Avinav Verma
Leh: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) will hold a fresh round of talks with representatives of Ladakh in New Delhi today, with statehood, constitutional safeguards, greater powers for Hill Councils and issues related to the September 24, 2025 violence among the key matters expected to come up for discussion.
The talks come amid differences among sections of Ladakh’s leadership over representation at the Centre’s dialogue and the manner in which the region’s demands should be pursued.
Leh Apex Body (LAB) chairman Tsering Dorjay Lakrook, in an interview, acknowledged differing positions and warned that multiple voices before the Centre could weaken Ladakh’s united stand.
Lakrook said the LAB had earlier questioned the capacity in which former Ladakh MP ThupstanChhewang and former Leh Hill Council chief executive councillor Tashi Gyalson were being included in the talks. He, however, said the government had the authority to invite whoever it wanted and indicated that he expected both leaders to attend the meeting.
“Our strength was when we spoke with one voice,” Lakrook said, adding that if different views were presented before the government, it could create an impression that Ladakh was not united behind the demands being raised by the LAB and Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA).
The issue of Chhewang and Gyalson’s participation gained prominence after 11 prominent Buddhist religious, political and social figures appealed to Union Home Minister Amit Shah to ensure their inclusion in the dialogue.
They said their participation would provide wider representation and help ensure broader acceptance of any eventual agreement.
Responding to the issue, Lakrook said the LAB had only questioned the capacity in which the two leaders were participating and had not physically stopped them from attending previous meetings.
He said they had participated in earlier meetings without any such recommendation being required.
On the statehood demand, Lakrook said it had originally been initiated by Chhewang and was not a demand introduced by him.
“The statehood issue was started by Thupstan Sahib; I did not start it,” he said, questioning why concerns over sharing a platform with Kargil leaders were being raised now when the LAB and KDA had already worked together for around two to three years.
He said the LAB and KDA had their respective agendas, while safeguarding the interests of Ladakh’s Buddhist community remained a primary concern for the LAB.
Lakrook also rejected criticism that the LAB or Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA) had acted against Buddhist interests.
He said the LBA’s presence in the Apex Body was intended to safeguard those interests and recalled that Chhewang had initiated the LBA’s participation when he was its president.
The LAB chairman also alleged that attempts were being made to create divisions within the Buddhist community and the LBA.
He attributed the alleged efforts to “agencies”, but did not provide evidence to substantiate the claim.
On the September 24, 2025 violence, Lakrook said the welfare of those killed and injured, along with withdrawal of cases against those booked in connection with the incidents, had been raised by the LAB at its press conferences and during talks with the MHA.
He said withdrawal of cases could be undertaken in phases, particularly in cases pending before courts. Referring to a recent Supreme Court ruling, he said the government had the power to withdraw cases and questioned the need for conditions to be attached to the process.
Lakrook also acknowledged Chhewang’s efforts to stop the violence on September 24, saying he had come out and tried to prevent the situation from escalating. At the same time, he said LAB members had also taken risks while trying to control the situation.
On Hill Councils, Lakrook said the LAB welcomed the creation of councils in every district but maintained that they must have meaningful powers.
He said the councils should have greater authority over the bureaucracy, pointing to the example of a Chief Executive Councillor not being able to write the annual performance appraisal of a Chief Education Officer.
Lakrook also alleged that files approved by the previous Leh Hill Council had not resulted in orders from the Deputy Commissioner’s office. He argued that councils without effective powers would not meet the purpose for which they were created.
On the Sixth Schedule demand, he said the LAB was seeking Autonomous District Councils with substantial constitutional powers, including legislative powers. He said the LAB would welcome any arrangement providing councils with powers comparable to those under the Sixth Schedule.
The LAB chairman said the delegation was going to the MHA meeting with the expectation that decisions taken during the previous meeting held in New Delhi in May, along with the minutes issued subsequently, would be taken towards a conclusion.
Differences between the two bodies had recently surfaced over the proposed Kargil-Leh Padyatra, with the KDA questioning the LAB’s decision to postpone the march without prior consultation. The KDA later held consultations with stakeholders and decided against conducting what it described as a “halfway” Padyatra, citing concerns over its safe and smooth conduct.
The disagreement over the march, however, has not ended the broader engagement between the LAB and KDA on Ladakh’s demands before the Centre.
