7 August 2020, NIICE Commentary 5781
Dr. Abhiruchi Ojha
In the past few months one can be forgiven for thinking that Ladakh is at the centre of the recent Indo-China border dispute. Certainly a lot of work has come out, both academic and in popular media, with ‘Ladakh’ in the title. Many might thus believe that Ladakh is truly at the centre of the present series of events between India and China. This is a fallacy. The world is talking about Ladakh while not really talking about Ladakh. In other words, the people of Ladakh are missing in this discourse. Their voices remain unheard and their lived experiences continue to be in the margins. The centrality of Ladakh in the present narrative is merely statist, one where Indian and Chinese perspectives converge in viewing Ladakh from a purely strategic perspective. For China, Ladakh is significant because of its historical connections with Tibet and more recently for the Belt and Road initiative. For India, Ladakh is geopolitically important for its territorial security. Portrayals of Ladakh in recent media reports in both India and China are enlightening in this regard. Ladakh is often represented in them by satellite pictures with discussions by experts trying to locate which army is camped where. Ladakh is thereby reduced to just a strategic space with no human face. The people of Ladakh are only present in this discourse by their complete absence.
The question is, how do we bring Ladakh truly to the centre? This is challenging because in conventional IR, security, defined narrowly from a statist and territorial perspective, remains centre stage. An ontological and epistemological re-imagination is required to move beyond statist preoccupations. People have to be made the centre of security and foreign policy debates. Only then the marginality of lived experiences of Ladakhi people can be centred and given its proper due. Ladakh’s historical and political choices led it to be a part of India. However, Ladakh has remained in the margins even within India for a long time. Formerly, when Ladakh was part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the Kashmir conflict dominated the discourse and Ladakh remained the invisible, unnamed territory of the state. Even the removal of Article 370 got played internationally and nationally as having consequences only for Kashmir. Being made a Union Territory has given Ladakh a separate identity. However, whether this move will provide any possibility for ‘speaking and being heard’ remains to be seen. Ladakh is now administered directly by the central government. There is fear in Ladakh that the powers of its already weak autonomous hill development councils are being further eroded. Ladakhis do have strong opinions about their future. They demand people centric development with protections for their unique cultural identity and land rights, similar to the ones offered to tribal areas in rest of India. Many Ladakhis are concerned about their fragile eco system and are worried about greedy neo-liberal developmentalism being unleashed on them which can damage their environment as well as their cultural identity. Many are also worried that much of the infrastructure developments planned in Ladakh are chiefly for military convenience. They are increasingly concerned about this excessive militarisation and the accompanying problems. These and other real concerns of Ladakhis continue to remain very much at the margins. Till that changes, borders might become secure but Ladakhis will remain alienated. It is worth noting here that Ladakh is by no means a homogenous entity. There exist diversity of aspirations, sub-regional assertions and complex socio-political dynamics within Ladakh. These differences also need to be taken into account and respected.
There are broader lessons to be learned here. Firstly, discussions in IR and foreign policy have to become more inclusive and people-centric. Where are the Ladakhi intellectuals in the present debate? The discourse has been dominated by Delhi and Beijing elites. To put Ladakh truly in the centre, Ladakh’s agency should be respected and given its due. In a broader sense, one can say the same about smaller states in the international system whose viewpoints are often ignored and their agency taken for granted by bigger powers. Nepal, Sri Lanka or the Maldives are often discussed only in the context of Indo-China relations with very little appreciation of their autonomy and independence. This only hinders cooperation and trust between states. Secondly, are we going to talk about Ladakh or any such marginalized region only when there is a crisis or conflict and forget about its people and their aspirations in other times? The notion of masculine protectionism of a feminised territory, to be taken or saved by competing states, will not serve any greater benefit. Neither will rendering people voiceless by continuously speaking for them. This is true for Ladakh and is true for any similar region or state in any part of the world. We have to find ways to move beyond the toxic masculinity of modern states which also dominates IR as a discipline.
We are living in the times of a pandemic, a truly extraordinary period in history. It is tragic that even in these times, territoriality and borders remain more significant to states than human lives. Militarism backed by jingoistic nationalism has led to further militarisation of borders in South Asia. India and Pakistan have moved large number of troops to their borders and so has China. There is large support for further militarisation, thanks to warmongering by the media and rallying of chest-thumping ‘experts’ in all sides. Globally, the US and China continue their sabre rattling in South China Sea and elsewhere, cheered by a host of IR scholars who proclaim all of it as ‘normal’ and ‘rational’. However, the pandemic has exposed not only the weak public health systems of many so called ‘great powers’ but also their faulty sense of power which pushes people to the margins and empty satellite images to the centre. Feminists have long talked about the importance of human security and have argued that it should be given equal importance to national security. False hierarchical dichotomies between ‘high politics’ and ‘low politics’ have been questioned by feminist scholars of IR. The present pandemic has vindicated them. COVID-19 has killed so far 50 times more people than 9/11 in the US. In India too, more people have died because of it than in border clashes or due to terrorism. Who is rational now? Myth-making of seemingly strong masculine nationalist states have been busted and they have been shown to be giants with feet of clay. The need of the hour is people centric approaches to security, conflict transformation and development. Only then, we will be truly talking about marginalised regions and their people instead of merely appearing to do so.
