Sant Kumar Sharma
The peaceful Union Territory (UT) of Ladakh, a region bordering two hostile neighbouring countries, China and Pakistan, saw violence recently. Subsequently, precious lives were lost, around 90 people were injured and internet was disrupted. Normalcy is yet to return to this land of lamas, Buddhist ascetics and unmatched beauty of high mountains. Tourism was badly impacted as those already in Leh, the capital city, could not move out due to curfew. The arrival of more tourists in such an atmosphere was not possible and large scale cancellations happened.
The last such violence, triggered by the politics of the day, was seen in 1989 when the agitation in Leh was led by the Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA). Six years later, in 1995, the Ladakh Autonomous Hill District Council (LAHDC) was created. A couple of years later, another LAHDC was created, this time in Shia-dominated Kargil. The two LAHDCs, one each in Kargil and Leh, the two districts of Ladakh, has led to grassroots empowerment of local communities.
According to 2011 census, Ladakh had around 2,74,000 people and the number may have touched 3,00,000 at present. It is vast, has mostly inhospitable terrain and does not have too many habitations. A section of agitating Ladakhis is demanding that Ladakh be made a full-fledged state with a Legislative Assembly of its own. Besides, these people are saying that there should be two Lok Sabha seats, one in Kargil and one in Leh.
Legislature Demand
In 1951, when the first elections were held in Ladakh, for the Constituent Assembly of J&K, both Kargil and Leh chose one legislator each. In 1996, full 45 years later, two new assembly segments of Zanskar (in Kargil) and Nubra (in Leh) were created, raising the number of legislators to four. In 2014, Ladakh chose four legislators only.
Now that a full-fledged assembly is being demanded in Ladakh, what can or should the number of MLAs there? Doubling the present number would mean eight MLAs, and quadrupling it would mean a House of 16. It needs to be mentioned here that the smallest assembly is of UT of Puducherry with 30 members, for a population of 12 lakh. Sikkim has a House of 32 members (approximately 7 lakh population), Goa and Mizoram have Houses of 40 each, with populations of 16 lakh & 14 lakh, respectively.
Some Ladakhi leaders have also been demanding that there should be two MPs, one in Kargil and one in Leh. This too is an impractical demand as it is not possible for the government to increase the number of MPs in Ladakh in view of the 84th Constitutional Amendment piloted by late Arun Jaitley.
Under this amendment, passed during Atal Behari Vajpayee’s tenure as Prime Minister, enacted in 2001, the constitutional freeze on delimitation was extended. As such, the number of Lok Sabha seats cannot be increased. This was done until the first census after 2026, with the intention of not penalizing states that controlled their population growth. This amendment aimed to maintain the existing population-based representation in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies and was intended to allow population control measures to take effect without immediately impacting political representation.
Small Population
As we have seen in preceding paragraphs, Ladakh has a much smaller population as compared to Puducherry, Sikkim, Goa and Mizoram, states with small legislatures. As such, making Ladakh a state does not look like a practical solution out of the present impasse. Further, in any UT, decision-making is usually much faster, as compared to states, due to less bureaucratic and political tiers.
Incidentally, Ladakh receives one of the highest per capita Central support of as compared to other states and UTs. For a sensitive border region, faster decision-making and direct Central supervision can be critical. There are chances that a state government, unfriendly to the Centre, can create bureaucratic hurdles.
Security, Local Concerns
If we faced Pakistan in Kargil during 1999 war, the flare-up with China in June 2020 in Galwan in Leh district is too recent a happening to be easily brushed aside. Any compromise on security concerns regarding Ladakh cannot be wished away. There is a real fear that a devolved state government with legislative powers could obstruct military logistics, land-use decisions and infrastructure projects vital for national security.
We saw hereinabove as to how granting statehood to Ladakh may not be a practical solution. Of course, the locals have aired grievances which cannot be dismissed as irrational fears alone. They need to be addressed, and sincerely, and to make a beginning, the two LAHDCs of Kargil and Leh can be strengthened further, with some additional powers, and liberal funding. These can be given more powers regarding land, employment and resource management.
The absence of a Public Service Commission after 2019 in Ladakh has halted recruitment to gazetted posts. A domicile-based recruitment mechanism, including for gazetted posts via UPSC supervision, can be fast-tracked for addressing joblessness concerns. The recruitment at lower levels also needs to be taken up on urgent basis and the policy of officials from J&K manning top posts should be phased out in a systematic, time-bound manner.
Development Dilemma
A good regulatory mechanism based on stringent laws and penalties needs to be put in place to curb exploitative behaviour by new industries that can be, and need to be, set up in Ladakh. In the unskilled and semi-skilled categories, a large percentage of employees can be locals. Providing them training for leadership roles in industries relating to renewable energy and some other sectors can help allay fears about heavy influx of outsiders.
Infrastructure development in Ladakh is being given top priority, with tunnels, roads, bridges and power supply being improved with every passing day. A couple of days ago, the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) constructed a road at Mig La which is 19,400 feet high, relegating Uming La (19,024 feet) to second place and pushing Khardung La (18,379 feet) to the third spot. Incidentally, it is very few local Ladakhis who are involved in the road and bridge construction. The labour for these projects is sourced from Jharkhand, Bihar and Chhatisgarh.
Statehood alone, as is being made out by some people, is not the only viable solution to address issues which have flared up in the Ladakh region of late. The Indian Constitution has many provisions which can be discussed and implemented as a way out. Ladakhi leaders and the Central officials reposing faith in one another can be the first step towards meaningful engagement.
The post Why Ladakh does not need Statehood appeared first on Daily Excelsior.