(Indian Express
February 15, 2006)
Ladakh: The writing was on the wall
The recent flare-up between the Buddhists and Muslims is a conclusion of
the continuing polarisation , brought about by neglect in governance issues
BALRAJ PURI
The recent communal flare-up in Ladakh is the worst of its kind in the
region known for its long history of communal harmony.
After communal incidents in Kargil and Leh—headquarters of Muslim
majority and Buddhist majority districts—the situation got out of hand
and the Army had to called in.
The communal trouble breaks the long record of amity in the state.
Even during the mass exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in 1990 and the mass
killings at Wandhama and Nandipora, local Muslims were not involved. The
situation was the same in Jammu too, despite a series of militant
attacks on Hindus.
When India projected Jammu and Kashmir as a symbol of secularism and
insisted that no solution would be considered which undermined its
secular character, Ladakh was at the heart of its stand.
When representatives of Northern Areas of Pakistan (Gilgit and
Baltistan) had argued that their only link with the pre-1947 state of
J&K was Ladakh and India repeatedly proposed opening of the
Kargil-Skardu road for the divided families to meet, Pakistan resisted
for fear that a secular Ladakh may be a source of inspiration for its
discontented population.
The current developments in this strategic territory may turn to
Pakistan’s advantage. But today’s situation is not a sudden development
that should take the powers that be unawares.
Nobody took notice of the dangerous portents of the communal tension in
Leh, when Buddhists held anti-Muslim demonstrations and observed a
two-day hartal over the alleged kidnapping of two Buddhist girls by
Muslim boys and its backlash among Shias of Kargil who held
anti-Buddihist demonstrations and observed hartal in November?
The complete communal polarisation was signalled in October in the
results of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council elections,
where the Union Territory Front, demanding separation of Leh from the
state, won 25 seats with Buddhist support. The rival Congress won one, a
Muslim candidate, from a Muslim majority constituency.
Why no notice of the electoral verdict was taken?
Today’s communal clash in fact, is the culmination of trend to which the
state government and government of India have been contributing—most
probably intentionally—for years.
To start with, Ladakh does not enjoy administrative status equal to
Jammu and Kashmir. The state’s Constitution treats it as a part of the
Kashmir region.
Unlike the other two regions which are administered by separate heads of
departments and separate Divisional Commissioners and Inspectors
Generals of Police, in case of Ladakh, all departmental heads are based
in Srinagar.
Ladakh’s discontent has been simmering ever since the establishment of a
popular government. Palliatives, tried from time to time, proved
counterproductive. In 1978, it was divided into two districts.
But without a common regional identity, the Buddhist and the Muslim
majority districts of Leh and Kargil started drifting in divergent
directions.
Eventually in 1995, the Centre conceded internal autonomy to Leh. I had
asked the then Prime Minister Narsimha Rao why he rejected the demand of
autonomy for Ladakh as a whole and why he conceded it when it was made
by Ladakh Buddhist Association for Leh district only. He insisted that
his offer was for the whole region.
I called the Home Secretary, who was also the Secretary for Kashmir
Affairs on telephone, from the PM house, to clarify the position. He
confirmed that the decision applied to Leh only. Evidently the Prime
Minister was under the impression that Leh and Ladakh were synonymous.
Later, however, a similar autonomous council was formed for Kargil by
the Mufti-led government in 2002. But a common Ladakh regional council
was conspicuously missing in the arrangement.
It is also important to note that the much hyped powers of the two
councils are less than those of the Zila Parishads under Panchayati Raj
system.
As the head of the government-appointed Regional Autonomy Committee, I
had met the representatives of Leh and Kargil, who had unanimously
accepted my proposal for a common regional authority, the president of
which would rotate among the two districts. The state government
rejected my report.
The cumulative frustration of Buddhists took the form of a demand for an
Union Territory status. The Muslims, too, despite their grievances
against the state government, would not like to be ruled by a distant Delhi.
It may be recalled that Ladakh was a rare region where inter-religious
marriages were not uncommon before Independence.
After the current crisis is diffused, a high level dialogue with the
leaders of the two communities needs to be started to devise appropriate
constitutional and political measures to restore age old harmony and a
common regional personality in the context of a federal and
decentralized set-up of the state, which alone can accommodate its
diversities and ensure its unity.
The author is Director, Institute of Jammu and Kashmir affairs