SRINAGAR: The political dialogue between the Centre and Ladakh’s representative bodies has run into fresh difficulties, with the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) rejecting the Union Ministry of Home Affairs’ draft proposal for a new elected Union Territory-level institution, citing substantial differences over its powers, constitutional safeguards and relationship with the existing administration.
The disagreement has revived concerns over the future of democratic governance in Ladakh, where demands for constitutional protection, greater local control over land and natural resources, and an elected institution with legislative, executive and financial powers have remained central to the agitation since the region became a Union Territory in 2019.
The latest round of discussions, held in Leh on October 15, remained inconclusive after the MHA presented draft proposals on the structure of the proposed institution and constitutional safeguards. The LAB and KDA said the Centre had moved away from understandings reached during discussions in May, particularly on the proposed body’s authority over the administration and the scope of constitutional protection.
The next meeting of the sub-committee has been scheduled for October 22 in New Delhi, leaving the two sides with little more than a week to bridge differences that have persisted through successive rounds of negotiations.
The disagreement centres on a fundamental question: whether Ladakh will receive an elected institution with meaningful authority over its governance or a more limited arrangement operating within the existing Union Territory administrative framework.
The LAB and KDA have sought a constitutional arrangement that would provide Ladakh with safeguards comparable to those available to other northeastern states under Articles 371A, 371F and 371G. During a meeting on May 22, the two sides had reached an in-principle understanding with the Centre on constitutional protection and the creation of an elected Union Territory-level body with legislative, executive and financial powers.
The latest draft, however, has exposed differences over how far the proposed institution would be empowered to exercise authority over the administration.
LAB chairman Chering Dorjay Lakruk said the Ministry had backtracked on assurances given during the May discussions. He said the two Ladakh bodies had submitted their responses to seven questions raised by the MHA during the September 9 meeting, but the proposals presented in Leh fell short of their expectations.
“There was huge gap between what the MHA offered to us and what we have been demanding,” Lakruk said after the October 15 meeting, adding that the talks had not failed but would continue.
KDA co-chairman Asgar Ali Karbalai was more critical, saying the arrangement offered by the Centre appeared to be an agency below the existing councils. He described the reversal of earlier understandings as a negative signal for the negotiations.
One of the principal disagreements concerns the authority over the Annual Performance Reports (APRs) of the Chief Secretary. According to Lakruk, the Centre had agreed in principle in May that the head of the proposed elected body would write the Chief Secretary’s APRs, giving the institution a measure of control over the senior-most bureaucrat in the Union Territory.
The latest proposal does not accept this arrangement. Instead, the MHA has suggested creating a post of Chief Executive Secretary (CES), an officer of at least the rank of Secretary, who would work under the head of the proposed body.
The distinction is significant for the Ladakh leadership, which wants the new institution to exercise substantive executive authority rather than function as a consultative or subordinate body alongside the existing administration.
The question of nomenclature has also emerged as a point of contention. The LAB proposed that the institution be called either the Government of Ladakh or the Legislature of Government of Ladakh. The Centre has reportedly rejected both names, maintaining that Ladakh is not being offered statehood or a Union Territory with a legislature, but a special arrangement described as a sui generis model.
Lakruk said the Ladakh bodies had proposed that the head of the institution be designated Chief Minister. The Centre neither accepted nor rejected the proposal, leaving the position unresolved.
Ladakh Chief Secretary Ashish Kundra said the proposed institution would be a Union Territory-level Frontier Agency, with four to five names under consideration. He said the names could also be suggested by the Ladakh bodies and reiterated that the arrangement would not amount to statehood or a Union Territory with a legislature.
Kundra defended the Centre’s approach, saying the draft was intended to facilitate further discussion rather than represent a final decision. He criticised the Ladakh bodies for dismissing the proposal within two hours of receiving the 32-page document, arguing that they could have offered suggestions instead.
He said the proposed framework involved a two-stage process: a constitutional amendment followed by a separate regulation under Article 240 of the Constitution. The arrangement envisages a directly elected Union Territory-level body, with safeguards concerning land, natural resources, culture and other issues raised by Ladakh’s representatives.
The proposed constitutional amendment would introduce Article 371-K specifically for Ladakh. A subsequent regulation under Article 240 would define the functioning of the new institution.
Kundra said several questions remained open, including the institution’s name and composition, the method of election, representation of women and underrepresented communities, nominated and ex-officio membership, delimitation of constituencies, electoral rolls and tenure. Its relationship with the existing Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (LAHDCs), panchayats and municipalities would also require detailed examination.
He urged the Ladakh leadership to continue negotiations with patience and mutual trust, saying the government did not want to rush into an arrangement that could shape the region’s governance for decades without adequately addressing public expectations.
“There is no reason for anyone to lose hope,” Kundra said, expressing confidence that the process could move towards a conclusion in the coming weeks and months.
The failure to reach an understanding has nevertheless generated considerable disappointment among sections of Ladakh’s political leadership and civil society.
Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, who has been among the prominent voices demanding constitutional safeguards for the region, said people were “very sad, angry and surprised” following the inconclusive talks.
In a video posted on X, Wangchuk questioned the government’s commitment to the promises made to Ladakh after it was reorganised as a Union Territory in 2019. He said people had been assured that democratic governance would be restored through a special Assembly under which the bureaucracy, including the Chief Secretary, would function.
Wangchuk also referred to discussions in May, saying assurances had been given about constitutional protection under Article 371 rather than the Sixth Schedule. He described the latest round of negotiations as crucial in the wake of those discussions but said there remained major differences between the two sides.
He questioned why commitments made to the people were not being honoured, expressing concern over the contrast between the sacrifices Ladakhis had made for the country and their experience of the ongoing negotiations.
His remarks reflected the broader frustration over the pace and substance of the political dialogue, although the next meeting scheduled for October 22 leaves the process open.
The negotiations have also been complicated by the Centre’s recent amendments to the legal and administrative framework governing the LAHDCs. The changes, introduced through the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (Amendment) Regulation, align the terminology, administrative structure and electoral provisions of the councils with the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.
The Kargil Democratic Alliance has objected to the changes, arguing that the government has altered the composition, powers and functioning of the councils without consulting Ladakh’s people and stakeholders, even as negotiations over the region’s future political and constitutional arrangements remain underway.
KDA co-chairman Sajad Kargili said it was “deeply problematic” for the government to make substantial institutional changes while discussions were continuing on demands for constitutional status and stronger protections for the councils.
He argued that the amendments effectively changed the institutional framework that the negotiations were intended to address, while giving the Union Territory administration greater control over the councils.
The regulation provides that the number of elected seats in each council will be determined by the Ladakh administration, with a minimum of seven and a maximum of 24 seats. The administration may nominate up to four members from among women and unrepresented communities, subject to the stipulated one-sixth population limit.
The sitting Lok Sabha member representing Ladakh will be an ex-officio member of the councils constituted for each district. Each council will have a five-year term from the date of its first meeting, unless dissolved earlier. The term may be extended if elections are considered impracticable.
The amendments also replace references to the state and Governor with the Union Territory of Ladakh and Administrator, respectively. The State Election Commission for Ladakh will supervise and control council elections and electoral rolls, while election petitions may be filed directly before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh within 45 days of the declaration of results.
The regulation identifies the district areas under the framework as Leh, Sham, Nubra, Changthang, Kargil, Zanskar and Drass, along with any newly created districts. The councils will exercise district-level panchayat powers and perform functions under the Jammu and Kashmir Panchayati Raj Act, 1989.
For Ladakh’s political representatives, however, the issue extends beyond the councils’ administrative functioning. Their central demand is for a broader constitutional arrangement that provides democratic representation and meaningful authority over decisions affecting the region’s land, resources, culture and political future.
The administration has defended its right to continue routine governance while negotiations proceed. Kundra said officials could not stop addressing people’s ordinary needs and difficulties simply because talks were underway, adding that the Lieutenant Governor, as the President’s representative, had constitutional responsibilities to discharge.
He also pointed to measures taken by the Centre, including increased reservation for local residents, recognition of regional languages and reservation for women in the hill councils. According to him, reservation for Scheduled Tribes in Ladakh, which stood at 10 per cent in 2019, had been increased to 84 per cent for local people.
These measures, however, have not resolved the fundamental disagreement over the structure and authority of the proposed elected institution.
The October 22 meeting in New Delhi is therefore expected to be an important test of whether the Centre and the Ladakh leadership can narrow their differences over the proposed constitutional framework. The immediate challenge is to reconcile the Centre’s insistence on a special Union Territory-level arrangement with the LAB and KDA’s demand for an institution possessing clearly defined legislative, executive and financial powers, backed by enforceable constitutional safeguards.
Until that gap is addressed, the negotiations are likely to remain under pressure, with Ladakh’s leaders questioning whether the emerging framework will deliver meaningful autonomy or leave the region’s representative institutions dependent on the discretion of the administration.
