Interviews
‘We don’t want a half democracy in Ladakh’: Sajjad Hussain Kargili
Ladakh has been seen as a land divided — a primarily Buddhist Leh and predominantly Shia Muslim Kargil. But a shared sense of marginalisation has brought the communities closer
Ladakh won’t easily forget the events of 24 September, when four locals, including a veteran soldier, lost their lives in police firing after an irate group of Gen Z protestors set fire to the local BJP office.
In an incredibly heavy-handed reprisal, local hero Sonam Wangchuk, the most prominent face of these protests, an avowed Gandhian and the man who in fact decried the violence, was taken into custody under the National Security Act — a preventive law that allows up to a year in jail without trial — and sent off to Jodhpur Central Jail, 1,600 km away, on charges of ‘anti-national activities’, conspiracy to overthrow the government and suchlike.
Ladakh has been seen as a land divided into two distinct regions — a primarily Buddhist Leh and predominantly Shia Muslim Kargil. These regions do have their own rhythms, and a distinct social and political character. But a shared sense of marginalisation has brought the communities closer, and their representative outfits, the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), have set aside differences and closed ranks.
Herjinder spoke to KDA leader Sajjad Hussain Kargili, one of the most articulate voices to emerge from this new phase of Ladakh’s political reawakening. Excerpts:
Published: undefined
The last time elections were held for the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (in 2023), the Leh Apex Body boycotted the elections while KDA chose to take part. Now that elections are due again, will both bodies participate?
The elections, which were originally scheduled for September this year, were postponed. There has been no official announcement since and no notification of new dates.
The recent violence has provided a pretext to delay the elections further.
The BJP has maintained complete silence. Everyone in Ladakh knows that the BJP isn’t just a political party that contests elections — the entire administrative machinery of the Union Territory seems to work in its favour.
For us, council elections were always more than just a political exercise — they were a referendum. Through their votes, the people hoped to voice their resentment at how the region was downgraded. That message was not confined to council elections; it echoed clearly in the parliamentary polls as well.
Didn’t Kargil and Leh have different perspectives earlier? When Ladakh was made a Union Territory, Leh welcomed the move, while Kargil opposed it. What changed to bring you together?
When people realised that their voice no longer mattered, they were initially in a state of shock. The disappearance of the protections once guaranteed under Article 370 created a shared sense of vulnerability.
This growing insecurity led to conversations across both regions about the need for unity. An apex body was formed in Leh to carry forward the struggle, whereas in Kargil, the Kargil Democratic Alliance was already active.
Gradually, people on both sides began to recognise that the problems they faced — loss of representation, unemployment among youth and the erosion of their political voice — could only be addressed through collective action.
Coming together was a necessity to bring about a genuine democratic transformation.
Assuming full statehood is granted to Ladakh, will the longstanding differences between Kargil and Leh be resolved? In the past, there have been instances of communal tensions too...
Most of the communal differences in the past were not organic — they were the result of deliberate social engineering. Successive governments exploited our regional and religious differences for their own political interests.
But violence never found acceptance in our society.
Moreover, during every Lok Sabha election, leaders of the Buddhist community across the country express the hope that at least one Buddhist representative should reach Parliament from Ladakh.
It is a legitimate aspiration.
Similarly, the Shia Muslim community, which has a significant presence in Kargil, finds no real representation elsewhere in India. Hence, the Shia community also looks to Ladakh for a Shia [representative] to reach Parliament.
That is why we are demanding that Ladakh be allocated two Lok Sabha seats and one Rajya Sabha seat — to ensure fair representation of both communities.
What about the government or the BJP — what do you think their real objective is in Ladakh?
Whatever their endgame may be, we are not really concerned. We are determined to fight for our legitimate rights. The government cannot unilaterally impose decisions on us without consultation.
Our stand is firm and transparent: we want full statehood for Ladakh, and we will not rest until that demand is fulfilled.
Until recently, the BJP did not seem to have much of a presence in Kargil. In the last council elections, it performed reasonably well and even succeeded in winning a seat…
No, actually the BJP’s overall influence in Kargil remains limited. It holds sway primarily in pockets with a significant Buddhist population, where it can mobilise support more easily.
But across the district as a whole, its organisational strength is nowhere near what it enjoys in Leh.
You are both currently demanding the release of Sonam Wangchuk and a judicial inquiry into the recent violence in Leh. Are these preconditions for holding a dialogue with the Union government? What are your core demands?
Our principal demand is simple: Ladakh must be given a voice.
Since the region was turned into a union territory, that voice has been silenced. We have been rendered spectators in our own land. The people of Ladakh have no say in political decisions that directly affect their lives, their land and their future. What we want, above all, is the restoration of democracy.
Not a token democracy — a genuine, functional democracy in which the people of Ladakh have real representation and power. We are asking for our constitutional rights.
Our ultimate goal is full statehood for Ladakh, along with constitutional guarantees that will safeguard our democratic institutions and our unique identity.
In addition, we are asking for inclusion under the Sixth Schedule.
What if the Centre offers union territory status with an elected assembly (as is currently the situation in Kashmir)?
They may do so, but we won’t consider that the end of our struggle.
A union territory with an assembly still leaves ultimate power in the hands of the lieutenant governor, not the people. We have seen what happens in such a set-up — just look at Delhi. We do not want Ladakh to become another Delhi.
We demand true self-governance, rooted in democratic principles and backed by constitutional safeguards.
Nothing less than full statehood can fulfil that promise.
Follow us on: Facebook, Twitter, Google News, Instagram
Join our official telegram channel (@nationalherald) and stay updated with the latest headlines
Published: undefined