Why five new districts in Ladakh have led to fears of exclusion, gerrymandering

Last month, five new districts were officially added to the Union territory of Ladakh.

The Centre had approved the creation of the districts in 2024, but the formal notification was issued on April 27, three days ahead of a visit to the cold desert region by Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

But the decision has become a source of anxiety for the Ladakh’s Muslim-majority population, who suspect that the redrawing of the boundaries of the new districts will lead to their marginalisation. With the addition of five districts, Ladakh now has seven districts.

Sajjad Kargili, a leading activist from Kargil, told Scroll: “The demographic distribution of Ladakh does not reflect in the creation of the new districts.”

One of the most sparsely inhabited regions in the world, Ladakh has a total population 2.74 lakh, according to the 2011 census. Forty-six per cent of its population is Muslim, while Buddhists are the second largest religious community with a share of 39% of the total population. Hindus account for a little over 12%. Most of the Muslim population is concentrated in Kargil district, while Buddhists mostly live in Leh district.

According to Kargili, only two out of the total seven districts in Ladakh will be Muslim-majority while five will be dominated by Buddhist population. “If the Centre had followed the principle of proportion, four out of seven districts would have been Muslim-majority while the rest would have had a Buddhist majority,” he explained.

Many see it as a ploy by the Centre to divide the leadership of Buddhist-majority Leh and Muslim-majority Kargil, when both regions have been jointly seeking protections in land and job rights for local residents after the scrapping of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status in 2019.

As part of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir, the two regions had historically never agreed on the future of Ladakh.

“….[It] feels less like an administrative reform and more like a calculated move aimed at dividing the unified democratic and statehood movement of Ladakh's people – particularly to weaken the collective voice of the Buddhist and Muslim communities,” Kargili said in a statement on April 29.

Since the last few years, Ladakh has seen a popular movement demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule status under the Constitution for the union territory, which exploded in violent protests in September 2025.

The Centre’s crackdown left four civilians dead. Ladakhi activist Sonam Wangchuk, who had led the movement, was jailed for six months under the draconian National Security Act.

‘Regional imbalance’

Until now, Ladakh had two districts – Leh and Kargil.

Given its rough topography, harsh climate and altitude, the residents of far-flung areas of Ladakh have for decades demanded the creation of new districts.

The new districts created by the Centre are: Sham, Nubra, Changthang, Zanskar and Drass.

According to the April 27 notification, the Muslim-majority districts of Kargil and Drass will comprise 99 revenue villages. In comparison, the five other districts, including Leh, will have a total of 151 villages.

Put simply, while nearly 50 revenue villages comprise one Muslim-majority district, a Buddhist-dominated district will include 30 revenue villages. The lesser number of revenue villages in Buddhist-dominated villages gives these districts an advantage over the two Muslim-dominated districts in terms of funds, development work and governance.

“The job pool for a Muslim youth at the district level will shrink because they have been concentrated into just two districts,” said Kargili, who is also the political in-charge of the influential religious body Jamiat Ul Ulama Isna Asharia, Kargil. “In comparison, a Buddhist youth will have better opportunities to get a district-level job because he has very little competition.”

Muslim-majority areas in Ladakh had also been asking to be elevated to the status of a district.

According to Kargili, the “legitimate and longstanding demand to grant district status to Sankoo-Suru, Barsoo, and Shakarkatna” areas was overlooked by the Centre. “The people of these areas have repeatedly submitted memorandums to the government and presented their demands with strong arguments, yet they have been consistently ignored,” he said.

There are also apprehensions about the future. “Let’s say there’s a delimitation tomorrow,” said Kargili. “There is a possibility that the Centre may skew constituencies in such a manner so as to disempower the Muslim population.”

Kargili’s fears echo the debate in India over “gerrymandering”, the restructuring of constituency boundaries to favour a political party.

Earlier in April, Opposition parties had voiced concern that the Centre’s bill in Parliament to push for the nationwide delimitation of Lok Sabha constituencies was aimed at redrawing political boundaries to the advantage of ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies.

As Scroll has reported, the delimitation exercises carried out in Assam and Jammu and Kashmir have also been sharply criticised for diluting Muslim representation in the two regions.

Lok Sabha member and president of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, Asaduddin Owaisi, in a post on X, referring to the five new districts of Ladakh, wrote: “This is another gerrymandering in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.”

A measured silence?

Though there has been an uproar in Kargil against the alleged discriminatory redrawing of the five new districts, the leadership in Kargil and Leh have avoided getting into a war of words.

A senior Buddhist leader in Leh, who did not want to be identified, said the leadership has misgivings over the exercise, but does not want to get drawn into a ‘trap’. “The Centre has created these five new districts in such a way that it will pit the people of Leh and Kargil against each other,” he told Scroll. “We know it’s a trap and we won’t get entangled in it.”

He added: “We have chosen silence because we know if we speak in favour of the demands of Muslims, we will be targeted by our own people who have got the new districts.”

Kargili said no one was opposed to the district status for Buddhist-majority regions. The Buddhists in Leh are happy and they should be, he said. “They deserved it,” said Kargili. “We are just demanding that the same principle should have been applied in the case of Muslim population as well.”

“The problem is not them,” he said. “The problem is the central government’s approach.”

Shafi Lasu, a senior advocate and district president of Leh Bar Association, said the Centre could have addressed the apprehensions of the Ladakh’s Muslim-majority if they wished to.

“What would have gone wrong if the Centre had created two more districts to fulfil the aspirations of the people of Kargil as well?” he asked. “It’s not a big deal for the Centre but their intention seems to be something else.”

‘Won’t dilute the demands’

If the Centre’s intention was to create a wedge between the two regions of Ladakh by giving one side an obvious edge over the other, that strategy seems to be faltering already.

If anything, the Union Territory administration’s refusal to discuss the demands of the statehood movement during Shah’s visit in May has hardened the stance of the Ladakhi leadership.

Kargili said the Ladakhi leadership will not change its demands. “But we will convey our issues of regional imbalance vis-à-vis new districts with the Leh leadership in order to bring it to light before the Centre during negotiations.”

Both leaders also dismissed Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena’s announcement of a fresh round of talks with the Centre on May 22 on Ladakh’s demands for Sixth Schedule protections and statehood.

The senior Buddhist leader from Leh said they were of little consequence. “It’s a subcommittee meeting in which the minister does not participate. Therefore, how can there be any decision?” he said. “All of this reveals that the Centre is not serious about our core issues.”

He pointed out that despite Shah being in Ladakh for two days, there was no discussion about the demands for Sixth Schedule status and statehood. “We had requested the meeting to be held in Leh under the home minister’s supervision but there has been no response,” he said.

The Leh Buddhist leader said the region will stand firm on its demands. “If the Centre feels that by pushing development and creating new districts will dilute our demand for Sixth Schedule and statehood, then they are wrong,” he said. “There is going to be no compromise on that.”