Sonam Wangchuk accuses Centre of going back on assurances to Ladakh, demands U.T. with Legislature

Activist Sonam Wangchuk on Thursday (October 22, 2026) criticised the Ministry of Home Affairs for going back on its earlier assurances on granting political autonomy and constitutional safeguards for the Union Territory of Ladakh.

Mr. Wangchuk said that the Centre never denied Statehood to Ladakh in previous talks. “They [Centre] said they would give it eventually,” he claimed at a press conference in Delhi.

Ladakh Chief Secretary Ashish Kundra had in a press interaction earlier this month said that it was categorically conveyed to the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) that “neither Statehood nor U.T. with legislature is on the agenda.” The official had mentioned a sui generis model under Article 371 of the Constitution.

The two civil society groups - the LAB and the KDA - are part of a high-level committee (HPC) constituted by the Ministry in 2023, to ensure constitutional safeguards for Ladakh, which became a U.T. following the revocation of Article 370’s applicability in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019.

“On the one hand, China is claiming Ladakh, and on the other hand our government is alienating the Ladakhis. We demanded protection under Article 371 of Constitution, which was agreed to in a meeting on May 22. Now they are offering us a council-type body. We will not settle down for anything less than a U.T. with legislature. If the Centre supports us, we can become a full State, so that they can give an answer to China. Ladakh is a tribal place and we are ready to take the issue to the United Nations. Why are they betraying us? They have placed the Lieutenant-Governor above us, who is akin to a Viceroy,” Mr. Wangchuk said.

He said the Ministry, for its own reasons, was compromising national security in sensitive border areas.

Drawing comparisons with Arunachal Pradesh, he questioned why border sensitivity was cited as a reason against greater political autonomy for Ladakh when Arunachal was granted statehood despite its strategic location.

“Today we are told, ‘You are a sensitive border area. You can’t be a State.’ How did Arunachal become a State in 1986? And a good State, and a most loyal and patriotic State. Why don’t you want to keep Ladakh that way? With the same argument, Arunachal was given Statehood, that it is a sensitive border area. For us, sui generis meant that if not full Statehood, then a U.T. with a legislature, plus safeguards under Article 371. Ladakh deserves the same democratic rights as any other State. Just as Tamil Nadu is run by the people of Tamil Nadu and Gujarat is run by the people of Gujarat, why should Ladakh not be run by the people of Ladakh?”

Mr. Wangchuk said that after the last meeting held on October 15 in Leh, the LAB and KDA were told that the next meeting with the Ministry will take place on October 22 in Delhi.

“We came to Delhi after being told that discussions would continue on October 22. We had studied the government’s proposal, prepared a detailed response, and expected a point-by-point discussion. But the meeting did not happen,” he said.

The Ministry had circulated a 32-page presentation outlining a proposed constitutional framework for Ladakh and sought comments from the LAB and the KDA. Advocate Vikram Hegde, who has been advising the LAB and KDA during negotiations with the Ministry, said the gap between the government’s proposal and the aspirations of Ladakh residents remained substantial.

“We expected a sui generis model that would provide Ladakh with a legislature and constitutional safeguards. However, the draft moved in a very different direction and proposed an arrangement that is even weaker than the Hill Council structure that Ladakh had earlier,” he said.

Mr. Hegde added that Ladakh groups had submitted their own draft based on discussions held in May and September and expected Thursday’s meeting to address the differences.

Mr. Wangchuk also criticised the excessive bureaucratic control in Ladakh, alleging that key decisions continue to be taken by the administration rather than elected representatives.

Mr. Wangchuk also raised concerns about an ongoing protest by women in Ladakh against the administration’s liquor policy. He claimed that mothers and women’s groups were staging sit-ins against the opening of liquor outlets, arguing that the move would worsen social problems at a time when the region was already grappling with drug abuse.

“The women of Ladakh have repeatedly petitioned the administration and held demonstrations. They fear that expanding access to liquor will further harm families and young people,” he said.