On the latest episode of Scroll Adda, Sajjad Kargili–one of Ladakh’s most popular leaders and a part of the delegation that is negotiating with the Modi government–speaks to Shoaib Daniyal to explain why Ladakhis are so angry with Delhi. Sajjad speaks about the “colonial treatement” that Ladakh is receiving from Delhi.
Sajjad notes that Muslims are 46% of Ladakh’s population while Buddhists are 40%. Muslims are concentrated in Kargil district while Buddhists are concentrated in Leh district.
as the Commentariat – Saffroniate have departed we won’t get much analysis on this alas
wanted to add – there is a..natural tension that comes from increased Integration of geographically distant states with the rest of India – Access to capital, investment, improved services are all desirable from the ‘local’ perspective, but there is an obvious parochial anxiety and desire to keep the benefits local – jobs, land ownership etc.
Some of this is part of the natural evolution and iterative integration of the state over time. In Ladakh’s case, there are literally, Himalayan challenges involved, and not just geography, but also vestiges of partition.
All of this sounds a lot like excuse-making, and is, to a large extent. The onus is very clearly on the central govt to respond. I think Ladakhis have frequently pointed to the 6th schedule of the Indian constitution – not sure of the logistics of applying that to Ladakh, but I presume this sort of thing will inevitably get bundled with the restoration of state-hood for the valley and Jammu.
I think also that economic growth is best concentrated.
London & Paris are huge economic centres; I think the idea of rebalancing growth is always difficult.
Itâs better in India that one zone/belt emerge as a zone of peak prosperity that young people can move to.
Sajjad notes that Muslims are 46% of Ladakhâs population while Buddhists are 40%. Muslims are concentrated in Kargil district while Buddhists are concentrated in Leh district.
Interesting
Ladakh and Baltistan are one ethno-unit
Ladakh has some genuine grievances and is unfortunately caught up in the J&K fracas.
The Indian constitution and political process provides a bunch of levers to address this, some of which may not be politically tenable in a critically vulnerable frontier region, at least for now.
I wonder if we can get some sort of meaningful comparison of socioeconomic and political rights and statuses for Ladakh vs Gilgit-Baltistan.
A lot of Modiâs dramatic gestures (like exchange of notes or J&K) seemed to have caused more headache.
Iâm just interrogating
I do not know the details but personally I think Modi government model of development is bad for the environment – rapid concretization and commercialization they have pursued even in “Dev” bhoomi of Uttarakhand and Himachal leave lot to be desired. Unfettered development in Himalayas is very risky long term.
Ofcourse Congress did all this but being inefficient and more corrupt they didn’t destroy environment at this rate.
Some ideas like river front development projects and Varanasi development devoid of green cover are funny examples of how efficient execution of bad plans result destructiom
hmm that’s interesting – yes late stage capitalism is just terrible for the environment..
Has resulted in some destructive “beautification” and low-brow aesthetics. I think that’s more a function of funding and relative ‘wealth’ that a society has reached. It will hopefully iteratively get better as India grows. Hopefully.
Environmental destruction is of course bad but some of the more fundamental issues pointed out by Sajjad in this video were: fear of demographic change (he mentioned Ladakhis possibly becoming a minority in their own homeland) and lack of representation (Ladakh doesn’t even have a legislative assembly). Prior to the bifurcation of J&K, Ladakhis were at least represented in the state assembly.
Is Ladakh large enough to warrant that?
What does the geographic size have to do with the lack of a legislative assembly?
For the record, Ladakh is bigger than Indian Punjab.
Gilgit-Baltistan has a legislative assembly. Of course, there are other problems. Since it is not technically a province of Pakistan, the people of that area have no representation in Pakistan’s parliament.
Ladakh’s poulation is around 300,000. Less than one percent of Indian Punjab.
Its interesting that you are so ‘concerned’ about Ladakhi representation when the blunt reality is Ladakhis still have more socioeconomic and political rights, rule of law, than not just Gilgit-Baltistan, but the entirety of Pakistan.
Ladakhis have the right to protest and political activism to work towards genuine administrative change. By contrast, a Pakistani has been “legally” deprived of even daring to criticize the Pakistani Military’s “hybrid” seizure of governance.
I was referring to area not population. In terms of area, Ladakh is bigger than Indian Punjab. There is absolutely no reason why it cannot be a state or at least a Union Territory with a legislature. That is what Sajjad Kargili was advocating.
Prior to the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakhis were represented in the state government of J&K. Now,they’ve even lost that representation.
“Whataboutary” is not an argument. Anyway, Gilgit Baltistan may have its problems but the people there don’t hate the Pakistani government. On the contrary, they want nothing more than to be fully fledged citizens of Pakistan. Unfortunately, GB is part of the Disputed Territory and Pakistan’s official position is we cannot annex it to Pakistan without legitimizing India’s annexation of Occupied Kashmir (which we will never do).
Your views on Pakistan are neither here nor there. For what it’s worth, DAWN is against the 27th Amendment as is Maleeha Lodhi.
I donât think thatâs true per se.. also rights are subjective?
For instance a poor person in a rich society may feel poorer than a rich person in a poor society; even if the former is objectively wealthier than the latter.
It probably is the same with Pakistani Muslims; they may have fewer rights than Indian Muslims objectively but they feel much freer as they âownâ the body-politic and are not minorities..
The 2019 administrative changes are clearly temporary in nature. Its not expected to be permanent. That’s no consolation for Ladakhis of course.
I think Ladakh’s best case scenario is to move forward as a Union Territory or possibly statehood. Unfortunately, these outcomes are held hostage by the Ind-Pakistan (and China) dispute on JnK. And given the recent usurping of authority by the PakMil, by a self-styled failed Marshal who has more than doubled down on the 2-nation theory and keeping the Kashmir revisionism fantasies in Pakistan alive, its difficult to be optimistic for the long-term solutions to materialize any time soon.
I would want to see the Indian government get creative with short-term measures – as 2019 demonstrated, when there’s a will, they do possess the capacity to think outside the box and cut gordian knots.
Are there any Indian states that are as small as Ladakh
ladakh is a exotic remote place for the main landers, hence less response. further, the main land sees the division of erstwhile j & k as a means to contain separatism. curious as to how the remaining 14% side up in a dispute between shias and buddhists.
is there a dispute between the two religions?
looks so, i found this hindustan times article just now. interesting.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/on-ladakh-talks-with-govt-on-statehood-sections-among-buddhists-raise-concerns-101762698533522.html
is it a joint uprising?
u went to spam
may not be an uprising, but certainly not an united front.
ok I thought it was pan-Ladakh