New Delhi: After climate activist Sonam Wangchuk expressed disappointment over the cancellation of his meeting with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the Civil Society Forum of Ladakh Thursday issued a resolution accusing the negotiators, including Wangchuk, Apex Body Leh and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), of “shifting goalposts and delaying tactics”.
This, the forum said, “has created a trust deficit and is against the larger interest of Ladakh”.
Expressing concern over the manner in which the dialogue process with the central government was being conducted and allegedly derailed, the forum placed on record what it described as its “deep anguish”.
Wangchuk Thursday rued the cancellation of a meeting with the MHA, scheduled for 23 October, for which he had travelled to Delhi. This followed inconclusive talks in Leh, where no consensus could be reached on the proposed framework for constitutional safeguards for Ladakh.
During a sub-committee meeting held on 15 October in Leh, the MHA presented a detailed framework and shared a draft outlining proposed constitutional safeguards for Ladakh, along with the establishment of a Union Territory-level body. The draft was rejected by the apex bodies.
According to government sources, the draft brings together key institutional, legislative, administrative and financial aspects of the proposed governance framework that could form the basis of revised governance arrangements for the Union Territory, paving the way for further deliberations among the concerned parties.
“The proposed framework seeks to provide a basis for examining governance arrangements tailored to Ladakh’s distinct geographical, cultural, social and administrative circumstances,” a source said.
The Civil Society Forum alleged that the original agenda adopted by Apex Body Leh for constitutional safeguards for land, jobs, culture and the environment “stands hijacked”.
“The dialogue is now dominated by one individual Sh. Sonam Wangchuk and by domination of KDA, compromising the genuine interests of Leh districts and the Buddhist community. What should have been a dialogue for an amicable solution has been converted into a process of confrontation with the Government of India, which is not in the interest of Ladakh,” it said.
The forum further said that while it recognised that the formation of a UT-level democratic political institution with full constitutional safeguards under Article 371-like provisions was a complex constitutional exercise requiring time, detailed drafting and a parliamentary process, such a solution appeared “far-fetched in near future” in view of what it described as consistent opposition and delaying tactics adopted by Apex Body Leh and KDA.
“People of Ladakh cannot be left in a democratic vacuum for years,” it said.
In its resolution, the forum urged the central government and the UT administration to prioritise panchayat elections and LAHDC elections in all eight districts — Leh, Kargil, Nubra, Sham, Changthang, Zanskar, Drass and Sankoo.
The forum asserted that democratic decentralisation was the real safeguard for Ladakh.
“Only elected Hill Councils in every district can give real protection to land, culture, natural resources, trading, recruitment, tourism and mining licences. Safeguard under Article 371 and genuine powers to LAHDCs will ensure no outsider can buy land, get a job or licence without concurrence of that District Council,” it said.
It added that each district had a distinct ethnic, cultural and economic identity, citing the Brokpa of Dha-Hanu, Changpa of Changthang, Buddhists of Zanskar and Shina of Drass. According to the forum, only a separate LAHDC for each district could protect its interests, while a Leh- or Kargil-centric body could not.
The forum argued that since LAHDCs were already established democratic institutions, extending them to all eight districts would require only an amendment to the LAHDC Act, rather than a constitutional amendment, and could therefore be done immediately.
It also claimed that the absence of panchayats for the past six years had stalled village-level development, MGNREGA and funds, which it said was against the spirit of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment.
“Elections will bring genuine public representatives to the fore, not self-styled leaders, and will create authentic interlocutors for future talks with GoI,” the resolution said.
The forum also demanded that Apex Body Leh be reconstituted with democratically elected representatives from all districts under its jurisdiction, including representatives of monasteries (Sangha), women, tribal communities, youth and border nomads, rather than nominated individuals.
It argued that only such a body would have the moral and democratic legitimacy to negotiate on behalf of Ladakh.
According to the forum, the present Apex Body Leh and KDA no longer represent the inclusive voice of all districts, and the dialogue process should not be held hostage to what it described as delaying tactics and confrontational politics.
It urged the government to announce panchayat and LAHDC elections in all eight districts, with enhanced powers as an interim but strong safeguard until a UT-level constitutional settlement is reached.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)