(This article from the archives of The Quint has been republished to reflect the proposed Bill to grant UT status to Ladakh.)
While Islamabad seems more than ever determined to create problems for India in the Valley, one solution to begin solving the Kashmir issue would be to trifurcate the State into 3 parts, namely Jammu, Ladakh and the Valley. Though not a final panacea, this could help localise the abscess.
On the occasion of Pakistan’s Independence Day (14 August), the Pakistani High Commissioner to India Abdul Basit declared: “Struggle for independence will continue till Kashmir gets freedom; sacrifice of the people of Kashmir will not go in vain.” He openly said: “We dedicate this year’s Independence day to struggle of Kashmir.”
In his 15 August’s speech from the Red Fort, Prime Minister Narendra Modi hinted that if Pakistan continues to instigate demonstrations and strikes in the Kashmir Valley, India will be compelled to expose Islamabad elsewhere. He referred to Pakistan’s human rights abuses in Baluchistan as well as the ‘unfinished’ Indian business in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
People of Ladakh Want to be Part of India, But Not Kashmir
Trifurcation has been a long standing demand of the people of Ladakh (and Jammu as well) who do not want to have anything to do with the anti-India movement in the Valley.
Thupstan Chhewang, the MP from Ladakh recently told Hindustan Times that “the people of the region are getting restive and do not want to remain with Kashmir, as it does not bode well for them.” Chhewang added: “An attempt is being made to form a coalition of all political parties in Ladakh to form a front that would push for Union Territory (UT) status”.
A couple of weeks earlier, a resolution passed by the All Religious Joint Action Committee (ARJAC) of Ladakh went in the same direction. The ARJAC leaders, including Tsewang Thinles, president, Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA), Ashraf Ali Barcha, president, Anjuman Imamia and Sheikh Saif-ud-Din, president, Anjuman Moin-ul-Islam, demanded UT status for Ladakh, during a press conference.
They remarked that since Independence, the mountainous region has always kept a special strong bond with the Union of India.
In a memorandum to the Prime Minister, the ARJAC explained that Ladakh was once an independent Himalayan kingdom:
The political history of Ladakh dates back to 930 AD when several small, sovereign principalities outlying the Western Himalayas were integrated and given a unified polity by Lha-Chen-Palgigon.
The memorandum says, “Ladakh as an independent kingdom gained political status during 15th–16th century when the Namgyal dynasty came into power.” This lasted until 1842 when General Zorawar Singh integrated Ladakh into the Dogra Empire. In October 1947, Ladakh acceded to India after Maharaj Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession for his State.
‘Ladakh Fundamentally Different From Kashmir’
The ARJAC further points out that Ladakh has been linked to the Dogras (and Kashmir) for hardly 105 years, “Ladakh is fundamentally different from Kashmir in all respects — culturally, ethnically and linguistically. Over the years the successive governments of the state have adopted a policy of discrimination and subversion towards the region with the sole objective of stifling its people and marginalising its historical, religious and cultural identity.”
The ARJAC notes with some bitterness, “In the modern times, when the whole subcontinent has passed through the process of decolonisation to enjoy the fruits of national independence, we, the people of Ladakh, and our land still continue to suffer under the old concept of colonial administrative structure, which suited the imperial interests and feudal rulers under the name of the pseudo-state of Jammu & Kashmir.
The ARJAC strongly affirms, “Nationalism remained a dominant ideological creed and became a rallying force among the Ladakhis to fight back the Pakistanis and the Chinese who made frequent bids of (sic) conquer our land in 1948, 1962, 1965, 1971 and 1999 wars. The jawans of Ladakh Scouts played an exemplary role in decisively foiling the enemy’s misadventures.”
It concluded, “Our humble submission is that we are neither the problem nor part of any problem involving the state. Rather we are the solution. We firmly believe that all of us live only if India lives. Our commitment to patriotism is firm and unequivocal. Our people and soldiers have never hesitated to make supreme sacrifices in the discharge of their duties towards the country. We shall never fail the nation.”
The bifurcation (or trifurcation) would have other advantages not mentioned in the memorandum.
Ladakh Needs Stronger Governance
Today the Ladakh region has two districts, Leh and Kargil and two Autonomous Hill Development Councils, Ladakh (LAHDC ) and Kargil.
Though Ladakh is India’s largest district, with ‘disputed’ borders and two belligerent neighbours, it is administrated by a very junior officer. The present District Commissioner (DC) Prasanna Ramaswamy is a young IAS officer from the 2010 batch. Without doubting his personal competence, such a border district with large numbers of Army and ITBP personnel posted in the area, makes it one of the most sensitive districts of the country.
Further, can only one officer visit the 19 blocks of Ladakh, some of them extremely remote? Probably not; as a result, some blocks have been neglected.
Ladakh needs a special status; a Joint-Secretary rank officer or above should be posted in the district. Just think about it. The Army 14 Corps Command responsible for Ladakh’s defence, is headed by an officer of Lieutenant General rank, with nearly 40 years of experience in the Indian Army.
He deals with someone (the DC) who would be ranked a captain, or a major at the most, in the Army. Incidentally, the DC is also the Chief Executive Officer of the LAHDC, which makes the situation even more ridiculous.
Ladakh’s UT Status Will Force China to Clarify Stance
The granting of Union Territory Status would solve many of these anomalies; a Lieutenant Governor representing the Center would sit in Leh (or Kargil) and a Chief Secretary would head the administration.
Further, the elected MLAs and Ministers would not depend on the mood of Srinagar to develop the Union Territory.Last but not least, it will probably force China to clarify its position vis-à-vis Ladakh.Beijing has always been ambiguous on Kashmir and Ladakh.In July 2016, Beijing called for a “proper settlement of Kashmir clashes.” Under the pretence of neutrality, China’s position on Kashmir has indeed conveniently remained extremely hazy.
Nothing could be further from the truth than this duplicitous and outrageous statement [about neutrality]. In fact, Beijing has shifted its position on Kashmir, gradually, yet firmly, with each passing decade.Monika Chansoria, Defence Analyst
Remember the issue of stapled visas for the J&K’s state subjects. Another issue is Beijing’s refusal to reopen the Demchok-Tashigong road to Kailash-Manasarovar. It is the fastest and easiest route for pilgrims wanting to visit the Holy Mountain.
Beijing does not want the route to be reopened, because they would not be ‘neutral’ anymore and would have to recognise the fact that Ladakh is part of India (by setting up a custom house at the border for example).
Already back in 1954, when India and China were negotiating the Panchsheel Agreement, China adamantly refused to acknowledge, let alone reopen the Demchok route, simply because it considered and probably considers Ladakh a ‘disputed territory’.
The reopening of the ancient pilgrim route would be a great Confidence Building Measure (CBM) between India and China. It would have an additional benefit as it would stop the smuggling between China and Ladakh at a place called Dumchule, which poses serious security risks of infiltration for India.
Making Ladakh a Union Territory would (peacefully) kill several birds with one stone. It would help localise the so-called Kashmir issue in the Valley. It would provide a better administration to the mountainous region, streamline the security of the area and force China to drop its ‘neutrality’ stance.
But where is the political will?
(Claude Arpi is a French-born author, journalist and historian. He regularly writes on the geopolitics of the Indian sub-continent, environment and the history of Tibet and China.)
(This article was originally published in The Statesman.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)