Ladakh’s Demand for Sixth Schedule: Extrapolations about Indian Governance

On September 30th, Magsaysay awardee Sonam Wanghcuk and several other Ladakhis were detained in Delhi while undertaking their Dilli Chalo Padayatra, a peaceful march from Ladakh to Delhi, in order to register their demand for the inclusion of Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution (hereinafter, the Sixth Schedule). Though they were released after they began a hunger strike, the tribal-majority Union Territory of Ladakh continues to face radio silence from the Centre. This article seeks to trace the history and reasons for Ladakh’s demand, and answer the question: What inferences can be drawn from this about the Indian governance model with respect to environmental protection? 

What is the Sixth Schedule? 

The Sixth Schedule applies to the states of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura, and provides for the establishment of Autonomous District Councils (ADC) and Regional Councils (ARC) that have the power to make laws with the assent of the Governor. Clause 4 and 5 of the Schedule also confers upon these councils the power to constitute courts to try cases between persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribes within the area. The Sixth Schedule was added to the Constitution on 7th September 1949 for the purpose of preserving the autonomy of the tribal population, specifically in the North Eastern regions. 

In response to the demand of the Ladakhis for Sixth Schedule status, an official of the Home Ministry said that the provision was solely for the Northeast, and other tribal regions not in the Northeast may only be able to receive the protections of the Fifth Schedule. The Fifth Schedule, under which areas in 10 states have been Scheduled, delegates considerably less autonomy and authority to the Tribal Advisory Councils established under the Schedule. It does not give them the power to legislate or to administer justice unlike the Sixth Schedule. Hence, the people of Ladakh are discontent with the offer of the Fifth Schedule. Moreover, the claim that the Sixth Schedule is exclusively for the Northeast is contradicted by the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 2007, which was proposed jointly by the Centre and the State of West Bengal to bring the region of Gorkha-dominant region in the Darjeeling hills under the Sixth Schedule. 

Why does Ladakh demand Sixth Schedule status? 

Ladakh’s demand for autonomy stems from the developmental and industrial projects sought to be undertaken in the region without consultation with the locals. More than 97% of the Ladakhi population is tribal. It houses several Scheduled Tribes, namely, the Balti, Beda, Bot, Boto, Brokpa, Drokpa, Dard, Shin, Changpa, Garra, Mon and Purigpa. Thus they are extremely vulnerable to exploitation by corporations and the government. 

Several MoUs have been signed for the setting up of projects such as India’s first geothermal power plant, India’s first green hydrogen unit, seven hydropower projects, and a solar power project that has been opposed by the Ladakhis. In spite of the local resistance, the government has invited bids for other projects. In addition to the exploitation of natural resources through mining and power generation, the government is also actively promoting the tourism industry in Ladakh. The sharp increase in tourists over the past few years has exerted pressure on the fragile ecosystem of the region that is now facing food and water scarcity.

The revocation of the protection of Article 370 has left the people of Ladakh open to industrialisation and capitalistic tourism, and has caused them to be excluded from the decision-making process. In several interviews, Sonam Wangchuk, the face of the protests, has expressed apprehension about the pollution and havoc caused by the mining and tourism industry. 

What Trend do the Ladakh Protests reveal about Environmental Protection in India? 

The events in Ladakh and the government’s response to the articulation of interests of the people are relevant to the entirety of India because they speak to broader trends in the governance model. The government’s actions, or rather abstentions, in Ladakh are consistent with the attitude of the government to similar issues across India, and therefore require closer scrutiny. These trends revolve around the issues of climate disasters due to development. 

Wangchuk stated during the Climate Fast that the people of Ladakh aimed to prevent the tragedies that have occurred in Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Sikkim from happening in Ladakh. Himachal Pradesh has faced a total of 192 human-induced climate-related disasters in the past decade, including floods, landslides, thunderstorms, and cloudbursts. The massive floods have been called a ‘man-made disaster’ and are attributed to the unscientific construction by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC). In Uttarakhand’s Joshimath, hundreds of buildings have developed cracks and are slowly sinking, contributing to the displacement of several families. Locals have blamed the National Thermal Power Corporation’s Tapovan Vishnugad hydropower project and the Border Roads Organisation’s Char Dham project for aggravating the fragile geological conditions.  Destruction of ecology and societal systems is inherent to development, planned or unplanned. However, the destruction inherent in development is further amplified by developmental policies that promote unsustainable practices and unsustainable scale of development. 

What are the Constitutional and Legal Protections? 

The Constitution of India provides for the protection and conservation of the environment and natural resources. Article 39(b) and Article 48A in Part IV of the Constitution embody the principles of environmental justice. Indian courts have developed key legal doctrines, including Absolute Liability (MC Mehta vs Union of India), the Polluter Pays principle (Enviro-Legal Action vs Union of India), the Precautionary Principle (Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India), and the Doctrine of Public Trust (MC Mehta vs Kamalnath). These cases act as guidelines for public policy, and must be adhered to while formulating any development strategy. 

The legislature has also passed several laws for the benefit of the environment such as The Wildlife Protection Act 1972, The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, The Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, The Environment (Siting for Industrial Projects) Rules 1999, The Biological Diversity Act 2002 etc. India is also a party to several international conventions that aim to protect the environment and the ecology including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. 

Conclusion

Thus, there is a wide array of statutory restrictions and regulations as well as international obligations, limiting the power of the government to undertake any activity with the potential to harm the environment. The Indian government, by ignoring the ecological conditions of delicate ecosystems, is promoting a capitalist development culture that causes massive damage to the environment and the locals in these regions. Thus, concerns of the Ladakh protests point to the greater problem of the destruction of the Himalayan regions to further the agenda of ‘development’.