From Dogra Rule to Delhi’s Control: Why Ladakh Is Demanding Statehood and Sixth Schedule

Nearly 97% of Ladakh’s population belongs to Scheduled Tribes, yet since its 2019 Union Territory status, the region has had no legislature — sparking fresh protests for statehood and Sixth Schedule safeguards.

In September, 2025, the usually tranquil streets of Leh erupted in anger. Thousands of protesters — men, women, monks, and students — marched under the clear blue Ladakhi sky, demanding statehood and inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution.

What began as a peaceful agitation soon turned tragic when police fired tear gas shells to disperse the crowd. In the chaos that followed, four protesters were killed and over thirty injured.

Amidst the smoke and mourning, one image defined the day — the BJP office in Leh set ablaze, a burning symbol of disillusionment toward a party that once promised to protect Ladakh’s autonomy.

The incident shocked the nation, not only for its violence but because it triggered a complete shutdown across Leh, called by the Leh Apex Body (LAB) — a powerful coalition of political, religious, and social groups that has led Ladakh’s post-2019 autonomy movement.

At the heart of it all stood Sonam Wangchuk, a globally renowned climate activist, innovator, and Ramon Magsaysay Award winner. On that very day, Wangchuk ended his 15-day hunger strike, urging Ladakhi youth to stay peaceful but resolute. His voice, calm yet commanding, echoed through the mountains:

“Our struggle must remain non-violent, because the mountains have taught us patience.”

To understand why Ladakh’s people — once jubilant at the creation of their Union Territory in 2019 — are now demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule safeguards, we must trace this story back centuries, through royal courts, colonial neglect, and the long arc of democratic awakening.

The Namgyal Dynasty: Ladakh’s Era of Sovereignty

Centuries before India’s independence, Ladakh flourished as an independent Himalayan kingdom ruled by the Namgyal dynasty (16th–19th centuries). Nestled at the crossroads of South Asia, Tibet, and Central Asia, it was more than a remote mountain realm — it was a vital trading hub and cultural powerhouse.

Cultural and Economic Significance

• Ladakh was often described as “Little Tibet” due to its strong Buddhist traditions and deep cultural links with Tibet.

• Its strategic location made it a nexus of the trans-Himalayan trade. Pashmina wool, salt, borax, and carpets were exchanged along routes that connected Kashmir, Tibet, Xinjiang (China), and Central Asia.

• The Namgyal kings, especially Sengge Namgyal (1616–1642), built iconic monasteries like Hemis and Thiksey, symbolizing a golden era of art, architecture, and learning.

The Memory of Sovereignty

For Ladakhis, the Namgyal era is not a distant legend — it is the foundation of their political consciousness. The kingdom’s memory lives on in collective pride: Ladakh once ruled itself, spoke its own languages, and shaped its destiny. This historical self-image continues to fuel the modern demand for autonomy.

Dogra Conquest and the End of Independence (1834)

The turning point came in 1834, when General Zorawar Singh, serving under Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu, launched a military expedition across the frozen passes. After fierce battles, Ladakh fell. The once-sovereign kingdom was annexed into the Dogra-ruled princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, itself under British suzerainty.

Consequences of Dogra Rule

• Ladakh lost its sovereignty and became an administrative district, ruled from afar.

• While monasteries retained limited control over cultural affairs, all political authority now rested in Jammu and Srinagar.

• Ladakhis began to feel like subjects of an external power, their voice absent from governance.

This sense of political exclusion — of decisions being made far away by outsiders — would echo through Ladakh’s later history, right up to the protests of 2025.

The Glancy Commission and the Seeds of Political Awareness (1931–1934)

In 1931, Kashmir erupted in protest against Dogra rule when police opened fire on Muslim demonstrators in Srinagar, killing 22 people. The resulting outrage forced Maharaja Hari Singh to appoint a British official, B. J. Glancy, to investigate grievances.

The Glancy Commission’s recommendations led to the creation of the Praja Sabha (People’s Assembly) in 1934 — the first experiment in limited representation for Jammu and Kashmir.

Ladakh’s Marginalisation

• The new assembly had 75 seats: 33 elected (21 Muslims, 10 Hindus, 2 Sikhs), 30 nominated, and 12 official members.

• Ladakh received only two nominated seats — no elected representation at all.This effectively silenced Ladakh’s political voice in the very body meant to bring reform.

Birth of the Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA)

During this time, Pandit Sridhar Kaul, an education officer in Leh, founded the Young Men’s Buddhist Association (YMBA), later renamed the Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA).

The LBA emerged as the primary socio-political organisation in Ladakh — preserving Buddhist identity while demanding representation and recognition. It laid the groundwork for Ladakh’s future autonomy movements.

Partition and Accession: Ladakh’s Place in the Indian Union (1947)

When British India was partitioned in 1947, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir faced a dilemma. Maharaja Hari Singh hesitated between independence and accession, but after tribal invasions backed by Pakistan, he signed the Instrument of Accession to India in October 1947.

For Ladakh, this event was pivotal — but not empowering.

• The region remained bound to Jammu and Kashmir despite its distinct culture and geography.

• Political power was concentrated in Kashmir Valley and Jammu, leaving Ladakh marginalised.

• Ladakh’s issues — remoteness, tribal status, and unique culture — were overshadowed by the Kashmir dispute.

Thus, while Ladakh became part of independent India, its people still felt governed from afar, a sentiment that would persist for decades.

The 1980s: Protests, Boycotts, and a Fractured Land

By the late 20th century, Ladakh’s patience had worn thin. The Ladakh Buddhist Association transformed from a cultural body into a political force demanding autonomy.

The 1981 Protests: Fight for Scheduled Tribe Status

In 1981, Ladakhis staged massive protests demanding Scheduled Tribe (ST) recognition — vital for education, jobs, and representation.Police firing during demonstrations killed two Buddhist protesters, marking Ladakh’s first major post-independence tragedy. The killings left deep scars and radicalised local politics.

1989: Communal Tension and the Call for Union Territory Status

Under LBA President Thupstan Chhewang, the movement intensified. In 1989, a minor altercation between a Buddhist and four Muslims escalated into a communal boycott in Leh.

• The LBA demanded Union Territory (UT) status and separation from Jammu and Kashmir.

• Kargil’s leaders, fearing Buddhist dominance, formed the Kargil Action Committee (KAC), led by Ahmad Mohammadi, demanding instead divisional status within J&K.

On August 27, 1989, violence peaked when police fired on protesters at Leh’s polo ground, killing three young men — Nawang Rinchen, Tsering Lobzang, and Tashi Angchuk.

The tragedy highlighted both Ladakh’s alienation and Leh-Kargil divisions, forcing Delhi to act.

1995: The Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (LAHDCs)

After years of agitation, the Centre introduced the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) Act in 1995 during P. V. Narasimha Rao’s tenure.

Structure and Powers

Two elected councils were created — one for Leh (1995) and another for Kargil (2003). Each had authority over:

• District development planning and budgeting,

• Local taxation,

• Land allotment and resource management,

• Education, health, and rural services.

For Ladakhis, this was a breakthrough — their first taste of local self-governance since the Dogra conquest.

Limitations

However, the councils lacked the legislative and judicial autonomy of the Sixth Schedule Autonomous District Councils in the Northeast.

• They could not make binding laws on land, forests, or culture.

• They remained financially dependent on the J&K government.

Despite its symbolic value, the LAHDC system soon came to be seen as a half measure, paving the way for renewed demands for greater autonomy.

From Congress to BJP: Shifting Political Landscapes

For much of independent India, Congress dominated Ladakh’s politics. But its inability to deliver UT status created disillusionment.

During the 1990s and 2000s, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) began expanding their presence in Leh by supporting the LBA’s cultural and political initiatives. This alliance was strategic:

• The LBA gained national visibility for its UT demand.

• The BJP gained legitimacy in a Buddhist-majority region.

The Rise of Thupstan Chhewang

In 2014, LBA stalwart Thupstan Chhewang contested and won the Lok Sabha election on a BJP ticket, becoming the first BJP MP from Ladakh. It was a watershed moment — the BJP had found a foothold in India’s northernmost frontier, and the groundwork was laid for 2019.

2019: The Abrogation of Article 370 and the Birth of the Union Territory

On August 5, 2019, the Government of India abrogated Article 370, which had granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. The state was bifurcated into:

1. Jammu and Kashmir (with a legislature), and

2. Ladakh (without a legislature).

Initial Euphoria

In Leh, celebrations erupted. For decades, the Buddhist-majority district had wanted separation from Kashmir’s dominance. The new Union Territory of Ladakh seemed to fulfil that dream.

Disillusionment Sets In

But joy quickly turned to disillusionment.

• Ladakh now had no elected legislature or MLAs.

• Power was concentrated in the hands of bureaucrats and the Lieutenant Governor.

• The Hill Councils were sidelined.

Economic and employment anxieties grew:

• Ladakh was delinked from J&K’s recruitment boards, causing job insecurity.

• Graduate unemployment rose to 26.5%, double the national average.

• Fears spread that outsiders might settle and alter the region’s fragile demographic balance.

Meanwhile, Kargil opposed the move outright, calling it “undemocratic”. Both Leh and Kargil — once divided — now felt disempowered under direct central rule.

The Rise of Unified Movements and Sonam Wangchuk (2019–2024)

Out of growing frustration emerged two powerful coalitions:

• The Leh Apex Body (LAB), led by figures like Thupstan Chhewang, Chering Dorjey Lakruk, and Rigzin Spalbar.

• The Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), uniting political and religious groups from Kargil.

For the first time in decades, Leh and Kargil joined hands with a common demand:Statehood for Ladakh, Sixth Schedule inclusion, a Ladakh Public Service Commission (LPSC), and separate Lok Sabha seats.

The Moral Voice: Sonam Wangchuk

Engineer and climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, celebrated globally for innovations like the Ice Stupa and awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award (2018), became the movement’s moral compass.He articulated Ladakh’s ecological and social fears:

• Unchecked industrialisation threatening glaciers,

• Chinese encroachment reducing grazing lands,

• Youth alienation due to unemployment.

The 2023 Hunger Strike and Pashmina March (2024)

In March 2023, Wangchuk undertook a 21-day hunger strike in Leh to highlight Ladakh’s crisis.When talks with the Home Ministry failed, the movement announced a “Pashmina March” in March 2024 toward the China border to support local herders. Authorities banned it under Section 144, deepening anger.

By September 2024, the Delhi Chalo Padyatra carried the movement’s four-point agenda to the national capital — transforming local dissent into a nationwide conversation.

Understanding the Sixth Schedule: A Constitutional Shield

The Sixth Schedule, under Article 244, was created to safeguard the rights of tribal-majority areas by establishing Autonomous District Councils (ADCs). These councils exist in Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura, each with powers to make laws on:

• Land and forests,

• Social customs, marriage, and inheritance,

• Village administration and resource use,

• Revenue and local taxation.

Ladakh’s case is unique: over 90–97% of its population belongs to Scheduled Tribes, making it one of India’s most tribal-dominated regions.Before 2019, Ladakh’s identity was protected under Articles 370 and 35A, which restricted outsiders from owning land. With those gone, locals fear losing both land and cultural continuity.

The Case For and Against Ladakh’s Demands

Arguments For Statehood & Sixth Schedule	Concerns & Counterarguments
Restores democracy — Ladakh currently has no legislature; Statehood would bring back elected representation.	Security concerns — Ladakh borders China and Pakistan; local government may complicate coordination with defence agencies.
Protects 97% tribal population’s identity, language, and heritage.	Sixth Schedule is constitutionally limited to Northeast India; Ladakh would need an amendment.
Prevents land alienation, ensures eco-sensitive growth.	Could trigger similar demands from other tribal regions outside the Northeast.
Creates local jobs through LPSC, addresses 26.5% unemployment.	Adds bureaucratic complexity in a region with low population density.
Promotes renewable, sustainable, and locally managed development.	Centre already provides heavy funding and 80% ST reservation in jobs and education.
Strengthens community role in border security.	Excessive autonomy may hinder national strategic control in a sensitive frontier.

Possible Pathways Forward

1. Empower the LAHDCs: Amend the 1995 Act to grant control over land, resources, education, and employment without requiring a constitutional change.

2. Create a Local Legislature: Under Article 240, establish a special Ladakh Assembly with limited powers while keeping defence under the Centre.

3. Tailored Sixth Schedule Model: Draft a modified Sixth Schedule exclusively for Ladakh — balancing autonomy with accountability.

4. Enhanced Financial Devolution: Channel funds directly to local councils for climate-friendly, community-driven development.

5. Ladakh Public Service Commission (LPSC): A dedicated recruitment body ensuring domicile-based employment.

6. Institutionalised Dialogue Mechanism: Regular forums between LAB, KDA, and the Union Home Ministry to prevent future unrest.

7. Ensure Judicial Fairness: Avoid excessive use of the National Security Act (NSA); adopt transparent investigation processes.

8. Cultural and Ecological Safeguards: Enact legal protections for monasteries, languages, and fragile ecosystems against unregulated mining or tourism.

Conclusion: A Century-Long Struggle for Dignity

From the Namgyal kings to the 2025 protests, Ladakh’s story is one of resilience and identity.

• It lost sovereignty under the Dogras (1834),

• Was ignored in the Praja Sabha (1934),

• Bled in protests of 1981 and 1989,

• Hoped with the LAHDC Act (1995),

• Celebrated Union Territory status (2019), and

• Rose again in unison (2024–2025) demanding justice.

Today, Ladakh stands united — Leh and Kargil, Buddhists and Muslims — in a shared demand: statehood, Sixth Schedule protections, and the right to self-govern within the Indian Union.

Its struggle is not just political; it’s about preserving a way of life in one of Earth’s most fragile ecosystems.The way forward lies in dialogue, sensitivity, and constitutional innovation — to ensure that the mountains of Ladakh remain both India’s frontier of defence and a homeland of dignity for its people.

Explore more on UPSC Content

Click for Daily Quotes:

Stay updated with the latest news by joining our Telegram channel – The PRESS Pad , and follow us on Instagram.