‘Core issues remain': Why Ladakh's leaders are dissatisfied with Centre's new domicile rules

Scroll.in

5 hours ago

After multiple rounds of talks with leaders from Ladakh, the Centre has announced a new domicile and job reservation policy for the Union territory.
The anxiety over natives losing control over land, resources and employment opportunities had driven sustained protests in Ladakh over the last five years. By reserving most government jobs for local residents and elaborate restrictions on who can be a domicile of Ladakh, the Narendra Modi government has sought to address the demands from the cold desert region.
However, the Ladakhi leadership has called it only a 'first step' and a 'breakthrough' in reaching a resolution.
'Our two main issues pertaining to statehood for Ladakh and Sixth Schedule status are still pending,' said Chering Dorjay, a senior Ladakhi leader and chairman of Leh Apex Body, one of the two bodies who carried out negotiations with the Union government on behalf of the people of Ladakh. 'There has been no discussion on those issues as of now.'
He added: 'The core issues remain unaddressed.'
The Ladakhi leadership had sought a constitutional guarantee in the form of the Sixth Schedule which guarantees protections over land and a nominal autonomy for the country's tribal areas. In Ladakh, more than 97% of the population belongs to Scheduled Tribes.
More crucially, the new rules do not impose any restrictions on outsiders buying land in Ladakh, the leaders said.
What the new policy entails
When New Delhi decided to create a separate Union territory of Ladakh without from the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019, there was euphoria in Leh.
However, the implications of the decision to scrap Jammu and Kashmir's special status under Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution soon became clear.
Like the rest of the citizens of the now non-existent state of Jammu and Kashmir, the people of Ladakh had also lost their exclusive rights to own immovable property and get government jobs in the region.
In August 2021, both Kargil and Leh rejected the Union territory status for Ladakh and demanded statehood instead. By 2022, the growing anxiety over non-locals being eligible to own land and take jobs in Ladakh had crystallized into a set of four demands of the Ladakh's leadership: statehood to Ladakh; constitutional safeguards under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution; separate Lok Sabha seats for Leh and Kargil districts and the rollout of a recruitment process and a separate Public Service Commission for Ladakh.
The Centre's June 2 decision partially addresses those demands.
Under the new rules, only a person who has resided in Ladakh for a period of 15 years since its formation as a union territory on October 31, 2019, shall be eligible to be a domicile of the Union territory.
A person who has studied for a period of seven years – from October 31, 2019 – and written Class 10 or Class 12 examinations in an educational institution located in the Union territory of Ladakh, also qualifies to be a domicile. The domicile rule, however, is 'valid only for the purpose of appointment to the posts under the Union territory of Ladakh as defined in Ladakh Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment.'
The Centre has also brought in an ordinance to amend the reservation policy.
According to this, 85% of jobs and admissions in professional educational institutions in Ladakh shall be reserved for residents of the Union territory. This includes 80% of reservation for Scheduled Tribes, 4% for those living along the Line of Control or the Line of Actual Control and 1% for Scheduled Castes. This is in addition to the 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections. Prior to this, the cap on reservation in Jammu and Kashmir, of which Ladakh was a part, was 50 %.
Leh Apex Body's Dorjay acknowledged that the central government has addressed employment-related insecurities. 'What's happened is that 95% of government jobs are now reserved for locals,' he said.
But he added: 'It's a breakthrough but there's not much [more] to it.'
Sajjad Kargili, the representative of Kargil Democratic Alliance, the group that represents Kargil district in the negotiations with the Centre, said that the domicile policy has left them dissatisfied. 'Our demand is that instead of 15 years, the mandatory duration of living in Ladakh should be 30 years if anyone wants to become a domicile,' he said.
According to Kargili, the Ladakh leadership has already raised the matter with the Centre. 'They have assured us that they will consider this demand. It's in the minutes of the meeting,' Kargili added.
The land question
With the protections under Article 370 and Article 35A gone in 2019, there is no bar against buying immovable property in the region. As of now, no law stops outsiders from buying land in Ladakh – a source of anxiety for the residents.
Indeed, the leadership in Ladakh is conscious that the new rules are ambiguous about this concern.
'The domicile policy is only for jobs and it only talks about that domiciles are eligible for government jobs,' said another member of the Ladakh leadership, who was part of the deliberations with the Centre and declined to be identified.
For now, the member said, they are assuming that this domicile policy has no bearing on land rights as the Centre's notification clearly states that domicile is valid only for government jobs. 'If that's not the case and if it has any bearing on land rights, then we don't accept the domicile policy.'
The member pointed out that they had agreed to the domicile policy only because of the jobs crisis in Ladakh.
Since 2019, recruitment in government jobs has stalled in Ladakh, owing to the lack of clarity over who qualifies for domicile status.
With a new policy now in place, the Ladakh leadership is now waiting for the government to finalise recruitment rules and advertise vacancies.
'It's a sort of an interim relief,' the member of the Ladakh leadership said. 'It's what the MHA officials call picking the low-hanging fruit. Now, we will wait for the government to advertise vacancies.'
J&K and Ladakh: A study in contrast
Even though the Ladakh leadership argued that the Centre's decisions do not address the fundamental demands of the people of Ladakh, many say the region has got a better deal than the neighbouring Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
On Twitter, Jammu-based political commentator Zafar Choudhary criticised political leaders in both Jammu and Kashmir for failing to negotiate such a deal with the Centre.
Both Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh took the formal shape of Union territories on October 31, 2019.
But the Centre showed a visible urgency in framing domicile rules for Jammu and Kashmir.
In March 2020, just five months after formally becoming a Union territory and amidst a nationwide lockdown to fight the coronavirus, the Union home ministry issued the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Adaptation of State Laws) Order 2020.
Under these rules, anyone who 'who has resided for a period of 15 years in the union territory of J&K or has studied for a period of seven years and appeared in Class 10th/12th examination in an educational institution located in the UT of J&K' qualifies to be a domicile of Jammu and Kashmir.
At that time, many Kashmiri political leaders were in detention or under house arrest. Many political parties had described the order as 'humiliating'.
National Conference leader and current chief minister Omar Abdullah, who had been just released from a long detention had questioned the timing of the order. 'At a time when all our efforts & attention should be focused on the #COVID outbreak the government slips in a new domicile law for J&K. Insult is heaped on injury when we see the law offers none of the protections that had been promised,' Abdullah had posted on his Twitter/X account on April 1, 2020.
Unlike Ladakh, where the domicile rule applies prospectively, beginning from October 31, 2019, the domicile rules in the case of Jammu and Kashmir applied retrospectively. That means that anyone who had been living in Jammu and Kashmir for a period of 15 years until the notification of domicile rules in 2020 was eligible to be a domicile of Jammu and Kashmir.
In other words, while Ladakh will get new domiciles only after 2034, in the case of Jammu and Kashmir, many non-natives, who fulfill the criteria of domicile rules, have already become part of Jammu and Kashmir's population.
In April, the Jammu and Kashmir government informed the legislative Assembly that more than 83,000 individuals who were not originally permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir have been granted domicile certificates over the past two years. The revelation had added to the anxieties of the Muslim-majority Union territory where the fear of demographic change has become one of the main concerns since August, 2019.
The next round
Besides the domicile and reservation policy for Ladakh, the Centre has also recognised English, Hindi, Urdu, Bhoti and Purgi languages as the official languages 'to be used for all or any of the official purposes of the Union territory' of Ladakh. It has also reserved one-third of the total seats in the two Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils of Leh and Kargil for women.
Even though New Delhi might view these as significant steps, Ladakh's leadership says these were not part of their demands. 'There was nothing about language or reservation of women in our demands,' Dorjay added. 'Our demands are concerned with the overall protection and security of the people of Ladakh.'
With the next meeting between the centre's High-Powered Committee and the Ladakh leadership likely towards the end of this month, the questions like statehood and Sixth Schedule status will rise again. 'We are not going back on these two demands,' Dorjay added.