March: The Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) have announced protest rallies in Leh and Kargil on March 16 to mount pressure on the Centre for resuming dialogue on Ladakh’s core political demands, accusing the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) of adopting “dilly-dallying tactics” in addressing the aspirations of the people.
The decision has been taken after the UT administration denied permission to LAB to hold a “peace rally” on March 12 against the Union government’s alleged delay in restoring the constitutional rights and democratic safeguards in Ladakh. The rallies had been planned a day ahead of the swearing-in ceremony of Ladakh’s new Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena, scheduled for March 13 at the Lok Bhawan in Leh.
In addition to the protest rallies, Kargil people will also observe complete shutdown in the district to express their resentment over the delay in resolving Ladakh’s political demands.
“Earlier, they denied us permission but we agreed to certain conditions. Now we will hold protest rallies in both Leh and Kargil on March 16, and Kargil town will also observe a complete shutdown that day,” LAB co-convener CheringDorjay Lakruk told The News Now.
He added, “The protest rallies will be in both the districts against the delay in holding talks on the core demands of Ladakhi people—Sixth Schedule and full-fledged statehood to Ladakh. We are also holding protest against the government’s attempt to keep climate activist Sonam Wangchuk and two others in detention for a long besides the slow progress of judicial commission’s probe into the killing of innocent people in Leh town on September 24 last year”.
Lakruk said they will also demand for immediate withdrawal of cases against all the youth who have been facing cases in the violence on September 24 last year.
“Our agenda for talks with the Union Home Ministry has not changed and will not change in the future,” Lakruk said, warning that the Centre’s refusal to accept Ladakh’s demands has already angered the people. “The ongoing political uncertainty will only breed mistrust and alienate the people of Ladakh,” he added.
Pertinently, the last round of talks between the MHA and Ladakh leaders was held in New Delhi on February 4 after a gap of over three months but it remained inconclusive, with both sides expected to meet within the next 10 to 15 days to continue deliberations on the region’s core demands.
The leaders of LAB and KDA were not “satisfied” over the response of the MHA to their 29-page joint proposal submitted on November 17 last year. The MHA officials reportedly offered safeguards under Article 371 of the Constitution and insisted on further strengthening of the twin hill councils. Prior to that, the talks between two sides were held on October 22, 2025.
It may be placed here that the Article 371 deals with “Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions”, and exists under Part XXI of the Constitution. It is currently applicable in 12 States: Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Mizoram, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Sikkim, and Karnataka.
On November 17, the LAB and KDA submitted a comprehensive 29-page draft framework to the MHA, pressing for Ladakh’s inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution and reiterating their demand for full-fledged statehood. The document, titled “Sixth Schedule Provisions and a Case for Statehood: Draft Framework for Ladakh,” also sought constitutional protections under Article 371 through the introduction of a new provision, Article 371-K.
Two bodies have recommended replacing the existing Autonomous Hill Development Councils (AHDCs) of Leh and Kargil with more empowered Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) on the lines of those under the Sixth Schedule. These ADCs, they proposed, should be extended to all existing districts as well as the five new districts proposed for Ladakh.
The joint document has further demanded a 30-member Legislative Assembly for the proposed State of Ladakh, two Parliamentary seats and other related measures. Sources said the legal provisions cited in the framework required “close and careful scrutiny” by the MHA, contributing to the delay in resuming formal talks.
