Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk and other residents of Ladakh are currently engaged in a hunger strike, pressing for vital constitutional safeguards for the sensitive region bordering China. Ladakh was reorganized into a Union Territory in 2019, sparking both hopes and fears among its inhabitants.
The government’s attempts to address these concerns began with a high-powered committee (HPC), initially formed in January 2023 under Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai. Though reconstituted in November 2023, talks hit a roadblock in March 2024. Discussions resumed on December 3, 2024, with the most recent round held on May 27, but a resolution remains elusive.
Cherring Dorjay Lakruk, the influential president of the Ladakh Buddhist Association and a co-convenor of the Leh Apex Body – a key part of the HPC – is a leading figure in the current protest. In an interview with Vijaita Singh, he shares insights into the community’s deep-seated anxieties and their unwavering resolve.
Why are you protesting again?
Our current protest centers around four crucial demands: the inclusion of Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule for tribal status, full statehood, separate parliamentary representation for Leh and Kargil, and the immediate filling of government job vacancies. We’re back on the streets because the Home Ministry abruptly halted negotiations, and we aim to restart those vital discussions.
How long will the protest go on?
Mr. Wangchuk has announced a 35-day hunger strike, and we’ve already seen hundreds join. While 400-500 people are actively participating, this period could certainly be extended if our demands aren’t met.
How many meetings did you have with the Home Ministry so far?
Over the past four to five years, we’ve had numerous discussions with the Ministry, but they’ve been inconsistent. It took a significant effort, including Sonam Wangchuk’s march from Leh to Delhi and a hunger strike last year, just to get the talks back on track. Our main frustration is this lack of consistent engagement.
After the last talks in May, President Droupadi Murmu notified four Regulations for Ladakh, defining new policies on reservation, languages, domiciles, and composition of hill councils. Didn’t these incorporate your demands?
Unfortunately, no. While certain regulations were notified, our two most critical demands – for statehood and inclusion under the Sixth Schedule – were not adequately addressed in those discussions.
When Ladakh became a UT, there were celebrations in Leh by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). You have been associated with BJP which celebrated the UT status.
Although I was with the BJP at the time, I didn’t partake in the celebrations in Leh. Our primary objective then, and still now, was for Union Territory status with its own legislature. I personally never joined those festivities.
Has the Home Ministry ever assured Statehood in the talks so far?
They’ve indicated a willingness to discuss it, but the provision for statehood is explicitly outlined in our Constitution. We’re looking for more than just discussion.
What are the changes you expect if Statehood is granted?
Our foremost concern is land. Ladakh possesses vast stretches of what might seem like barren land, but safeguarding it is absolutely paramount. The Sixth Schedule would provide essential protection for our jobs and unique culture.
What is the fear around land?
The fear is very real: that large industries and massive hotel chains will descend upon Ladakh, leading to outsiders taking over our precious land. Currently, our hospitality sector thrives on small, family-run businesses, not sprawling 400-500 room establishments. We worry that these external entities will inevitably displace our local enterprises.
What kind of protection you had when you were part of J&K?
When we were part of Jammu & Kashmir, our land was fully protected. Outsiders couldn’t apply for local jobs, and crucially, due to Article 370, they couldn’t purchase land. Now, that protection is gone.
What will be your next move?
The Ministry has reached out, suggesting renewed talks, and wants us to call off the fast. However, we cannot suspend our strike prematurely. We are open to discussions, and if they progress genuinely, we might consider adjustments. But until then, the hunger strike continues. We’ve also resolved to keep this movement entirely apolitical until the upcoming hill council elections, due in the next two months.