Ladakh though part of JK, but the underlying sentiments cannot be ignored
Since 1947 Ladakhis have wanted to be a separate entity from Jammu and Kashmir
Kanchan Basu
The newly elected BJP Member of Parliament (MP) from Ladakh Jamyang Tsering Namgyal has demanded separation of Ladakh from Kashmir. He has said, “Ladakh’s political aspiration will be his priority. We have a different culture, ethnicity and even language. The Kashmir Valley centric politics cannot be geographically implemented in Ladakh. In every respect, Ladakh must be separated from Kashmir”. He also said that demand in Ladakh for separation from Kashmir is age old. “This demand is not recent but made since 1948. Ladakhis have wanted to be a separate entity from Jammu and Kashmir”, he said.
Namgyal is right. Indeed, the Ladakhi demand for ‘Self-Rule’ with in India is as old as the Political emancipation of August, 1947. Ladakhis have consistently argued that the “Kashmir Issue can be seen only in the context of the of the ‘Amritsar Treaty’ (of March, 1846, under which the State of Jammu and Kashmir came into being) and that Ladakh should be allowed to go its own way as only the Maharaja (of the State) was the common link for Ladakh and Kashmir”.
The demand for a separate dispensation should also be viewed in the context of the Kashmiri attitude towards Ladakh, which has been negative and jingoistic, as the average Kashmiri disdainfully calls the Ladakhis ‘Boto’, which too many means non-Muslims.
The first time Ladakhis demanded ‘Self-Rule’ was in 1949, when Chhewang Rigzin, President, Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA) subject committee presented a ‘Memorandum’ to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. A look at the ‘Language of the Memorandum’ of 1949 reflects the Ladakhi attitude to the Kashmir Valley and its leadership. The ‘Memorandum’ read as follows:
“We are a separate ‘Nation’ by all tests – Race, Language, Religion, Culture – determining ‘Nationality’, the only link connecting us with other People of the State being the ‘Bond of Common Ruler…….. Sheikh Abdullah’ (of the National Conference) built up his case (for Plebiscite) on the validity of the ‘Treaty of Amritsar’.
This ‘Treaty’ bears upon the ‘Territory of Kashmir’ only. So while the ruler has consented to transfer his ‘Sovereign Power’ in favour of all his People, Sheikh Abdullah and the People of Kashmir can, through this transference, manage the affairs of their whole Country as they wish. But they do not have the Power to appropriate against their will, a People, a separate nation, whom a Separate Treaty – the result of the ‘War of 1834’ Twelve years anterior to the ‘Treaty of Amritsar’- bound to the Ruler in special relationship in which the People of Kashmir, who came into picture later naturally did not figure at all.”
“In case the result of the ‘Plebiscite’ is favourable to India, we simply go a step further than other People of the State in seeking a closer union with that great Country and in case it is otherwise, our verdict stands clear and unchallengeable. When we have decided to cut ourselves asunder from the State itself, the question of our forming part of Pakistan cannot arise at all…. We have indeed made up our mind to join India; but what is our decision worth until India is prepared to accept it? We certainly make the offer for our own advantage, we see in our merger with India the only hope of our salvation…. There is nothing in our offer which is in any way incompatible with the high idealism which characterizes India’s ‘International Policy’. We might even say in positive terms that it is perfectly consistent with it. For has not India repeatedly declared that its stands for the right of self-determination for all our Nations, and are we not a Nation whose right of self-determination it should uphold and to whom it should extend the protection it seeks.”
The path charted by Chewang Rigzin was faithfully treated by the People of Ladakh, who in 1952 under the inspiration and effective leadership of the Kushak Bakula, not only demanded an effective say in the administration of the State, but also asserted that they join Tibet in the event of New Delhi agreeing to Sheikh Abdullah’s demand for greater autonomy or for implementation of the Delhi Agreement of 1952.
In September 1957 the Ladakhis launched an organized struggle against ‘Kashmiri Domination’. Their highly revered leader, Kushak Bakula, who served as ‘Minister of Ladakh Affairs’ between 1953 and 1957, went a step further and charged that “Ladakh has all along been treated as a colony by the State leadership”, but also threatened that “Ladakh will become part of Tibet if his demanded for a ‘North-East Frontier Agency’ ‘(NEFA) – type Administration with representation in the Central Cabinet’ was not conceded.” Kushak Bakula told Media in Delhi about Ladakhi grievances and asserted that “Direct Central Administration of Ladakh would ensure its speedy ‘Economic Development’, which has been ignored during the past 20 years.” He said, “Whatever little Development had taken place in Ladakh was due to the efforts of the Indian Army.”
Several proposals made by him during his tenure as Minister of Ladakh Affairs in the State Cabinet were rejected. The result was that Ladakhis were denied Irrigation, Educational and Power facilities among other things. He accused the (Congress) Government of Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq of “trying to create ‘Communal Discord’ in Ladakh in order to weaken the movement of ‘Ladakh’s Separation’ from Kashmir,” and demanded an “inquiry into the complaints regarding Lack of Economic Development.”
Kushak Bakula revealed he had “tendered his resignation several times first from the Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad Cabinet (Bakshi acted as State Wazir-e-Azam from 1953 to 1963) and later from the Sadiq Cabinet,” as he had been “rendered in effective by successive State Governments” and “that he had to stay on at the intervention of Central and State leaders’ and for wider interests.”
Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad fully endorsed the Ladakhi demands. In fact, he told ‘The Tribune’ on September 20, 1957 at Sonamarg that when he was Prime Minister of the State, “he had asked Jawaharlal Nehru to take over the administration of Ladakh as it was impossible for any Government in Srinagar to do full Justice to the cause of the Ladakhis. But Jawaharlal Nehru did not agree then and, instead, asked me to induct Kushak Bakula in his Ministry and which I did”.
The fate of the 1957 demand was the same as that of Baksi’s suggestion. While G M Sadiq dismissed the charges leveled by Kushak Bakula as ‘Baseless’, the Central Government rejected the demand for ‘NEFA type Administration’ out of hand.
Similar movements were started by Ladakhis in 1974 and 1982 under the leadership of Lamba Lobzang – Thupstan Chhewang and P. Namgyal, respectively, demanding Union Territory status for Ladakh. Lama Lobzang’s argument was that “progress in Ladakh is admittedly limited” and that “it has not kept pace with rising aspirations following the expansion of education and growth of Social and Political consciousness…. The Ladakhis’ desire more rapid Development” and that could be achieved only “if we are granted Union Territory Status.” The arguments advanced by P.Namgyal in 1982 in favour of Union Territory Status were also identical (Kashmir Times, February 7, 1997), but nothing came out of the efforts of Lama Lobzang and Namgyal. Instead, the Kashmir Valley rulers, according to Ladakhi leaders, continued to “suppress the Democratic Rights of Ladakh through Armed Forces” (National Convention on the Ladakhi Issue in Delhi, March 18, 1990).
In between however, the State Government appointed the ‘Gajendragadkar Commission’ to investigate the charge of ‘Regional Imbalances’. The Commission acknowledge Ladakh’s unequal share and recommended measures to rectify some of the wrongs. These included the setting up of a separate ‘Development Board’ for Ladakh, inclusion of at least One Ladakhi in State Cabinet, establishment of a Degree College, revival of the Single-line Administration and merger of the proposed post of ‘Development Commissioner’ with that of the ‘Deputy Commissioner’ of Ladakh.
Instead, it disturbed the Social equilibrium in 1978-79 by dividing Ladakh into Leh and Kargil Districts on purely ‘Religious Lines.’ The motive was to play Muslim-majority Kargil against Buddhist-majority Leh and weaken the ‘Autonomy Movement’. “A Political schism was surreptitiously set forth, which succeeded in separating Leh and Kargil into two separate Districts.
In separating ‘Kargil’ from Leh District, the Seikh’s intention was to remind the Kargils, who are pre-dominantly ‘Shia Muslims’, that historical and cultural ties are insignificant factors in Islamic policy, which he was trying to impose on the State”, say Ladakhi Buddhists.
Under these circumstances, the Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA) launched a struggle on October 15, 1989, for Union Territory status for Ladakh. In a letter to the Editor, The Hindustan Times, October 17, 1989, Rigzin Jora (the then LBA leader) and T. Samphal, MLA of Leh, explained the circumstances which had compelled the Ladakhis to engineer the struggle:
“Ladakh is not just another backward region of the country. It is a Region of Unique Culture, Typical Geo-climatic conditions and a distinctive Socio-Economic order, besides being strategically located. Ladakh needs to be drawn into the National mainstream while providing safeguards to its identity. This could only be done by separating Ladakh from Kashmir where the line between ‘Nationalism’ and ‘Separatism’ runs very thin. In demanding Union Territory status, Ladakh’s ‘Primary Concern’ is to ‘Protect its Identity’. Under Kashmir’s Rule, Ladakh suffered enormous cultural onslaught from the fundamentalist organizations of the Kashmir Valley. It is, therefore, important for Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA) to keep up its struggle for a ‘Union Territory status’ for Ladakh”.
The Union Territory movement started on October 15, 1989, left three persons dead and several seriously injured. Crowds, mainly Buddhists, burnt Government property and attacked Police Stations. Law and Order could be restored only after October 29, 1989, when the ‘Representatives’ of the State and Central Government met the agitating Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA) Leaders at Leh and reached an agreement under which Leh District was to get an ‘Autonomous Hill Development Council’, invested with Administrative and Economic Powers.
The ‘Agreement’ was signed by ‘Thupstan Chhewang (LBA), P P Srivastava (Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Home Affairs) and Ashok Jaitley (Additional Chief Secretary, Jammu and Kashmir Government), in the presence of Union Home Minister Buta Singh, who assured the Ladakhis of a set up on the lines of the ‘Gorkha Hill Council’.
Differences soon erupted over the implementation of the ‘Tripartite Agreement’ in a meeting held in January 10, 1990. Citing ‘Constitutional Difficulties’ in granting an ‘Autonomous District Council’, Farooq Abdullah’s Government made every possible attempt to hoodwink the Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA) with the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act. 1989, Rigzin Zora alleged.
The State Government’s ‘blatant disrespect’ for the ‘Tripartite Agreement’ aggravated Leh’s Political scene, with Ladakhis resolving once again to create a stir and force the authorities to honour the commitment. The situation took a serious turn after July7, 1990, when Thupstan was beaten up by the Police, and Sonam Wangchuk, who had previously attacked a former Minister, Sonam Wangyal, was arrested. These Two incidents provoked LBA activists who stormed the Leh Police Station, triggering a police-LBA clash and a baton charge, bursting of teargas shells and imposition of Curfew in Leh.
On June 16, 1990, blasts occurred at the residence of Wangyal and in three Government buildings in Leh. The LBA held a massive ‘Rally’ on June 17, 1990 to protest against the ‘Anti-Democratic Attitude’ of the authorities and began a ‘Dharna’ (Mass Protest Deputation) demanding the promised ‘Autonomous Hill Development Council’.
Convinced the authorities would not meet their demands, the Ladakhis adopted a ‘Threatening Poster’ in February, 1991. They organized a massive ‘Public Rally’ in Leh on February 14, 1991, and declared their intention to revive the agitation to revive the agitation for Union Territory status.
Braving Sub-Zero temperature, fluctuating between minus 15 and 30, thousands of Ladakhis joined the demonstration. While thousands of people wearing colorful costumes from Leh town and adjoining villages marched from the historic martyrs’ memorial to the Polo Ground, venue of demonstration, through the main market, many others who could not reach the ‘Town’ owing to disruption of road traffic held protest meeting at Deskit, Nyoma and Tangtse. “Down with Kashmiri Hegemony”, “Our demands Union Territory status, free Ladakh from Kashmir”, and “We want to live as free Citizens of Independent India”, read hundreds of placards carried by the Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA) supporters.
On August 25, 1991, the People of Leh observed a massive ‘Strike’ in memory of the those killed in October, 1989. Earlier that day, Thupstan Chhewang met President of India R. Venkataraman at Leh and warned that Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA) would “wait for two more months at the most, hoping for a positive response from the Central Government,” failing which it would revive the agitation. But the threat did not move the authorities though, in April, 1992, Union Home Minister S B Chavan met ‘Leaders’ from Ladakh; nothing tangible emerged.
S B Chavan took the view that the “proposed Council, as demanded by the Ladakh Buddhist Association would call for an amendment in the ‘State Constitution’ as well as threaten the existence of Article 370 of the Constitution” and that “the decision could hardly be taken through an Ordinance by the Governor who had no mandate for it”. He also stated, obviously at the behest of the Kashmir based ‘National Conference’ and ‘Congress’ leaders, including Ghulam Rasool Kar, that “any change in the Status (of Ladakh) would hurt the Kashmiri Soul.”
Angry Ladakhis organized a massive ‘Strike’ in Leh on May 11, 1992. They also organized a 4 k.m. ‘Long March’ in the city of Leh, against ‘Kashmiri Domination.’ The threat that the Authorities in New Delhi conceded their ‘Demands’ before May 20, 1992, worked, but not to the extent LBA leaders expected. Still, the response from the Centre was substantial. In a meeting between Indian Home Minister and LBA leaders in New Delhi on May 21, 1992, the former said: “the Centre is ready to accept their demand as they do not require any amendment in the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution.” Ultimately on November 28, 1992, the way was cleared for setting up an ‘Autonomous Hill Development Council’. However, it was only in September 1995 that a ‘Democratically-Elected’ Leh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) came into being.
Since the ‘Constitution of LAHDC’, the People of Leh District have been expressing dissatisfaction over the Institution won after a protected struggle, as the State Authorities are not allowing the Council to function in the manner desired by the People. They believe, and rightly so, the ‘Union Territory’ Status is the only lasting solution to their ‘Problems’. The insistence on Union Territory Status during the ‘Meeting’ with the interlocutors must be viewed this context.
New Delhi would do well to concede this genuine ‘Demand’ so that Ladakh gets freedom from Kashmiri dependence. The Centre should also separate ‘Jammu’ from ‘Kashmir’ because the nature of the ‘problems facing’ the People of Jammu and Ladakh is the same. In other words, the State should be ‘Trifurcated’, so that the ‘People of Jammu and Ladakh’ are liberated from the ‘Grip of Kashmir’ and New Delhi is ‘Free to Tackle’ the Kashmir Valley separately.
(The writer is based in Kolkata. The views expressed are his own)
KV Network
