Leh: The Centre has made an offer for constitutional safeguards under Article 371, instead of the Sixth Schedule, and a legislative body for Ladakh, activists from the region said on Saturday, while stressing that discussions were still underway and no final agreement had been reached.
Talking to PTI a day after their meeting with a sub-committee of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), activist Sonam Wangchuk said the government had proposed safeguards for Ladakh on the lines of Articles 371A and 371G and agreed in principle to a governance structure for the entire region rather than limiting powers to district councils.
Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) member Sajjad Kargili told PTI that the Centre had also proposed legislative, executive, administrative and financial powers for Ladakh and had been asked to share a formal draft for consultations with legal and constitutional experts.
The meeting between representatives of the Leh Apex Body (LAB), KDA and the MHA sub-committee on Friday focused on constitutional protection for Ladakh, democratic representation and the long-pending demand for statehood.
According to Wangchuk, the discussions centred on Ladakh’s demand for inclusion under the Sixth Schedule and statehood, while the government suggested safeguards under Article 371.
“The government said it has some issues with the Sixth Schedule but is willing to consider protections under Article 371,” Wangchuk said.
Article 371 grants temporary, transitional and special provisions to some states to accommodate their unique socio-cultural and regional developmental needs.
Under the Sixth Schedule, special administrative and legislative protections are given for tribal areas in certain northeastern states through Autonomous District Councils with powers over land, forests, local governance customs and certain civil and judicial matters.
No formal statement has been issued by the Centre.
Wangchuk noted that earlier proposals had envisaged powers remaining confined to district councils in Leh and Kargil, with major decisions continuing to rest with the Lieutenant Governor and bureaucracy.
“Yesterday, they agreed that whatever constitutional arrangement is created will be at the level of the whole of Ladakh and not at the district level,” he said, calling it a significant departure from earlier proposals.
Explaining the demands, Wangchuk divided them into three broad categories — legislative, executive and financial powers.
Under the proposed framework, he said, an elected institution representing the whole of Ladakh would have powers to make laws, oversee administration and exercise financial authority.
“This is a very big change,” Wangchuk said, pointing out that elected representatives currently exercise limited control over Ladakh’s annual budget while most decisions are taken by officials and the Lieutenant Governor.
“The best arrangement in India is a state. We are moving in the direction of a UT with legislature or statehood,” he said.
Wangchuk indicated that the Centre’s main reservation regarding statehood related to Ladakh’s financial viability and ability to sustain administrative expenditure through its own revenue.
“Their objection was mainly about income and resources,” he said, adding that studies were being undertaken to assess Ladakh’s economic capacity and future revenue potential.
At the same time, Wangchuk cautioned against treating the latest discussions as a final settlement.
“There is no reason either for disappointment or excitement. This is a work in progress. There is an in-principle understanding, not an agreement,” he said.
Kargili, meanwhile, underscored that the government had placed a proposal before the delegation but that its contents needed careful examination.
“A proposal has been submitted by the government. It says safeguards will be given to Ladakh under Articles 371A and 371G, and legislative, executive, administrative and financial powers will also be given,” he said.
Article 371A applies to Nagaland and provides that the Parliament cannot legislate on matters relating to the Naga religion, social practices, customary law, land rights, and civil and criminal justice, without the consent of the state assembly. Similar protections have been given under Article 371G to Mizoram.
Kargili said the LAB and KDA had requested the government to provide a written draft similar to the memorandum already submitted by Ladakh representatives.
“We asked the government to give us a draft so that we can discuss it with our legal and constitutional experts and then give our response,” Kargili said.
While welcoming continued engagement, Kargili stressed that the process remained at a preliminary stage.
“There is neither disappointment nor excitement. This is only a dialogue, and we can speak further once we receive the draft,” he said.
He described the continuation of the talks itself as encouraging.
“Dialogue is also positivity. It is not positive to stop talking,” Kargili said, adding that both sides appeared committed to finding a mutually acceptable solution.
Referring to the atmosphere of the meeting, he said the MHA had emphasised that discussions were not taking place “as two opposing sides but as one”, with the shared objective of addressing concerns of Ladakh’s people.
“The people of Ladakh should maintain regional sensitivity, diversity and balance. People should get representation and respect,” Kargili said, outlining the broader concerns raised during the talks.
No date has yet been fixed for the next round of discussions, though Kargili said the delegation had requested the government to share the draft before convening another meeting.
The two prominent civil society groups from Ladakh — Leh Apex Body (LAB) and Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) — have been jointly demanding statehood for Ladakh, constitutional safeguards for land and jobs, and greater democratic powers since Ladakh became a Union Territory without a legislature in 2019.
In a joint statement, after the sub-committee meeting here, both groups said they have reached an “in-principle understanding” with the Government of India on restoring democracy in Ladakh and providing constitutional safeguards on the lines of Nagaland, Sikkim and Mizoram under Article 371.
