What led you to consider resuming your Satyagraha against the central government?

I want to clarify that this is not a definitive decision. Rather, it is a conditional step. I sincerely hope we will not have to resort to such measures. It is not an ideal way for a country to be governed where you have to hold protests and fast. Still, I’m hopeful that the new government, which has completed two months in office now, will respond to our memorandum. So far, the new government has not shown any willingness to re-engage in discussions. Should there be no offer for dialogue, we will have no choice but to resume the fast. This is not an act of defiance against the government but a call for it to honour its commitments. Simultaneously, it is intended to serve as a reminder to citizens to reflect on their own lifestyle changes, particularly in light of the escalating climate crises affecting regions like the Himalayas and Wayanad in Kerala.

What was the most significant outcome of your 21-day hunger strike earlier this year, and what are your plans for advancing your movement?

The impact of our hunger strike may not be immediately visible. As the saying goes, “A stone breaks at the hundredth hit, though the previous ninety-nine may seem ineffective.” We have yet to see concrete actions from the government in response to its promises. However, our protest has successfully mobilised public awareness and solidarity across the nation. This impacted the kingmakers—who were citizens of the country. Ladakh’s plight is now widely recognised as a just cause, and this heightened awareness is likely to influence the king as well.

A delegation from the Apex Body, Leh (ABL) and Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) met with Union Home Minister Amit Shah in New Delhi on March 4. What was the outcome of this meeting?

There was a vague assurance that the discussion would continue without disclosing the constitutional provisions under which our demands would be redressed. In the meeting, the delegation was clearly told, “We will neither give you Statehood nor Schedule VI safeguards.” They have denied both. Earlier, the government had promised us Article 371. But it means nothing without a Legislature. For want of a Legislative Assembly, who will make the decisions? Obviously, the Lieutenant Governor.

Five years after Ladakh became a Union Territory without a legislature, how has the region’s democratic landscape changed, despite the presence of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council?

There is a significant democratic deficit in the region. Hill councils are excluded from major decision-making processes and primarily handle local civic issues. These councils manage less than 10 per cent of Ladakh’s total budget, with over 90 per cent controlled by the Lieutenant Governor alone. As a result, democratic representation is severely lacking. This situation resembles a colonial system, where a Governor acts as an envoy or executor. There is no justification for keeping such a friendly, supportive, and positive population in a border region deprived of democratic governance. India must showcase its commitment to democracy. Instead, we are inadvertently projecting the opposite to the world.

What are the key concerns that drive the push for Sixth Schedule constitutional safeguards?

Ladakh runs the risk of over-development. Had the past five years been normal, the region might have been opened up to Indian corporates and international tourism chains. Such development could lead to serious environmental issues such as water scarcity, solid waste management problems, and pollution. My motivation for joining the movement is rooted in environmental concerns. The fragile hills and mountains of Ladakh could be exposed to unchecked industrial and mining interests. While there are fears about demographic shifts due to the influx of large businesses and industries in a region, which otherwise has a very low population density.

Despite its vast size, Ladakh’s environment can only sustain around existing 3,00,000 people. A sudden increase to 3 million due to unchecked economic activities would result in ecological disaster and potentially marginalise the local population, reducing them to an insignificant minority with diminished electoral power. In the remote areas of Ladakh, the government has begun allocating large tracts of land to corporations without the approval of Hill Councils. Despite claims that Hill Councils are responsible for land decisions, significant areas are being given to major power corporations for solar projects without local consent.

For instance, the government’s 13-gigawatt renewable energy project in Ladakh involves allocating 20-30 acres of land—equivalent to a city like Delhi or larger—to the Solar Energy Corporation of India [SECI] in Leh district’s Pang area near the Himachal Pradesh border. The Hill Council has stated that it did not approve this land deal, raising questions about who authorised it. Work on the project has already commenced. We support solar power and would be pleased to see Ladakh contribute to the country’s energy needs. However, the land must remain accessible to local pastoral communities. Fencing off these areas could negativelyimpact local shepherds.

How has Ladakh’s job market and economy fared since 2019?

Over the past five years, Ladakh has seen minimal progress in employment opportunities. While the government has not advertised even a single gazetted job posting, only a few non-gazetted positions have been filled in the last year or two. In terms of economic development, there have been remarkable advancements so far as road infrastructure is concerned. The budget for Ladakh jumped from Rs.300-500 crore to Rs.6,000 crore after it became a UT.

But on the ground, it is not showing up the intended results on that scale. Every year, more than 50 per cent of the budget remains unspent. The government has set up an engineering college and a Central university, even though a university was already established in Ladakh five years ago.

While this demonstrates some government generosity, it also means that these institutions may struggle to attract students from the local population. For instance, the new engineering college is expected to admit 400 students annually, yet the region typically produces only 10 to 20 candidates suitable for such a programme. A more effective approach would be to reserve seats for Ladakhi students in existing, reputed educational institutions elsewhere. Furthermore, the harsh winter climate may deter non-local students in Ladakh, making the situation even more challenging.

What kind of economic model would you recommend for economic development of Ladakh?

I would endorse Gandhiji’s idea of gram swaraj. Ladakh’s problems are not such that simply throwing money at them will solve them. A massive tourism infrastructure like big hotels and so on will have a counter-intuitive impact. The tourism in the region remains organic so far. It is quite homely with a humane face. A homestay model of tourism should be promoted in the interiors of Ladakh so that the impact of tourism is not concentrated in two or three places. We support responsible tourism.

Independent candidate Mohmad Haneefa won Ladakh’s Lok Sabha seat, unseating the BJP after two consecutive terms. What message does this send?

Most people in Ladakh were immensely grateful when they received Union Territory status in 2019. Many mainstream political parties in the region had publicly declared that if the ruling BJP fulfilled its promises to provide safeguards under the Sixth Schedule and establish a legislature, they would support the BJP wholeheartedly. They would have given the Lok Sabha seat to the BJP on a platter. However, despite widespread public demonstrations and protests, these promises were not kept. This failure has deeply hurt and humiliated the people of Ladakh.

You’ve voiced concerns about pastoral tribes losing access to grazing lands along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). How has this situation evolved?

This issue has persisted for decades, and no government or party can be solely blamed. During the Congress’ tenure, we faced losses, and the same occurred under the BJP. The current government may argue otherwise, but it is evident that large tracts of land, once used by our shepherds for grazing livestock during the summer, have now become extended buffer zones throughout eastern Ladakh in recent years.

It is not as if Chinese soldiers are stopping our shepherds from accessing the frontline pastures; rather, it is now Indian troops who are preventing them from doing so. These extended buffer zones have been established on Indian soil. The “no man’s land” that used to be 20 km away now exists next to our populated villages. Just as glass breaks regardless of whether it falls on the stone or the stone falls on it, herders have lost their pastures regardless of Chinese occupation or the establishment of buffer zones.