The centre and leaders of a popular movement in Ladakh have been in talks over including this Union Territory in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. But even as both parties understand and appreciate the problem, their solutions vary. While the centre is sympathetic, it is wary of taking a step that could have a snowballing effect on the rest of the country, says PUSHP SARAF.
———
The issue of including the Union Territory (UT) of Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution appears to have triggered protracted bargaining between the Union Home Ministry and local leaders of a popular movement in the trans-Himalayan territory. The Sixth Schedule, incidentally, provides for the administration of tribal areas to safeguard the rights of the tribal population.
The two parties clearly understand and appreciate the problem, but their solutions vary. Veteran leaders of the “People’s Movement for Sixth Schedule for Ladakh”, enjoying total support on their home turf in Leh district, feel that their cause is entirely justified.
The North Block is sympathetic but wary of taking a step that could have a snowballing effect on the rest of the country.
Centre Steps In
Union Home Minister Amit Shah intervened to initiate dialogue after two rounds of talks on September 26, 2020, and January 5, 2021. He set up a committee under his junior colleague G. Kishan Reddy to carry forward the exercise.
In 2020, however, the BJP-led Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Leh (LAHDC-Leh) passed a resolution proposing three options –Sixth Schedule, Article 371 or a domicile law. This was done in the face of the ascendancy of the People’s Movement for Sixth Schedule for Ladakh pioneered by veterans.
Shah is yet to contend with resistance from leaders of Kargil district, the other district of the UT, to participate in the discussions till they are formally invited, even though they are largely supportive of the Sixth Schedule.
The Centre was initially inclined to meet the demand, but its perception underwent a change and this was evident from the variation in tones of Ladakh leaders of the BJP. The party’s young Lok Sabha member Jamyang Tsering Namgyal wrote to Union Minister for Tribal Affairs Arjun Munda after the centre scrapped the state of J&K. This had led to the bifurcation of the state into two UTs and knocked the teeth out of effective provisions of Articles 370 and 35-A on August 5, 2019. The party felt that the inclusion of Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule would guarantee people “a swift ride on the path of development and prosperity as per their aspirations”.
In 2020, however, the BJP-led Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Leh (LAHDC-Leh) passed a resolution proposing three options –Sixth Schedule, Article 371 or a domicile law. This was done in the face of the ascendancy of the People’s Movement for Sixth Schedule for Ladakh pioneered by veteran leaders (Lama Lobzang; Nawang Chamba Stanzin; Thiksey Khanpo Rinpochey, widely revered as head of the Thiksey monastery; Thupstan Chhewang, twice member of the Lok Sabha; Tsering Dorjay and Rigzin Jora, both former cabinet ministers in undivided J&K). These leaders had spearheaded the struggle for securing UT status for Ladakh.
Constitutional Safeguard
The local BJP–at least a section of it–sensed the popular mood and on September 22, 2020, its Leh district president, Nawang Samtan, signed a resolution unanimously passed by the People’s Movement “to boycott the ensuing 6th LAHDC-Leh election till such time the constitutional safeguard under the Sixth Schedule on the Lines of the Bodo Territorial Council is not extended to UT Ladakh and its people”. The UT administration had, ignoring the simmering discontent, announced polls to be held on October 16, 2020.
The local BJP–at least a section of it–sensed the popular mood and on September 22, 2020, its Leh district president, Nawang Samtan, signed a resolution unanimously passed by the People’s Movement “to boycott the ensuing 6th LAHDC-Leh election till such time the constitutional safeguard under the Sixth Schedule on the Lines of the Bodo Territorial Council is not extended to UT Ladakh and its people”.
When it became clear that the poll boycott would be a reality, Amit Shah intervened and called leaders of the “apex committee” of the People’s Movement–Thiksey Rinpochey, Thupstan Chhewang and Dorjay (by that time Rigzin Jora had withdrawn from the panel to continue his association with the Congress)–to Delhi. Among other things, he promised to “walk an extra mile” without making a categorical commitment about the Sixth Schedule. The Movement leaders dropped the election boycott call.
Another factor that weighed on their mind was, as Thupstan put it, to ensure peace and normalcy with “China making threatening noises within our hearing distance”. Shah kept his commitment to resume dialogue after the LAHDC-Leh was re-elected and contacted the Ladakh leaders. But with coronavirus affecting Thupstan and Dorjay, it was delayed and could take place only in the first week of 2021.
The government’s hesitation in bringing Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule is because this constitutional safeguard is not extended to an entire state or UT, but only a part of it. Ten tribal areas currently in the Sixth Schedule are part of one north-eastern state or the other: Bodoland Territorial Council, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council and Dima Hasao (North Cachar) Autonomous District Council (Assam); Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council and Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (Meghalaya), Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (Tripura), and Chakma Autonomous District Council, Lai Autonomous District Council and Mara Autonomous District Council (Mizoram).
The government’s hesitation in bringing Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule is because this constitutional safeguard is not extended to an entire state or UT, but only a part of it. Ten tribal areas currently in the Sixth Schedule are part of one north-eastern state or the other.
There seems to be an apprehension that multiple demands would be made once a UT in its entirety is extended an exclusive privilege.
Losing All Privileges
Ladakh’s dilemma is that while its decades-old struggle for UT status has succeeded, it has lost all the privileges it enjoyed as a constituent of the erstwhile state of J&K. It fears overpowering outside interference at the expense of its social, cultural, ethnic, linguistic and environmental identity. That explains the genesis of the People’s Movement for Sixth Schedule for Ladakh.
They were also emboldened by the fact that the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes had, on September 11, 2019, recommended (after consultations with the ministries of Home, Tribal Welfare and Law and Justice) “that the Union Territory of Ladakh be brought under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, as it will help in:
- Democratic devolution of powers
- Preserve and promote a distinct culture of the region
- Protect agrarian rights including rights on land; and
- Enhance transfer of funds for speedy development of Ladakh region”.
Describing Ladakh “a predominantly tribal region,’ the Commission had noted:
“The Scheduled Tribe population represents 66.8 percent in Leh, 73.35 percent in Nubra, 97.05 percent in Khalsti, 83.49 percent in Kargil, 89.96 percent in Sanku and 99.16 percent in Zanskar areas of the Ladakh region. The official figures, however, do not include a number of communities including Sunni Muslims in the region, who are claiming for Scheduled Tribe status”.
The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes had, on September 11, 2019, recommended “that the Union Territory of Ladakh be brought under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, as it will help in (i) Democratic devolution of powers; (ii) Preserve and promote a distinct culture of the region; (iii) Protect agrarian rights including rights on land; and (iv) Enhance transfer of funds for speedy development of Ladakh region.
It said that the total tribal population in the Ladakh region was more than 97 percent. The region is inhabited by the following Scheduled Tribes, namely: Balti; Beda; Bot, Boto; Brokpa, Drokpa, Dard, Shin; Changpa; Garra, Mon and Purigpa.
Ladakh’s dilemma is that while its decades-old struggle for UT status has succeeded, it has lost all the privileges it enjoyed as a constituent of the erstwhile state of J&K. It fears overpowering outside interference at the expense of its social, cultural, ethnic, linguistic and environmental identity. That explains the genesis of the People’s Movement for the Sixth Schedule for Ladakh.
The Commission noted that prior to the creation of the Union Territory of Ladakh, its people had certain agrarian rights, including rights on the land. This restricted people from other parts of the country from purchasing or acquiring land there. “Similarly, the Ladakh region has several distinct cultural heritages by communities such as Drokpa, Balti and Changpa, among others, which needs to be preserved and promoted,” it said.
Drokpas are considered the last descendants of the Aryan race; Baltis are an ethnic group of Shia Muslims mainly inhabiting Kargil district and Changpa is a semi-nomadic tribe mostly in the high-altitude Changthang region which is the home of pashmina goat. Likewise, the other tribes are either Buddhists or Shias. Communities like Sunni Muslims who constitute a minuscule minority don’t figure in the official list and they include “arguns”, the hybrids between Ladakhis and non-Ladakhis. The Commission has, however, taken into account their claims for ST status.
(Pushp Saraf is a senior journalist. The views expressed here are personal.
