Why there is an unrest in Ladakh ?

The unrest in Ladakh stems primarily from the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act of 2019.

1. The Change: The government revoked Article 370 and Article 35A, which protected land and job rights. Ladakh was consequently reconstituted as a separate Union Territory (UT).

2. The Shift: Although the Buddhist-majority Leh region initially “celebrated enthusiastically”, this “euphoria” soon gave way to “deep resentment”. The main reason for the discontent was that Ladakh was created as a UT without a legislature.

3. The Consequences: This change left governance under the control of a Lieutenant-Governor appointed by New Delhi, stripping locals of political representation. Without the constitutional safeguards provided by Article 35A, residents feared that outsiders could settle, buy land, and take jobs, thus threatening the region’s unique tribal identity and fragile cold-desert ecosystem.

This loss of political control and constitutional protection led the two major groups the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) to unite

The current unrest in Ladakh stems from growing discontent following the region’s reconstitution in 2019.

1. Status Change (2019): In August 2019, following the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A, Ladakh was separated from Jammu & Kashmir and made a Union Territory (UT) without a legislature.
2. Shift in Sentiment: While the move was initially celebrated by residents of Leh, who believed it would grant them greater autonomy, this “euphoria” soon gave way to “deep resentment”.
3. Core Grievances: The lack of a legislature meant that the UT is governed by a Lieutenant-Governor and appointed bureaucrats, resulting in a “democratic deficit” and a feeling of alienation. Furthermore, the loss of Article 35A stripped the region of constitutional protections that had safeguarded land and job rights for locals, fueling fears of demographic change, cultural dilution, and large-scale outside acquisition of land.
4. The Crisis Point (September 2025): Tensions erupted violently on September 24, 2025, when a peaceful protest led to clashes, police firing, and arson (including the burning of the local BJP office). At least four people were killed and dozens were injured, prompting authorities to impose curfews and internet shutdowns.
5. Dialogue: The protests are primarily led by the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), which have united despite historic religious and sub-regional polarization. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) resumed dialogue by proposing Article 371-like provisions to Ladakh, though local groups insist on their core demands.

Ladakh: Autonomy, Governance, and Geostrategy

The core difference lies in the level of autonomy and legislative power granted.

1. The Sixth Schedule (Protesters’ Demand): This provision is considered more robust. It allows for the creation of Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) which possess genuine legislative powers over critical subjects such as land, forests, customs, and community laws. The protesters insist on this because over 97% of Ladakh’s population is tribal, and these councils would provide the necessary constitutional shield to protect their land and unique culture from outside exploitation and aggressive development.

2. Article 371 (Government’s Proposal): This provides special provisions for safeguarding local laws, culture, and administration (currently applied in 12 states). However, the sources note that Article 371 is generally a flexible clause that can tailor specific safeguards for land and jobs, but it does not grant statehood. Ladakhi representatives noted that the MHA seemed inclined only to empower the existing Hill Councils, which they rejected, as this would not grant the comprehensive legislative control they seek.

In short, the Sixth Schedule offers self-governance and control over resources, while Article 371 offers safeguards but retains central control

Explanation of the Demands

The agitation centers on a four-point agenda presented by the LAB and KDA:

1. Full Statehood for Ladakh: This demand seeks to restore democratic self-governance through an elected legislative assembly. Currently, the existing Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (LAHDCs) control only about 10% of the total budget and possess limited powers.
2. Inclusion under the Sixth Schedule: This is demanded because over 97% of Ladakh’s population is tribal. The Sixth Schedule, which currently applies to tribal areas in four Northeastern states, allows for the creation of Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) with robust legislative, executive, and judicial powers over critical local matters. Protesters believe this provision is essential to constitutionally safeguard their culture, environment, and, crucially, land ownership and resource management.
3. Job and Recruitment Safeguards: Locals demand reservations and the formation of a separate Ladakh Public Service Commission (PSC). Unemployment among graduates rose sharply to 26.5% in 2022/2023, nearly double the national average, fueling youth frustration. While the Centre introduced a domicile policy reserving 85% of jobs for locals, protesters view this as “grossly insufficient” as it does not address the lack of a separate PSC.
4. Justice for Protesters and Detainees: This includes the demand for a judicial inquiry into the September 24 police firing, compensation for the four deaths, the release of all detained activists (specifically naming Sonam Wangchuk), and the revocation of the National Security Act (NSA) imposed on them.

The demands for Statehood and the Sixth Schedule are crucial because they relate directly to protecting the region’s tribal character and fragile environment.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has offered to discuss Article 371-like provisions instead

National and International Outcomes

Ladakh is geographically critical, situated in the high-altitude Trans-Himalayan region, bordering China and Pakistan, making stability a national security imperative.

A. Outcomes if Demands (Statehood/Sixth Schedule) are Accepted:

B. Outcomes if Demands are Denied (or only limited Article 371-like provisions are granted):

The Story, Work, and Controversy of Sonam Wangchuk

Sonam Wangchuk is one of the most visible and prominent faces of the Ladakh protests.

Work and Advocacy:

• Innovator and Educationist: He is a renowned technologist, educational reformer, and Magsaysay Awardee. His life served as the inspiration for a character in the 2009 Bollywood film Three Idiots. He founded the Students’ Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SECMOL) and promotes low-impact living and pluriversal technologies, such as passive solar-earth buildings.
• Environmental Focus: Wangchuk focuses heavily on the need for constitutional safeguards due to Ladakh’s ecological fragility and its position on the frontlines of climate change (glacial melt, water scarcity). He argues that autonomy is crucial to prevent the commercial exploitation of land and resources by external interests.
• Protest Methods: He is a vocal critic of the UT status and has consistently used high-profile, non-violent methods to push demands, including:
  • Multiple hunger strikes/fasts in subzero temperatures, such as a five-day fast in January 2023, a 21-day fast in March 2024, and a 35-day fast initiated in September 2025.
  • A 1000-km march to Delhi in 2024 to highlight constitutional and environmental demands, resulting in his detention at the Delhi border.

Recent Controversy and Detention:

• The Arrest: Following the violent clashes on September 24, 2025, Wangchuk was detained under the stringent National Security Act (NSA) and lodged in Jodhpur jail.
• Official Accusations: The administration accused Wangchuk of inciting the youth through “provocative speeches” that allegedly led to the arson and mob violence. Furthermore, investigations were launched into his alleged links to Pakistan, related to his participation in a climate conference organised by a Pakistani newspaper and the UN.
• Local Counter-Narrative: Protesting groups (LAB/KDA) and locals strongly defend Wangchuk, arguing that his detention and the accusations of being “anti-national” are baseless tactics used by the administration to:
  • Divert attention from the four lives lost in the police firing and the severe unemployment issue.
  • Suppress the movement and create a false narrative of external interference (e.g., Chinese or Pakistani funding).
  • Clear the way for corporate interests to exploit Ladakh’s minerals and resources without the consent of local communities.

The release of Wangchuk and the revocation of the NSA are central conditions set by the LAB and KDA for any productive continuance of dialogue with the MHA.

Key official statements from different countries on the Ladakh controversy in 2025:

China

China continues to reject the Indian claim over Ladakh, particularly the union territory status granted by India in 2019. Beijing calls it a “so-called union territory” and asserts that parts of Ladakh, especially Aksai Chin, belong to China. China has expanded military infrastructure and troop deployments in the region and maintains that border issues remain unresolved. Diplomatic talks between India and China on boundary clarification have taken place but substantive changes remain limited, as China stresses its territorial claims and strategic interests in Ladakh.​

Pakistan

Pakistan has expressed concern over the protests and unrest in Ladakh, describing them as “extremely disturbing.” The Pakistani Foreign Office criticized India’s handling of the situation and accused it of an “iron-fisted approach” in what they term as Indian-occupied territory. Pakistan monitors the protests closely, highlighting the disputed status of Kashmir and Ladakh and continuing to assert claims against India over Kashmir and associated areas. Pakistan has condemned the killing of protesters and urged global attention against alleged Indian atrocities.​

United States

The United States has publicly criticized China’s military moves in Ladakh and supported India’s stance as part of its broader Indo-Pacific strategy. The US views India as a key partner to counterbalance China’s growing power in the region. Unlike previous years when the US was more discreet, senior US officials have been publicly critical of China’s actions in Ladakh, demonstrating support for India amid border tensions, viewing the issue through a strategic security lens.​

Russia

Russia has maintained a neutral stance, choosing not to take sides between India and China. While it has expressed concern about boundary tensions, Moscow promotes a multipolar world and prefers not to alienate either country. Russia supports diplomatic mechanisms for managing the Line of Actual Control (LAC) dispute but has avoided direct criticism or intervention in the Ladakh standoff, focusing on maintaining balanced relations with both India and China.​

United Kingdom

The UK, as part of its increasing engagement with India, reaffirmed its commitment to global peace, stability, and a rules-based international order during bilateral talks. The UK has supported India in counterterrorism cooperation amidst the broader regional security context but has not issued a direct and detailed public statement about the Ladakh controversy itself. The India-UK strategic partnership, including economic and defense cooperation, reflects a focus on broader regional stability.​

Summary Table of Country Positions on Ladakh 2025