Thousands of people holding rallies in Leh and Kargil districts of Ladakh region on Saturday, February 3, 2024, in protest against the constitutional changes brought about by the reading down of Article 370. Photo/Sajjad Kargili posted on social media.
“Extinction of cultural identities through different means like displacement, and no safeguards in their preservation, particularly language, are not merely distant future realities. Such unfortunate realities have always found their place in the history of India. According to Ganesh Narayan Devy, a literary critic, India may have lost 220 languages since 1961 – a staggering and unfortunate state of affairs.”
Muzaffar Abbass Wazir with other research scholars*
For the past four years, Ladakh has been demanding constitutional safeguards due to apprehensions about its environment, identity, culture and land. It has realized that the current order promises no protection.
As a result, to address and resolve the concerns about land, environment, culture and language, the people of Ladakh are demanding constitutional safeguards, in the form of the Sixth Schedule and statehood (some form of empowered public representative).
Underlying this demand is the logic that the Ladakhis are consciously envisioning and planning for a distant future, fostering apprehension and caution. They recognize that unchecked, these apprehensions could manifest, posing existential risks if left unaddressed.
There are always two alternatives to change the status quo: (i) The state can proactively act to bring in changes through means that are appropriate and legitimate. (ii) The political subject, through democratic means, coerces the state to alter the situation. In the absence of a proactive state, the political subject resorts to democratic means like peaceful demonstration.
Ladakh exemplifies the latter.
Why Now?
Prior to the abrogation of Article 370 and 35A, concerns regarding environment, culture and land, if at all anyone entertained, would have been unfounded and could have easily been dismissed. Reason: The stated provisions in the form of Article 370 and 35A ensured the much-needed protection of Ladakh, both cultural as well as ecological. However, post-abrogation of Article 370 and 35A, along with the bifurcation, the protective layers also disappeared. Ladakh no longer had any gears to put into action to protect the fragile ecosystem as well as its distinctive culture and language.
Immediately after the abrogation of articles 370 and 35A, contrasting emotions were displayed in Leh and Kargil district. While Leh celebrated the abrogation of articles 370 and 35A along with the bifurcation of erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir state into two Union Territories, Kargil voiced its concern and opposition in the form of a short-lived demonstration. The demonstration might have been because of sentimental attachment with the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir or the farsightedness in conceiving the future of Ladakh as a Union Territory, without legislation and the provisions of Article 370 and 35A. It might have been because of both, although cases can be made for both separately.
The concern for provisions to safeguard the fragile ecosystem of Ladakh and its distinctive culture gradually intensified throughout Ladakh in the form of a demand for the Sixth Schedule of Indian Constitution. The first instance was: In the run-up to the LAHDC (Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council established through the LAHDC Act, 1997 primarily to oversee developmental works) Leh election 2020, the first election held post abrogation of Article 370 and 35A, demand for the Sixth Schedule was running across all parties.
Gradually the movement grew and further demands, other than the Sixth Schedule, were made in the form of statehood, Ladakh Public Service Commission and two representatives in the Parliament.
The movement was further strengthened when both Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) and Leh Apex Body (LAB), socio-religio-political groups, came together to join forces for the demands. Talks between the representatives of KDA and LAB with MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs) were initiated and multiple rounds of talk happened without any desirable outcome. The talks came to a halt, for the time being, in March when a meeting with Amit Shah, Home Minister of India, did not lead to any outcome.
Since then, the movement has intensified in the form of a 21-day climate fast observed and led by Sonam Wangchuk along with many others. As we write this, the women of Ladakh have finished their 10 days of climate fast and youth are set to begin.
The demands are not merely demands; in fact, they are necessary to secure the fragile ecosystem of Ladakh along with its distinctive cultural identity which is enmeshed within its environment. In addition, the demands also reflect the need for an active form of democracy where representatives are empowered, considering the uniqueness of their representees and a lack of democracy in the current order. Hence the demands are demands cum needs.
The demands laid down by the people of Ladakh in the form of Sixth Schedule and statehood are thus essential, partly for the existence of Ladakh and partly for the spirit of democracy.
In the rest of the article, the objective is to demonstrate the rationale behind the apprehension of Ladakh’s future if the current order is left unchanged. Thus, establishing its plausibility. Plausibility of the concerns and anxieties towards the future of Ladakh are imperative, for demands are mere consequences of those apprehensions. Subsequently, the ensuing objective is to show how those legit apprehensions could be staved off once the demands cum needs presented by the people of Ladakh and emphatically being led by Sonam Wangchuk are fulfilled by the authorities.
Apprehensions have reasonable grounds
Apprehensive anticipation about Ladakh’s future is not unfounded. The people of Ladakh have shown remarkable farsightedness in identifying the needs of Ladakh that may not be immediately experienced. The demands cum needs are mere consequences of the apprehension that the people of Ladakh share about its future. So, if the apprehension persists, the demand cum need also persists.
Are these concerns legitimate, so much so that one can demand security/constitutional safeguards in the light of these apprehensions? In other words, do we have reasonable grounds to argue for the plausibility of such apprehensions? It seems we have. Based on the tribal status, topographical features, and potentially tapped natural resources in the vast land of Ladakh, reasonable grounds for these apprehensions can be laid down.
Setting up the Apprehensions
Post abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, the LAHDCs (amended in 2018) are the only major institutions currently catering to the democratic aspiration, albeit in limited ways. The LAHDC does not have significant legislative powers concerning many subjects of importance, like Ladakh’s land, ecology, identity, and livelihood.
With no provision in place, nothing whatsoever, to secure the future of Ladakh, a natural response is always an attempt to seek constitutional safeguards. This is not very peculiar to Ladakh, provisions to protect one’s culture, language, administrative autonomy, livelihood etc. are not unheard of in the history of India.
Constitutional safeguards have been provided irrespective of whether the demands came directly from the grassroots or through proactive measures from the authorities. Provisions like the Sixth Schedule, Fifth Schedule, Article 371, Article 29, 30, 350A, and 345, are instances of such constitutional safeguards. In addition, acts like the Panchayat (Extension to Schedule Area) Act, 1996 further provide safeguards concerning self-governance or administrative autonomy for the tribal population.
It is important to note that this act was meant for states under the Fifth Schedule. Neither the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir was granted the Fifth Schedule status on account of Ladakh being overwhelmingly inhabited by tribal population nor current UT Ladakh is part of it.
In the constitution of India, provisions like Articles 29 and 30 grant the citizens the right to preserve their distinctive culture and language and grant them the right to establish educational institutes of their choice respectively. As a result, one may point out that these constitutional provisions already provide a safeguard irrespective of whether the demands cum needs are fulfilled or not.
Such a response is merely myopic, for it perceives the notion of culture and language in abstraction from the inhabitants and does not acknowledge the situatedness of distinctive tribal culture in their respective environment, ecology, and land.
Furthermore, such a response shifts the onus of preserving distinct cultures and languages upon the citizens rather than prescribing it as the duty of the state. Concerns regarding culture and language are not trivial matters.
Extinction of cultural identities through different means like displacement, and no safeguards in their preservation, particularly language, are not merely distant future realities. Such unfortunate realities have always found their place in the history of India. According to Ganesh Narayan Devy, a literary critic, India may have lost 220 languages since 1961 – a staggering and unfortunate state of affairs.
Contextualizing the Apprehensions in Ladakh
Ladakh being constituted by more than 90% of tribal population, concerns about one’s distinctive identity preservation on account of no safeguards is as normal as someone reaching out for a glass of water on being thirsty. Tribals have a distinctive lifestyle so deeply entrenched within their environment, any apprehension about their culture and environment is an apprehension conceived as a threat to their own existence.
With the rising crisis of climate change and the distinctive topography of Ladakh, the protection of the fragile ecology of Ladakh vis a vis its relation to the inhabitants cannot be overstated. For all the activities that sustain the tribal population of Ladakh, the environment contributes immensely. As a result, environmental concerns were always part and parcel of the lifestyle of the people of Ladakh. However, in today’s time, the concerns have overshot way beyond our ability to cope, as a result, the concerns are further amplified.
Various reasons for this heightened sense of apprehension can be stated: an unchecked number of tourists visiting the place in growing numbers every year (more than Ladakh’s total population) and its consequences over the environment (Mountains of garbage piling up, depleting groundwater level, increase in the carbon emission), the speedy melting of glaciers (the Parkachik Glacier is one example, study done by Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology), the frequent landslides and flood on account of various environmental factors, like unseasonal and extreme rainfall, and rising temperature in Ladakh, untimely or delayed snowfall, etc.
With Ladakh’s potentially promising availability of natural resources in its mountainous terrain in different forms, apart from the vast land, its land may appear up for grabs for those intending to extract and utilize those natural resources. People with resources are likely to throng these places to extract these resources, since no caveat for land protection and constraints are available. Activities pertaining to the utility of resources available in Ladakh may come at the cost of destabilizing the entire fragile ecosystem of the region.
Due to the immediate impact of climate change along with the status of developmental projects in regions of fragile ecosystems and tribal inhabited regions, concerns regarding the future are contextualized and appear inevitable. Instances of frequent landslides and floods in Uttarakhand, the frequent flood and drought situation in Lahaul and Spiti districts in Himachal Pradesh, the Joshimath story, Hasdeo forest in Chhattisgarh etc. are mere minuscule samples of what an unreflective developmental project and delayed action globally on climate change have achieved so far in ecologically sensitive areas.
In addition, relaxed provisions in the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) 2020 notification to facilitate ease of doing business in India do not offer confidence among the tribal population. A Report by Centre for Policy Research-Namati Environmental Justice Program on EIA notification 2020 identifies provisions in the draft that may cost the environment and the indigenous population.
Provisions like shorter days for public consultation from 30 days to 20 days, leaving out the expansion and modernization of a project up to 50% from public consultation and excluding projects below 25% from other important means of checks and balances (For A and B1 projects). These relaxations are further amplified on the ground due to either non-execution of the restrictions or lackluster activity from the auditing team.
In addition to all these grounds for an apprehensive anticipation of Ladakh’s future, the lack of federal democracy and the overbearing presence of bureaucracy provided another ground for such an apprehension. With Bureaucrats running the show, mostly non-tribals and non-native to Ladakh, measures in the interest of the people pertinent to the concerns of the people have not been addressed at all.
Furthermore, this centralized approach has failed to generate a sizable number of employment opportunities since the bifurcation. The unemployment rate in graduates in Ladakh has gone up recently, it is at 26.5% right behind Andaman and Nicobar Island leading the list, according to the Periodic Labor Force Survey July 2022 – June 2023 as per reports in the media.
The aspirations of the youth of Ladakh have been put at stake at the whims of these Bureaucrats. Disenfranchising an entire state and disempowering its representatives, barring one member of parliament, have further consolidated the concerns people harbor regarding the future of Ladakh.
Hence, with a degree of reasonability, one can claim that the apprehension people of Ladakh harbor towards their future, manifesting in terms of the demands cum needs through peaceful demonstrations, are not unfounded.
Demands cum Needs are Reasonable: Sixth Schedule and Statehood
Empowering the citizens in politics ideally constitutes the ethos or spirit of democracy. In a democratic setup, demand for political representation or empowering the political representatives of the state may appear absurd and contrary to the ideals. However, facts seem to present such a state of affairs in Ladakh.
India is a constitutional democracy and through legitimate means, the people of Ladakh are demanding the right to be part of democratic processes, the right to be a voice in regulating and legislating the state of affairs in Ladakh, given our unique identity and topography.
Strengthening of political representations and decentralization of power are more in line with the aspirations and interests of the region. This consequently paves the way for a bottom-up approach, rather than the bureaucratic top-down approach to the issues of Ladakh. This way when the political representatives are empowered, through legislative and regulative means, apprehensions of its representees could be resolved.
In a world of reductionist and distorting binaries, the binary of the ‘Tribal’ and ‘Nontribal’ are used to delegitimize such demands as the former is presumed to have the impressions of being backward, less civilized, primitive etc., as against the latter.
JJM Nichols Roy during the constituent assembly debate on the Sixth Schedule points out these assumptions or stereotypes being harbored by his opponent discussants regarding the inclusion of Assam tribal population under the Sixth Schedule. During the debate, Roy refers to customs and practices dominant in tribes that are far more progressive and ahead of the times of the plain people. It seems that the same stereotypes are being entertained against the voices of self-governance, on account of being tribal, are raised.
Furthermore, the notion of tribal must not be understood merely in terms of a group of people having distinctive customs, languages and administrative peculiarities but rather it must be understood as an embodiment of a coupled relationship between the inhabitants and the environment. The relationship is of such a kind, that intervention on the environmental aspect is construed as an intervention on their tribal identity and worldview.
Being a tribal region, the demands cum needs manifest that deep sense of belongingness and the embodied feature that the inhabitants of Ladakh experience with its environment. Belonging of such a kind is a mere continuation of our forefather’s tradition. Any developmental project at the cost of severing this belongingness is not acceptable to the people of Ladakh (from their people also). Nor is it acceptable that the concern for the environment is overwhelmed or undermined by the concern for development as per some bureaucrats’ discretion.
To further sustain such a relationship with the environment, legislative rights regarding land, and environment must be provided to its inhabitants in the form of Sixth Schedule and statehood (or UT with legislature)
If these demands cum needs are met, the anxiety that we have towards our future could be reasonably countered or calmed down.
In addition, concern about employment, although not appearing explicitly in the movement, can be subsumed under the demand for statehood. The demand for LPSC (in place of J&K Public Service Commission before) will cater to the unemployment issue in Ladakh, especially among the aspiring graduates, and will also ensure adequate representation of locals in the bureaucratic structure.
The failure to be heard in these four years regarding the issue of unemployment relates to the disempowerment of the people of Ladakh as a political subject. Hence, demand for political representation or demand for political empowerment in terms of strengthening the hands of our representatives must be prioritized.
In this regard, the Sixth Schedule, neither Fifth Schedule nor Article 371, along with statehood has the potential, at least on paper, to cater to the concerns or relieve the anxiety about the future of Ladakh.
On Fifth Schedule
In the Fifth Schedule, the Governor and the President have an overbearing power over legislating and regulating the state of affairs in a scheduled area. The governor has the authority to dictate the laws in the scheduled area. It is up to the governor to direct if any act of parliament or any legislature of the state shall apply to the scheduled area or not, whether after some modification or without.
Paragraph 4 of the Fifth Schedule establishes a tribal advisory council whose duty is to advise the governor regarding the development of the scheduled tribes. Whether that ensures any kind of autonomy in pushing the interest of the tribes is up for speculation, the stakes are likely to be against the council. The role of the tribe’s advisory council is only at the level of consultation. Once these laws are formulated for the scheduled area, assent from the president is required to get into effect.
Furthermore, Paragraph 6 codifies the authority of the president in carving out spaces as scheduled areas. The president can modify the status of a region either by shrinking the scheduled area or expanding it or can even remove the status of the scheduled area from that region. These provisions hardly have anything to offer to cater to the concerns of the future of Ladakh.
One may point out that the Sixth Schedule along with the PESA (Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act might provide a solution to the concerns. Although PESA was introduced to facilitate self-governance among tribal regions on the recommendation of the Bhuria committee, the impact on the ground is far from what it had wished to achieve.
In a report on PESA, available on the issues and challenges in India blog post, details pointing out how those provisions have not fructified in serving the interest of the tribal population is quite evident. From incomplete bureaucratic processes in Scheduling an area to either non-existent or dysfunctional tribes’ advisory councils to utter disregard for the rules have contributed to ensuring that the tribal interests are superseded by ulterior interests and motives.
If one adopts the lens of Fifth Schedule and PESA Act in conjunction, even on paper, it does not appear sufficient to fulfill our demands, for it lacks what is so dearly demanded, legislation. Furthermore, instances in the past of its (Fifth Schedule) failure in protecting tribal regions consolidate the view that we need to look for an alternative beyond the Fifth Schedule.
On Article 371
A similar conclusion can be reached concerning Article 371. No provisions in Article 371 are capable of catering to the concerns raised by the people of Ladakh. In an attempt to ensure the distinctive tribal culture and customs, different forms of provisions are provided under Article 371. In Article 371 A and 371 G for Nagaland and Mizoram respectively, parliament acts on certain domains require concurrence from the legislative body of the state to get into effect. Similarly, 371 B and 371 C for Assam and Manipur respectively provide tribal representations in the state legislative assembly.
Furthermore, the article in its various forms appears to ensure that the Governor and the President have a tight grip over the region when it comes to administration. The population of those regions do not seem to have any bargaining chip in the form of empowered regional-based councils. It is hard to say if Article 371, in the absence of statehood in Ladakh, can provide any form of solution that caters to both the needs of environment protection and democracy. More importantly, all of the states under Article 371 have statehood, and the provisions have been inserted within that framework, whereas Ladakh is a Union Territory, without legislation.
Even if similar provisions are provided for Ladakh under Article 371, it is likely to fall short in dealing with the concerns of the people of Ladakh. Assuming the precedent, it is unlikely that the new provision under Article 371 would provide legislative rights at the council level, of the kind in the Sixth Schedule. Even statehood (if granted) along with a new provision under Article 371 might fall short of what Sixth Schedule and statehood would achieve for the people of Ladakh.
On Sixth Schedule
In the constituent assembly, the Sixth Schedule was envisioned as a framework of self-governance to minimize the intervention of the state mechanism as much as possible. The objective was to offer protection of tribal areas, customs, and languages while allowing them to develop further on their own. A way to reach out to those tribes without giving the impression of an intervention (a despicable one) from the state and thus, gaining their trust in the long run. It gave the tribals legislative and executive powers through an Autonomous Regional Council and Autonomous District Councils.
As it is often emphasized, the Sixth Schedule (Paragraph 3) provides the authority to the regional council and district council to make laws on the subject matter of Land, barring land under reserved forest. A sensitive topic in the current scenario. In addition to land, legislative rights upon custom, property inheritance, marriage, and many more are provided.
Furthermore, the Sixth Schedule (paragraph 4) provides alternative ways to resolve disputes or law and order issues by empowering the councils to set up village councils or village courts, although discretion of the governor is put in place for the existence of such a judicial system. Such provisions manifest the good faith of our founding fathers in recognizing and institutionalizing an already established system among the tribes. In addition, it (Paragraph 6) also empowers the councils for establishing primary schools, dispensaries, markets roads, provides (Paragraph 8) authority to collect revenue from lands, buildings and impose taxes etc.
Few Sixth Schedule areas have been given additional powers to make laws concerning industries, communications, social security and insurance, labour and employment, and land and revenue and tourism. The Sixth Schedule allows these councils to formulate these laws to varying degrees, although assent from the governor is required to be in effect. Nonetheless, the very fact that it provides the legislative right at such a level is something to look for and thus provides, at least, some iota of bargaining stake with the authorities, governor and union state.
In a sense, the current demand for the Sixth Schedule is also a manifestation of the disenchantment of Ladakhi population over the lack of feeling represented, the very essence of a democratic structure. For a region that has been deprived of political representation (almost), exposed to profit-driven industrial capitalists and situated remote from its current power center (New Delhi), it is only natural that any form of empowered self-administration is viewed as the only alternative.
Sixth Schedule and Statehood
One of the primary features of administration in Ladakh since 2019 has been the overbearing presence of bureaucrats carrying out diktats promulgated from New Delhi with no consultation whatsoever with local stakeholders. These unelected officials hold no accountability towards the population they govern. In the event of Ladakh being provided with only the Sixth Schedule, the views and actions of local councils may likely be subdued by these overpowered bureaucrats.
Even in regions with the Sixth Schedule currently in place, administrative conflicts between bureaucrats and local councils are not unheard of. In the form of a cautionary note to the people of Ladakh demanding only Sixth Schedule, Sumarbin Umdor and K Vanlalhruaitluanga in “All is not Well in the Sixth Schedule: A Reaction to the Demand for the Sixth Schedule in Ladakh” provide a concerning state of affairs in the northeastern regions of India under Sixth Schedule. It is in this context that statehood is imperative for Ladakh. Distribution of powers at different levels of governance is central to Indian federal setup and unelected officials assuming any of these roles is untenable.
If we conceive the Sixth Schedule along with statehood, concerns may be adequately addressed. First and foremost, being a state opens up the ambit of formulating legislation on various subject matters already listed under Article 246, i.e. State List and Concurrent List. The addition of subject matter for legislation is always an asset from the perspective of democracy, and it better serves the interests of the people of those regions. Furthermore, it ensures three-level governance in its true form, empowering all of them with legislative and regulative rights. Hence, providing a substantial bargaining strength with the union, the governor, and the bureaucrats.
Since, reserved forest area is left out from the jurisdiction of district and regional councils, a way to ensure the right to legislate and regulate over forest and wildlife is through statehood. Through the 42nd amendment act of 1976, subject matter of forest and wildlife conservation were incorporated into the Concurrent List from the State List. A state legislature, if granted, will have the authority to make laws with respect to forest and wildlife. With Ladakh constituted by more than 90% tribal population, interest of the tribal population is likely to be served through such means of legislature. Consequently, all kinds of land could be potentially covered under the council and state.
Furthermore, paragraph 9 of the Sixth Schedule states that licensing or leasing for prospecting or extracting minerals is to be granted by the state government in agreement with the autonomous district. In the absence of a state government, the governor or the president is likely to be the authority to be involved. In such an instance, how much of the tribal population’s interest shall be fulfilled is up for debate, likely the stakes might be against us. However, if the legislature is granted, the state of Ladakh along with the autonomous district is more likely than before to prioritize the interest of the tribal population.
A BBC graphic of the Galwan Valley in Ladakh region where Indian and Chinese troops clashed in June 2020. Changpas, Nomads of Eastern Ladakh, allege that they have lost access to grazing pastures in Galwan Valley.
Incidentally, on the request of MHA, a memorandum was sought from the delegations of KDA and LAB which provided the opportunity to present a document serving the interest of the people of Ladakh. In the memorandum, schedule VI A was inserted with better farsightedness within a framework of statehood. Paragraph 6 and paragraph 8 (mistakenly written 6 again), if read in conjunction, provide every kind of protection to land that is being demanded by Ladakhis. Concerns other than land have also been taken care of, be it environment, culture, education, etc.
Within the Sixth Schedule itself, the heavy-handedness of the governor is conspicuous. Under Section 15, the governor may annul or suspend any act or resolution of local councils, if he or she deems them prejudicial to public order or a threat to the safety of India. Similarly, under section 16, if a situation has arisen that the administration of the district or region is not carried out in accordance with the provisions of the schedule, the governor on recommendation of a commission may dissolve local councils and assume to himself their powers and functions. Both the powers are placed at the discretion of the Governor itself.
Additionally, both provisions are required to be laid before the state legislature for their approval. Hence, within the framework of the Sixth Schedule itself, a state legislature is implicit and without statehood, a governor may act contrary to popular public sentiment.
On suspension of acts and regulations in Paragraph 15, through a caveat, the state legislature is empowered to revoke the suspension, hence nullifying the governor’s order. On the other hand, in the absence of a state legislature, a way out is not conceivable. Similarly in Paragraph 16, with the dissolution of councils, the legislature is provided with some authority to keep in check the discretion of the governor. The governor requires previous approval from the state legislature to assume administrative power of the council to himself or to endow it upon the commission. In the absence of a state legislature, the provisions are likely to be tilted in the favour of the governor. In other words, in the absence of a state legislature, the ball shall always be in the governor’s court.
If given state legislature along with the Sixth Schedule, the provisions of the Sixth Schedule could provide some relief and optimism to the inhabitants. Hence, the Sixth schedule must be accompanied by statehood.
(This write-up is a collaborative work by Concerned Research Scholars from Ladakh. It is a slightly altered version of an article that appeared in the Voice of Ladakh)
Unrest in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, political stalemate and rising costs
Israel, Hamas and the Elusive Cease-Fire
When Sheikh Abdullah’s meeting with Chinese leader Zhou Enlai in Algeria sparked a political storm in India
In Defence Of Ladakh’s Movement For Constitutional Safeguards: A Balance Sheet Of Apprehensions And The Logic Of Demand
“Extinction of cultural identities through different means like displacement, and no safeguards in their preservation, particularly language, are not merely distant future realities. Such unfortunate realities have always found their place in the history of India. According to Ganesh Narayan Devy, a literary critic, India may have lost 220 languages since 1961 – a staggering and unfortunate state of affairs.”
Muzaffar Abbass Wazir with other research scholars*
For the past four years, Ladakh has been demanding constitutional safeguards due to apprehensions about its environment, identity, culture and land. It has realized that the current order promises no protection.
As a result, to address and resolve the concerns about land, environment, culture and language, the people of Ladakh are demanding constitutional safeguards, in the form of the Sixth Schedule and statehood (some form of empowered public representative).
Underlying this demand is the logic that the Ladakhis are consciously envisioning and planning for a distant future, fostering apprehension and caution. They recognize that unchecked, these apprehensions could manifest, posing existential risks if left unaddressed.
There are always two alternatives to change the status quo: (i) The state can proactively act to bring in changes through means that are appropriate and legitimate. (ii) The political subject, through democratic means, coerces the state to alter the situation. In the absence of a proactive state, the political subject resorts to democratic means like peaceful demonstration.
Ladakh exemplifies the latter.
Why Now?
Prior to the abrogation of Article 370 and 35A, concerns regarding environment, culture and land, if at all anyone entertained, would have been unfounded and could have easily been dismissed. Reason: The stated provisions in the form of Article 370 and 35A ensured the much-needed protection of Ladakh, both cultural as well as ecological. However, post-abrogation of Article 370 and 35A, along with the bifurcation, the protective layers also disappeared. Ladakh no longer had any gears to put into action to protect the fragile ecosystem as well as its distinctive culture and language.
Immediately after the abrogation of articles 370 and 35A, contrasting emotions were displayed in Leh and Kargil district. While Leh celebrated the abrogation of articles 370 and 35A along with the bifurcation of erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir state into two Union Territories, Kargil voiced its concern and opposition in the form of a short-lived demonstration. The demonstration might have been because of sentimental attachment with the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir or the farsightedness in conceiving the future of Ladakh as a Union Territory, without legislation and the provisions of Article 370 and 35A. It might have been because of both, although cases can be made for both separately.
The concern for provisions to safeguard the fragile ecosystem of Ladakh and its distinctive culture gradually intensified throughout Ladakh in the form of a demand for the Sixth Schedule of Indian Constitution. The first instance was: In the run-up to the LAHDC (Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council established through the LAHDC Act, 1997 primarily to oversee developmental works) Leh election 2020, the first election held post abrogation of Article 370 and 35A, demand for the Sixth Schedule was running across all parties.
Gradually the movement grew and further demands, other than the Sixth Schedule, were made in the form of statehood, Ladakh Public Service Commission and two representatives in the Parliament.
The movement was further strengthened when both Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) and Leh Apex Body (LAB), socio-religio-political groups, came together to join forces for the demands. Talks between the representatives of KDA and LAB with MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs) were initiated and multiple rounds of talk happened without any desirable outcome. The talks came to a halt, for the time being, in March when a meeting with Amit Shah, Home Minister of India, did not lead to any outcome.
Since then, the movement has intensified in the form of a 21-day climate fast observed and led by Sonam Wangchuk along with many others. As we write this, the women of Ladakh have finished their 10 days of climate fast and youth are set to begin.
The demands are not merely demands; in fact, they are necessary to secure the fragile ecosystem of Ladakh along with its distinctive cultural identity which is enmeshed within its environment. In addition, the demands also reflect the need for an active form of democracy where representatives are empowered, considering the uniqueness of their representees and a lack of democracy in the current order. Hence the demands are demands cum needs.
The demands laid down by the people of Ladakh in the form of Sixth Schedule and statehood are thus essential, partly for the existence of Ladakh and partly for the spirit of democracy.
In the rest of the article, the objective is to demonstrate the rationale behind the apprehension of Ladakh’s future if the current order is left unchanged. Thus, establishing its plausibility. Plausibility of the concerns and anxieties towards the future of Ladakh are imperative, for demands are mere consequences of those apprehensions. Subsequently, the ensuing objective is to show how those legit apprehensions could be staved off once the demands cum needs presented by the people of Ladakh and emphatically being led by Sonam Wangchuk are fulfilled by the authorities.
Apprehensions have reasonable grounds
Apprehensive anticipation about Ladakh’s future is not unfounded. The people of Ladakh have shown remarkable farsightedness in identifying the needs of Ladakh that may not be immediately experienced. The demands cum needs are mere consequences of the apprehension that the people of Ladakh share about its future. So, if the apprehension persists, the demand cum need also persists.
Are these concerns legitimate, so much so that one can demand security/constitutional safeguards in the light of these apprehensions? In other words, do we have reasonable grounds to argue for the plausibility of such apprehensions? It seems we have. Based on the tribal status, topographical features, and potentially tapped natural resources in the vast land of Ladakh, reasonable grounds for these apprehensions can be laid down.
Setting up the Apprehensions
Post abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, the LAHDCs (amended in 2018) are the only major institutions currently catering to the democratic aspiration, albeit in limited ways. The LAHDC does not have significant legislative powers concerning many subjects of importance, like Ladakh’s land, ecology, identity, and livelihood.
With no provision in place, nothing whatsoever, to secure the future of Ladakh, a natural response is always an attempt to seek constitutional safeguards. This is not very peculiar to Ladakh, provisions to protect one’s culture, language, administrative autonomy, livelihood etc. are not unheard of in the history of India.
Constitutional safeguards have been provided irrespective of whether the demands came directly from the grassroots or through proactive measures from the authorities. Provisions like the Sixth Schedule, Fifth Schedule, Article 371, Article 29, 30, 350A, and 345, are instances of such constitutional safeguards. In addition, acts like the Panchayat (Extension to Schedule Area) Act, 1996 further provide safeguards concerning self-governance or administrative autonomy for the tribal population.
It is important to note that this act was meant for states under the Fifth Schedule. Neither the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir was granted the Fifth Schedule status on account of Ladakh being overwhelmingly inhabited by tribal population nor current UT Ladakh is part of it.
In the constitution of India, provisions like Articles 29 and 30 grant the citizens the right to preserve their distinctive culture and language and grant them the right to establish educational institutes of their choice respectively. As a result, one may point out that these constitutional provisions already provide a safeguard irrespective of whether the demands cum needs are fulfilled or not.
Such a response is merely myopic, for it perceives the notion of culture and language in abstraction from the inhabitants and does not acknowledge the situatedness of distinctive tribal culture in their respective environment, ecology, and land.
Furthermore, such a response shifts the onus of preserving distinct cultures and languages upon the citizens rather than prescribing it as the duty of the state. Concerns regarding culture and language are not trivial matters.
Extinction of cultural identities through different means like displacement, and no safeguards in their preservation, particularly language, are not merely distant future realities. Such unfortunate realities have always found their place in the history of India. According to Ganesh Narayan Devy, a literary critic, India may have lost 220 languages since 1961 – a staggering and unfortunate state of affairs.
Contextualizing the Apprehensions in Ladakh
Ladakh being constituted by more than 90% of tribal population, concerns about one’s distinctive identity preservation on account of no safeguards is as normal as someone reaching out for a glass of water on being thirsty. Tribals have a distinctive lifestyle so deeply entrenched within their environment, any apprehension about their culture and environment is an apprehension conceived as a threat to their own existence.
With the rising crisis of climate change and the distinctive topography of Ladakh, the protection of the fragile ecology of Ladakh vis a vis its relation to the inhabitants cannot be overstated. For all the activities that sustain the tribal population of Ladakh, the environment contributes immensely. As a result, environmental concerns were always part and parcel of the lifestyle of the people of Ladakh. However, in today’s time, the concerns have overshot way beyond our ability to cope, as a result, the concerns are further amplified.
Various reasons for this heightened sense of apprehension can be stated: an unchecked number of tourists visiting the place in growing numbers every year (more than Ladakh’s total population) and its consequences over the environment (Mountains of garbage piling up, depleting groundwater level, increase in the carbon emission), the speedy melting of glaciers (the Parkachik Glacier is one example, study done by Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology), the frequent landslides and flood on account of various environmental factors, like unseasonal and extreme rainfall, and rising temperature in Ladakh, untimely or delayed snowfall, etc.
With Ladakh’s potentially promising availability of natural resources in its mountainous terrain in different forms, apart from the vast land, its land may appear up for grabs for those intending to extract and utilize those natural resources. People with resources are likely to throng these places to extract these resources, since no caveat for land protection and constraints are available. Activities pertaining to the utility of resources available in Ladakh may come at the cost of destabilizing the entire fragile ecosystem of the region.
Due to the immediate impact of climate change along with the status of developmental projects in regions of fragile ecosystems and tribal inhabited regions, concerns regarding the future are contextualized and appear inevitable. Instances of frequent landslides and floods in Uttarakhand, the frequent flood and drought situation in Lahaul and Spiti districts in Himachal Pradesh, the Joshimath story, Hasdeo forest in Chhattisgarh etc. are mere minuscule samples of what an unreflective developmental project and delayed action globally on climate change have achieved so far in ecologically sensitive areas.
In addition, relaxed provisions in the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) 2020 notification to facilitate ease of doing business in India do not offer confidence among the tribal population. A Report by Centre for Policy Research-Namati Environmental Justice Program on EIA notification 2020 identifies provisions in the draft that may cost the environment and the indigenous population.
Provisions like shorter days for public consultation from 30 days to 20 days, leaving out the expansion and modernization of a project up to 50% from public consultation and excluding projects below 25% from other important means of checks and balances (For A and B1 projects). These relaxations are further amplified on the ground due to either non-execution of the restrictions or lackluster activity from the auditing team.
In addition to all these grounds for an apprehensive anticipation of Ladakh’s future, the lack of federal democracy and the overbearing presence of bureaucracy provided another ground for such an apprehension. With Bureaucrats running the show, mostly non-tribals and non-native to Ladakh, measures in the interest of the people pertinent to the concerns of the people have not been addressed at all.
Furthermore, this centralized approach has failed to generate a sizable number of employment opportunities since the bifurcation. The unemployment rate in graduates in Ladakh has gone up recently, it is at 26.5% right behind Andaman and Nicobar Island leading the list, according to the Periodic Labor Force Survey July 2022 – June 2023 as per reports in the media.
The aspirations of the youth of Ladakh have been put at stake at the whims of these Bureaucrats. Disenfranchising an entire state and disempowering its representatives, barring one member of parliament, have further consolidated the concerns people harbor regarding the future of Ladakh.
Hence, with a degree of reasonability, one can claim that the apprehension people of Ladakh harbor towards their future, manifesting in terms of the demands cum needs through peaceful demonstrations, are not unfounded.
Demands cum Needs are Reasonable: Sixth Schedule and Statehood
Empowering the citizens in politics ideally constitutes the ethos or spirit of democracy. In a democratic setup, demand for political representation or empowering the political representatives of the state may appear absurd and contrary to the ideals. However, facts seem to present such a state of affairs in Ladakh.
India is a constitutional democracy and through legitimate means, the people of Ladakh are demanding the right to be part of democratic processes, the right to be a voice in regulating and legislating the state of affairs in Ladakh, given our unique identity and topography.
Strengthening of political representations and decentralization of power are more in line with the aspirations and interests of the region. This consequently paves the way for a bottom-up approach, rather than the bureaucratic top-down approach to the issues of Ladakh. This way when the political representatives are empowered, through legislative and regulative means, apprehensions of its representees could be resolved.
In a world of reductionist and distorting binaries, the binary of the ‘Tribal’ and ‘Nontribal’ are used to delegitimize such demands as the former is presumed to have the impressions of being backward, less civilized, primitive etc., as against the latter.
JJM Nichols Roy during the constituent assembly debate on the Sixth Schedule points out these assumptions or stereotypes being harbored by his opponent discussants regarding the inclusion of Assam tribal population under the Sixth Schedule. During the debate, Roy refers to customs and practices dominant in tribes that are far more progressive and ahead of the times of the plain people. It seems that the same stereotypes are being entertained against the voices of self-governance, on account of being tribal, are raised.
Furthermore, the notion of tribal must not be understood merely in terms of a group of people having distinctive customs, languages and administrative peculiarities but rather it must be understood as an embodiment of a coupled relationship between the inhabitants and the environment. The relationship is of such a kind, that intervention on the environmental aspect is construed as an intervention on their tribal identity and worldview.
Being a tribal region, the demands cum needs manifest that deep sense of belongingness and the embodied feature that the inhabitants of Ladakh experience with its environment. Belonging of such a kind is a mere continuation of our forefather’s tradition. Any developmental project at the cost of severing this belongingness is not acceptable to the people of Ladakh (from their people also). Nor is it acceptable that the concern for the environment is overwhelmed or undermined by the concern for development as per some bureaucrats’ discretion.
To further sustain such a relationship with the environment, legislative rights regarding land, and environment must be provided to its inhabitants in the form of Sixth Schedule and statehood (or UT with legislature)
If these demands cum needs are met, the anxiety that we have towards our future could be reasonably countered or calmed down.
In addition, concern about employment, although not appearing explicitly in the movement, can be subsumed under the demand for statehood. The demand for LPSC (in place of J&K Public Service Commission before) will cater to the unemployment issue in Ladakh, especially among the aspiring graduates, and will also ensure adequate representation of locals in the bureaucratic structure.
The failure to be heard in these four years regarding the issue of unemployment relates to the disempowerment of the people of Ladakh as a political subject. Hence, demand for political representation or demand for political empowerment in terms of strengthening the hands of our representatives must be prioritized.
In this regard, the Sixth Schedule, neither Fifth Schedule nor Article 371, along with statehood has the potential, at least on paper, to cater to the concerns or relieve the anxiety about the future of Ladakh.
On Fifth Schedule
In the Fifth Schedule, the Governor and the President have an overbearing power over legislating and regulating the state of affairs in a scheduled area. The governor has the authority to dictate the laws in the scheduled area. It is up to the governor to direct if any act of parliament or any legislature of the state shall apply to the scheduled area or not, whether after some modification or without.
Paragraph 4 of the Fifth Schedule establishes a tribal advisory council whose duty is to advise the governor regarding the development of the scheduled tribes. Whether that ensures any kind of autonomy in pushing the interest of the tribes is up for speculation, the stakes are likely to be against the council. The role of the tribe’s advisory council is only at the level of consultation. Once these laws are formulated for the scheduled area, assent from the president is required to get into effect.
Furthermore, Paragraph 6 codifies the authority of the president in carving out spaces as scheduled areas. The president can modify the status of a region either by shrinking the scheduled area or expanding it or can even remove the status of the scheduled area from that region. These provisions hardly have anything to offer to cater to the concerns of the future of Ladakh.
One may point out that the Sixth Schedule along with the PESA (Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act might provide a solution to the concerns. Although PESA was introduced to facilitate self-governance among tribal regions on the recommendation of the Bhuria committee, the impact on the ground is far from what it had wished to achieve.
In a report on PESA, available on the issues and challenges in India blog post, details pointing out how those provisions have not fructified in serving the interest of the tribal population is quite evident. From incomplete bureaucratic processes in Scheduling an area to either non-existent or dysfunctional tribes’ advisory councils to utter disregard for the rules have contributed to ensuring that the tribal interests are superseded by ulterior interests and motives.
If one adopts the lens of Fifth Schedule and PESA Act in conjunction, even on paper, it does not appear sufficient to fulfill our demands, for it lacks what is so dearly demanded, legislation. Furthermore, instances in the past of its (Fifth Schedule) failure in protecting tribal regions consolidate the view that we need to look for an alternative beyond the Fifth Schedule.
On Article 371
A similar conclusion can be reached concerning Article 371. No provisions in Article 371 are capable of catering to the concerns raised by the people of Ladakh. In an attempt to ensure the distinctive tribal culture and customs, different forms of provisions are provided under Article 371. In Article 371 A and 371 G for Nagaland and Mizoram respectively, parliament acts on certain domains require concurrence from the legislative body of the state to get into effect. Similarly, 371 B and 371 C for Assam and Manipur respectively provide tribal representations in the state legislative assembly.
Furthermore, the article in its various forms appears to ensure that the Governor and the President have a tight grip over the region when it comes to administration. The population of those regions do not seem to have any bargaining chip in the form of empowered regional-based councils. It is hard to say if Article 371, in the absence of statehood in Ladakh, can provide any form of solution that caters to both the needs of environment protection and democracy. More importantly, all of the states under Article 371 have statehood, and the provisions have been inserted within that framework, whereas Ladakh is a Union Territory, without legislation.
Even if similar provisions are provided for Ladakh under Article 371, it is likely to fall short in dealing with the concerns of the people of Ladakh. Assuming the precedent, it is unlikely that the new provision under Article 371 would provide legislative rights at the council level, of the kind in the Sixth Schedule. Even statehood (if granted) along with a new provision under Article 371 might fall short of what Sixth Schedule and statehood would achieve for the people of Ladakh.
On Sixth Schedule
In the constituent assembly, the Sixth Schedule was envisioned as a framework of self-governance to minimize the intervention of the state mechanism as much as possible. The objective was to offer protection of tribal areas, customs, and languages while allowing them to develop further on their own. A way to reach out to those tribes without giving the impression of an intervention (a despicable one) from the state and thus, gaining their trust in the long run. It gave the tribals legislative and executive powers through an Autonomous Regional Council and Autonomous District Councils.
As it is often emphasized, the Sixth Schedule (Paragraph 3) provides the authority to the regional council and district council to make laws on the subject matter of Land, barring land under reserved forest. A sensitive topic in the current scenario. In addition to land, legislative rights upon custom, property inheritance, marriage, and many more are provided.
Furthermore, the Sixth Schedule (paragraph 4) provides alternative ways to resolve disputes or law and order issues by empowering the councils to set up village councils or village courts, although discretion of the governor is put in place for the existence of such a judicial system. Such provisions manifest the good faith of our founding fathers in recognizing and institutionalizing an already established system among the tribes. In addition, it (Paragraph 6) also empowers the councils for establishing primary schools, dispensaries, markets roads, provides (Paragraph 8) authority to collect revenue from lands, buildings and impose taxes etc.
Few Sixth Schedule areas have been given additional powers to make laws concerning industries, communications, social security and insurance, labour and employment, and land and revenue and tourism. The Sixth Schedule allows these councils to formulate these laws to varying degrees, although assent from the governor is required to be in effect. Nonetheless, the very fact that it provides the legislative right at such a level is something to look for and thus provides, at least, some iota of bargaining stake with the authorities, governor and union state.
In a sense, the current demand for the Sixth Schedule is also a manifestation of the disenchantment of Ladakhi population over the lack of feeling represented, the very essence of a democratic structure. For a region that has been deprived of political representation (almost), exposed to profit-driven industrial capitalists and situated remote from its current power center (New Delhi), it is only natural that any form of empowered self-administration is viewed as the only alternative.
Sixth Schedule and Statehood
One of the primary features of administration in Ladakh since 2019 has been the overbearing presence of bureaucrats carrying out diktats promulgated from New Delhi with no consultation whatsoever with local stakeholders. These unelected officials hold no accountability towards the population they govern. In the event of Ladakh being provided with only the Sixth Schedule, the views and actions of local councils may likely be subdued by these overpowered bureaucrats.
Even in regions with the Sixth Schedule currently in place, administrative conflicts between bureaucrats and local councils are not unheard of. In the form of a cautionary note to the people of Ladakh demanding only Sixth Schedule, Sumarbin Umdor and K Vanlalhruaitluanga in “All is not Well in the Sixth Schedule: A Reaction to the Demand for the Sixth Schedule in Ladakh” provide a concerning state of affairs in the northeastern regions of India under Sixth Schedule. It is in this context that statehood is imperative for Ladakh. Distribution of powers at different levels of governance is central to Indian federal setup and unelected officials assuming any of these roles is untenable.
If we conceive the Sixth Schedule along with statehood, concerns may be adequately addressed. First and foremost, being a state opens up the ambit of formulating legislation on various subject matters already listed under Article 246, i.e. State List and Concurrent List. The addition of subject matter for legislation is always an asset from the perspective of democracy, and it better serves the interests of the people of those regions. Furthermore, it ensures three-level governance in its true form, empowering all of them with legislative and regulative rights. Hence, providing a substantial bargaining strength with the union, the governor, and the bureaucrats.
Since, reserved forest area is left out from the jurisdiction of district and regional councils, a way to ensure the right to legislate and regulate over forest and wildlife is through statehood. Through the 42nd amendment act of 1976, subject matter of forest and wildlife conservation were incorporated into the Concurrent List from the State List. A state legislature, if granted, will have the authority to make laws with respect to forest and wildlife. With Ladakh constituted by more than 90% tribal population, interest of the tribal population is likely to be served through such means of legislature. Consequently, all kinds of land could be potentially covered under the council and state.
Furthermore, paragraph 9 of the Sixth Schedule states that licensing or leasing for prospecting or extracting minerals is to be granted by the state government in agreement with the autonomous district. In the absence of a state government, the governor or the president is likely to be the authority to be involved. In such an instance, how much of the tribal population’s interest shall be fulfilled is up for debate, likely the stakes might be against us. However, if the legislature is granted, the state of Ladakh along with the autonomous district is more likely than before to prioritize the interest of the tribal population.
Incidentally, on the request of MHA, a memorandum was sought from the delegations of KDA and LAB which provided the opportunity to present a document serving the interest of the people of Ladakh. In the memorandum, schedule VI A was inserted with better farsightedness within a framework of statehood. Paragraph 6 and paragraph 8 (mistakenly written 6 again), if read in conjunction, provide every kind of protection to land that is being demanded by Ladakhis. Concerns other than land have also been taken care of, be it environment, culture, education, etc.
Within the Sixth Schedule itself, the heavy-handedness of the governor is conspicuous. Under Section 15, the governor may annul or suspend any act or resolution of local councils, if he or she deems them prejudicial to public order or a threat to the safety of India. Similarly, under section 16, if a situation has arisen that the administration of the district or region is not carried out in accordance with the provisions of the schedule, the governor on recommendation of a commission may dissolve local councils and assume to himself their powers and functions. Both the powers are placed at the discretion of the Governor itself.
Additionally, both provisions are required to be laid before the state legislature for their approval. Hence, within the framework of the Sixth Schedule itself, a state legislature is implicit and without statehood, a governor may act contrary to popular public sentiment.
On suspension of acts and regulations in Paragraph 15, through a caveat, the state legislature is empowered to revoke the suspension, hence nullifying the governor’s order. On the other hand, in the absence of a state legislature, a way out is not conceivable. Similarly in Paragraph 16, with the dissolution of councils, the legislature is provided with some authority to keep in check the discretion of the governor. The governor requires previous approval from the state legislature to assume administrative power of the council to himself or to endow it upon the commission. In the absence of a state legislature, the provisions are likely to be tilted in the favour of the governor. In other words, in the absence of a state legislature, the ball shall always be in the governor’s court.
If given state legislature along with the Sixth Schedule, the provisions of the Sixth Schedule could provide some relief and optimism to the inhabitants. Hence, the Sixth schedule must be accompanied by statehood.
(This write-up is a collaborative work by Concerned Research Scholars from Ladakh. It is a slightly altered version of an article that appeared in the Voice of Ladakh)
—–
Share this:
Unrest in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, political stalemate and rising costs
Israel, Hamas and the Elusive Cease-Fire
When Sheikh Abdullah’s meeting with Chinese leader Zhou Enlai in Algeria sparked a political storm in India
Singapore: Lawrence Wong to Lead Amid Economic and Political Challenges