“Home Minister Amit Shah on Monday announced that the Ministry of Home Affairs has decided to create five new districts in the Union Territory of Ladakh. The five new districts will be Zanskar, Drass, Sham, Nubra, Changthang”.

As I came across this news, so many thoughts started running around in my brain. Ladakh – newly appeared Union Territory on the map of India has been an integral part of India from long time. Known for its harsh climate, tough terrain, high altitude, unique culture, stunning landscape and strategic location is considered as peaceful part of India until recently.

Recent political developments coupled with development in other spheres as well have kept Ladakh in headlines for quite a while now. Abrogation of Article 370 and 35(A) on 5th August 2019 and Jammu and Kashmir reorganisation Act 2019-resulted in bifurcation of erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories – Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. It was followed by many events in Ladakh – whether its concerning youth unemployment, the limited powers of local bodies, or environmentalists’ concerns about sensitive ecology. On all these issues center seemed quite unwilling to cooperate, resulting in mass protest and fasting.

* Click to Follow Voice of Ladakh on WhatsApp *

Now if we discuss the recent announcement without going too far back, we can explore different aspects of this proposal. On the surface, this decision might appear to be welfare-oriented measure aimed at improving governance, enhancing local administration, and bringing development closer to the people in strategically important region. Districts in general enhance contact between people and the Administration and promote good governance. But till date (that is 26^th August, 2024 ;4.00 pm as am writing this article) it is ambiguous.

This time people are hesitant to rush into celebrating the district announcement because they realized they were deceived with the previous UT status which was granted without legislature.

In my opinion, political status of Ladakh has not been that favorable since independence. After independence, Ladakh was part of Jammu and Kashmir. Ladakh’s politics can be understood broadly under two phases:

1) 26^th October, 1947 – 5^th August 2019 (After Independence to the 2019 reorganisation.

2) 5^th August 2019 – till date (Ladakh as a Union Territory)

On 26^th October 1947, with the signing of the instrument of accession by Raja of Jammu, Ladakh along with Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of India. It was divided into two districts, Kargil and Leh, in 1979.  It faced discrimination and neglect from the state government, leading to agitation for UT status and inclusion in the scheduled tribe category in 1980s. Under the widely accepted leadership of 19^th Kushok Bakula Rinpoche who is rightly revered as (an architect of modern Ladakh), Ladakh unitedly demanded its rights as a part of a democratic country. These demands were further advanced by crucial organizations such as, Leh Apex Body (LAB), Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), and Ladakh Democratic Alliance (LDA) and Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA).

After decades, Ladakh was granted schedule tribe status, and the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) was established in 1995, followed by the Kargil Autonomous Hill Development Council (KAHDC) in 2003. These developments somewhat pacified the people of Ladakh and cooled the demand for separate UT status.

Second phase began in 2019, when center declared Ladakh as separate UT, Ladakhi’s (more than half a population) joy knew no bounds. However, they soon realized how badly they had been betrayed. The promise of a fully functional legislature and greater autonomy remained unfulfilled leading to widespread disillusionment and demands for more autonomy. Amid all these demands, General Assembly election approached, during which efforts were made to remind the Centre Government of its promise. However, the Government didn’t give much attention to these demands and kept delaying decision on them, resulting in an independent candidate winning a decisive victory in Parliamentary elections.

Coming back to the recent announcement of new districts, LBA president has clearly mentioned that they on behalf of Ladakhis welcome this announcement if there isn’t any loophole. And as far as celebration is concerned, he said first we need to have a clear understanding of what the district announcement involves. He further added that, we should avoid a situation where we expect something significant, only to find out it much less than anticipated. It should not be “khoda pahad aur nikla chuhiya”  he said while referring to a possible situation. Moreover, he stressed on the point that demand for separate districts was the demand of public and it won’t impact our four existing demands.

Now, this move of incumbent government has different implications. Before discussing different implications, I feel it necessary to highlight that people of Ladakh have been demanding for only two additional districts that is Nubra and Zanskar. By creating new districts in Ladakh, the government may be aiming to improve local governance, enhance administrative efficiency, and address specific regional needs. In some, it will promote grass-root development and efficient administration.

However, given the past experience there might also be underlying political  motivations, such as increasing centre control or managing locals demands in a way that appears responsive while delivering less than expected. To elaborate :-

Firstly, Dividing Ladakh into different districts can allow the centre government to exert more control over Ladakh, as district affairs are primarily managed by the District Commissioner (DC) and Superintendent of Police (SP), both of whom are centrally appointed civil servants.

Secondly, This move could potentially weaken the united voice of Ladakh, especially in the demand for inclusion in the 6th Schedule. By dividing Ladakh into different parts, the proposal might, as Niro-Yuval Divas suggest, replace a sense of ‘belonging’ with the ‘politics of belonging.’

Thirdly, it could lead to selective development and investment in specific district, which will make it easier for centre to convince separate district separately, one by one, which will possibly lead to uneven development across Ladakh.

Lastly, the biggest question is what will happen to existing Autonomous Hill Development Council, which for now, are the primary voice of the locals (alongside one MP). The role and authority could be diminished or even vanished under the new district framework.

Some people even speculate that it could be an appeasement move as the council election are still to be conducted or approaching. If this is indeed part of an appeasement strategy, the people of Ladakh should remember: ‘Let’s not fill our stomach with just the starters; Let’s wait for (and demand if not served) the main course.’

That said, it is not without potential benefits; this move could also bring about positive changes. For instance, the certain of new district might led to more focused governance, allowing for better resource allocation and improve public services. It could also provide a stronger administrative presence in remote areas, ensuring that development efforts reach all corners of Ladakh.

Additionally, the establishment of new districts, might empower local communities by giving them a more direct voice in governance and decision-making. While there could be positive impacts, it is important for the people of Ladakh to remain aware and vigilant. They should ensure that their needs are fully addressed beyond initial measures and demand substantial outcomes if necessary.

Overall, a balanced approach, acknowledging both potential benefits and challenges, will be crucial as Ladakh navigates these changes.

References –

Yuval-Davis, N(2006). Belonging and the politics of belonging.

Tailor and Framers online.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Voice of Ladakh or its editorial team.