Why in news?
In late September 2025, protests in Leh turned violent when police stopped climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s call for a “border march.” Ladakh’s Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance have been campaigning for statehood and inclusion of the Union Territory under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. The unrest highlighted deep‑seated grievances since the region lost its legislature in 2019.
Background
- After the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, Ladakh was carved out of Jammu & Kashmir as a Union Territory without a legislature. Many Ladakhis welcomed direct governance but soon realised it offered little safeguard for their land, jobs and culture.
- Local bodies – the Apex Body of the Leh Autonomous Hill Development Council and the Kargil Democratic Alliance – formed a joint platform demanding constitutional safeguards, including inclusion in the Sixth Schedule which provides for autonomous councils with powers over land and resources.
Protestors’ demands
- Full statehood for Ladakh so that local elected representatives can legislate on matters of land, culture and development.
- Inclusion of Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution to protect tribal culture, ecology and livelihood from unchecked industrial projects.
- A separate parliamentary seat for the Buddhist‑majority Leh region and a State Public Service Commission to provide local jobs.
- Immediate halt to large‑scale mining and industrial projects seen as threatening fragile ecology.
Arguments and government response
- For statehood: Supporters argue that a legislature and Sixth Schedule status are necessary for meaningful self‑governance, protection of tribal culture and fair representation. They fear that without safeguards outsiders could buy land and exploit natural resources.
- Against statehood: Opponents say Ladakh’s strategic location on the Line of Actual Control with China requires direct central control to ensure national security. Some believe statehood could strain the small region’s finances and administrative capacity.
- The central government formed a high‑powered committee to study the demands. It offered to enhance the powers of hill councils and promised a recruitment drive but has not accepted statehood or Sixth Schedule status.
Implications
- The protests highlight the clash between democratic aspirations and strategic concerns. Ongoing unrest can undermine stability in a sensitive border region.
- A negotiated solution that balances self‑governance with national security could set an example for managing autonomy movements elsewhere.
Conclusion
Away from slogans and slogans, the issue centres on ensuring that Ladakh’s unique culture and fragile ecology are protected while maintaining national security. A constructive dialogue between locals and the centre, backed by constitutional measures, is essential to address these grievances.