Table of Contents
The Government of India has passed a significant administrative order to create five new districts in the Union Territory of Ladakh. This is at a time when the region itself has been demanding statehood and eventually special constitutional status, even as it has been grappling with the demands growing in the area. The district status was accorded to new ones, named Drass, Zanskar, Nubra, Sankoo, and Zojila, taken out of the existing Leh and Kargil districts. Despite being perceived as a measure to help alleviate some of the governance and developmental challenges, the creation of the new districts has nonetheless ignited debate, with implications for issues of statehood in the region.
Background: Under Which Circumstances Were the New Districts Created
Making not only its geographical but also its cultural diversity, which this two-tiered jewel boasts, an amalgam of sorts, Ladakh has ever since been fumbling with the management of its material entry after it was granted the status of a Union Territory alone on August 5, 2019, following the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir. With vast grasslands and a sparse population, many a time, the region has found it problematic to administer the areas far away from the focal point. The move is hoped to finally bring the administration closer to the people and make administrative services more accessible.
Strategically important from the security perspective, Drass and Zanskar, given their unique cultural identity, are part of the otherwise “Kargil district administration,” the former is more often termed as the second coldest inhabited place on earth, whereas the latter is famous for its ruggedness, holding a very strong Buddhist heritage. Areas like Nubra, Sankoo, and Zojila, falling under the earlier Leh district, have specific features in terms of their ethnicity and geography. The creation of the new districts by the Centre would make governance effective in Ladakh, set right the administrative machinery, and make developmental activities beneficial for far-flung regions.
Statehood Demand
The issue has been seen as a move by the Center mainly to satisfy the local problems prevailing in Ladakh; however, on the other hand, it has added fuel to the debate on the demand for statehood for the region of Ladakh. Ladakh has been governed by the Centre as a Union Territory since the abrogation of Article 370, which had given special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. However, in Ladakh, especially in the Kargil region, many voices are demanding full statehood and constitutional safeguards that would protect the cultural and environmental heritage of the land.
Both the LAHDCs of Leh and Kargil have expressed fears that the Union Territory status does not offer proper political representation and autonomy to the region. The demand for statehood also comes from apprehensions that the direct Central rule may also bring inadequate safeguards for protecting Ladakh’s unique cultural identity. These feelings have taken the form of many political and civil society groups that seek statehood and the reinstatement of Article 371, which provides many special provisions to some states in India.
Government’s Views
The decision on the part of the Centre to create new districts was taken up as a means to the governance-related issues faced by Ladakh for years. Decentralizing the administration, the government hopes would lead to the implementation of far more development projects at a much faster pace, ensuring that the fruits of government schemes reach even the interiors of the region. It will also provide an impetus to local governance structures and empower the newly formed districts to address their challenges.
As a direct consequence of its new-found official stature, tourism in Ladakh has now been brought directly under the purview of the Tourism Department of the union territory. On the statehood issue, however, the government has remained non-committal. The officials argue the status of a Union Territory allows them to ensure more direct and effective governance, something very essential for a region as strategically sensitive and sparsely populated as Ladakh. The creation of new districts forms a part of a broader strategy that Ladakh’s development be focused on without the complications that full-fledged statehood could bring.
Conclusion:
The creation of five new districts in Ladakh is not a mere phenomenon, but a quantum leap in the administrative landscape in the region. While promising a new vista for better governance and accelerated development, it has thrown into focus a kaleidoscope of local aspirations and strategic interests at the Centre. As Ladakh steps into a new prospective arena, the statehood debate is surely something that is going to shape the journey of this culturally rich and unique region.
