135
The long-pending demand for administrative reorganization in Ladakh has taken a major step forward this week with the announcement of five new districts carved out of the existing two, raising the total number from two to seven. While the move is being projected as an effort to enhance governance and accelerate development, it has also drawn criticism from several local leaders, activists, and residents.
Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena defended the decision, stating that the creation of new districts would bring the administration closer to the people and open new avenues for development, employment, and entrepreneurship. He emphasized that the initiative seeks to ensure every citizen benefits from what he described as a historic step toward a more prosperous future.
Political reactions have been divided. BJP leader from Leh, Tashi Gyalson, welcomed the decision as “historic” and credited party workers for their sustained efforts. In contrast, Kargil Hill Council Chairman M. Jaffer Akhoon termed it a positive development but pointed out that key demands—such as granting district status to Sankoo and Shakar-Chiktan—remain unaddressed.
Criticism from civil society has intensified, with activist Sajjad Kargili stating that the move appears less like administrative reform and more like an attempt to dilute Ladakh’s unified democratic and statehood movement, particularly the collective voice of Buddhist and Muslim communities. While he welcomed district status for Drass and Zanskar, he flagged concerns over regional sensitivities, demographic balance, and equitable representation.
Citing the 2011 Census, critics argue that Ladakh’s population—46.40 percent Muslims and 39.65 percent Buddhists—makes the creation of five Buddhist-majority districts and only two Muslim-majority districts appear disproportionate, potentially heightening communal tensions. Sajjad Kargili and others have renewed demands for district status for Sankoo-Suru and Shakar-Chiktan, stressing that repeated appeals have been overlooked and that Ladakh’s unity must remain intact. Ground-level responses reflect similar apprehensions. A student from Ladakh, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that while the creation of new districts may appear administratively promising, it does not address pressing concerns such as unemployment, infrastructure gaps, and anxieties over land and identity safeguards. A local businessman echoed these doubts, arguing that the focus seems to be shifting away from core economic and constitutional issues. Political observers note that the next crucial step is the Centre’s decision on the governance framework for the new districts—whether each will receive its own Hill Council or whether a revised administrative model will be introduced. At present, both Leh and Kargil Hill Councils have 30 members each, including 26 elected and four nominated representatives. Observers add that the reorganization has also triggered concerns about representation. With an electorate of approximately 1.85 lakh, each district would account for nearly 26,000 voters. In Kargil, councillors from Zanskar and Drass—now designated as separate districts—may face ambiguity regarding their roles in the existing council, which still has more than two years remaining in its term. Meanwhile, Leh has been without an elected Hill Council for nearly six months, with powers currently vested in the Deputy Commissioner. As the Ministry of Home Affairs prepares to determine the future administrative structure, the reorganization continues to fuel debate over governance, representation, and equity. Notably, authorities have already initiated steps to operationalize the new districts by appointing Deputy Commissioners and Senior Superintendents of Police in Nubra, Sham, Changthang, Zanskar, and Dras.
Comments are closed.