Aspirations have always been dynamic, evolving with the changing times and the shifting contexts of history. Human societies, no matter how remote or strategically significant, constantly renegotiate their ambitions in the face of political, social and economic realities.
Once jubilant at achieving Union Territory status, Ladakh now simmers with unrest. The demand has shifted from separation to full statehood, as citizens unite to safeguard land, jobs and identity. KC analyses its fallout on Kashmir’s security and political landscape.
Ladakh is one such place that exemplifies this phenomenon. For decades, Ladakhis sought separation from the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, demanding Union Territory (UT) status under the direct control of New Delhi. In 2019, when the Government of India revoked Article 370 and bifurcated Jammu and Kashmir into two UTs, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, the demand of Ladakhis was seemingly fulfilled after seven long decades. Yet, only a few years later, the region has boiled into agitation, with citizens demanding full fledged statehood, a demand that had never dominated the region’s political discourse before.
The present movement in Ladakh, which recently saw violent protests leading to the tragic loss of four young lives in Leh, must be examined as part of a broader trend: the transformation of democratic aspirations under conditions of increasing state assertion and citizen consciousness of fundamental and democratic rights. Ladakh’s turmoil is not an isolated case. Its implications reverberate across the himalayan frontier and have a direct bearing on Kashmir’s fragile political environment.
In this edition of KC, we attempts a comprehensive analysis of Ladakh’s burning discontent, the shifting aspirations of its people and its fallout on Kashmir’s security and political trajectory.
Aspirations in Ladakh
For decades, Ladakhis felt marginalized within the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. Sandwiched between the dominant political aspirations of the Kashmir valley and the Dogra elite of Jammu, Ladakh’s concerns often went unheard. The demand for UT status emerged from a deep seated perception of neglect, with Ladakhis arguing that their unique cultural, religious and geographical realities required direct governance from New Delhi rather than through Srinagar or Jammu divisions.
When Article 370 was revoked in August 2019 and Ladakh was carved out as a separate UT, many celebrated it as a long awaited dream fulfilled. Political groups in Leh, especially the Ladakh Buddhist Association and other local bodies welcomed the decision. But the euphoria was short-lived. The absence of legislative powers, the concentration of authority in bureaucrats and the lack of safeguards for land, jobs and cultural identity quickly transformed optimism into anxiety.
Today, Ladakhis demand statehood. It’s a radical shift in their aspirations. What began as a quest for separation has now evolved into a struggle for greater democratic representation and protection of fundamental rights. The recent violent protests are symbolic of this new trajectory which reigned arson, deaths, destruction and arrests.
Democratic deficit
Globally, democracies have witnessed a paradoxical trend in recent years. While far-right movements have attempted to centralize authority and impose checks on individual rights, citizens are becoming increasingly conscious of their democratic entitlements. Ladakh represents a paradigm of this paradox.
On one hand, New Delhi’s decision to govern Ladakh directly was intended to assert control in a strategically sensitive border region, ensuring security and streamlined development. On the other hand, citizens have perceived this as a dilution of their rights. With no elected assembly, Ladakhis feel alienated from decision making processes that affect their daily lives. Land laws and employment opportunities, once protected under Article 370 as claimed by the Ladakhis now, are now subject to central directives, sparking fears of demographic and cultural erosion. Hence the demand was to bring Ladakh under Sixth Schedule in order to protect the rights and culture of the sensitive region bordered with China with whom our relation sour after 2017 border clashes.
The reaction has been sharp. Citizens who once demanded closer ties with the central government are now mobilizing to defend their democratic and fundamental rights. The Leh based apex body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance, which represent diverse religious and regional communities have united to demand statehood, constitutional safeguards under the Sixth Schedule and greater autonomy.
Leh protests and violence
The protests in Leh that culminated in violence on September 24, 2025, underline the intensity of discontent. What began as peaceful demonstrations escalated into chaos, with clashes leading to the deaths of four people and injuries to several others. The protesters torched the local BJP office in anger, holding the ruling party responsible for failing to deliver on promises of safeguards and representation.
This tragic turn of events signifies that the Ladakh movement has crossed a threshold that it is no longer confined to petitions or negotiations but has entered the volatile terrain of street mobilization, with the potential to destabilize the region’s fragile peace. The Ladakh based amalgamation of parties have also bid adieu to the dialogue with the Ministry of Home Affairs after this violence.
Ladakh is not just any border region. Its geographical position makes it one of India’s most sensitive territories. Sharing boundaries with China and Pakistan, Ladakh has witnessed repeated military tensions, from the Kargil war in 1999 to the recent Galwan clashes in 2020. For New Delhi, maintaining stability in Ladakh is not just a domestic imperative but a matter of national security.
An unstable Ladakh risks complicating India’s strategic calculus against China and Pakistan. Discontent among locals could hinder infrastructure projects, weaken the social fabric in a region where military-civil cooperation is crucial and potentially invite external exploitation by neighboring adversaries. For these reasons, New Delhi cannot afford prolonged disturbance in Ladakh.
Immediate fallout on Kashmir
The developments in Ladakh also cast a shadow over Kashmir. Unlike Ladakh, the people of Jammu and Kashmir have not mobilized on a large scale for statehood restoration. Widespread disillusionment with political parties, rampant corruption, bureaucratic hurdles and nepotism has kept popular agitation subdued. Many ordinary Kashmiris have lost faith in the traditional political class and democratic system after recent elections which they see as compromised and self-serving without having any means and way out for people in the present dual hybrid system.
However, the Ladakh agitation could act as a catalyst. The sight of Ladakhis mobilizing en masse for statehood could inspire Kashmiris to reignite their own struggle for the restoration of statehood. The sense of being denied democratic rights, coupled with anger at bureaucratic rule and lack of accountability, could push Kashmiris to the streets.
This scenario carries both violent and non-violent possibilities. While non-violent protests demanding statehood are plausible, Kashmir’s history of violent agitation means that a spark even from Ladakh could trigger unrest in the Valley. The central government must be wary of this chain reaction.
Democratic dynamics
At the heart of the Ladakh agitation lies a universal dynamic that the tension between a state attempting to assert control and citizens demanding the safeguarding of their rights. History shows that whenever states try to regulate or curtail democratic freedoms, citizens respond often sharply to defend their space. The struggle in Ladakh echoes movements elsewhere in India and the world where evolving aspirations clash with rigid state structures.
Aspirations are never stagnant. They evolve as societies evolve. Ladakh’s trajectory from demanding separation to demanding statehood is a classic example of this fluidity. Citizens may initially demand greater integration for development or security but later demand greater autonomy to preserve identity and exercise rights. This dialectic between state power and citizen assertion defines the very essence of democracy.
Layering autonomy parallel to statehood, Ladakhis press for Sixth Schedule status (Article 244 of the Constitution) which currently governs tribal districts in parts of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura. Under this scheme the Autonomous District Councils can legislate on land, forest, local customs, taxation, and resource management. These councils can protect land rights, restrict outsiders from acquiring land, regulate governance of local bodies and maintain customary institutions. It ensures constitutional backing to the protection of tribal identity, language and socio-cultural norms.
In Ladakh’s case with over 95–97% of population classified as Scheduled Tribes or in tribal categories, the argument is that Sixth Schedule protections are well suited to preserving identity while giving autonomy. By combining statehood with Sixth Schedule, Ladakh aims for a layered autonomy that’s a state structure for macro governance and constitutionally protected local self rule in tribal affairs.
Ladakh today stands at the crossroads of aspiration and agitation. What was once a demand for separation from Jammu and Kashmir has now evolved into a demand for full-fledged statehood. The region’s protests reveal the paradox of democratic aspirations as much as the state tries to assert control, citizens respond with equal intensity to safeguard their rights.
In the end, the story of Ladakh is not just about one region’s demands. It is about the evolving nature of aspirations in a democracy and the inevitability of citizen assertion when voice remains unheard. It is a reminder that while state structures may impose checks and balances, the pulse of democracy lies in the voices of its people, voices that cannot be silenced for long. In our democracy, expression of dissent is a right but when protest turns to arson and lawlessness, it challenges the very spirit of that democracy. Our system continues to engage, to invite dialogue even in the face of violence, a reminder that the beauty of our democracy must remain intact and those protestors and their leaders too must see through this lens.
