advertisement
Amidst mounting Chinese pressure at the border, some mischievous contrivances to stir up trouble in Ladakh have recently begun. China recently stated that it “does not recognise the Union Territory of Ladakh”; soon after, media outlet Al Jazeera put up an article with the title ‘Ladakh Buddhists who hailed India’s Kashmir move not so sure now’.
With the first anniversary of Ladakh UT having just gone by on 31 October, mischief-makers are once again on the loose. “Ladakh is in the news for border conflicts. But its residents have bigger worries than China,” writes another news tabloid. Others have followed suit.
They convey the impression that people in Ladakh are unmoved by the border stand-off; instead they are fretful of ‘outsiders’ foraying in to threaten their culture and demography.
But nothing could be further from the truth.
Ladakh’s separation from J&K in 2019 was a watershed moment – a new tryst with destiny to change the fate of Ladakh after 185 years of ‘slavery and coercion’ under J&K.
There is obviously a cause for celebration. But, to be sure, Ladakh UT is at an infancy stage, facing some teething problems of transition, especially when people are voicing some apprehensions relating to their identity and land protection.
Such fears have given birth to the idea of demanding constitutional safeguards, that is, the inclusion of Ladakh UT in the Sixth Schedule of India’s Constitution – a provision given to 10 tribal districts in four Northeastern states.
A range of political, social and religious outfits rallied behind them in support for the demand of ‘Sixth Schedule for Ladakh’. They even called for boycotting the elections to the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) until the demand was met.
Strangely, their demand came with some threatening undertone that inadvertently concurred with the Chinese utterance of ‘not recognising the Union Territory of Ladakh’. It was unclear whether they intended to leverage the border stand-off, but it seemingly put the government under a lot of pressure. What followed was a meeting between them and Home Minister Amit Shah who assured to start a talk after 15 days of the local poll results on 26 October. Ladakhis instantly lifted their boycott call and also quickly denounced China’s statement on Ladakh – ostensibly to avoid any misunderstanding at such a critical time.
At the heart of their demand is power. The UT status came without a legislative Council and instead, even the existing powers of LAHDC got shifted to the Lt Governor.
They demand a Bodoland-type power arrangement that protects the rights of indigenous people over their land with legislative subjects that are exclusive to local governments without interference from Central Laws. A similar provision under Article 371 (A) is given to other areas such as in Nagaland in respect of the religious, social practices, customary law of the Nagas.
The bestowal of the Sixth Schedule certainly entails advantages and is also emotionally satisfying for specific communities. Yet, others contend that it comes with its own shortcomings. For example, it leads to political and economic ‘exclusion’, and in the absence of political will, and the mercy of government allocating funds, the scheduled areas inevitably stand to face neglect.
They even went ahead to oppose J&K’s bifurcation and reject the formation of the UT.
Also, a contrary opinion is that Ladakhis cannot be compared with the vanishing tribes like the Jarawas of the Andaman Islands or other forested tribes facing threat of extinction.
Ladakh is historically perceived as a cosmopolitan region with centuries of multiple cultural settings. It was an Asian pivot – the people here traversed diverse cultural boundaries and engaged with ideas. Its Buddhist community resembles nothing like the Chakma tribes in the Northeast. The Baltis and Purigs of Kargil cherish their rich Persian Shia and Sufi heritages.
Ladakh had some famous national leaders like Kushok Bakula, P Namgyal, Kacho Sikander Khan and Munshi Habibullah. It produced several technocrats, bureaucrats and military leaders like Sonam Norboo, AJ Kundan, Colonel Rinchen, C Phunsog and others who held important political and diplomatic positions in the country. Ladakhis are also known to be true nationalists. The velour of Ladakh Scout Regiments is well known.
To draw an analogy between Ladakh with any other tribal communities of India therefore seems a folly.
The expectation gap certainly needs to be bridged.
The government, however, needs to tread carefully and avoid having a 'cut and paste' tribal policy for Ladakh. To set the clock back to reviving the old feudal socio-economic hierarchy is even more unnecessary.
At the same time, the Sixth Schedule demand also appears imprudent and not a well thought-out idea – seemingly raised in a fit of hasty deliberation. Ladakh deserves much more, for it was once an ancient Western Himalayan Kingdom with a profound cultural backdrop.
Its rich Buddhist, Balti and Dardic cultural heritage requires a much higher degree of protection.
A prudent policy step would be to consider Ladakh under the ambit of protecting the Himalayan heritage – its people, culture, environment and security. A national commission is urgently needed to review the issue as also addressing the Ladakhi demand so as to bring about a necessary law by the Parliament.
The region extends from Karakoram Range in the northwest to the Kailash Range in the southeast, from the Tarim Basin in the north to Kangra-Mahasu Valley in the south. It now shares international borders with China, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Obviously, after having been designated as a Union Territory, the region certainly cannot be treated as a municipality town to be governed by bureaucrats alone. The UT status must be complimented with proper political empowerment to strengthen democracy, as well as national defence.
(The author is the founder of the Ladakh International Centre. He is on the Advisory Council of Oxus Society for Central Asian Affairs, Washington. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)
Published: undefined