Educationalist and social activist Sonam Wangchuk has warned of a fresh agitation in Ladakh from September 19 to 24 if the Centre fails to give an assurance within a week on the region’s long-standing political and constitutional demands.
The warning followed a September 9 meeting between representatives of the Leh Apex Body (LAB), Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) and a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) sub-committee in New Delhi.
Ladakh’s representatives said they were disappointed because the Centre did not present the expected draft for a proposed elected governing body, while the administration described the talks as positive and said the broad contours of a special, Ladakh-specific governance model had been discussed.
The Centre has proposed a new constitutional provision, Article 371(K), under which a unique governing body could be created for the Union Territory, but key questions over executive, financial, planning and administrative powers remain unresolved.
Wangchuk said the delegation had already postponed a planned Kargil-Leh march to give dialogue a chance, but warned that another mobilisation could follow if there is no concrete assurance. The next round of talks is expected in Kargil in the first week of October.
Talks Leave Ladakh Leaders Disappointed
The September 9 meeting was expected to be an important step after nearly four months without formal discussions. Ladakh’s representatives went to New Delhi expecting the Centre to place a draft before them detailing the proposed elected body, its powers and the constitutional safeguards being considered for the region. Instead, they said the meeting largely revisited issues discussed earlier.
Wangchuk described the talks as cordial but said there had been “no special progress” and that the delegation had not received the draft it was expecting. He said the representatives had submitted a list of non-negotiables, including the need for an elected institution to have meaningful authority over the bureaucracy and law and order, but were instead presented with questions that would be taken up at a later meeting.
He also sought an assurance that no major or irreversible decisions affecting Ladakh would be taken before an elected democratic body is established. The Centre and the Ladakh administration have presented a more positive assessment. Ladakh Chief Secretary Ashish Kundra said the discussions were constructive and that the broad contours of a sui generis, or one-of-a-kind, governance model for Ladakh had been discussed.
The proposed framework would reportedly create a legislative body for the Union Territory, but it would not amount to either statehood or a conventional Union Territory with a legislature. The proposed constitutional arrangement would require parliamentary approval.
Ladakh MP Mohammad Haneefa, however, said there appeared to be a disconnect between the MHA’s engagement with the LAB and KDA and decisions being taken by the Union Territory administration on the ground.
Why Ladakh Wants More Powers
The disagreement goes beyond the creation of an elected body. Since Ladakh became a separate Union Territory without a legislature in 2019, its civil-society groups have repeatedly sought stronger democratic representation and safeguards for the region’s land, employment, environment, culture and identity.
The LAB and KDA have also demanded constitutional protection, greater control over development and local resources, and clarity over the powers that would rest with elected representatives, the Lieutenant Governor and the Centre.
One of the movement’s central demands has been inclusion of Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which provides autonomous governance arrangements for tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.
The Centre’s latest proposal instead appears to favour a Ladakh-specific constitutional mechanism through the proposed Article 371(K). The suggested framework could give the proposed elected body legislative powers over areas such as land, culture and language, forests, environment and natural resources.
However, representatives say the absence of a written draft makes it difficult to assess how much real authority the institution would eventually have. The unresolved questions are particularly important because Ladakh’s representatives have sought executive, financial, budgetary and planning powers in addition to legislative authority.
They also want safeguards against major policy decisions affecting land and the region’s character being taken without an elected institution. For them, the issue is not simply whether Ladakh gets a new body, but whether that body will have enough power to meaningfully represent the people it is expected to serve.
The latest developments also come against the backdrop of the agitation of September 2025. Protests in Leh on September 24 last year turned violent, leaving four people dead and more than 80 injured. Wangchuk was detained two days later under the National Security Act (NSA) and spent nearly six months in Jodhpur Central Jail.
The Centre revoked his detention in March 2026, saying it wanted to create an atmosphere of peace, stability and mutual trust and reiterating its commitment to providing necessary safeguards for Ladakh. Wangchuk has continued to campaign for the region’s political and constitutional demands following his release.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The latest standoff underlines why sustained dialogue must remain at the centre of the Ladakh issue. The Centre’s willingness to consider a Ladakh-specific constitutional arrangement is a potentially meaningful development, but the concerns raised by local representatives about the absence of a draft and clarity over actual powers cannot simply be brushed aside.
At the same time, any renewed agitation must remain peaceful, particularly after last year’s violence and the loss of lives. Democratic demands deserve to be heard without delay, but disagreement should not once again turn into confrontation between citizens and the administration.
Also read: Tamil Nadu CM Vijay Names TVK’s Ruling Coalition Secular Social Justice Victory Alliance
