
3. Delhi Model Analogy: UTs with legislatures (Delhi) show friction with LGs — raising doubts about partial arrangements.

Population and Statehood Question

1. Centre’s Hesitation: Population (~3.5 lakh) too small for statehood.
2. Rebuttal: Sikkim (similar population) became a State in 1975; Goa in 1987.
3. Fragmented Governance: Ladakh’s five new districts have micro-populations (5,000–7,000), making local governance difficult without a state-level structure.

Federalism and Centre-State Relations

1. Supreme Court Endorsement: Upheld bifurcation of J&K into UTs.
2. Federal Concerns: Raises questions about top-down imposition of governance models in sensitive areas.
3. Centre vs Local Bodies: ₹6,000 crore annual budget, but only ₹600 crore devolved to Hill Councils; rest controlled by LG & bureaucrats.

Security Dimensions and Border Considerations

1. Centre’s Argument: Border sensitivity justifies UT status.
2. Counterpoint: Punjab, Sikkim, Uttarakhand are border states yet enjoy full statehood.
3. Chinese Incursion 2020: Occurred post-UT status, undermining the security rationale.

Civil Society Demands and Distrust

1. Four Core Demands: Statehood, Sixth Schedule, Public Service Commission, dual Lok Sabha seats (Leh & Kargil).
2. Distrust of MHA: LAB & KDA halted talks, citing cosmetic concessions (women’s reservation, ST reservation) that miss the core demands.
3. Governance Paralysis: Hill Councils reduced to ceremonial bodies; LG ignores their inputs.

Nationalism vs Allegations of “Anti-national”

1. Local Sentiment: Ladakhis argue they are patriotic, sacrificing lives to defend frontiers.
2. Mistrust Campaign: Trolls label them pro-China/pro-Pakistan, deepening alienation.
3. Identity Politics: Perceived delegitimisation fuels separatist tendencies — dangerous for a border region.

Comparative Perspectives

1. Delhi & Puducherry: UTs with legislatures — persistent Centre-LG tussle.
2. North-East Sixth Schedule States: Despite safeguards, autonomy diluted by weak implementation.
3. Statehood as Trust-Building: Granting Ladakh statehood could mirror past steps where integration was strengthened by empowerment (Sikkim, Mizoram).

Conclusion

The Ladakh case underscores that federalism is not only about administrative convenience but about trust-building. Sixth Schedule inclusion may provide interim safeguards, but without democratic statehood, Ladakh risks remaining voiceless. The challenge before India is to ensure that Ladakhis, guardians of a strategic frontier, feel like equal partners in the Union, not subjects of bureaucratic rule.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now