MP questions UT ‘hurry’ as Ladakh awaits MHA draft on legislative safeguards
HABEEL SAGAR
LEH: Ladakh MP Mohmad Haneefa Jan has described the recent meeting between Ladakhi representatives and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) as having taken place in a “good atmosphere”, but stressed that the absence of a concrete draft on the proposed constitutional and legislative framework remains a major concern.
Speaking to this The Earth News Correspondent, Haneefa Jan said the MHA had conveyed positive indications on several issues, including the proposed UT-level legislative setup and constitutional safeguards, but maintained that Ladakhi representatives would not be satisfied until the details are placed before them in the form of a draft.
“The main thing was that the draft which was supposed to come did not come,” he said, adding that the representatives had gone to the meeting expecting substantive discussion on the proposed arrangement rather than merely responding to questions and a presentation.
According to the MP, two options concerning the proposed representative setup were discussed. One envisaged properly delimited constituencies from which people would directly elect their representatives to the UT-level legislature, while the other involved electing members through the existing autonomous councils. Haneefa Jan said the latter proposal was rejected outright by the Ladakhi leadership present at the meeting.
He said the demand was for an elected legislature with constituencies properly delimited by the Election Commission of India, with the number of seats to be determined subsequently. He also linked the demand to what he described as an understanding recorded in the minutes of earlier discussions—that a legislature would ultimately be provided to Ladakh once the Union Territory became capable of generating its own revenue and budget.
The MP made it clear that the proposed arrangement should not be viewed as an alternative to the long-term demand for statehood. “Our ultimate goal is full statehood,” he said, arguing that the proposed setup should instead be seen as a first step towards that objective.
Haneefa Jan repeatedly returned to the absence of a written draft, saying that the commitments conveyed during the meeting currently remain largely at the level of presentations and assurances.
He said Ladakhi representatives had pressed for the draft to be prepared at the earliest and placed before the High-Powered Committee for approval, followed by consultations with the concerned ministries, the Law Department and the Union Cabinet before being taken to Parliament.
According to the MP, the MHA representative assured them that efforts would be made to take the matter forward and that the government would try to bring it before Parliament in the Winter Session, although no firm commitment was given for the session. Haneefa Jan said the proposed constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds majority in Parliament, making consensus-building an important part of the process.
He further said another meeting was expected in the first week of the next month and expressed hope that a draft would be available by then. He added that the MHA had indicated that the next meeting could be held in Kargil.
The MP, however, drew a sharp distinction between the signals coming from the MHA and what he described as a series of decisions being taken by the UT administration.
Haneefa Jan said Ladakhi representatives had sought an assurance that major decisions at the UT level should not be taken in a manner that could dilute or undermine the proposed legislative and constitutional arrangement before it is implemented.
He said the MHA had indicated that matters falling within its domain could be pursued with urgency, but decisions falling within the UT administration’s domain were outside its direct control.
“Until this setup is fully implemented in Ladakh, we need an assurance that such decisions are not taken,” he said, expressing concern that changes made in the interim could weaken the eventual safeguards.
On Article 371, Haneefa Jan said Ladakh had been assured of constitutional safeguards, but cautioned that merely invoking Article 371 was not enough because safeguards under the provision vary from one State to another.
“The ultimate point is that until the draft comes before us, we will not be satisfied,” he said, stressing that the people of Ladakh needed clarity on precisely what safeguards, powers and administrative arrangements would be incorporated.
He said the assurances received included legislative, financial and executive powers, but questions remained over the precise structure and the nature of the bureaucracy that would come under the proposed arrangement.
The MP also questioned the urgency with which, according to him, certain decisions were being pursued by the UT administration while the larger constitutional framework remained under discussion.
He specifically referred to the proposed land policy, saying that although the policy had not yet been formally finalised, its contents had entered the public domain and objections were being raised. “Why this hurry?” he asked, arguing that the priority should be securing the principal demands and ensuring that interim decisions do not dilute the eventual settlement.
At the same time, Haneefa Jan said his interactions with the MHA, including meetings with Union Home Minister Amit Shah and MHA officials, had given him the impression that the Centre was “seriously” working on Ladakh’s issues. He said the contrast with developments at the UT administration level was what continued to generate apprehension among Ladakh’s political leadership.
On the demand for creation of additional districts, Haneefa Jan called it a “genuine demand” and cautioned against allowing it to become a divisive issue between different parts of Kargil.
He said the demands for districts, including Sankoo and other areas, should be pursued collectively, arguing that creation of one new district would also provide administrative benefits to the areas left behind in the existing district.
The MP appealed to people across Kargil to unite around the demand rather than raise competing voices from different corners. He said that, in principle, authorities had acknowledged that “justice” had not been done to the concerned areas, although he stopped short of claiming that any particular district had been assured.
Haneefa Jan also criticised what he described as attempts to turn the district issue into a political “game”, saying district creation should be a government decision based on administrative and public requirements rather than political affiliation.
The MP was particularly critical of the functioning and legal status of the existing LAHDC Kargil, questioning how the administration could claim that it would create “powerful” councils in other districts when, in his assessment, the existing council’s statutory powers were being undermined.
His remarks came in the context of the ongoing controversy over the council, the resignation of four BJP councillors and the no-confidence proceedings.
Haneefa Jan alleged that the administration had treated provisions of the council law, including nomination-related provisions, as a “toy”, and questioned the manner in which the existing council was being handled. He referred to the provision concerning nomination of members representing minorities and women and alleged inconsistency in the administration’s position on the issue.
He also referred to the ongoing court proceedings concerning the no-confidence motion and claimed that, during a recent hearing, the UT administration’s counsel argued that the existing council had already been dissolved, thereby questioning the maintainability of the no-confidence proceedings.
Haneefa Jan said the political leadership had not sought dissolution of the council and instead wanted it to continue, while pursuing the no-confidence matter through the legal process. He alleged that the administration was taking contradictory positions before the court and on the ground.
The MP ultimately questioned the credibility of promising “powerful” councils for the proposed districts when the existing autonomous council was, in his view, being rendered ineffective.
On the proposed padayatra, Haneefa Jan said the programme was intended to remain peaceful and was, at least in its present form, focused on commemorating the victims of September 26.
He said the leadership did not want confrontation and described the people of Ladakh as peace-loving. However, he added that the next MHA meeting would be an important test of the Centre’s intent. Haneefa Jan expressed hope that the next meeting would take place without the need for another agitation and that the MHA would come with the long-awaited draft.
