Nawang Tsering Shakspo
sntsering52@gmail.com
Politics in Ladakh, right from the country’s independence in 1947, has been awfully flawed. The region remained cut off from the rest of the country till 1962-63. Interestingly, an Indian Air Force DC-3 Dakota aircraft, piloted by Air Commodore Mehar Singh, landed on the airstrip built in a great rush in Leh on May 24,1948. That was done to secure Ladakh from the Pakistani ‘Kabaile’ invaders as well as to reinforce the presence of the Indian army. With that historical event, Ladakhi leaders, under the stewardship of Kushok Bakula Rinpoche, visited Srinagar and New Delhi to apprise the authorities of the step-motherly treatment from the State Government, and to request for an early redressal of the people’s grievances under the new democratic setup.
Acknowledging the request of the delegation, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister of India and Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, paid an official visit to Leh on July 4, 1949, and in the absence of any road connectivity in the region, the visiting dignitaries toured the central part of India riding horses. Addressing the people, Nehru promised to grant a fair treatment to the region regarding development and, in consultation with the local public, chose Kushok Bakula Rinpoche as the leader of Ladakhi people to represent Ladakh in the State Legislative Assembly. Nehru instructed Sheikh Sahib to work zealously with Bakula for the wellbeing of Ladakhis.
Unfortunately, the Kashmir Government paid very little attention to Ladakh, particularly in regard to the distribution of development funds coming from the Centre and treated Ladakh as their colony. They passed certain laws in the State Assembly which went against the very wishes of Ladakhis, particularly land abolition Act. Similarly, a post of a minister to a Ladakhi was due in the Sheikh Cabinet. Additionally, to elect a Member of Parliament, (Lok Sabha), which was due for Ladakh, was also kept clubbed with the Ganderbal Constituency. Under such circumstances, there existed no chance for a Ladakhi to be a Member of Parliament and to find a forum to air their grievances.
Despite all these unusual complications within Ladakh, the ancient trade route with Xinjian continued, and the same remained a major source of people’s income almost till 1960. It was only when the Sino-Indian war broke in 1962, and since then Ladakh lost its unique position as a Central Asian trading post though the trade was moving in an informal and unregulated way, laden on horses and camel caravans. On the other hand, the Kashmir Government was reluctant to pay any attention to the plight of Ladakhis. Kushok Bakula, now a legislator from Ladakh, lost his patience and publicly protested against what he called Srinagar-dominated administration, saying, “nostalgic longing in Ladakh for a union with their spiritual home, Tibet”.
As the Kushok’s relations with Sheikh Abdullah and Kashmir Government remained strained, it came to the track only after the assumption of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad as the Prime Minister of the state, after deposition and arrest of Sheik Abdullah in 1953. As wished by Nehru, Bakshi appointed Kushok Bakula as a minister in his Cabinet in 1953 and he remained as a minister in the State Government till his unopposed election to the Lok Sabha in 1967.
With the exit of Kushok Bakula from the State politics, the Kashmiri leaders repeated the old policy of not having any Ladakhi legislator in the State government. For that purpose, they created two factions in the only ruling party of the time in the State called the Congress, dubbing them as Congress A and congress B. Ladakhis soon understood the ruling party’s ‘divide-and-rule’ policy. Responding to such tactics, the people of Ladakh came on a single platform and launched an agitation against the Kashmir Government, and the demands of the agitators included a ministerial berth and teaching of Ladakhi language in schools. This agitation resulted in the creation of 32 posts of Ladakhi language teachers and some posts of Arabic teachers. Two Ministerial berths were granted to the legislators, one hailing from Leh and the other from Kargil. In addition, an enquiry commission came into being to find out the lapses regarding the fund allotment to the region and other development-related issues. Soon, the commission came to be known as Gajendragadkar Commission and with the passage of time the recommendation of the commission came out into the open and the same emerged as one of the first political victories for Ladakhis.
In 1973, Balraj Madhok, a former President of the Jan Sangh, through a press statement, said “Ladakh should be separated from the state of Jammu and Kashmir and be made a Union Territory in the interest of national security and wider interest of the nation.” Seeing good reason and weight in the statement of Balraj Madhok, and with the blessings of Kushok Bakula a demand was made through a press conference for separate Ladakh from Kashmir and grant Union Territory status to the region. The demand got high coverage in the Indian press and with that demonstrations were held in Leh including a stone-pelting incident on the motorcade of the Chief Minister Syed Mir Qasim who had come to Leh to sort out the grievances of Ladakh. In the incident, the district magistrate was injured at village Nimo, 36 km away from Leh city and Thupstan Chewang, nephew of Kushok Bakula, was apprehended as the prime suspect. In this way, the situation took a dramatic turn in the sense that certain Ladakhi leaders who had got positions in the government under the Buddhists’ agitation, turned their loyalties to the Kashmir government and opposed the demand of UT, and raised the voice that a separation of Ladakh from the State would harm the cause of national integration. The then leaders, however, supported the demand of granting Schedule Tribe status to Ladakhis.
This dramatic event occurred around the time when the historic talk between Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Abdullah was to be transpired and as an outcome of the talk, the Sheikh proposed to create three regional autonomous councils, one each for Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. This announcement made even in a public meeting held in Leh market Leh but in reality, no change had followed his taking over as the Chief minister of the State, and the apathy towards Ladakh continued. However, veteran Ladakhi engineer Sonam Norboo was given a berth as Works Minister. Around that time, Kushok Bakula who was at the same time had been appointed as a Member, Minorities Commission, by Morarji Desai. But the Sheikh Government did not extend protocol to the members while on a visit to the state capitals. Besides that, regarding the Schedule Tribe status for Ladakhis, the Sheikh’s Government declined to grant written permission to the Government of India under the pretext of article 370. With that, the tussal between the Sheikh and Bakula deepened.
On the other hand, taking the issue of ST, a massive protest was held in Leh in the month of August 1989. At that time, I was in Tokyo, Japan, attending the biannual meeting of International Association for Tibetan Studies (IATS), and in the morning of August 29, 1989, the Japan Times published the news regarding a firing incident in Leh in which three Buddhist protesters were killed. After this unprecedented incident of killings, Kushok Bakula in his capacity as the member of the Minorities Commission, despatched a strong letter to Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime minister, stating that,” As my sincere efforts in safeguarding the interests of the microscopic Buddhist minority of the Jammu and Kashmir State are not bearing the desired fruits, it is becoming extremely difficult for me to justify my association with the Minorities Commission”. Interestingly, that letter was written by Kushok Bakula on my persuasion and the same clicked, and within 15 days of receiving the letter by the PM office, the Central Government issued notification to the grant Schedule Tribe status to certain sections of Ladakhi people.
Even after that, Ladakhis kept mounting pressure upon the Government of India for the grant of UT status to Ladakh. On the other hand, from the year 1990 to 1996, the J&K State remained reeling under President’s rule. Hence, the Central government seeing an appropriate time to grant justice to the Ladakh region, the President of India, through a notification, formed the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Leh and Kargil. Eventually, this action of the Government of India proved as the first step towards grant of UT status to Ladakh.
Meanwhile, in the Kashmir Valley, due to political disturbances, things took an ugly shape, and then began, in 1990, the migration of Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley in large numbers. Later, on seeing the root-cause of Kashmir problem and the unrest in the valley, the Government, in the year 2008, appointed a study group called ‘interlocutor’, and the study report of the three members team of interlocutors soon came to be known. Besides others issues, the interlocutors recommended that, “Ladakh would no longer be part of Kashmir division, as is the case presently”. And that meant that the three-member interlocutors recommended that Ladakh be made a separate division carving out of the Kashmir Division. On that issue, I personally shared some feelings in the press by demanding the change of nomenclature of Jammu and Kashmir State to Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh State. Besides that, my well-researched article demanding Divisional Status for Ladakh, was published in all the major dailies of the State, such as Greater Kashmir, Greater Jammu, Daily Excelsior, Kargil Number, Epilogue and other national papers like The Tribune.
With that event taking a significant political as well as administrative decision, Satyapal Malik, the then Governor of Jammu and Kashmir granted the Divisional Status to the Ladakh region, separating it from Kashmir Division on February 8th, 2019, and next within a six-month period, another significant decision of the Central Government came to surface, granting Union Territory status to Ladakh on the 5th of October 2019 and with that section 370 of the Indian Constitution, which granted special power to the then Kashmir Government to prevent the Central Government from imposing any law passed by Parliament was scraped. Additionally, the National Commission of Schedule Tribe and the then Tribal Minister of India also had favoured the extension of the 6th Schedule of the Constitution to Ladakh. Besides that, the Parliamentary Panel also has asked the home ministry to consider the grant of 5th and 6th Schedule Status to Ladakh. Not only that, the grant of the 6th Schedule to Ladakh also surfaced in the election manifestos of the BJP, but, unfortunately, the Government of India led by the BJP declined to honour their promises made at the time of election. Instead, the Government granted additional five districts to the region in one stroke, in addition to the existing two districts of Ladakh, Leh and Kargil.
Prior to Ladakh becoming a Union Territory, headed by a Lieutenant-Governor, the Administration of two districts was managed by the two District Magistrate-cum Development Commissioners, stationed one each at Leh and Kargil. Now, under the U.T. regime, to manage the same administration, there are dozens of IAS and IPS cadre officers and a number of other officers of similar positions. Maybe, a good number of high-profile administrators are required in the changed Administrative setup of the two districts to carry out welfare schemes of the Ladakhis. Besides, Ladakh has two Hill Councils with about sixty Councillors. Out of the sixty, ten are Executive Councillors with the status of a Deputy Minister, and the Council Chairman and the Deputy Chairman have Cabinet status, but without any executive power. On the other hand, a perception prevails among the locals that with the region becoming a UT, the job opportunities for the locals have greatly shrunk.
In recent times, the Leh Apex body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) spearheaded an agitation, voicing four major demands including the 6th Schedule status and Statehood for Ladakh. Several rounds of talks have already been held with the Central Authorities but without any yield. As a result, this situation of crisis has brought more frustration and anger among the people of Ladakh. In my view, an immediate solution is required from the government to pave the way for the grant of statehood by extending the provisions of 6th Schedule of the Constitution, or the Pondicherry type of UT with legislative power by extending the 6th Schedule status so that Ladakh, once a peaceful region known all over the world, regains its old glory.
Since Ladakh is the crown of Mother India, bordering two hostile countries, China and Pakistan, only a happy Ladakh will be in the best interest of the country. The Central government’s dilly-dallying tactics over the Ladakhis’ genuine demands should not and can’t be brushed aside.

Dr Priyank Goswami
priyank.policy@gmail.com
A new NITI Aayog framework on urban governance arrives as Jammu and Srinagar repeat the same mistakes they have been making for over a century.
When British engineers built embankments along the Jhelum in the nineteenth century to protect Srinagar’s expanding city centre, Sir Walter Lawrence, the Settlement Commissioner, voiced his disquiet. Restricting the river’s natural width, he warned, would one day exact a price. In September 2014, the Jhelum proved him right, submerging Srinagar in its worst floods in living memory. In August 2025, the Tawi delivered the same lesson in Jammu: the Riverfront Development Project had reclaimed some 23 hectares of riverbed, narrowing the channel through the city, and the river took back what had been taken-different rivers, different centuries, the same failure.
Against this backdrop, the NITI Aayog report “Moving Towards Effective City Government: A Framework for Million-Plus Cities,” released on 25 April 2026 by Union Minister Manohar Lal Khattar, should be read in J&K. Its central argument is not new: India’s cities are governed by a confusing array of agencies with no single authority accountable to citizens for the whole of urban life. What is striking is that this diagnosis fits Jammu and Srinagar with a precision born of a very particular history.
Srinagar received its municipality in 1886 under Dogra rule. Jammu followed under the same First Municipal Act. Over the past century, both bodies have been superseded, suspended, and starved more often than empowered. The Jammu Municipal Corporation’s own records show that elections have been held just five times since Independence: 1956, 1972, 1980, 2005, and 2018. The government dissolved the elected council in 1960, 1975, and 1983. In J&K, the denial of urban self-governance was not an accident. It was the default, reinforced by political centralisation and, in Srinagar, by the security logic of the insurgency years, which suspended ordinary civic life for a generation.
The 74th Constitutional Amendment of 1992 mandated the devolution of powers to urban local bodies. Before August 2019, its mandatory provisions did not apply to J&K under Article 370. Since reorganisation as a Union Territory, real steps have been taken: roads, schools, and health sub-centres have been transferred to the two Municipal Corporations; a high-level devolution committee was constituted in February 2025. But the NITI Aayog report calls for something more demanding: structural change in who governs the city and who answers for the consequences.
Nowhere is the cost of that unanswered question more evident than at Dal Lake. A CAG report from April 2026 found that its open water area fell from 15.40 to 12.91 square kilometres between 2007 and 2020, a contraction of over ten per cent in thirteen years, despite Rs 45 crore invested in sewage treatment plants. The plants were built; the sewer networks connecting households and houseboats to them were not. The Lakes Conservation and Management Authority regulates land use but cannot coordinate with the Municipal Corporation on solid waste. Multiple agencies partially implement orders from the National Green Tribunal. The result: a lake studied, audited, litigated, and funded for four decades, still shrinking. No one is in charge.
Jammu presents the same picture across different geographies. The Jammu Development Authority prepares the Master Plan; the Municipal Corporation is responsible for enforcing it; the Irrigation and Flood Control Department manages the river; and Jammu Smart City Limited executes flagship projects. When the Tawi flooded in August 2025, encroachments on nallah protection walls were found to have reduced drainage capacity. That these structures existed at all, in plain violation of the Master Plan’s no-construction buffer, is not a story of individual lawbreaking. It is a story of a city with no government capable of consistently applying its own rules.
The Smart City Mission delivered tangible infrastructure in both cities through Special Purpose Vehicles outside the municipal corporations. But the SPVs reported to their boards, not to elected ward councillors. When the mission reached financial closure in March 2025 and the SPVs wound down, the maintenance question reverted to the same under-resourced corporations that had been bypassed to build the infrastructure in the first place. The government chose to invest in the city while continuing to withhold the means of governing it.
The NITI Aayog report’s prescriptions directly address this dysfunction. Directly elected mayors with fixed tenures and genuine executive authority would create a political centre of gravity that J&K’s cities have never had. Today, the mayor of the Jammu Municipal Corporation is elected solely by ward councillors, making the office inherently weak. Integrating development authorities under city government oversight would end the impunity of agencies that plan cities they do not have to manage. Formula-based finance commission transfers would give municipal bodies something long denied: the ability to plan beyond a single financial year.
As a Union Territory under direct central administration, J&K does not face the political friction that prevents most states from acting on the 74th Amendment’s promise. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs has a direct administrative relationship with J&K that no state government has. This is a rare opening that should not be wasted. Under the 2035 Master Plan, Srinagar’s metropolitan planning area now extends to 766 square kilometres, yet no metropolitan planning committee is operational. Jammu hosts one of India’s largest pilgrimage economies, yet its municipal corporation cannot reliably plan its own drainage. The February 2025 devolution committee must produce a time-bound, public action plan. Direct election of mayors with executive powers must be on the legislative agenda before the next municipal cycle.
Sir Walter Lawrence’s warning about the Jhelum went unheeded for a century. The NITI Aayog report makes a structurally identical argument: J&K’s governance problem, if left unaddressed, will continue to manifest as floods, shrinking lakes, encroached nallahs, and infrastructure no one maintains. J&K has been told this before. The question is whether those who govern these cities can finally answer for them.
(The author is a Senior Research Officer at the Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi)