Why the Union of India Remains Opposed to Ladakh's Statehood: A Betrayal of Democratic Promises

Photo Courtesy: @atifzeya Instagram 

In recent years, one of India's most important democratic struggles has taken place in the peaceful Himalayan region of Ladakh. Tensions between Ladakh's residents and the Union government have grown since the region became a Union Territory in 2019; in September 2025, violent protests that claimed four lives took place. The core question at the center of this dispute is why, in spite of clear electoral pledges, the Union of India has continuously rejected Ladakh's justifiable demands for statehood and constitutional protections.

The Union government's consistent violation of its own electoral pledges is the most damning feature of its policy toward Ladakh. In its 2019 election manifesto, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) made a clear commitment to add Ladakh to the Constitution's Sixth Schedule and grant it Union Territory status. This pledge was reaffirmed in the 2020 Hill Council elections, when the BJP made a specific commitment in its manifesto to safeguard the environment, jobs, and land by implementing constitutional protections under the Sixth Schedule.

In 2019, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) said that Ladakh should be added to the Sixth Schedule because 97% of its people are Scheduled Tribes. It's interesting that the Home Ministry, Law Ministry, and Tribal Affairs Ministry all agreed with this suggestion. But even with these institutional endorsements and campaign promises, the Union government has consistently refused to keep its word.

Home Minister Amit Shah's reported admission during a March 2025 meeting with Ladakhi representatives shows that the government is not being honest. Sources say that Shah admitted he was wrong to make Ladakh a UT, but at the same time, he turned down their main demand for statehood. This admission shows the government's basic flaw: they admit they made a mistake but refuse to fix it.

The change from Ladakh being a place with meaningful representation to one that is controlled by the government is a serious blow to democratic values. Before 2019, Ladakh had four MLAs in the Jammu and Kashmir assembly and a lot of freedom through the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (LAHDCs). These councils had a lot of power over local government, land use, and cultural matters.

Ladakh lost all legislative representation in the 2019 reorganization. Under Article 240 of the Constitution, Ladakh, a Union Territory without a legislature, is now directly governed by a Lieutenant Governor, with unelected bureaucrats holding the majority of the **decision-making authority. Once-powerful organizations, the LAHDCs now only manage 5–6% of the UT budget, resulting in what constitutional scholars refer to as a democratic deficit.

Instead of elected representatives answerable to the local populace, this centralization has produced a governance structure in which important decisions regarding land, culture, the environment, and employment are made by distant civil servants. As a result, Ladakhis are treated more like subjects than like citizens with democratic rights under the current system.

It seems that the Union government's resistance to Ladakh's demands stems from strategic considerations that give administrative control precedence over democratic governance. Ladakh is strategically important for national security because of its location along disputed borders with both China and Pakistan. The area is a vital barrier against possible Chinese-Pakistani cooperation and borders Pakistan-occupied Gilgit-Baltistan and China-controlled Aksai Chin.

According to reports, government representatives and security specialists are worried that giving local councils authority over land, forests, and natural resources through Sixth Schedule status could make military operations and infrastructure development more difficult. This viewpoint exposes a concerning mentality that sees national security and democratic empowerment as mutually exclusive—a bogus contradiction that threatens both democratic ideals and true security.

Given that the northeastern states listed in the Sixth Schedule, including those bordering China, such as the states that border Arunachal Pradesh, have effectively struck a balance between autonomy and security needs, the strategic importance argument becomes even more problematic. The government's reluctance to show Ladakhis the same level of trust raises concerns about their patriotism and dedication to maintaining the integrity of the country and suggests a paternalistic attitude.

Concerns about retaining central authority over the region's natural resources and development agenda are another reason why the Union government is resisting Ladakhi demands. Mass tourism (5.25 lakh visitors in 2023) and major infrastructure projects, such as planned mega solar parks and geothermal energy zones, are putting significant environmental strain on Ladakh. The region is now open to unfettered foreign investment and development due to the repeal of Articles 370 and 35A, which has sparked concerns about environmental damage and cultural displacement.

Ladakh has a graduate unemployment rate of 26.5%, which is much higher than the national average. There were 50,000 applications for only 534 government jobs in July 2023, underscoring the dire employment situation. The government has yet to create a Ladakh Public Service Commission that would guarantee local job opportunities and bureaucratic representation in spite of these urgent problems.

The government's strategy puts extractive development ahead of community-beneficial, sustainable growth. Ladakhis worry that without constitutional protections, their area will suffer from the same negative effects of unchecked development that have befallen other small hill states, turning their homeland into a resource extraction area rather than a place where local people can prosper.

The effect of the Union government's opposition on Ladakhi identity and culture is arguably its most pernicious feature. Important safeguards for land ownership, employment preferences, and cultural preservation that had been in place for decades were eliminated with the repeal of Articles 370 and 35A. These articles had protected the region's cultural and demographic integrity by acting as constitutional shields.

The Scheduled Tribes, which comprise more than 97% of Ladakh's population, are made up of various Muslim and Buddhist communities with unique languages, traditions, and customs. The demand for Sixth Schedule protection is not separatist; rather, it is an attempt to have their tribal status recognized by the constitution and to have their distinctive cultural heritage preserved within the Indian framework.

The government's homogenizing stance, which sees diversity as a threat rather than a strength, is demonstrated by its refusal to recognize these valid cultural concerns. The Union government is actively promoting the cultural assimilation and potential displacement of indigenous Ladakhi communities by refusing them constitutional protections.

Violence of September 2025, a predictable tragedy

The violent events that occurred in Leh on September 24, 2025, were not unplanned outbursts; rather, they were the inevitable outcome of years of broken promises and governmental indifference. The tragic escalation of a conflict that could have been prevented through dialogue and democratic accommodation occurred when four young Ladakhis were killed by police firing in response to peaceful protests demanding constitutional safeguards.

Sonam Wangchuk, a climate activist who had been spearheading nonviolent demonstrations for years, was later taken into custody under the National Security Act. The government's authoritarian approach to legitimate dissent is made clear by this harsh response to nonviolent democratic activism. A dangerous precedent for democratic discourse in India has been set by the arrest of a well-known educator and environmental activist for advocating for constitutional rights.

Instead of addressing the root causes, the government's initial response was to enforce curfews, shut down internet access, and detain more than 60 protesters. By addressing symptoms rather than root causes, this strategy guarantees that tensions will persist.

India's international reputation and democratic credibility are more broadly affected by how it handles the Ladakh issue. The denial of fundamental democratic rights to its own citizens challenges India's claim to be the mother of democracy on the international scene. The alarming trend of repressing peaceful democratic activism through security laws has been brought to the attention of international human rights organizations.

India's border talks with China are further complicated by the Ladakh situation. National security is weakened rather than strengthened when the local population in a strategically sensitive border region feels alienated. While communities who feel disenfranchised by their own government may turn into security liabilities, historical examples show that true local support is essential for effective border defense.

The Union government's persistent resistance to Ladakh's justifiable demands is a decision between authoritarian rule and democratic governance. The calls for statehood, inclusion in the Sixth Schedule, a Public Service Commission, and independent parliamentary representation are essentially democratic and not anti-national. Instead of separating from India's constitutional framework, these demands aim for greater integration with it.

By keeping its own electoral pledges and following the advice of its own constitutional bodies, the government could end this crisis. Numerous ministries have endorsed the NCST's recommendation to include the Sixth Schedule, which offers a clear path to constitutional protection. By granting statehood, current federal mechanisms would preserve strategic control while restoring democratic representation.

Rather, a manageable political issue has become a major crisis due to the government's choice of denial, delay, and repression. A fundamental failure of democratic governance is the use of state violence against peaceful protesters while refusing to meaningfully engage with legitimate democratic demands.

In the end, the Ladakh issue is a test of India's adherence to its own democratic ideals and constitutional precepts. The Union government's resistance to Ladakhi demands stems from a paternalistic authoritarianism that sees local autonomy as a threat to central authority rather than from justifiable security concerns or administrative efficiency.

The government's use of state violence against peaceful protesters, systematic betrayal of electoral promises, and rejection of constitutional recommendations all point to a government more focused on retaining power than on serving its citizens. In addition to failing the people of Ladakh, this strategy damages India's reputation abroad and its democratic institutions.

Democratic accommodation, not more repression, is the answer to the Ladakh crisis. The Union government could turn a source of conflict into a shining example of democratic federalism by keeping its word and providing the constitutional protections that Ladakhis rightfully seek. The persistent refusal to do so is a betrayal of India's democratic promise as well as of Ladakh.

People in Ladakh deserve to have their voices heard and respected, as they have done through years of nonviolent protest, hunger strikes, and democratic mobilization. The best of India's democratic traditions is embodied in their fight for constitutional protection, democracy, and dignity within the Indian framework.

This Article is Authored by Adnan Khan Yumkhaibam currently pursuing PG Political Science in Manipur University