Ladakh Governance Crisis: Statehood and Sixth Schedule

Ladakh Governance Crisis Latest News

• The Centre took two significant steps in the seven-year-old Union Territory of Ladakh recently: a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) sub-committee shared a 32-page draft proposal with civil society leaders, while the Lieutenant Governor’s administration announced Sankoo as Ladakh’s eighth district. 
• Though seemingly unrelated, both moves reflect the Centre’s evolving approach to Ladakh’s persistent demands for Statehood and inclusion in the Sixth Schedule — demands that have fuelled recurring street protests since Ladakh was carved out as a UT from Jammu & Kashmir in 2019.

Why the Draft Proposal Was Rejected

• The Leh Apex Body (LAB) and Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) jointly rejected the draft in principle.
• Key grievances: 
  • The draft marked a significant departure from assurances made during earlier sub-committee meetings.
  • It failed to address the demand for a legislative assembly.
  • It offered no constitutional safeguards under Article 371 tailored to Ladakh’s unique circumstances.
• LAB and KDA urged the MHA to instead accept their own draft Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), submitted recently in Leh.
• Notably, not all civil society groups agree: The Civil Society Forum of Ladakh, led by ex-MP Thupstan Chhewang, welcomed the MHA’s roadmap — exposing growing internal friction among Ladakh’s civil society organisations.

‹ ›

Background: The High-Powered Committee (HPC)

• Amid rising protests, the MHA constituted a High-Powered Committee (HPC) in 2023, chaired by MoS Home Affairs Nityanand Rai.
• HPC’s Mandate: 
  • Protect Ladakh’s unique culture and language, factoring in its strategic location.
  • Safeguard land and employment for locals.
  • Promote inclusive development.
  • Empower the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (LAHDCs) of Leh and Kargil.
  • Recommend constitutional safeguards to secure the above.

The May 2026 Commitment — And Why the New Draft Fell Short

• Centre-Ladakh talks in May 2026 produced minutes stating: 
  • Statehood would remain the long-term aspiration.
  • As a first step, a “customised model of governance” via a UT-level elected body with executive, financial, and legislative powers would be established.
  • A “sui generis” (unique) model under Article 371 was proposed.
  • A key agreement: the elected body would gain control and supervision over civil servants, with Transaction of Business Rules to define power-sharing between the elected body and the Lieutenant Governor.
• LAB and KDA’s complaint: The new draft instead resembles a North-East Frontier Agency-type arrangement — closer to a Territorial Council model with power concentrated in the LG’s administration, falling far short of the legislature-backed sui generis model promised in May.

New Districts: A Parallel Governance Push

• Since 1947, Ladakh (population ~3.5 lakh, spread over 59,146 sq km of challenging cold-desert terrain) had only two districts: Leh (Buddhist-majority) and Kargil (Shia Muslim-majority).
• 2026 Reform: Creation of six new districts — Sankoo, Sham, Nubra, Changthang, Zanskar, and Drass — aimed at bringing administration closer to people.
• Each new district will get a hill council, with locals electing 26 members per council — intended to boost local representation.
• Existing hill councils: LAHDC-Leh (1995) and LAHDC-Kargil (2003) historically set local priorities and budgets, but their influence declined after 2019 under direct Central rule.
• The Ladakh administration is also pushing a three-tier representation system — elections for panchayats, municipalities, and hill councils — to strengthen participatory governance in a UT that still lacks a legislature.

Conclusion

• The Centre’s twin moves — a contested governance draft and the creation of new districts — reveal a dual-track strategy for Ladakh: offering administrative decentralisation through more districts and hill councils, while sidestepping the core political demand for a full legislature and constitutional safeguards. 
• For Ladakh’s civil society, this distinction matters deeply — administrative proximity is not the same as political empowerment. 
• Until the gap between the Centre’s May 2026 promises and its October draft is bridged, Ladakh’s demand for Statehood and Sixth Schedule protection is likely to remain a live political fault line, even as governance on the ground gradually decentralises.

Source: TH