Perspective and commentary

The recent transition of government schools from J&K BOSE to the CBSE curricula marks a significant step towards standardising education in the Union Territory of Ladakh. However, the lack of a dedicated environment science (EVS) subject in the CBSE curriculum poses a big challenge for students, subject teachers and society as a whole. This change not only impacts the quality of education but also undermines the efforts to build an environmentally literate society and undermines the government’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework. The absence of EVS significantly impacts ecologically-sensitive regions like Ladakh where environmental consciousness is not just an academic course but a survival imperative.

In my opinion, environmental science is the foundation for nurturing environmentally-literate minds. It instils concern and sensitivity about the environment in young minds from the very beginning of their lives in school. In turn they grow into sensible and nature conscious adults who act as environmental stewards. In an era defined by climate crises, biodiversity loss, and pollution, EVS equips students with the knowledge to understand ecological systems, sustainable practices, and their role in protecting the planet.

More specifically, Ladakh, which is one of the most sensitive and fragile ecological zones in the world with its unique landscape and biodiversity, is disproportionately affected by climate change. For Ladakhis, environmental stewardship is not a choice but a necessity ingrained in their way of life. Thus, the lack of EVS in the CBSE curriculum undermines this sense of urgency. In turn, Ladakhi students, who will inherit this vulnerable landscape, are being denied the tools to understand and address these challenges. The absence of EVS in school curricula risks creating a generation of disconnected students from the region’s fragility and sensitivity, which could accelerate its ecological collapse.

Key topics like conservation, waste management, renewable energy, and climate change are not abstract concepts but real-world issues that future generations must understand and address. Removing EVS deprives students of critical literacy in a field directly tied to their survival and well-being. Moreover, EVS fosters interdisciplinary learning. It bridges geography, biology, chemistry, and social sciences, while also encouraging students to think more holistically. It cultivates problem-solving skills, empathy for nature, and civic responsibility in young minds. These are qualities that are essential for building a sustainable society.

It is ironic that on the one hand global leaders and climate activists emphasise the urgency of climate action. And yet, on the other hand, policymakers and people who develop and frame school education curriculum are paradoxically downplaying the role of environmental science and environmental literacy. It’s like organising a green conference for carbon neutrality by using hundreds of flights, lavish hotels and energy intensive venues, which significantly increases the carbon emissions. Likewise people are blamed for causing climate change with their lifestyle choices even as students in schools are deprived of environmental education.

It is possible that the people who make decisions and develop curricula at Central Board for School Education think that other subjects such as biology and geography cover these topics. However, at the senior secondary level, EVS offers a more dedicated focus, understanding and builds a rational bonding of students and the environment. Integrating it with other subjects might dilute the message and effectiveness in the real world.

Students are in their adolescence in the secondary and senior secondary level and are more likely to be drawn towards modern, lavish and carbon-intensive lifestyles. They are living in an age in which lavish, extravagant lifestyles are superficially attractive and aligned with aspirational social status. Therefore they might prioritise things that are trendy and give them a false sense of satisfaction and belongingness to their peers. In such a situation where people value such standards and lifestyles, why should they care about the environment? Without a proper formal environmental education, how could we blame them of being careless and negligent of the environment and the impact of their choices? Their present choices and environmentally irresponsible habits will have long-term impacts in the future. Therefore an introduction to the importance of the environment is important for students at their age to help them connect with nature and understand its importance to their lives. Through this subject, they can understand and realise that sustainability does not mean one has to abandon modernity. Instead, one needs to redefine it to include environmental processes in our decision-making. This helps them realise that lavish lifestyles are not desirable in a world threatened with environmental collapse.

Since CBSE recognises the value of subjects such as home science, fashion design, music, beauty and wellness, yoga etc, then why not environmental science? This is a discipline that is critical to the survival of humanity and other life-forms. If yoga nurtures physical and mental wellness and music fosters creativity and cultural preservation, then EVS teaches harmony between humans and nature, without which there can be no creativity or cultural value. Without pure and unpolluted air, the breathing exercises done in yoga are futile. It’s a call for parity. This contradiction is not to diminish these subjects but to demand balance, equity and fairness.

Without a structured EVS curriculum, students are deprived of opportunities to engage with pressing environmental issues and they graduate without understanding their ecological footprint. Ladakh is a rural, ecologically vulnerable region where livelihoods are dependent on natural resources and such a gap in the education system can be catastrophic. It also dissuades students from opting for a career in the environmental sector. The absence of this subject at the secondary level creates an uncertainty in the minds of hundreds of students who have dedicated years to master the subject. In addition, the absence of EVS demoralises skilled professionals and wastes human resources such as in-service EVS lecturers, who are frustrated as they are compelled to teach subjects in which they have no expertise. It is also disrespectful of their subject specialisation.

Environmental education is also a global and national priority. India has committed to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals including SDGs 3, 6, 7, 13, 14 and 15, which can only be achieved through imparting environmental education to students. EVS aligns very well with national initiatives such as Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, Jal Shakti Abhiyan and renewable energy campaigns. Carbon neutrality in Ladakh was envisioned by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and it aims at restructuring development activities to minimise greenhouse gas emissions. This vision can only be achieved if the local populace is environmentally educated. This can be done only through their school education. By omitting EVS in schools, we undermine the government’s efforts of meeting the SDGs as well as the vision of making ‘carbon neutrality’ in Ladakh. The National Education Policy, 2020 also emphasises environmental awareness and critical thinking, and EVS is an ideal subject for it.

A lot of effort has been made to introduce this important subject in the CBSE curriculum at the secondary level in different ways but there has been no positive response so far. We, as lecturers of EVS in Ladakh, took up this issue with the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Ladakh, former Member of Parliament, Jamyang Tsering Namgyal, and the two LAHDCs but no one has been able to re-introduce environment sciences in the curriculum. We once again appeal to all authorities to reinstate EVS in Ladakh’s school curricula—the future of our planet depends on it. Let’s not teach our children to breathe deeply through yoga while ignoring the polluted air they inhale. Let’s not teach them to sing the music of rivers, while those rivers are dry and let’s not teach them about a glacier trek while those glaciers continue to disappear.

Editor’s note: We have withheld the identity of the writer(s) to protect them from any potentially negative reactions and to focus attention to the issue they have raised.

In 2019, Ladakh’s former Member of Parliament (MP), Jamyang Tsering Namgyal became a social media sensation for his famous speech in the Indian Parliament. He accused Congress governments of ignoring Ladakh since 1947 and termed it as “seven decades of neglect”. He quoted the famous statement by Nehru, ‘…not a blade of grass grows there…’ to drive home his point. As a BJP MP, he was speaking in support of the J&K Reorganisation Bill. It might be worthwhile to explore Nehru’s history with Ladakh.

This statement was made by Nehru during a debate in the Rajya Sabha on 31 August, 1959. It was in response to a ‘short notice question’ raised by then Rajya Sabha MP, Devendra Prasad Singh from Praja Socialist Party (PSP Bihar), which was founded by Jayaprakash Narayan in in 1952. He asked four questions of the then Prime Minister, who concurrently held the Minister of External Affairs portfolio. These deliberations occurred in the presence of distinguished Bharat Ratna, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, who served as the Vice President of India, ex-officio chair of the Rajya Sabha, and later as President of India. This underscores the high-profile nature of these debates and its institutional gravitas.

The questions raised by D. P. Singh pertained to the road built by the Chinese on Indian territory in Ladakh. D. P. Singh had asked, “In view of the fact that the Chinese claim is unjustified and no reply has been sent to the Indian government, does not the government contemplate ousting the Chinese from this Indian territory by force? Will not the Government of India at least consider the advisability of bombing the road, built in our territory, out of existence?” To this, Jawaharlal Nehru replied, “No, Sir. Government will not consider that course, because that is not the way government would like to function in such matters. The hon’ble member started by saying that this is admittedly Indian territory but the Chinese would not agree to it. That is a contradiction in terms. As a matter of fact, it is Indian territory and we claim it so because we think that the weight of evidence is in our favour—maps etc. But the Chinese produce their own maps, equally old, which are in their favour. And the territory is sterile. Ithas been described as a barren, uninhabited region without a vestige of grass and 17,000 ft. high…In places like this, decisions can only be made by conferences by agreement. Countries do not, should not, go to war without proceeding in those other ways over such matters.’

The misrepresentation of this rhetoric was addressed the same day when independent MP, Jaswant Singh stated, “The Prime Minister stated a little while ago that this portion of Ladakh is absolutely desolate and unfertile and that not even a blade of grass grows there. Even then, China is attaching importance to that area and is building a road there. I would like to know, when China is attaching so much of importance to this desolate bit of land, why, when the territory is ours or is under dispute even, we do not attach any importance to this area?” Nehru replied, “I spoke only about the Yehcheng area and not about the whole of Ladakh although the whole of Ladakh, broadly speaking, is 11,000 to 17,000 and 20,000 feet high. Presumably, the Chinese attach importance to this area because of the fact that this route connects part of Chinese Turkestan with Gartok-Yehcheng. This is an important connection.”

Another interesting pivot of this argument is to blame Nehru for the entire debacle of Line of Actual Control, and failure to intervene proactively in the Tibet issue in 1950, which brought China to the borders of India and undermined the treaties signed with Tibet. This narrative hints at the India-China border issue as a problem created by Nehru. However, history would be served better if we look back at the Shimla conference in October 1913 and July 1914. Republic of China, British Government of India, and Government of Tibet convened in Shimla to address the territorial and political status of Tibet and underline the boundary in an area marked by Tibet’s ambiguous relationship with India and China. Historian Kyle J. Gardener writes in his book, The Frontier Complex: Geopolitics and the Making of the India–China Border, 1846–1962  that the British were wary of Chinese expansionism in 1911 after the Chinese revolution. The Chinese refused to accept the draft treaty prepared by the British as China wanted to assert control over the region and Tibet wanted autonomy.

Scholar of International Relations, Monika Chansoria has written that the then Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai tried repeatedly to alter Nehru’s position on Ladakh during three days of negotiations in April 1960 but failed to deter Nehru from his stand on Ladakh as Indian territory. He demanded that Chinese withdraw troops from this regions and that it was non-negotiable.

Journalist Rinchen Norbu Wangchuk has written that Nehru invited the 19th Kushok Bakula Rinpoche to Delhi and met him at his residence at Teen Murti to reassure Ladakh’s Buddhist community on 20 May 1949 and also accepted an invitation to visit Ladakh. Two months later, on 4 July, 1949, Nehru visited Ladakh. Undoubtedly, Kushok Bakula Rinpoche would have distanced himself from Nehru and Congress if they were harming Ladakh. Rinchen quotes a letter that Bakula Rinpoche had written to Indira Gandhi, which outlines what Nehru meant for Ladakh.

He wrote, “The passing away of our most beloved and distinguished Pandit ji is one of the saddest events in the history of man. Mother Earth has become poorer. Man will have to perform deeds of merit for thousands of years before [another] one like him walks upon this earth again…It is the pious wish of our people that a portion of the last remains of the ones who took so much interest in their well-being should be taken to Ladakh so that they may have the sacred opportunity of showing their reverence according to their religious rites. This implies the building of a Stupa and enshrining the sacred remains therein. I would, therefore, request you kindly to feel considerate to our deeper sentiments and oblige us by giving a portion of the last rites of our Pandit ji in favour of the people of Ladakh.”

China’s political history has been marked by significant policy shifts in response to varying regimes. The complex geopolitical manoeuvres surrounding Ladakh, Gilgit-Baltistan, and Kashmir has underlined the importance of Pakistan for Western powers. In this context, Nehru, against considerable odds, steadfastly maintained a commitment to Ladakh despite geopolitical unpredictability. He engaged in complex negotiations with China to delineate borders and strove to safeguard Ladakh’s strategic integrity. This was particularly challenging given that the region’s boundaries were a vestige of colonial cartographic delineations, contentious and susceptible to geopolitical manipulation. Nehru’s efforts to navigate these turbulent waters while preserving Ladakh’s status underscore his diplomatic resilience. The neglect of Ladakh can be attributed to systemic developmental inequities, compounded by its historical integration into J&K, which often marginalised the region. Nehru’s policies and priorities were influenced by a confluence of strategic, economic, and sociopolitical factors, and regional developmental deficits must be contextualised within this broader framework rather than ascribed solely to individual negligence or prejudice. Through Steven A. Hoffmann’s book, India and the China Crisis, we can understand that the complex border issue in Ladakh with China was a colonial problem. British attempts at creating a stable boundary line in this region was ongoing since 1865 resulting in multiple boundary lines, internal disunity between London and India offices, and clumsy dealing in the Shimla Conference 1914 on the Tibet Issue. Nehru had inherited these complex borders in the north with China as well as Pakistan. What Nehru did, however, was bring Ladakh and Kashmir closer to India based on principles that he envisioned for the world. Nehru’s efforts to consolidate these regions within the Indian framework reflect his broader geopolitical aspirations and the nuanced challenges of statecraft, balancing national interests with international dynamics in a highly sensitive regional context. It is crucial to recognise that Western political narratives have often perpetuated a distorted image of Nehru’s policies but were not necessarily personally antagonistic towards him. These perspectives were shaped by a geopolitical apprehension of a resurgent India, emerging from a legacy of anti-colonial struggle against Western imperialism. Thus, asking Nehru to defend himself in his absence is rhetorical manipulation that leverages the absence of a key figure to gain an undue advantage in the discourse of Indian nationalism, while diminishing the integrity of an individual.

By Mutasif Hussain

Mutasif Hussain (Thiksey) is former Assistant Professor in Delhi University and currently the Chief Coordinator of Ladakh Research Scholars Forum.

(Photograph credit: Bakula Labrang Spituk Gonpa)

Staple pin packaging has a ubiquitous presence in Ladakh, especially in Leh. It is used by everyone from dry fruit vendors to self-help groups who sell different food items. This includes Khuras (deep fried savouries), local bread, and various home-baked snacks, cakes and cookies. These are available at grocery shops in every nook and corner of Leh town. In addition, if you buy apricots or dry fruits from any of the vendors in Leh, they will package them in plastic bags that are then stapled shut.

Such forms of packaging methods violate safety practices and they can become a potential hazard in our kitchens, especially for children. People in Ladakh often eat Khura with tea or any of the other products that they buy from the market. If it has not been opened carefully, the staple pins may get mixed with the edible items inside. If such a pin is swallowed, it can cause harmful medical conditions. Furthermore, swallowing a staple pin that has either one or both its sharp prongs prised open can be very harmful as the sharp ends can cut or cause abrasions in the digestive system and cause bleeding. It is very difficult to detect such small pins even through x-rays or CT scans.

It is thus very important to ensure that all kinds of retail units that sell food items in Ladakh, should be regulated. This can be done using the FSSAI accreditation or registration with either a basic registration or state licence. This means they will have to comply with regulations and guidelines under the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2018 with due diligence before they sell anything to a consumer. There are multiple ways to package food items to preserve their quality while also protecting the consumer from harm. This would be one way of reducing the risk posed by unsafe packaging, which is currently very common in Ladakh. The ones who do not comply can then be booked under relevant laws to ensure that the consumer is safe.

By Er Konchok Ishey

Er. Konchok Ishey is Assistant Engineer in Ladakh Power Development Department, Leh.

People in Zangskar dancing in Padum’s main market to celebrate the announcement of district status for the region. (Photograph by Stanzin Paksang Raru)

The recent announcement by the Government of India to create five new districts in Ladakh has received a mixed response from the region. However, in Zangskar, the news has sparked unbridled joy and celebration. As the news spread like wildfire, the usually serene streets of Zangskar were filled with laughter, music, and dance. The atmosphere was electric, reminiscent of the midnight hour when India gained independence and began writing its new destiny. For Zangskar, this moment marks its coming of age, a culmination of years of struggle and persistence. As the region basks in the glory of this milestone, it is important to reflect on the arduous journey that has brought Zangskar to this juncture. From the struggles for basic amenities to the fight for recognition, Zangskar’s story is one of resilience and determination. It is a moment to revisit the region’s history to understand the trials and tribulations that have shaped its people and their aspirations.

Historically, Zangskar was one of the first three tehsils of Ladakh, along with Leh and Kargil. However, the redrawing of district boundaries in 1979 sowed the seeds of discord. The district headquarters was located in Kargil, which is a staggering 240 km from Zangskar, forcing residents to travel long distances to access basic services. For years, the people of Zangskar felt neglected and marginalised, blaming the Kargil-centric administration and the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir government for their woes. With the declaration of Ladakh as a Union Territory, the region witnessed a significant shift in infrastructural development and bureaucratic efficiency. However, UT status for Ladakh was not a solution to Zangskar’s problems and marginalisation. The people of the region aspired for district status. This dream was finally fulfilled on 26August, when Minister for Home Affairs, Government of India, Amit Shah announced district status for Zangskar. This decision has set Zangskar on a new path, where the region can shape its own destiny with careful planning and strategy for the long term to meet future opportunities and challenges.

Yet, this new chapter is not without its complexities. The announcement does not provide any specific detail about the five new districts. Ministry of Home Affairs has given a three-month window for the public and stakeholders to submit their inputs related to boundary, area and headquarter for the five new districts. This is a critical juncture for Zangskar, as the decisions made in the coming months will have long-lasting implications for the region’s governance, development, and identity. Now is the time for Zangskar to anticipate future challenges and opportunities for a better future of the region.

Challenges ahead

Administrative and governance structure: Establishing a fully functioning district administration from the ground up is no small feat. Zangskar must navigate the complexities of setting up all administrative offices in a single campus, staffing them with competent personnel, and ensuring that governance structures are efficient and inclusive. Key decisions, such as the location of the district headquarters and the delineation of boundaries must be made with careful consideration and with input from all stakeholders including local communities, religious organisations, and civil society groups.

Infrastructure development: The isolation and remoteness of Zangskar has long been a barrier to its development. The region has suffered due to inadequate road connectivity, limited healthcare facilities, and underdeveloped educational institutions. These institutions received a boost after Ladakh became a UT. However, as a new district, Zangskar will need substantial investment in infrastructure to improve the quality of life for its residents. Building all-weather roads, expanding healthcare access, and upgrading schools and colleges must be prioritised. The challenge will be to balance rapid development with the preservation of Zangskar’s unique cultural and environmental heritage. Development must be carried out with care to maximise utility and minimise environmental damage.

Environmental conservation: The pristine environment of Zangskar is one of its greatest assets, which attracts tourists and serves as a vital resource for local communities. However, this environment is also fragile. As development accelerates, there is a risk of environmental degradation, including deforestation, loss of biodiversity and increased pollution. The new district administration must prioritise sustainable development practices to ensure that growth does not come at the expense of the region’s natural beauty and ecology.

Social cohesion and inclusivity: Zangskar is home to a diverse population, including Buddhists and Muslims. As the region transitions into a new district, it is essential to foster social cohesion and ensure that development benefits all communities equally. Inclusivity must be at the heart of growth strategy of Zangskar with policies that address the needs of marginalised groups, promote gender equality, and encourage youth participation in decision-making processes.

Economic development: The economy of Zangskar is primarily based on agriculture, animal husbandry and tourism and requires diversification to ensure long-term prosperity. The new district administration should explore opportunities in renewable energy, agro-based industries, and eco-tourism. It should develop a comprehensive strategy to leverage the economic strengths of Zangskar while addressing its vulnerabilities for sustainable development.

Opportunities for growth

Tourism potential: The breath-taking landscapes along with rich cultural and spiritual heritage make Zangskar a prime destination for tourism. With careful planning and infrastructure development, the region can tap into its tourism potential, creating jobs and boosting the local economy. However, this must be done with a focus on sustainable tourism, minimising environmental impact and ensuring that local communities benefit from the influx of visitors.

Education and skill development: The status of education in Zangskar remains poor and it requires serious attention to provide the next generation with a holistic education. Now, there is an opportunity to enhance educational facilities and provide vocational training to the youth. Investing in education and skill development will empower the next generation to take advantage of new opportunities in various sectors including tourism and technology. By prioritising education, Zangskar will create a strong foundation for a more prosperous and self-reliant future.

Cultural preservation: The rich cultural and religious heritage of Zangskar is a source of pride for its people. As the region develops and becomes more accessible with improved road connectivity with Manali, Leh and Kargil, there is an urgent need to preserve and promote its cultural heritage. This can be done through cultural tourism, festivals, and educational programs. By celebrating and safeguarding its unique identity, Zangskar can become a beacon of cultural resilience in the face of modernisation.

Empowering civil society: The civil society of Zangskar including organisations such as the Zanskar Buddhist Association, Women’s Alliance of Zanskar, Anjuman Moin-ul Islam, and youth organisations will play a crucial role in shaping the future of the region. These groups must be empowered to participate actively in the planning and implementation of development projects while ensuring that the voices of all communities are heard.

Conclusion

The road ahead for Zangskar includes challenges and opportunities. As the region transitions into a new district, it is essential to approach this moment with a clear vision and a commitment to inclusive and sustainable development. The responsibility now lies with leaders, civil society, and the broader community to craft a strategy that addresses the region’s immediate needs while laying the groundwork for long-term prosperity. This is a momentous opportunity to correct past wrongs, address longstanding issues, and chart a course for sustainable progress. If Zangskar uses this opportunity with wisdom and foresight, it can become a model for inclusive growth and development in Ladakh and beyond. However, if not managed carefully, the future could be one of continued stagnation and unfulfilled potential. The decisions made in the coming months will shape the destiny of Zangskar for generations to come, and it is crucial that the region rises to the challenge.

By Dr Jamphel Sheyan

Dr Jamphel Sheyan is Assistant Professor at Government Degree College, Zangskar.

To everyone’s surprise, Government of India recently announced, in one stroke, the creation of five new districts for Ladakh in addition to the existing two districts of Leh and Kargil. It was a historic decision as there was a hope only for two new districts—Zangskar and Nubra. There were no persistent demands for the creation of Drass, Sham and Changthang as separate districts.

Therefore, the BJP-led government deserves a word of congratulations from the people of Ladakh. However, on 26 August, 2024 when five new districts were declared, one did not find much jubilation among the people in Leh town, though it was natural for BJP workers to celebrate the decision.

Here, it is important to mention that before the year 1979, Ladakh constituted of a single district with its headquarters in Leh. Later, in response to demands from the people of Kargil, the Sheikh Abdullah-led state government bifurcated Ladakh into two districts: Leh and Kargil. After this, Zangskar was granted special Sub-Divisional status within the dominion of Kargil district. Prior to this, Zangskar was provided with a post of revenue officer called Tehsildar to administrate the region as it would remain disconnected from the rest of Ladakh for five to six months each year in the winter.

Now with the grant of five more districts, the question arises: What will be the shape and scope of the newly-created districts? Will these five districts have Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (LAHDCs) like the Hill Councils in Leh and Kargil? Or will they be subsidiary districts with a Deputy Commissioner and a Superintendent of Police? This sort of critical questions and discussions will emerge in the coming months as Government of India has asked the Administration of UT of Ladakh to look into the administrative implications, frame the necessary modalities, including creation of posts and location of the headquarters of respective districts, and estimate the required budgets for this exercise.

Needless to mention, Ladakh is a sparsely-populated region with harsh climatic conditions and bare mountains and a cold desert ecosystem. Over the years, the government has invested sufficient funds to uplift the living standards of the people of the region. However, due to limited government job opportunities for the educated youth of backward pockets in the region, they have not been able to compete with job aspirant from other parts of the region that have better facilities for studies and coaching etc. It is not surprising that the population from border areas of Leh district continues to shrink with people migrating to the affluent urban areas such as Leh. This situation impacts Leh town, and its residents are facing many challenges due to frequent traffic jams and increased environmental hazards and risks.

Over the last 25 years, a sea change has been observed in the functioning of the administration of Ladakh. After struggling for over five decades since India’s Independence, two Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils were created in 1995. Ironically, though the government granted LAHDC, headed by a Chief Executive Councillor and four Executive Councillors, it did not create an appreciable number of posts in government departments. Hence, dissatisfaction increased among the people and they started demanding a separate revenue or administrative division called Ladakh Division with the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir state.

In response to various demands from the people of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh, Government of India constituted a three-member team of interlocutors to study the administrative grievances of the people and finally a recommendation was included in the report by the interlocutors that Ladakh should be separated from Kashmir Division and be made a separate division. But there was no headway in this direction.

In this connection, I being an experienced retired government official, took up the issue to make Ladakh a separate division. As a humble citizen, I raised the issue of granting division status to Ladakh at the bi-annual colloquium of International Association of Ladakh Studies held at Heidelberg, Germany in 2013. My subsequent writings on the issue were published in the prestigious daily newspapers such as Daily Excelsior, Greater Kashmir, and Kashmir Times. In due course, Government of India finally granted divisional status to Ladakh in 2019. The process of creating Ladakh as a separate division was in motion when yet another resolution from Government of India was passed to make Ladakh a Union Territory in 2019.

Today, Ladakh is passing through multiple administrative and political upheavals. I do not anticipate that the creation of five more districts will satisfy the aspirations of the people of Ladakh. This includes Apex Body, Leh and Kargil Democratic Alliance that are spearheading the agitation for statehood to Ladakh, constitutional safeguards under the Sixth Schedule, two Lok Sabha and one Rajya Sabha seats for Ladakh, and a Ladakh Public Service Commission to fill vacancies in government departments. I see no reason why Government of India would consider granting statehood to Ladakh as there are already 10 Councillors in the LAHDCs in Leh and Kargil who enjoy ministerial status, drawing all facilities that are due to a cabinet minister in a state. However, it is not clear why Government of India is reluctant to bring Ladakh under the purview of Sixth Schedule of the Indian constitution. The people of Ladakh are among the most loyal citizens of the country who have been working hard for the unity and integrity of the country.

By Nawang Tsering Shakspo

Nawang Tsering Shakspo is Director of Centre for Research on Ladakh, Saboo

Recently, I filed a formal complaint with Secretary, Youth Services and Sports Department, Administration of UT of Ladakh, Shri Vikram Singh Malik, IAS and the Hon’ble Executive Councillor in LAHDC, Leh for Youth Services and Sports, Shri Tsering Angchuk. In my letters, I drew attention to a serious public grievance regarding the use of Nawang Dorjay Stobdan (NDS) Indoor Stadium, a government-owned public sports stadium, for private events and activities unrelated to sports. This has caused inconvenience and been a hindrance to sportspersons who use the stadium regularly for practice and training, especially handball and badminton.

My letter was sparked by a series of non-sports events being hosted inside the stadium. This included the Ladakh dPal rNgam Duston celebrations for which the stadium was shut for two days. This was followed by the stadium being shut from 13 to 15 August for an event related to Independence Day for which metal poles were installed in the stadium for tents. The installation of these metal poles caused irrevocable damage to the professional-grade mats that have been used for the courts at the stadium. This has compromised the safety and quality of the infrastructure for sports activities.

Furthermore, the indoor stadium was then handed over to Ladakh Marathon for 21 days for use to conduct various back-end activities. The use of this specific space is not a necessity for conducting the marathon and an alternate space could easily have been allotted for this activity. The allotment of NDS indoor stadium for backend activities for Ladakh Marathon will further hinder the players and athletes from accessing this public infrastructure.

I personally use this stadium on a regular basis for badminton along with a number of others who pursue this sport for leisure as well as a potential career. In addition, handball coaching takes place at the stadium every morning for school students. The repeated closure of the stadium and the damage that is caused to its facilities not only undermines the quality of the infrastructure but also deprives sportspersons of the opportunity to practice and pursue these disciplines.

Thus, in my letter I requested the secretary to intervene and ensure that no non-sports events or activities are allowed in the stadium to preserve its primary purpose for sports and training. I also asked that the stadium’s infrastructure be protected from damage caused by non-sports events. Finally, I requested him to prioritise sportspersons and players who regularly use the stadium for practice and training. I also requested him to cancel the permit for the private event and to provide the organisers with an alternative space for their activities.

In response to my letter, a meeting was held with the organisers of Ladakh Marathon in the presence of various government officials on 16 August at the Deputy Commissioner’s office in Leh. In light of the arguments and objections raised, the stadium was made accessible until 20 August. After this, the organisers of Ladakh Marathon will be allowed to use NDS until 11 September as the event and venue details have already been publicised with more than 6,000 registrants from Ladakh, India and abroad. However, the administration has agreed to the request that such events are not held at NDS indoor stadium in the future. Unfortunately, this is a not a new trend. In the past, similar events have been organised at various sporting facilities ranging from exhibitions to electioneering. However, given the importance that is being attached to promoting sports and healthy lifestyles, it is ironic the sports infrastructure continues to be used for non-sport activities. I sincerely hope that the Administration of UT of Ladakh ensures that sports infrastructure in the region is only used for sports-related activities and remain accessible throughout the year.

Photographs and text by Smanla Dorje Nurboo

Smanla Dorje Nurboo is Councillor from Saspol in LAHDC, Leh

Recently, tweets from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and the personal handle of the Minister of Home Affairs, Amit Shah declared that Ladakh will have five new districts. However, there has been no official order or circular in this regard beyond the tweet. Sources report that this will not become a reality before 2028.

Many senior leaders have held press conferences on this issue while others have commented on social media. However, I feel it is important to share my perspective as a youth. First of all, I believe it is too early to celebrate this development. We had celebrated enthusiastically when Ladakh was given ‘Union Territory’ status in 2019 and then soon discovered that we did not have the necessary safeguards. This unified us as we held agitations, protests and hunger strikes to demand safeguards. We continue to protest peacefully and hold dialogues with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India. As youth, we have been following the leadership of Kaga Thupstan Chhewang, Kaga Tsering Dorjey Lakrook and Kaga Sonam Wangchuk who have been sharing their experience, knowledge and vision.

The decision to create five new districts in Ladakh has raised a number of questions. Firstly, what kind of districts will they be? Will they have full administrative powers? What sort of decision-making power will grassroots-level elected representatives have in these new districts? Since Ladakh became a Union Territory, there has been criticism that the power and authority of elected representatives in decision-making has diminished dramatically.

Also, what will be the process for job creation and formation of posts in the new districts? Since 2019, Apex Body, Leh and Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) have been raising several demands including inclusion under Sixth Schedule of the Indian constitution and the need to urgently address the issue of unemployment and youth-related issues. These issues are particularly pressing. Despite dialogues with the Ministry of Home Affairs, there has been no substantial progress on either of these issues and youth in Ladakh are growing increasingly frustrated. Many youth are crossing the age limit to apply for various government jobs and there is continued uncertainty about the creation of gazette posts or a dedicated public service.

When the government announced the five new districts, there was widespread celebration on social media. However, we should be cautious not to repeat the mistakes of 2019 when we celebrated Ladakh becoming a UT only to realise in due course that there was no democratic representation and the absence of essential safeguards. I hope this will not be the case with the new districts.

In addition, the unemployment issue has still not been addressed in a meaningful way. Apex Body, Leh and KDA have met twice this year. It also held a meeting with BJP’s Ladakh unit, where it was decided that the BJP’s leaders from Ladakh would act as a bridge between Government of India and the leaders of Apex Body, Leh-KDA. A request has been sent to resume discussions on the four-point agenda at the earliest. While the announcement of the new districts is an important step, it is crucial that such developments do not undermine or derail the four-point agenda. I urge Government of India to show the same decisiveness it has showed with the declaration of five districts and include Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule to protect our environment, culture, and traditions. The youth of Ladakh are frustrated, and our environment, culture, and traditions are at stake. We are grateful for the new districts but hope that the issues of unemployment and the Sixth Schedule are also addressed.

By Stanzin Chosphel

Stanzin Chosphel is a youth activist.