Ladakh Unrest: Leh Protests Over Statehood and Sixth Schedule Turn Deadly

For over two weeks, the streets of Leh saw unprecedented scenes of protest, fasting, and ultimately violence. Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, known internationally for his environmental advocacy, sat on a 15-day hunger strike with hundreds of Ladakhis by his side. Their demand: statehood for Ladakh and its inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution.

Frustration boiled over. Protesters, led by the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and supported by the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), clashed with security forces, torched the BJP office, and brought the town to a halt. The administration imposed prohibitory orders under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), banning the assembly of more than five people.

Wangchuk, shaken by the turn of events, appealed for restraint: “Very sad events in Leh. My message of a peaceful path failed today. I appeal to youth to please stop this nonsense. This only damages our cause.”

Yet the incident underlined a deeper truth: Ladakh’s discontent runs far deeper than a moment of anger. At stake is not just political representation, but the survival of a fragile ecosystem, a distinct cultural identity, and the very notion of federal fairness in India.

The Demands: Statehood and Sixth Schedule

Since Ladakh was carved out as a separate Union Territory (UT) without legislature in 2019, after the abrogation of Article 370 and the bifurcation of Jammu & Kashmir, locals have raised concerns about being directly ruled from Delhi.

Their demands are twofold:

1. Statehood – Restoring legislative powers and giving Ladakhis control over their political destiny.

2. Sixth Schedule Status – Constitutional safeguards to protect land, resources, and tribal culture through Autonomous District Councils (ADCs).

With 97% of Ladakh’s population belonging to Scheduled Tribes, activists argue that the region naturally qualifies for Sixth Schedule protections. According to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, the ST population stands at 66.8% in Leh, 73.35% in Nubra, 97.05% in Khalsti, 83.49% in Kargil, 89.96% in Sanku, and 99.16% in Zanskar.

For many, this is not simply about autonomy but about survival. Without constitutional protection, locals fear Ladakh could become a “mining colony” where outside interests exploit resources, leaving behind environmental devastation and cultural erosion.

Asymmetrical Federalism: India’s Unequal Autonomy

India is not a symmetrical federation like the United States or Australia, where all states enjoy equal powers. Instead, it follows a model of asymmetrical federalism, granting different levels of autonomy to certain regions due to historical, ethnic, or cultural reasons.

This framework has been particularly important for tribal-dominated areas. To understand Ladakh’s demand, one must trace the roots back to the British colonial policies of the early 20th century.

• Under the Government of India Act, 1935, the British classified certain regions as “excluded” or “partially excluded” areas, limiting legislative interference to preserve tribal customs.

• After independence, these ideas evolved into the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Constitution, designed to safeguard tribal identity and autonomy.

Thus, the very foundation of tribal governance in India rests on the principle that not all regions can be governed uniformly.

The Legal Architecture of the Fifth and Sixth Schedules

The Fifth Schedule

• Applies to Scheduled Areas in central and eastern India.

• Establishes Tribes Advisory Councils (TACs) to advise state governments on tribal welfare.

• Governors can restrict the transfer of tribal land and adapt state laws to suit local needs.

• Covers states like Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, and parts of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh.

The Sixth Schedule

• Applies exclusively to Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura.

• Creates Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) with legislative, executive, judicial, and financial powers.

• Councils can make laws on land, forests, inheritance, marriage, and social customs.

• They can establish local courts and collect taxes, making them far more autonomous than Fifth Schedule regions.

Key Difference: The Fifth Schedule offers limited oversight through Governors, while the Sixth Schedule establishes strong, self-governing institutions at the local level.

For Ladakh, where tribal identity and ecological vulnerability are paramount, the Sixth Schedule’s stronger autonomy is seen as essential.

Ladakh Post-2019: Between Delhi and Discontent

The creation of Ladakh as a UT in August 2019 was celebrated by some but quickly turned contentious. Unlike Jammu & Kashmir (which has a legislature), Ladakh was placed under the direct control of the Lieutenant Governor and the Centre.

Concerns grew rapidly:

• Political Marginalisation: Ladakhis felt their voices were lost in Delhi’s bureaucratic machinery.

• Resource Exploitation: Without constitutional safeguards, fears of unchecked mining, large-scale tourism, and external investment loomed.

• Identity Crisis: Locals feared being reduced to minorities in their own land.

The Leh Apex Body (LAB) and Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), despite their historic differences, joined hands to press for safeguards. This rare Leh-Kargil unity underscored the urgency of the demand.

The September 2024 Protests: From Fast to Flames

• September 10 – Sonam Wangchuk and others launched a hunger strike in Leh.

• September 17–24 – Elderly protesters fainted, LAB youth wing called for shutdowns.

• September 25 – Large crowds gathered, marched to the BJP office, chanted slogans. Violence erupted: furniture and papers were burned, vehicles set ablaze. Security forces used teargas.

The violence shifted the spotlight:

• BJP leaders like Amit Malviya blamed Congress councillors for instigating the mob, calling it “Rahul Gandhi’s fantasy of unrest.”

• Congress supporters hailed it as a “Gen Z uprising”, drawing parallels with Nepal’s youth-led movement that toppled the KP Sharma Oli government.

• On social media, Ladakh was painted as the new epicenter of Gen Z political activism.

Caught in the middle, Wangchuk distanced himself from the violence, urging peaceful negotiation.

Political and National Implications

For the Centre, Ladakh’s demand is a double-edged sword:

• Granting Sixth Schedule status could open the floodgates for similar demands in Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, or Himachal tribal belts.

• Refusing it risks alienating a strategically crucial region bordering both China and Pakistan.

• The unrest has become politically charged, with BJP accused of failing Ladakhis and Congress accused of “instigating youth.”

The movement, therefore, is not just about Ladakh—it is about how India manages demands for differentiated autonomy within its federal framework.

The Ecological and Cultural Stakes

Ladakh is often described as the “third pole of the world”, home to glaciers that sustain water supplies across north India. It is also one of the most fragile ecosystems, already reeling under climate change.

Sonam Wangchuk has long warned that:

• Melting glaciers threaten water security.

• Unregulated mining and tourism could devastate landscapes.

• Cultural erosion is inevitable without local control over land and resources.

The Sixth Schedule, with its emphasis on community control of resources, is seen as a tool not just for autonomy but for sustainable governance.

Voices from Leh and Kargil

• Leh residents argue for land and identity safeguards, fearing demographic dilution.

• Kargil residents, while initially wary of UT status, have now found common cause in demanding Sixth Schedule protections.

• Religious leaders, social activists, and youth groups have all rallied together, making this movement one of Ladakh’s most unified mobilisations in decades.

This Leh-Kargil solidarity has also complicated the Centre’s calculations, as it eliminates the possibility of playing one region against the other.

The Road Ahead: Talks and Trust Deficit

The Centre has scheduled talks with LAB and KDA on October 6. But Ladakhis remain skeptical after four years of unfulfilled promises and inconclusive talks.

Possible pathways include:

1. Granting Sixth Schedule Status – Strongest safeguard, but politically sensitive.

2. Article 371-like Protections – A middle ground, granting autonomy without full Sixth Schedule inclusion.

3. Restoring a Legislature – By granting Ladakh statehood or a UT assembly to ensure representation.

The choice will shape not just Ladakh’s future but also India’s broader approach to tribal autonomy and federalism.

Ladakh as India’s Federal Test Case

Ladakh’s struggle is a reminder that India’s unity depends not on uniformity but on respecting diversity and autonomy. The Sixth Schedule, once limited to the Northeast, is now at the heart of debates in the Himalayas.

The violent turn in Leh shows the risks of delay, but it also underscores the depth of Ladakh’s anxieties. At stake are identity, ecology, and democracy in one of India’s most strategic frontiers.

For New Delhi, the challenge is not just about quelling protests but about building trust. For Ladakhis, it is about ensuring that their land does not become a commodity and their voice is not drowned in the corridors of central power.

📌 Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter for more updates.