The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) of the Union Government has once again made a proposal for discussions with the representatives of Ladakh. The Centre has expressed in an unequivocal manner that it will “always be open” for talks, if requested, with both the Apex Body Leh (ABL) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) regarding any issues that affect Ladakh. It is significant that this urging, for a political solution via dialogue, is an affirmation of the democratic and pacific nature of the Indian republic, in stark contrast to the violent and disruptive path that had recently emerged in Leh.
The government’s commitment is more than mere wordplay – as the MHA correctly pointed out, established mechanisms of dialogue have already achieved major benefits. Reservations for Scheduled Tribes have been increased, women have been granted reservation in the Hill Councils, and provisions have been instituted to protect local languages. Additionally, the ongoing hiring of 1,800 government jobs provides another public demonstration that the government recognizes development of Ladakhi youth and empowerment is a priority. These are not minor accomplishments; they are steps to address genuine problems.
It is, therefore, a great shame that the ABL decided and chose to step away from the scheduled discussions. Certainly, the issue of a judicial inquiry into the recent violence can be a matter of negotiations; however, walking away from the negotiation table is simply not the right way of addressing these issues. The unfortunate events of September 24, when protests became violent prompting the attack of office and burning of property that resulted in loss of life and injuries, do not further anybody’s cause – they merely exacerbate wounds and stall progress.
This violence deserves investigation, not simply into the acts but, who instigated; however, India, has always been a land of peace and democratic protest where dissent is worked out within debate and ballots, not bricks and bloodshed. People, who incite mobs to violence, have to understand that they are not working for the betterment of the people of Ladakh, rather they are betraying the very constitutional notions that protect their rights.
The citizens of Ladakh are patriotic Indians, and Ladakhis have shown their commitment to the country in a number of capacities. They should also be mindful of such “foreign hands” who are masquerading as activists, but are executing a deadly game of destabilization that is directed from abroad. The aim of such “foreign hands” is not obviously the good of all Ladakh, but to create chaos.
The Centre’s unrestricted offer for a conversation is the appropriate and principled attitude. It is an expression of restraint and a real desire for solutions within India’s constitutional framework. Ladakh’s people, or their authentic representatives, should capitalise on the opportunity. The way forward is through rational exchanges at the High-Powered Committee, where reasonable aspirations can be stated and addressed. If the alternative is a path of violence and foreign adventurism, it is a dead end.
