A day after talks between the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and Ladakh leaders ended without a significant breakthrough, Ladakh Chief Secretary Ashish Kundra termed the UT leaders’ rejection of the Centre’s draft proposal unfortunate, saying it had already been decided that Ladakh would neither become a state nor a Union Territory with a legislature.Kundra said the Centre was committed to finding a political solution and establishing a democratically elected body that fulfils the aspirations of the people of Ladakh. He urged the local leadership to show “mutual trust, openness of mind and patience”.“Several issues were discussed,” Kundra said of the October 15 meeting. “The first concerned the name of the proposed body. The Central Government suggested several names, such as ‘Union Territory-level Frontier Agency, along with four or five other possible names. It was also stated that any other name could be suggested. The discussion became somewhat stuck on the question of the name.”The Chief Secretary said Ladakh leaders suggested calling it a legislature or an assembly.“We said that this matter had already been decided. Ladakh was neither going to become a state nor a Union Territory with a legislature,” he said. “Instead, a sui generis model was being developed—a unique model suited to Ladakh’s aspirations and demands.”Must Read | ‘What kind of Ram Rajya are we talking about?’ Sonam Wangchuk slams Centre after Ladakh talks failKundra said the Ladakh leadership had agreed to the minutes of the previous meeting between the two sides.“During the period of the movement here, the first thing that was said was that we need a Sixth Schedule. During negotiations on the Sixth Schedule, it was explained that this provision applies to States, particularly in the northeastern region, where a minority tribe needs protection against any discriminatory action by a majority tribe. Therefore, the Sixth Schedule has a different geographical, historical and cultural context, and its relevance in the case of Ladakh is not particularly significant in the same way,” he said.Story continues below this ad“The fundamental requirement, as I said, is constitutional safeguards. There are several models through which this can be achieved”.Kundra said the demand for Sixth Schedule status was followed by demands for statehood or a Union Territory with a legislature.“The centre suggested that we will fulfil the basic demand of the central government. But we will find another creative solution for it. And Article 371, which is a section of the Constitution, has enough flexibility in that article that we will give the kind of constitutional protection that you want,” he said. “So, Article 371K was suggested to be written specifically for Ladakh. Now, in the last meeting, it was agreed upon. And in the last meeting, everyone signed the minutes”.The remarks came hours after climate activist Sonam Wangchuk accused the Centre of reneging on its promises to the people of Ladakh.Why talks stalledStory continues below this adKundra said the Ladakh leadership wanted to examine the documents and understand the proposed body’s structure before proceeding.Also Read | Ladakh talks stall over one question: Who holds the power?“After considerable deliberation, the Ministry of Home Affairs provided a 32-page document to the leaders of Ladakh on the morning of October 16. Several matters were explained in detail in that document. The document given to the leaders stated that certain provisions would be incorporated directly into the Constitution. It was explained that Article 371K would clearly provide for the establishment of a directly elected Union Territory-level body. It would also clearly specify the protection of land, natural resources, culture and other issues,” he said.Not everything could be incorporated into a constitutional amendment, Kundra said.“Their protection will be written clearly in Article 371K,” he said, adding that a regulation would be made separately under Article 240.Story continues below this adThe meeting also covered the name of the elected body, delimitation, nominated members, women’s representation and ex-officio membership.‘Dismissed draft as worthless’Kundra said the Centre had asked the Ladakh leaders to study its 32-page draft proposal.“We had provided them with the draft. The expectation was that they would study it and tell us how to proceed. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. The officials come from Delhi. They had worked very hard to prepare these documents over three to four weeks, and they had done so in good faith. But I was surprised to see that within two hours of receiving the papers, they were dismissed as worthless. It was said that nothing had been offered and that there were no provisions for constitutional safeguards”.Kundra said the Ladakh leadership had submitted a three-page document of its own.Story continues below this ad“It was not a draft document but an MoU—a memorandum of understanding—setting out the matters on which the negotiating sides were agreeing. It cannot be called a draft, and a bill cannot be prepared on the basis of that document alone. The MoU contained several provisions. For example, it stated that no Act of Parliament would apply unless the proposed body gave its consent on certain subjects,” he said.“We asked whether this meant that they were bringing back the issue of Article 370. That Article has already been abrogated, so there is no point in bringing that provision back in this manner.”Kundra said the discussions stalled over who would write the Chief Secretary’s ACR (Annual Confidential Report).“We explained that the question of who would write the Chief Secretary’s ACR is dealt with under the Transaction of Business Rules,” Kundra said. “It does not form part of a constitutional amendment or the legislation establishing the body”.Story continues below this adThis comes months after the Centre proposed a constitutional provision under ‘Article 371(K)’ to extend additional protections to Ladakh. Following a meeting of the sub-committee with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) earlier this month, deliberations have centred on the shape of this provision and a proposed UT-level body.Wangchuk, who is part of the Ladakh delegation, slammed the Centre on Saturday morning, claiming that the people of Ladakh were “saddened, surprised and angry” over the stalled talks.“Yesterday, we were shocked. We thought we would have some minor differences. But we saw the differences were huge. They (Centre) reneged again,” Wangchuk said in a video statement. “They said the assembly would be small and the chief secretary would not be under it. They even went back on the promises made about Article 371. In May (this year), there was a major dialogue between the leaders of Ladakh and the Home Ministry and promises were made that we will give you democracy by giving a special assembly, under which the entire bureaucracy will come, even the Chief Secretary. It was also said that instead of the Sixth Schedule, the safeguards would be given under Article 371. So, for us, yesterday’s meeting was very important after that conversation in May,” Wangchuk said.