Seasonal Migration in Leh Ladakh and Profiling SocioEconomic Status of Migrant Workers: bodhi sainkupar ranee Contents List

of Maps, Illustration and Tables List of Acronyms Acknowledgement Preface 1. Leh Ladakh: An Overview 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. The Migrant Labour Phenomena in Leh-Ladakh: Stating the Concept and the Frame Subjective Methodological Considerations The Reality of Numbers Ever-Altering Lifestyles: Capturing Regional Specificities and the Concomitant Perils The Skill Import: Mapping Tasks and Identifying 56 60 65 68 72 74 75 77 79 83 84 Specializations A Ubiquitous System that Employs Capturing the Period of Stay and Work Destinations Unravelling the Intricacies of Earnings and Savings Do Migrants have Families? The Women Question within the Migrant Labour Structure Demystifying the Migrant Child Labour Myth Understanding the State System and its Current Response to the subject of Migrant Labour Availability of Critical Infrastructural Facilities The Demand for and Supply of Migrants Skill - A Gain or Loss for the Ladakhi Community The Mud versus Cement Debate- A Community in A Hurry to Build Page 1 3 4 5 16 33 35 43 47

17. 18. 19 20

The Politics of Labour Markets, Subsequent Migration and its Impact on Leh-Ladakh Managing Emerging Realities - The Imperatives of a Planned Response by State and Community
Mapping Migrant Workers in Leh- Ladakh: Politics and Process

86 92 94 95 96-99

Bibliography

ANNEXURE
I. II. III.

Questionnaire LAHDC Basic Data Sheet Some Facts about Leh District

List of Maps, Illustration and Tables Sl.No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Number Map 1 Map 2 Map 3 Map 4 Map 5 Map 6 Map 7 Map 8 Map 9 Map 10 Picture 1 Picture 2 Picture 3 Picture 4 Picture 5 Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 1.3 Title District Leh-Ladakh Leh Block Kharu Block Chuchot Block Nyoma Block Durbuk Block Khaltse Block Saspol Block Diskit Block Panamic Block A Village in Ladakh A Panaromic View of Leh Town Migrant Workers Constructing Walls in Mountainous Leh-Ladakh Migrant Workers Assisting Government Activity in Leh Migrant Workers in Leh Ladakh Leh District at a Glance Demographic Profile of Leh District (Block Wise) Estimate of registered migrants within specific organizations Reasons for migrating to Leh Ladakh Distribution of Temporary Migrants by State/Country Distribution of Respondents by Caste and Tribe
1

19. Table 2.1 20. Table 2.2 21. Table 2.3

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 2.7 Table 2.7.1 Table 2.8

28. Table 2.9 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. Table 2.10 Table 2.11 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.2.1 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.6.1 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 8.1 Table 9.1 Table 9.2 Table 10.1 Table 10.2 Table 11.1 Table 11.2

Distribution of Migrants by State and Caste Distribution of Migrants according to Home District Distribution of Migrants by Age Percentage of Migrants with work Experience Distribution of number of tears of work expereince Distribution of Migrants with work experience in other countries Distribution of Migrants by specific educational qualification Distribution of migrants by educational Qualification Distribution of migrants by Occupation Distribution of Migrants by Occupational Capabilities Current Task performed in Leh Distribution of Migrants by occupation and Caste Source of Information about Leh Ladakh Number of Migrants being Accompanied Individuals Who accompanied Migrants Means of Transport Used to come to Leh Number of Work Hours per Day Work Contract Fixed prior to Coming to Leh Planned period of Stay in Leh Preferred Village to work Current Place of Residence Income per month prior to coming to Ladakh Income per Month in Ladakh Distribution of Migrants Saving per Season Method of Collecting Money from Employer Institutions where Money is Saved By Migrants Money sent to family/Home Method of Sending Money Home Distribution of Migrants by Age and Marital Status Distribution of Migrants Family Status by Age and Children Distribution by Number of Children per Family Distribution of Migrants by Age and Sex Migrants perception of Childrens Need to work Migrants Perception of Acceptable age for Children to work Distribution of Migrants registered with Police Distribution of Migrants who Has restricted Area permit Number of People Staying under One Shelter Distribution of Amount of Rent Paid for Housing
2

60. 61. 62. 63.

Table 11.3 Table 11.4 Table 11.5 Table 12.1

64. Table 12.2 65. Table 13.1

Distribution of Comfort in Stay Experience with Bathing Facilities Availability of Toilet Facilities Distribution of Migrants Felt Need to Stay During Coming Winter Felt Need to Come Back to Leh Ladakh Distribution of Migrants Ranking of reasons to Come to leh Ladakh

List of Acronyms LBA : Ladakh Buddhist Association SC: Schedule Caste ST: Schedule Tribe LUFT: Ladakh Union Territory Front LAHDC: Ladakh Autonomous Hill development Council J& K: Jammu and Kashmir NTPC: National Thermal Power Corporation BRO: Border Roads Organization HP: Halqa Panchayat LEDeG: Ladakh Ecological Development Group SEMCOL: Students Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh

Acknowledgement Ladakh is a tough terrain to research on and without assistance it would have been impossible for me to even conceive of taking up this small research project. I thank Professor John Manechery, Director of Gyurja Project, TISS for providing vital institutional support for this research. The project was initially identified as Seasonal Migration in Leh Ladakh and Profiling Socio-Economic Status of Migrant Workers. The initial conception was meant to be a pilot study to explore the condition of migrant workers from outside Leh-Ladakh, an area still invisible within Ladakhi studies. During my short stay in Leh, I met a number of Ladakhi. The numerous discussions I had were enlightening as it gave me insights into a community I had long wanted to know and understand. Among many important meetings I had with people, I wish to specially mention my discussion with Mr. Tashi Rabgyas, one of the foremost intellectual of the Ladakhi community on May 29th 2008 at his residence in Leh. There were two reasons why I had sought discussion with him. First was related to my immediate project and second, my personal interest in Tribal Studies and Buddhism. Although my discussion with him was short, he provided some very interesting historical insights about Ladakhi realities. I have nothing but deep gratitude to the CEC LAHDC Leh, Mr.Chering Dorjay, Mr.Pentu Norboo (Ex MLA), the labour officer, Mr.Sonam Jyorges my colleague and batchmate who provided some vital information about the migration processes in Ladakh. I am also indebted to my two extremely enthusiastic local research assistants, Ms.Sonam Lamdol and Mr.Iftikar Ahmed who assisted me in data collection.
4

Preface Ladakh till 1979 was a single district and in June that year it was bifurcated into two districts - Leh and Kargil. The total area of the two districts is about 98,000 square kilometres and their population may now be over 1, 70, 000 (1, 32, 299 according to Census 1981) creating a population density of over 1.7 per square kilometre. These regional highlands are deserts, incapable of supporting human life. Of the 60, 500 square kilometres that remain (when the Aksai Chin is let out of account), less than 300 square kilometres are under crops, vegetables or fruit. The population pressure on the cultivated area is high - almost 6000 per square kilometres. This includes the population of Leh and Kargil towns and the semi-nomadic population of Changthang, who do not live directly off the land. The Ladakhis are a mixture of three distinct groups, who over time migrated to present day Ladakh - either because of trade or for agricultural purposes. They are; the Dard community from the Gilgit region of Western Pakistan, the Indo Aryans known as Mon from the Kulu region and the Tibetans from Tibet who migrated in 7th Century A.D. Most of these communities were Buddhist. Boto is the name given by Indians to refer to Bhuta or followers of Buddhism. The Mon or Monyul were the community of musicians. They supposedly stayed away from intermarriage with other communities. Some local historians have assigned this act as a process to maintain their racial purity. The group closely linked to them are the Beda who were also Buddhist. However, over a period of time many embraced Islam, while some still remain Buddhist. There are rumours in Ladakhi society that both these communities were considered lower among the various groups, historically located in a very nebulous social structure. However one cannot equate their status in Ladakhi society to communities embedded within the caste system as practiced across India. Other groups treat them and each other well and while there were reports of hindrance to enter a monastery and usage of water from the well, currently this does not prevail. However, they are still endogamous. When
5

questioned on this count, Mr.Tashi Rabgyas identifies these processes as a social evil that has not diluted yet until recently (with the adoption of modern democratic system). Historically Balti is the name used to refer to the community from ancient times who were the first Tibetan-speaking people who embraced Islam. They were reportedly Buddhist earlier. In history, they are (in Tibetan) referred to as Balpa (frog) and Ti (water). The literal translation is frog water. Mr. Tashi Rabgyas accounts this to the fact that all rivers flow to Balti and move slowly once they meet. This movement is like that of a frog. This community speaks Tibetan. Their community structure is originally Tibetan but post embracing Islam, they have given up the practice of polyandry. Other historians trace the Balti community to those who followed the Balti princess who married into the Ladakhi royal family in the 17th century. John Bray (2005) locates the Balti community as follows: In the early 17th century King Jam-dbyangs-rnam-rgyal (r.1595-1616) was defeated in a disastrous war with Ali Mir, the ruler of Baltistan (Petech 1977: 33-37). The king himself was captured and imprisoned in Skardu, where he fell in love with Ali Mirs daughter rGyal Khatun. The two were eventually allowed to marry and Jam-dbyangs- rnamrgyal was reinstated in Ladakh: rGyal Khatun was the mother of Sengge-rnam-rgyal, and one of several Balti princesses to marry into the Ladakhi royal family in the 17th and 18th centuries. A substantial Balti population followed her to Ladakh, and founded the Shia communities in Leh, Shey and Chushot (Sheikh 1995:190). The other community inhabiting the region is known as Gara. They are Buddhist and are traditionally blacksmiths. They make knives and other iron tools. Mr.Rabgyas relates a short story about a struggle for status between the Gara and Mon as part of Ladakhi folklore. The Mon claimed that since they make the wooden part of the
6

arrow and the Gara make the tip or cet of the arrow, they are higher in status to the Gara. In the debate on who was higher in status, the Garas argued that on the other hand the tip of the arrow was iron, thus they were higher in status. Intermarriage between these communities is still not prevalent. Nevertheless, each community has asserted itself within the democratic system proactively. Earlier the Mon, Beda and Gara were not allowed to become Lamas but later this rule was waived off. The majority community in Leh-Ladakh are the Bot/Boto. Another community inhabiting Ladakh are known as Arghons. John Bray (2005) traces the historical movement of the Arghons as follows: According to Ladakhi oral tradition (Sheikh 1995), Jam-dbyangrnamrgyal granted land to Kashmiri Muslim tradersknown as mkharphyog-pa or court tradersto settle in Leh, and they received special trade privileges in return for their services to the royal family. For example, the ancestor of the influential Khwaja family was invited to write the kings Persian correspondence with the Mughal governors of Kashmir, while a man called Ismail Zergar was brought to Leh to strike coins. Many of these families intermarried with Ladakhis: their descendants are known as Arghon and form the core of the Sunni community in and around Leh. Their family networks extended to Rudok, Lhasa and Yarkand as well as Kashmir. Those inhabiting Leh-Ladakh have historically been under tremendous strain and conflict. History records a number of wars fought with invading groups and among various groups beginning even prior to the 8th Century. John Bray (2005) identifies the historical location and territorial changes as follows: From the late 7th or early 8th century until sometime after 842 AD it was part of the Tibetan empire. From the mid-10th century until 1834, Ladakh
7

was an independent kingdom. At its height in the mid-17th century, it extended as far as Rudok, Guge and Purang in what is now Western Tibet. In its final years, its territory corresponded roughly with todays Leh and Kargil districts, with the addition of Spiti. In 1834 Ladakh was invaded by the army of Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu, and it finally lost its independence in 1842. Four years later, it was incorporated into the new princely state of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K), which acknowledged British paramountcy within the Indian empire. Since 1947 it has remained part of J&K within the independent Republic of India. These historical tensions characterised by shifts and turns is felt by the community to this day. In recent times tremendous pressure is asserted by the Muslim dominated Jammu and Kashmir government on Leh-Ladakh. This has led to various conflicts within the local populace and has even manifested in violent conflicts between the Buddhist and Muslim communities in the district. In the mid 1980s conflict between Buddhists and Muslims lead to the Ladakh Buddhist Association calling a boycott of the Muslim community. Earlier there had been individual cases of friction, but the first time any signs of group tension were witness was in 1986, when clear demarcations on Buddhist and Muslim lines were drawn. In the following years, there were signs that all was not well, but everyone was caught unaware when in the summer of 1989, fights suddenly broke out between the two groups. There were major disturbances in Leh Bazaar in which four people were shot dead by the police, and a curfew clamped. The immediate cause of the disturbance was the growing perception among Buddhists, that the Muslim - dominated Jammu and Kashmir state government was discriminating against them in favour of the local Muslim population. This led to a political assertion by the Buddhist majority which propped up anxiety among minority Muslims who were seen as having close proximity with the State Government. The perception was that within the state, Ladakh - by far the biggest of its three constituents in terms of size, but correspondingly the smallest in
8

terms of population, and having its own separate historically embedded identity - was not getting its due and never would. This resulted in a series of protests. After much political manoeuvring and agitation, the Ladakhis did succeed in wringing from the Central Government the demand for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Tribes in 1989, which brings them a package of benefits, mainly as regards education and employment. This however hardly solved the problems of their relationship with Kashmir and elimination of the perceived discrimination against Ladakh in terms of representation in the State Legislative Assembly as well as in terms of allocation of funds. During the move to confer Schedule Tribe (ST) status, the government identified distinct communities inhabiting Ladakh district with the exception of a community of Sunni Muslims by the name of Arghon as Schedule Tribes. Other than Arghons, all the other communities of Ladakh have Schedule Tribe status, namely Balti, Beda, Bot-Boto, Brokpa (also known as Drokpa, Dard, Shin), Changpa, Garra, Mon and Purigpa. However, three communities, i.e. Mon, Gara and Beda can claim either Schedule Tribe or Schedule Caste status. The Boto and Balti community can claim only Schedule Tribe status. Post the 1989 violence and LBAs social boycott of Muslims, when the boycott was lifted in 1993, there were serious negotiations for the creation of a local council with legislative and fiscal powers that would give Leh district a certain degree of independence from the State Government. Prolonged negotiations with the Centre bore fruit with the creation and inauguration of the Leh Autonomous Hill Development Council in 1995. In principle this gave the people of Leh district a degree of control over their own affairs that they have not enjoyed since the Dogra conquest in 1834.

The political unease of the 1980s is still deeply embedded in the minds of the Ladakhis. Talks of Ladakhi dissatisfaction with the inefficient and sectarian rule by the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir are very much alive. Since the late 1990s these tensions have also culminated in the demand for Union Territory status or direct rule from Delhi. This historical struggle was led by a vibrant local movement under the banner of the Ladakh Union Territory Front (LUTF), a consortium of political parties formed in 2002 to articulate the demand for a Union Territory status for Ladakh. The LUTF swept the LAHDC, Leh council elections held in 2005 and dominated the council for five years. However, the demand for Union Territory status still remains an elusive goal for the populace. A number of reasons are given by local leaders about the inability to attain Union Territory status for Ladakh from the Indian State. One reason is the internal unrest between the Buddhist and Muslim populace inhabiting the area that has sometimes led to misunderstanding and conflict, as observed in the past. According to politically conscious locals that the larger reason was more to do with shifting framework of political alignments taking place in New Delhi (the seat of the Indian Parliament) and political reconfiguration within the region vis-a-vis Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries with a high Muslim population. The Indian State, many believe does not want to disturb the current political arrangement with the Kashmir dominated Jammu and Kashmir government. This reverts back to the instrument of accession signed by Hari Singh who ascended the throne of Kashmir in 1925 and was the reigning monarch in 1947. Interpretation and misinterpretation about the instrument of accession signed by Hari Singh, especially regards a plebiscite to be conducted, this still remains the contentious issue between India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir. Post Hari Singh who on the advice of the Indian government in 1949, yielded the government to Sheikh Abdullah, the leader of a popular political party called the National Conference Party; three wars have been fought between Indian and Pakistan. The status of J&K is still debated and remains a controversial issue to this very moment. Currently, J&K state functions by a special status within the Union of
10

India - as per Article 370 of the Indian Constitution which pertains to spelling out details regarding the kind of relationship that the Indian parliament would and should have with the Jammu and Kashmir government. In India, conservative right wing political parties such as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are demanding the scrapping of Article 370 that gives J&K a special status. Currently the context seems to rest on some kind of an unstable peace and many of the contending sides are locked in a contentious stalemate. Pressure on the state of Jammu and Kashmir is asserted by militant groups seeking independence for Jammu and Kashmir from both, within and out. Reports of foreign militants entering J & K from Pakistan are common news especially post the Soviet Afghan wars. As witnessed, some Ladakhis feel these militant movements are only gaining ground and will become stronger by the day. As radical Islamist groups assert pressure on various states in the region, Jammu and Kashmir would become a target for radicals in the future. More so, with India moving closer to America, a sworn enemy of the Jihadi movements, Kashmir will become a hotbed of violence and will receive much more international attention in years to come. On this count, the analysis of some politically conscious Ladakhis is that these processes taking place in the region have geopolitical significance that is bound to impact them one day or the other. They also hold a strong belief that the Kashmir dominated government is embedded in prejudices against them and it would be foolhardy for them to rest their future with such a government. They argue that they have never identified themselves with Kashmir or Jammu. They have been a separate community with a very different history. It is on this count that it is imperative to keep the demand of a Union Territory alive (with allegiance to the Indian State) for Leh-Ladakh (even though the region of Kargil might not be supportive of such a move). In the opinion of some Ladakhis, this strategic demand for a Union Territory status while being able to project Leh-Ladakh as having an organic historical difference with Kashmir, is also able to open up a possible path for a future that could
11

set them free in case of murky solutions vis-a-vis the Kashmir political imbroglio. It is common perception that if the Indian State comes to a stage where it would have to let go of Kashmir at any point in history, it would bring Ladakh into its territorial domain. Not only because of geostrategic reasons but more so because the people of Ladakh identify themselves closely with India, more than either with China, Pakistan or Kashmir. Many Ladakhis see India as a saviour country that would rescue them in times of danger and conflict and on these grounds their loyalty lies with the Indian State. Currently changes taking place in Leh-Ladakh are stimulated both by external and internal factors. There are external pressures related to much hyped tourist in - flow, the massive presence of the Indian Army, coupled with increased market interests to enter Leh which bring with it an in - flow of migrant workers. Added to this is the Jammu and Kashmir government which exerts pressure hoping to bring Leh into its gambit. Internally, the local populace, who are by no means isolated, have a long history of exposure to the outside world, which in turn brings with it various new ideas and trends. However, with current market forces operating on Leh - Ladakh there are changing dimensions of peoples needs which has led to changing conceptions of community life and living. This is further complicated by the entry of new ideas through modern education and the ever imposing system of governance in the form of the State. All of this has led to an increased demand for migrants who satiate the changing needs of the community, simultaneously creating opportunities for migrant workers. The Migrant phenomena in Leh-Ladakh is not new. Historian Janet Rizvi (1996) has documented the in and out migration (mostly out migration) well enough to establish the same as a factual process in the history of Leh-Ladakh. Within the in-migration process (qualified as those from outside moving into the Leh Ladakh tribal population), there are four types. There are temporary migrants who come for a specific time period only; there are seasonal migrants who come during April and
12

leave by September end, contract and casual migrants who could stay longer depending on the contract period and finally those migrants who are in search of some degree of permanency in residence in Leh-Ladakh. Migrants are engaged in many activities and are employed by governments, contractors, individual contractors, homeowners, hotel and restaurant owners and agricultural land owners. Most migrants come from various regions and states within India. The only region outside the country from where migrants come is Nepal. Those within India include migrants from Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Punjab, Assam and also the Jammu and Kashmir region. Most migrants identify themselves as Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist and there is a higher degree of illiteracy among them. The research brought out the main reasons for migration as the high returns and good pay packages they receive in Leh-Ladakh, the easy availability of work, the good weather during the period of work, good standard of living in Leh, welcoming and friendly nature of the Ladakhi people and degree of familiarity with Leh-Ladakh. They also stated that they are forced into migration because of poor standard of living, lack of opportunities, and even police atrocities at home. For some, the idea of travel and the thrill of adventure was also a reason for seeking opportunities to work in Leh-Ladakh. Most migrants come with experience and expertise on brick and clay making, carpentry, plumbing, laying pipelines, house painting, motor mechanics, driving road rollers, road construction, cooking, operating equipments for roads and house building, stone crushing and lifting, and for some, contracting and supervising work in the region. They provide expert service coupled with manual labour on building construction, plumbing, road construction, automobile repairing, cooking in restaurants, driving and trading. While some migrants among traders have their residential infrastructure in place, others who migrate only during season were
13

always on a look out for temporary shelter with sanitation facilities which is difficult to find. The various monitoring systems within the States jurisdiction that looks into the lives of migrants are separated under various organizations. Other than migrant workers employed with the local populace that is under the jurisdiction of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, there are formal organizations such as the National Thermal Power Corporation, the Hemank project of the Border Roads Organization and the Indian Army. Each of these organizations employ a vast number of migrant workers every year. While these formal organizations have their own monitoring system like registration of names and addresses, defined work roles and rules and an accountability system of salary payment, the migrants working with the local population are yet to have a defined structure that monitors migrants. The LAHDC currently plays a minimal role with the exception of migrants having to get permission from the District Collectors Office to enter restricted areas as demarcated by the Central Government. All of these movements of outside populations into Leh-Ladakh have exerted tremendous pressure on land and limited natural resources. The pace of urbanization taking place driven internally and externally by the change processes of the community and demands made by outside populations has brought external cultural influence and hastened the pace of lifestyle change and development. The local community systems are starting to feel the pressure and age old practices at the local level that once held the community together are starting to disintegrate. This is more visible in the realm of local governance systems and culture. These changes have also brought in crime that has seen an increasing trend over the past few years and with every passing day increased tensions on religious lines are felt. The emerging reality will greatly be defined by tension felt by the community system especially on the lines of culture, identity and religion. While religious tensions have
14

been part of Leh-Ladakhs history they do not seem to decrease or wither away in the future. With the entry of newer forms of governance systems, there will also be felt tensions between the local system relying on trust and faith to a more rational system based on rules and roles. Land and water will also be of great concern with every passing day. Currently tremendous pressure is exerted on land and water and the product of waste generated by urban populations is reaching alarming proportions. There is yet to be put in place proper waste management systems. The market has its eyes set on Leh-Ladakh and the tensions generated from the demand and supply process will have impacts on the local populace. While migrants are yet too small to make any immediate impact, with growing demands for migrant workers, migration will be a reality that would need attention. There are already informal systems in the form of subsidiary non state agencies that operate in Leh. They probably need to be recognized to streamline the flow of migrants. As migration picks up it would also be important to pay attention to administrative systems which includes issuing of work permits that recognise time bound work days for migrants especially from outside the district. While data shows very less migrants wanting to reside permanently in LehLadakh, there is also a growing number that aims to do so.

15

1. Leh-Ladakh: An Overview Leh-Ladakh is situated at an elevation of 2900 to 5900 metres between 32 to 36 degree north latitude and 75 to 80 degree East longitude. It has a temperature ranging from +27 degree Celsius to -30 degree Celsius. It is spread over 82665 square kilometres. Leh town, the capital of Leh District is located at a height of 3500 meter above sea level (Source: http://leh.nic.in/pages/handbook.pdf). Three distinct ranges of Western Himalayas - the Zanskar Range, the Ladakh Range and the Karakoram Range define the geography of this region. It has unique geo-climatic features characterised by challenges posed by the ruggedness of the terrain, cold and prolonged winters, heavy snow and scanty rainfall, inaccessibility and distance. In the past, Leh (Ladakh) was known by different names. Some call it Maryul or low land and others refers to it as Kha- chumpa. The Chinese travellers Fa-Hein and Hiuen Tsang referred to it as Kia-Chha and as Ma-Lo-Pho respectively. While it is difficult to point out exactly who were the first settlers in the region, historians agree that the first Immigrants to this land appears to have been the Brokpas from Dadarstan who inhabited the lower reaches of the Indus Valley, popularly known as Sham. Another wave of Immigrants who came from Karja (Kulu) were the Mons, an Aryan type, who first settled in Gya and spread to Rong, Shayok, Sakti Tangtse and Durbuk, the area extending from Martselang to Khaltse. Gia was the seat of government of the first Mon ruler having been elected by the whole tribe. His kingdom included the villages mentioned above, all of which was inhabited by the Mon people. He was known by the title Gyapacho, derived from his being the master of Gia. (Source: http://leh.nic.in/pages/leh.pdf) While the ancient inhabitants of Ladakh were Dards, an Indo-Aryan race, immigrants of Tibet, Skardo and nearby parts like Purang, Guge came to settle in Ladakh, whose racial characters and cultures were in consonance with early settlers. Buddhism travelled from central India to Tibet via Ladakh leaving its historical imprint in the
16

region. Islamic missionaries also made a peaceful penetration of Islam in the early 16th century. German Moravian Missionaries having cognizance of East India Company also made inroads towards conversion but with little success. (ibid) In ancient times the present Leh district was a part of Greater Ladakh spread from Kailash Mansarover to Swaat (Dardistan). Greater Ladakh was neither under the Domain of Tibet or its influence. Not much information is available about the ancient history of Ladakh. However, reference about the place and its neighbourhood in Arab, Chinese and Mongolian histories gives an idea that in the 7th Century A.D fierce wars were fought by Tibet and China in the Baltistan area of Greater Ladakh in which deserts and barren mountains of Ladakh were turned into battle fields for the warring armies. In the 8th century A.D Arabs also jumped into these wars and changed their sides between China and Tibet. Around this period, the ruler of Kashmir, Laltadita conquered Ladakh. In the 8th Century A.D itself, the Arabs conquered Kashghar and established their control over Central Asia which embraced Islam in the 9th century A.D and thus a buffer state came into being between Tibet and China, terminating the hostilities between the two warring countries. In the 10th century A.D., Skit Lde Nemagon, the ruler of Tibet, invaded Ladakh where there was no central authority. The lands were divided into small principalities and were at war with each other. Nemagon defeated them one by one and established a strong kingdom at Shey, 15 kms from Leh, as its capital. Ladakh was an independent country since the middle of the 10th century. Those days Shey, was the capital of Ladakh and came to be known as Nariskorsoom, a country of three provinces. Two provinces were in present Ladakh, while the third was in present western Tibet. The area of western Tibet slipped away from the kingdom but was reunited in 16th Century A.D. by the famous Ladakhi ruler Sengge Namgyal. King Singge Namgyal consolidated the Ladakhi Empire into a strong kingdom. He was not only a strong monarch but a statesman, a diplomat and a builder. He built the historic
17

9- storied Leh palace and made the other neighbouring countries envy of such an elegant palace. He also promoted horse polo in Ladakh. (ibid) In the post-partition scenario, Pakistan and China illegally occupied 78,114 sq. km and 37,555 sq.km of the state, respectively while the remaining part of the state acceded to India. Pakistan also illegally gifted 5180 sq.kms of this area to China. Ladakh, comprising the areas of present Leh and Kargil districts, became one of the seven districts of the State. In 1979 when the reorganization of the districts was carried out, the Ladakh district was divided into two full fledged district of Leh and Kargil. (ibid) Map 1: District Leh-Ladakh

Source: http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/jammuandkashmir/leh-ladakh-map.html

18

Leh, with an area of 45110 sq. kms makes it largest district in the country. It is one of the coldest and most elevated regions of the world with an altitude ranging from 2900 to 5900 meters. The district is located in the Eastern portion of Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir State, bordered by Chinese sinking in the north, Tibet in the East and the Lahul Spiti area of Himachal Pradesh in the south, along with the other district of the Ladakh region of Kargil. The district Leh forms the northern tip of the Indian sub continent. The whole of the district is mountainous with three parallel ranges of the Himalayas, the Zanskar, the Ladakh and the Karakoram ranges. It is between these ranges that the Shayok, Indus and Zanskar rivers flow, most of the population lives in the valleys of these rivers. The District experiences extremely cold climate. Due to its location and high altitude, the entire block remains cool throughout the year. The winters are always severe and make the region inaccessible, as road link from Srinagar as well as Himachal Pradesh remains closed due to closure of Zojila and Rohtang Passes because of heavy snowfall. Besides, the temperature falls as low as (-30) degree Celsius at several places. The rainfall is scanty and negligible. This attributes towards making the district a cold desert. However, on an average, 225 days annually remain sunny in the district. Approximately 23.30 % population is semi urban and remaining 76.17% is rural. The biggest ethnic group is Buddhist having (81.18%) of population following Muslim (15.32%) and Hindus (2.99%). The main working force account for 43.55% to the total population, where marginal workers account for 6.84 and Non- workers 50.10 %. The main occupation engaging the working force is cultivation, agriculture labour, household industry and other works. Literacy level has picked up and is now 65.34% (Males 75.60% and female 52.74%). Sex ratio is 823 females to 1000 Males. (Census 2001)

19

Leh district Leh is one of the two districts of Ladakh region (Leh and Kargil) of Jammu & Kashmir state. Bordering Tibet in the east, Xinjang in the north, Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in the west and Kargil/Zanskar in the south/ southwest all inhabited villages lie between 2900 to 5900 meters above sea level. Leh district is broadly Picture 1: A Village in Ladakh

(Picture Source From Gyurja MLP 2010- Leh District) divided into four distinct regions- the eastern plateau of Changtang, the upper part of Indus Valley (known as Stod), the lower Ladakh along the Indus (called as Sham) and Nubra Valley of Shayok and Siachen rivers (in between Karakoram and Ladakh Range). The geo-climatic features of theses highlands have also required the Ladakhi society to develop an equally unique culture and lifestyle to adapt to the difficult environment. Majority of people in Leh district (around 77% as per 2001 census) live in villages and depend primarily on agriculture and livestock rearing. Barley and wheat are the traditional crops while tree plantation, vegetables (with new varieties being
20

introduced), alfa alfa and dairy (jersey breed) have gained ground in the past few decades. However, percentage contribution of land based activities to the household economy has gradually declined as government service (including the army), labour work, tourism (both domestic and international) and business are growing as important means of livelihood. The highlands of Changthang is famous for its Pashmina goats and seminomadic lifestyle, the Sham region in the southwest and the Turtuk belt in Nubra are popular for their apricots while Stod region of the Indus belt (Chuchot and Leh) and the Siachen belt of Nubra are emerging as focal points for processing seabuckthorn owing to their Tsestalulu reserves. However with the exception of jersey cows, the number of livestock including Pashmina goats is gradually declining. Apricot is a popular product of the region but its benefits are still confined to some parts of Sham and Turtuk while seabuckthorns potentials are yet to be fully realized in terms of its contributions to the rural economy. Under New Economy, tourism has grown significantly. However, its benefits are still limited to specific geographical areas. Development plans and programs of sectoral agencies under the District Plan and various Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSSs) are making a significant impact on rural areas and people, particularly through improvements in physical infrastructures, rural connectivity and basic services like education, health care, drinking water, etc. Similarly, services provided by sectors concerning Land Based Economy, i.e., Agriculture, Horticulture, Animal Husbandry, Cooperative, Forest etc. have expanded in scope as well as outreach. The district consists of nine blocks i.e Leh, Khaltse, Kharu, Nyoma Durbuk and Diskit, Panamic, Saspol, Chunchot. Leh is the district Headquarter. (Source: Gyurja MLP 2010- Leh District) Leh district has Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, a democratically elected body responsible for leading the development process in the district. LAHDC
21

Leh emerged on the scene in 1996 as an outcome of LAHDC Act (1995) which came into force in response to the long standing demand of the people of Ladakh region for decentralised governance structures. LAHDC has 26 elected and 4 nominated councillors and is headed by a Chief Executive Councillor (with the rank of cabinet Minister) and 4 Executive Councillors who are elected by the General council for a term of 5 years. (Source: http://leh.nic.in/pages/leh.pdf) At the village the governance structure is around a local governance system called Halqa Panchayat consisting of all residents of the village. Currently there are 93 Halqa Panchayats spread over the nine blocks. (Source: Gyurja MLP 2010- Leh District). Given below is a concise description of the 9 blocks which together form the Ladakh district. Leh Block Leh is the oldest block of the district, established in the year 1954. Leh block consists of eleven Halqa Panchayats (HP) plus Leh municipal area, which lies on both sides of Indus River (with part of it extending into the valley popularly known as the Hemis National Park on the south of Indus and into the Ladakh Range). Leh town, a municipal area is the Block and District headquarters, host most office establishments and facilities. Most villages in Leh block are almost identical, with agriculture as the mainstay of economy yet with significant number of people in government and other services as well as in business. The Halqa Panchayats (HP) is reasonably well provided with roads, phone networks and other facilities and has a better access to the town (and its amenities). A few exceptions do exist. First, Skyu Markha (Rumbak HP) consisting of Skyu, Kaya, Markha, Rumbak, Hanker, Chilling, Sumdho and a few other hamlets. A small population is spread out in vast expanses of mountains and narrow valleys with extremely harsh weather conditions and difficulty of access, to the extent that there are no roads beyond Chilling and Rumbak. The second exception is the HP of Choglamsar B, which is a semi-urban settlement of people (from villages of Leh district) without any cultivatable land. Third, Choglamsar A and Spituk (with its hamlets) depend on the Indus for irrigation whereas other villages have their own glaciers. Villages like Spituk,
22

Phyang, Basgo and Likir are more popular among pilgrims as well as tourists as there have monasteries and important sites of religious and historical significance. Map 2: Leh Block

Source: Gyurja MLP 2010- Leh District Choglamsar has the famous site of Jivatsal dedicated to the Dalai Lama (this is where he stays and delivers his sermons during his visit to Ladakh). Adjacent to this site is the Tibetan settlement as well. Choglamsar has also a popular picnic spot. SkyuMarkha valley is a popular destination for trekkers and mountaineers and this is gradually bringing changes in the economy of the area as well. The block also has a small settlement called Kharnakling which is situated 15 km from Leh town and is located in Choglamsar. The settlement is significant because the residents are Changpas who have recently migrated to Leh. The population in Kharnakling is approximately 125 families in total amongst which 62 families are from Changpa Kharnak. The population constitutes of migrant populations from different places of Changtang region. Majority people in Kharnakling are from the Kharnak community while many others from Changtang. In one part the Tibetan refugee stays and another migrant population resides. Most of the residents are involved in daily wage, government jobs, scripture reading, small business, etc. Leh block which falls under

23

Stod region has five councillors that represent the block to the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council. Kharu The Block Kharu is located on the South-East of Leh District and was established in the year 2000. It consists of 7 Halqa Panchayats. i.e., Sakti Daknak, Sakti Takkar, Chemray (including Kharu), Martselang (including Shang, Hemis and Changa), Gya (including Sasoma, Rumtse, Miru and Upshi) and Shara (including Sharnos and Phuktse). The Block has a total strength of 1557 households with 7320 people (out of which 3597 are males and 3727 female, hence a ratio of 49: 51). Map 3: Kharu Block

Source : Gyurja MLP 2010- Leh District The Block stretches from the base of Changla (on the way to Durbuk) and Warila in the north to the base of Taglangla (on LehManali road) in the south and along the narrow belt along Indus before Liktse (Nyoma block) in the east and Kharu in the south (which is the capital of the Block). Kharu which also falls within the Stod region has two councillors that are represented in the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council.

24

Chuchot Chuchot is one of the three new administrative blocks constituted in 2006 (the other two are Saspol and Panamic blocks). It was earlier part of Leh block. Chuchot Shamma, the middle part of Chuchot village is the Headquarter of this block. It is the second largest block (with 15 Halqa Panchayats) after Khaltse. Map 4: Chuchot Block

Source : Gyurja MLP 2010- Leh District This block lies on the two sides of Indus River and is closer to Leh town. Out of 15 HPs, 6 lie in the 3 parts of Chuchot village (Chuchot Gongma, Chuchot Shamma and Chuchot Yokma together constituting the largest village in the Leh district). The other villages are Stok, Matho, Stakmo, Shey, Thiksey and Ranbirpur. Chuchot which falls in the Stod region has three representative councillors in the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council. Nyoma The Block Nyoma located on the south-east of Leh District was established in the year 1966. Nyoma, the main part of the highlands of Changthang region of Leh district and a block comprising of 13 Halqa Panchayats, is situated in the southeast direction, bordering Tibet Autonomous Region in the east, Durbuk block in the north, Kharu block in the west and Himachal Pradesh in the south. Nyoma is the main headquarter of Nyoma block and Changthang sub-division.
25

Map 5: Nyoma Block

Source: Gyurja MLP 2010- Leh District Along with Durbuk block, Nyoma is located at higher elevation than the rest of Leh district and is well known for its pastures and meadows, flora and fauna, its lakes, the nomadic lifestyle and the famous Pashmina goats and yaks as well as its nesting grounds for the Black Necked Crane. Nyoma block which falls under the Changtang range has three councillors that represent its needs in the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council Durbuk The Block Durbuk located on the East of Leh District was established in the year 1977. Situated in the northeast of Leh district, Durbuk is the northern part of the Changthang region and one of 9 blocks of the district. It has 7 Halqa Panchayats, including Tangtse (118km from Leh) which is the Block Headquarter. Map 6: Durbuk Block

Source : Gyurja MLP 2010- Leh District

26

Durbuk is accessible from Leh via Changla Pass (17850 ft.) as well as through Tsaga from Nyoma block. Pangong Lake, Shachukul monastery, the legendary War Memorials of Chushul, the nesting place of Black Necked Cranes, the diverse and rich flora and fauna around Pangong, the semi nomadic life of the people, the highland pastures and the Pashmina goat are some important features of Durbuk. It has 906 households with 4876 people spread out in 20 villages/hamlets. Durbuk which falls in the Changtang region has two councillors in the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council. Khaltse The Block Khaltse is located on the North-west of the district and was established in the year 1975. Khaltse is one of the 9 blocks of Leh district. It is situated in the southwest of the district bordering Kargil and Zanskar. It consists of around 40 villages/hamlets. Saspol block (comprising of 4 HPs, i.e., Saspol, Gera Mangyu, Hemis Shukpachan and Alchi) was carved out of Khaltse (in 2006) to constitute a new block. Despite this, Khaltse continues to be the largest block of Leh district in terms of number of Halqa Panchayats (16 in number). Located at a lower altitude it enjoys a more temperate climate suited to agricultural activities. As such, villages along the Indus belt get two crops in the year. Trans-Singela region (bordering Zanskar in Kargil), however, is located at higher reaches and is one of the most difficult terrains in the district with no motorable road beyond Photoksar. Indus River enters Khaltse block at Nurla, passes through Skurbuchan belt and moves into Kargil after Dah Biama. The area along the Indus is the horticulture belt of Leh district with apricot, apple and walnut as important fruits grown. Fotula and Namkila (along the Leh- Kargil Highway), Sirsirla and Singey-la (on the way to Padum via Lingshed) are important passes.

27

Map 7: Khaltse Block

Source : Gyurja MLP 2010- Leh District Khaltse village, the block headquarter, is an important centre as well as a place of historical importance. Temisgam and Wanlas castles and Lamayurus monastery are important places of historical and religious significance. An interesting feature of Khaltse block is the Aryan community of Dah, Biama and Hanu who continue to maintain their distinct ethnic and cultural identity. Khaltse which falls under the Sham region has five councillor seats in the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council. Saspol Saspol was constituted as a block in the year 2006. Saspol block consists of 4 HPs, i.e., Saspol (including Saspotse), Alchi, Gera Mangyu (including Tar, Hipti and Ulley Tokpo) and Hemis Shukpachan (including Yangthang, Ulley and Rizong). Map 8: Saspol Block

Source : Gyurja MLP 2010- Leh District

28

The Block was earlier a part of Khaltse Block. Saspol, Alchi, Gera, Ulley Tokpo and Hipti are located along the bank of Indus River while other villages are higher up in the valleys. Saspol which falls in the Sham region has one Councillor seat in the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council Diskit Located in the north of Leh, Diskit is one of 9 administrative blocks of Leh district. Diskit block (with 14 Hps) and Panamic block (with 6 HPs) together constitute the Nubra Sub-Division, one of the most beautiful places in Ladakh. Earlier Diskit was part of The Block Nubra established in 1966 and is located on the North- East of the District. Diskit borders with Durbuk in the east, Panamic Block in the north, POK in the west and Leh in the south (with the world famous Khardongla Pass at above 18000 ft., in between). Diskit headquarter is about 118km from Leh town. Digar belt is accessible in summer through Warila (from Kharu), Digarla (from Sabu) and from Durbuk Block as well. Most Halqa Panchayats of Diskit block are inhabited along the banks of Shayok River and enjoy a more temperate climate compared to other parts of Ladakh (except Sham). HPs like Khardong, Digar, Waris Fastan and certain villages like Largyab and Patsathang (of Tertsey HP), Hundar Dok (of Partapur HP) are located at higher altitudes (with variations in the degree of accessibility and in terms of livelihoods). The lower end of Shayok valley, bordering POK has villages inhabited by Balti Muslims. Turtuk and Takshi villages became part of India in 1971. Map 9: Diskit Block

Source : Gyurja MLP 2010- Leh District

29

Some important features of Diskit block (and Nubra Sub-Division) are the fertility of its soil, the Tsestalulu (seabuckthron) forests along the river, the famous monastery of Diskit, sand dunes and double-hump camels of Hundar, the unpredictability of Shayok River, the hospitality of its people and the difficulty of crossing Khardongla. Diskit falling under the Nubra region has three councillor seats in Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council Panamic Panamic Block was carved out of the erstwhile Nubra block of Nubra sub-division in 2008 and is a cluster of 6 Halqa Panchayats i.e., Kobet, Kyagar, Khimi, Panamic, Sumoor and Chamshen/Charasa. It is known as the Siachen belt as all its villages and hamlets are scattered on the two sides of Siachen River which flows from the well known Siachen Glaciers in the north to join Shayok River before Diskit. In comparison to the Shayok valley, the Siachen belt is a wider valley stretching over a length of approximately 70km from Chamshen/Charasa to the base of Siachen Glaciers and a width of 4 to 6km. Panamic, the headquarter of the newly constituted Block is at a distance of 65km from Diskit and about 150km from Leh via Khardongla Pass (18380ft), accessed through Koyak Bridge (after Khalsar). Panamic belt is known for its beautiful landscape, the turbulent Siachen River, the fertile soil, the seabuckthorn forests along the river, the hot springs of Panamic, various important pilgrimage sites (like the Gonbo, Intsa Gonpa, Loban Tso), various historical places like palaces and monasteries including the famous Samstanling Gonpa at Sumoor (belonging to the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism). Map 10: Panamic Block

Source : Gyurja MLP 2010- Leh District

30

Panamic belt is also known for its legacy of having been an important stop for the caravans during the time of trade on the Silk Route with Yarkand and other towns of Xinjang through the Saser Mountains. Panamic which falls under the Nubra region has two councillor seats in Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council. Leh - Ladakh Declared a Tribal District The nine Community Development Blocks as stated above are subsumed under three Tehsils namely Leh, Sumoor and Khaltse with Leh as the only township in the district and its headquarter. The whole district has been declared as a tribal district. The schedule tribe population in the district stands at 96,174 persons, 49609 male and 46566 female as per the 2001 census which constitutes 82.03% of the population in the district. (Source: http://leh.nic.in/pages/leh.pdf) Table 1.1 Leh District at a Glance
Leh District at a Glance: (2008-09) Relevant data on Leh District (Source: Statistical Handbook on Leh District) Magnitude Leh J&K State Description Year of Reference District No. of inhabited villages 2001 112 6417 No. of Towns 2001 1 75 No. of People 2001 117,232 101,43,70 0 No. of Males 2001 64,306 5360926 No. of Females 2001 52,926 4782774 Sex Ratio 2001 823 941 Decadal variation in population 2001 +27032 +2339800 Percentage decadal variation 2001 31.02 29.98 Percentage urban population 2001 24.43 24.81 Density of population (Per Sq. Kms) 2001 3 100 No. of main workers 2001 38776 2608668 No. of marginal workers 2001 19349 1145149 No. of non workers 2001 59107 6389885 No. of literates 2001 68278 4807286 Literacy rate 2001 65.30 55.52 Per capita income 200203 Rs. 17555 17174 No. of disabled people 200203 352 13795 Percentage disabled people 200203 0.51 0.23 No. of households 2001 24147 1568519 Household size 2001 4.9 6.5 Villages electrified 200809 112 6152 31

Table 1.2 Demographic Profile of Leh Districts (Block wise)

Block Khaltse Saspol Total Sham %/ Avg. Diskit Panamic Total Nubra %/ Avg. Kharu Leh Chhushot Total Stod %/ Avg. Durbuk Nyoma Total Changthan g % / Avg. Total District Percentag e / Avg. Leh Town* Total District Population M F 7153 6812 1860 9013 51% 6681 2538 9219 51.6 % 3597 7298 7186 1808 1 50.7 % 2444 3191 5635 48.3 % 4194 8 50.4 1777 2 5972 0 1807 8619 49% 6519 2461 8980 49.4 % 3723 7064 6800 1758 7 49.4 % 2432 3598 6030 51.7 % 4121 6 49.6 1086 7 5208 3 Age Distribution (years) 0-5 6-12 13-17 1320 1712 1490 362 (E) 1682 9.5% 1589 431 2020 11% 633 1180 1137 2950 8% 487 594 1081 9% 7733 9 2578(E ) 10311 447 (E) 2159 12.2% 1811 504 2315 12.7% 752 1518 1520 3790 11% 576 719 1295 11% 9559 11 3150(E ) 12709 392 (E) 1882 10.6% 1420 524 1944 10.6% 628 1277 1273 3178 9% 486 655 1141 10% 8145 10 2864(E ) 11009

Total 13965 3667 17632 5.8 /HH 13200 4999 18199 5.2/H H 7320 14362 13986 35668 4.8/H H` 4876 6789 11665 4.3/ HH 83164 5/HH 28639 11180 3

18-30 3678 964 (E) 4642 26.3% 3436 1358 4794 26.3% 1943 3609 3640 9192 26% 1309 1990 3299 28% 21927 26 7446(E ) 29373

31-45 2803 733 (E) 3536 20% 2586 1074 3660 20.1% 1573 3480 3337 8390 23% 961 1444 2405 21% 17991 22 6300(E ) 24291

46-60 1818 476 (E) 2294 13% 1545 580 2125 11.6% 1074 2048 2083 5205 15% 594 838 1432 12% 11056 13 3723(E ) 14779

60+ 1144 293 (E) 1437 8% 813 528 1341 7.3% 717 1250 996 2963 8% 463 549 1012 9% 6753 9 2578(E ) 9331

Note: E= Estimate * Village Amenity directory: 2008 09 (Census 2001 figures +30% decadal growth2001-10)

32

2. The Migrant Labour Phenomena in Leh-Ladakh: Stating the Concept and the Frame The influx of migrant labourers into Leh-Ladakh is not a new phenomenon. It existed prior to the integration of Ladakh into the Indian Union. Historical accounts of migrant labourers streaming into the region to engage in various tasks have been recorded by various historians (Norberg Hodge 1991, Rizvi 1996;). Skills such as woodwork and carpentry, painting, crafting of musical instruments and ornaments; accounted to have been sought by the local Ladakhi community were carried out by people from various places like Nepal and Kashmir, especially the Doda region. Members of the Mon community were also such migrants till they got assimilated into the local populace. The local King of the Ladakhi community brought individuals with specific skills. Considered crucial to the development of any ecologically and culturally embedded community is the moving in of outside populations. In the context of communities in Leh - Ladakh, human progression coupled with external influence has brought tremendous change to the traditional socio - economic system and physical habitat. This has furthered dynamic change in lifestyle, coterminous with rapid and constant redefinition of the communitys fundamental needs and wants. This change in the basic epistemic core of the community system gives rise to new desires, both real and imagined, of the local populace. In such a dynamic reality, gaps emerge within the existing skill set of the community as the transition demands new skill and ability - that which the community does not yet possess. In the case of Leh Ladakh, migrants who have the required expertise to carry forth the task at hand, fill this lacuna. Over a period of time, these migrants have become an important component in the lives of the local community, maintaining an essential equilibrium within the system.

33

In order to capture this dynamic reality within the context of Leh-Ladakh, a frame that constitutes objects of inquiry such as understanding the socio-economic reality of migrants, demographic profiling of migrants, identification of the source of migration and the emergence of the need to migrate, activities carried forth by the migrant population, the needs both material and social of migrants in Leh-Ladakh and the prevailing state system to anchor the migrant phenomena was important. This research is an initial and preliminary survey of the phenomena. At the end, presented data would be analysed within two parameters (1) suggestions on alternative processes towards skill transfer from migrants to the local community and (2) laying down a responsive system leading to increased quality of life of the migrant labour population. Both of these objectives are articulated through an ontological map which has tried to extract the reality and the flow of the dynamic process. Picture 2: A Panoramic View of Leh town

34

3. Subjective Methodological Considerations Coming from a tribal community myself, I have always been fascinated by the realities of other tribal groups in India, especially those inhabiting islands and mountainous regions in remote areas. I have had a number of opportunities to travel and engage with various tribal groups across India. When the Tsunami hit the Andaman and Nicobar Island on December 26th 2004, I was part of a team of professionals who visited the island to provide immediate relief. I stayed for 25 days at the Katchal Islands which was inhabited by the Nicobari tribe. Following this I had the opportunity to travel the Chottanagpur region (Jharkhand and Odisha) where together with a few colleagues we conducted an extensive research study on local people's participation in electoral politics. I have also had opportunities to travel to tribal areas across the eight North Eastern states of India inhabited by nearly 250 distinct tribal groups. I have also engaged with tribal communities in Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and other states in India. In the year 2008 I was given an opportunity by a senior colleague to visit Ladakh. As part of the visit which was driven more by personal interest rather than professional, I proposed to my senior colleague if I could explore a research issue. Together we decided to explore the issue of migration and the impact it has on Ladakh. I had approximately four weeks in Ladakh, so we decided that rather than doing a comprehensive survey I would limit myself to exploring and profiling issues of migrants with a focus on the impact it has on the tribal communities in Leh-Ladakh. Within the limited time available, I set out working on the intricacies of the survey that would at most qualify as a rapid exploratory appraisal without much scientific base considering the fact that we neither have any baseline data to work on. This pertains to a more scientific sampling method and the time constraints. With these considerations in mind I set out to explore the subject modifying my aims and objectives within the constraints I was working in. We began by defining the
35

overarching aim of the study as; to understand the dynamics, pattern, socio-economic status of the migrant population, its impact on the local populace as perceived by them and the possible changes brought about by the migration process. The research restricted the objectives to understanding (i) the socio-economic reality of migrants, (ii)identifying the source of migration and the emergence of their need to migrate, (iii)finding out the activities carried forth by the migrant population, (iv) know the material and social needs of migrants in Ladakh and (v) perceived impact of migration on the tribal communities. For the purpose of the rapid assessment survey I left for Ladakh through Srinagar by road in the month of May when the Srinagar - Leh highway was just opening. Once in Leh, like all visitors I need two days to recuperate and acclimatise myself to the high altitude. During this time I read literature on Ladakh made available to me by colleagues - the historical turmoil, the communities inhabiting the place and the emerging realities in the place. I relied heavily on documents and literature made available by the International Association for Ladakh Studies, writings of John Bray, Helena Norberg Hodge and Janet Rizvi and renowned scholar Tashi Rabygas. I also read a number of official documents published by LAHDC on various subjects. I visited LEDEK and spent some time in their library and enquired about SECMOL although I did not get the opportunity to visit the SECMOL campus. I visited the government library in Leh town and spent some time browsing available documents and books. I also had a number of short but insightful discussions with my Ladakhi friends. During my discussions with locals I was told of some very significant incidents related to migrant workers. Given ahead in boxes are instances cited during these discussions which gave me insights into the subject I was trying to understand and unravel. They are local conceptions of the topic at hand.

36

In 1991 there was an epidemic of cholera in central Leh Shey, Thiksey, Chushul etc. Cholera is not a common disease in this part of the country. The strains of cholera came from migrant labourers employed by the Border Roads Organization in road works that were going on in the upper parts of Leh. The migrants were put up near the streams. They were unknowingly polluting the water in the course of their daily chores, without realizing that the local population was using the water for drinking purposes downstream. For centuries, the local population considered such streams as sources of pure water and used to drink water from the streams without any treatment. As the weather then was favourably warm the virus proliferated, resulting in an epidemic in areas that used the polluted water for drinking. There was a prevailing view at that time among many locals that the migrant labourers acted as a source of disease not known to this region.

Migrant labourers are also the main reason for proliferation of tobacco products, which the local population is not generally used to. The contractors who employ labourers get provisions from local grocery stores. As most of the migrant labourers use one or the other tobacco product, the contractors encourage the provision store keepers to stock such products. Earlier, because such products were not available in the local stores the local youth were not using it. Now that it is easily available, the local youth are also taking to it.

Poverty, urbanization and war-like situations are commonly considered conducive for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV-AIDS. In Leh there are pockets where conditions are almost similar. Most migrants are in the sexually active age group of 20-35. There have been instances in areas like Upshi, where the local poor and some Nepali migrants have resorted to prostitution for easy money. This is an area through which the National Highway passes and truck drivers too look for easy sex.

37

There are likely pressures especially on food reserves and medical facilities due to the influx of migrant labour. This happens especially when the migrants do not return during winter. The capacity of local market to store food-reserves is limited and their stocks are mainly keeping in mind the needs of the local population. Once the region gets landlocked in winter, fresh stocks are not received. Under such circumstances, when there are an unexpected number of migrants who chose to stay back, food reserves are depleted faster. Similarly, the only government hospital in Leh which has limited inpatient facilities to cater to the restricted local population is also likely to be under pressure from the migrants.

In 1999, Pakistan illegally occupied strategic locations in Kargil due to which the Srinagar - Leh highway which came under their gunfire was closed for traffic. It was early June and snowing on hill tops was common. For strategic reasons, the Indian Army cleared the snow on Manali - Leh highway, which was the only road link to the region, opening it also for civil traffic. On that road one truck stranded blocking the way, due to which vehicular traffic came to a complete halt. Trucks carrying hundreds of migrant labourers were also among the numerous vehicles that were caught in the blockade, which continued for more than two weeks. Each such truck had more than 60 labourers without drinker water, provisions for food and warm clothes. There were a few school teachers also in some of the stranded vehicles. Ironically, realizing the possibility that the blockade would take long to open, they traveled about 15 kms on foot to the opposite side where they got vehicles to reach their destinations safely. The labourers who were neither prepared nor guided remained in the stranded vehicles and about ten of them died due to starvation and harsh weather conditions. The people who were bringing these labourers do not store enough ration for such eventualities on mountain roads nor do they orient the migrants unfamiliar to the terrain properly. While the soldiers who sacrificed their lives in the Kargil war were adequately compensated and their families honoured, these unfortunate labourers who were also victims of the war died unsung and unheard.

From a number of discussions with the local tribal community I felt the existence of some degree of tension that has emanated over time with migrant workers mostly related to very specific incidents which in the words of my respondents is still very
38

fresh in the minds of locals. I knew at that moment that the subject I was about to broach was not as simple as I thought it would be. There were deep socio - political rifts between the local tribal community and the migrant workers which at this point in time lie dormant to a great degree. I began sharpening my questionnaire and as I was in the process of finalising the questionnaire my team which constituted of Professor J.Manechery and two local research Assistants felt it was important to capture the version and realities as experienced by migrant workers as an initial strategy to get a glimpse into their lives. For this we conducted a short interview with a married Nepali couple.
The couple identified themselves as belonging to the Rai Hindu caste hailing from Pkhudungga in Nepal. The husband was aged 30 and wife, 28. They had two children. We began by asking them what prompted them to come to Leh which is quite a distance from Nepal. They stated that there was tremendous political turmoil related to people's demand for a democracy free from the direct rule of the King of Nepal. There was also lack of suitable employment at their native place and even though jobs are available, wages are low as compared to wage rates Leh. While there is plenty of land to cultivate and their parents were working on the land, they stated that they had come specifically to earn money and any saving would be sent back home to help their families. They stated that they sent home approximately Rs. 12,000 a year. This would help meet ends at home where monthly expenditure exceeds monthly income. Further, they stated that their monthly income per day before coming to Leh was 100 Nepali Rupees and since coming to Leh they earned about 150 Indian rupees per day, engaging in unskilled jobs. If they worked Saturday and Sunday as well, the total amount earned per month would amount to approximately Rs. 4500. They added that with two school going children, post all expenditures they save about 1500 to 2000 Indian rupees per month. They made a point that it is not the reason of distance as Nepal and ladakh are far from each other and it is extremely difficult to travel into ladakh because of the terrain. It is not because of any poor standard of living at home but more so because there were already a number of relatives settled and working in the district which includes the Sham region, Nubra region and Leh town. They had also made initial visits and have gradually made good contacts. They have stayed in 39

Ladakh since four tears and plan to extend their stay for another year. In Ladakh they felt welcomed and stated that Ladakhis are warm and caring people. They are also treated well by Ladakhi contractors who are very honest and trust worthy in their dealings. However they stated they are not very sure about other contractors. In Ladakh they are paid reasonably well and the Ladakhi community who they stated were kind hearted people provide three meals and tea with daily wages. They felt less exploited as labourers and it is easy for them to find work. A stable income and the peace they enjoy in Ladakh makes them feel very secure. They also stated that the weather suited them well. As labourers they are in constant search to migrate to places where there is availability of work that pays well plus the added bonus of seeing, living and experiencing new destinations. They enjoy meeting new people and communicating with them. While earlier they had problems in communicating in the local language, they have over time learnt a few local words and can now converse with. Since there are a few migrants from Nepal in Leh, they also have their own community to turn to and some of them they are all under a single contractor. While stating that Ladakh is a nice place to settle down, they said that they are not authorised to do so and do not plan to stay too long. However, the place allows them to send their children to Government schools and facilities like the mid - day meal scheme for children are availed free of cost.

The initial questionnaire that was formulated was refined after newer insights into the complexity of the issue. As I felt more confident that the reformulated questionnaire was able to unravel specificities about the lives of migrants, I began to pilot test the same with five migrants who I got introduced through local people residing in Skampari which is in Leh Town. The data received from these five piloted samples had high degree of validity and reliability. The next phase was challenging as one needed to decide on some form of a sampling methodology. I knew that there were a sizable number of skilled and unskilled migrant workers. However, I decided to focus on those migrants who work seasonally and earn on a daily basis. With no prior baseline data available and no migration data specific to migrant workers earning wages on a daily basis, I was left
40

to reformulate the design of my survey study to explore the subject rather than provide any detailed quantified data about the same. In the initial week I scouted various places in Leh town where migrants either lived (like Skampari) or congregated (like near the Polo grounds of Leh). There are a sizable number of daily wage workers who congregate near the polo grounds early morning waiting for local contractors to hire them for the day or for the period of work. I also visited the Leh bus stand and saw a few migrant workers moving around. With this initial exposure as a team we agreed that rather than follow a particular sampling method we would spend time talking to as many migrant workers who were willing to talk to us in these specific areas. This would be a starting point. The target we kept for ourselves was 200 samples. In the second week of my stay we earnestly began administering the questionnaire focussing on the three identified areas. Many of the migrant workers were hesitant to talk to us and it was quite difficult to get any concrete data, but with time we kept on with our task. In the third week we had touched nearly hundred respondents and were finding it difficult to get more. We decided to move out of Leh town and look for migrants in the periphery of Leh town. We also visited other government recognised institutions that hired migrants for their work such as the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), The Border Roads Organization (BRO) and we also submitted a letter to the Head quarters of the Indian Army. We received no response from the Indian Army in spite of meeting officials personally. The BRO said that the request will be processed and would take time. NTPC allowed me to talk to some of their workers on the project site. However, there were very few interviews that I could conduct as most of the workers were engaged with their tasks.
41

By the last week of the data collection process we were still far short of the 200 sample size that we had aimed to reach. As a team we decided to move outside Leh and look for migrant workers in Kharu Block especially in Sakti . We had heard that there were a number of migrants working on a road project there. One of our research assistants spent few days collecting data from migrants in Sakti and by the end of the week we were able to reach the 200 sample target. The sample is in no way representative of the realities of the total migrant population. I based this rapid assessment only as an exploration of the subject and nothing more. The data presented in this book is mostly cross tabulated and only point out certain facts. They do not in any way claim to establish anything more than the prevalence of the phenomena and the intricate processes involved. Further, I have restricted myself to presenting the bare minimum and have restrained from any in-depth analysis of the situation; let alone contributing any propositions to the large theoretical resource already available within migration studies.

42

4. The Reality of Numbers Data available from the Census (2001) about the population inhabiting the Leh-Ladakh district stands at 117232. As in any census data, the number of the moving migrant population is not available. To construct such data, various records available with the government was collected and tabulated. However the possibility of not arriving at the exact number looms large as the available data represents only those captured and registered with the various agencies of the state. Three agencies were identified which has some records of the migrant population. They are the Labour Commissioners Office, the local police station in Leh, Hemank Project (GREF) of Border Roads Organization. Table 1.3 Estimate of registered migrants within specific organizations
Sl.No. 1 Organization Asst Labour Commissioner s Office Year(town) 2005 (Nubra & Nyoma) 2006(Nubra & Nyoma) 2007(Nubra & Nyoma) 2008 (Leh Town) 2008 Number 9923 4095 3327 3000 Not available 1200 Not Available Not Available

2 3 4

Police Station Hemank Project Army Total

The current need of the Border Roads Organization (BRO) Hemank project is 12000 labourers. Yet the availability is much less as labourers are not available. The current strength stands at 1200 only and it is estimated that the BRO would need a minimum of 3000 labourers in order to facilitate a quick response to work demands. Those that sought permission from the Asst. Labour Commissioners office in the year 2005 stands at 9923, 4095 in 2006 and 3327 in 2007. Data from the Army is not available and has not been attained till date.

43

Motivation for migrating to Leh Ladakh In order to understand key reasons that motivate individuals to take on a migrant status, it was considered important to capture both the qualitative reasons and an overall quantification of the same. The reality of quantity of qualitative aspects reflects motive, intent, drive and purpose. Table 2.1 represents the distribution of respondents reasons to migrate to Leh District. All respondents were asked to identify and select out of a total of forty stated reasons why they choose to migrate to Leh. These identified factors or reasons were selected and refined after a pilot study that followed literature review on migration studies to mountainous regions currently available. A number of factors were selected and tested in the pilot study after which a few factors that were found irrelevant were dropped. Out of the remaining factors, respondents were asked to choose as represented in the table below. Respondents were given three choices; yes, no and not applicable. Table 2.1 Reasons for migrating to Leh Ladakh
Reasons for choosing to migrate to Ladakh Relatives working in Leh-Ladakh Political problem at home district/state/country Have come here before to work and have contacts Others from native were coming to Leh-Ladakh Ladakhi communities are caring Lack suitable employment at native place Treated well by Ladakhi contractors Lesser chance of being exploited as compared to other places Paid very well Police atrocities at native/district/state Easy to get work Absence of land cultivated at native Good weather Good standard of living compared to other places Good standard of living compared to home Geographic location-easy to reach Skill possessed is needed most in Leh-Ladakh For the travel and adventure experience Nice place to settle permanently Easy to get schooling facilities for children Feel secure in Leh-Ladakh (no threats) Yes (percent) 62 (31) 31 (15.5) 96 (48) 133 (66.5) 129 (64.5) 142 (71) 83 (41.5) 81 (41) 161 (81) 41 (21) 135 (67.5) 80 (40) 145 (72.5) 83 (41.5) 85 (42.5) 75 (38) 122 (61) 122 (61) 20 (10) 65 (32.5) 122 (61) No (percent) 138 (69) 169 (84.5) 104 (52) 67 (33.5) 71 (35.5) 58 (29) 117 (58.5) 118 (59) 38 (19) 158 (79) 65 (32.5) 120 (60) 55 (27.5) 119 (58.5) 115 (57.5) 125 (62) 78 (39) 78 (39) 180 (90) 121 (60.5) 78 (39) Not applicable

14 (7)

44

To earn more money for family responsibilities Absence of housing at native Poor standards of living at home Dislike atmosphere at home (family quarrels etc.) Crowded living conditions at home Peaceful place Can understand and communicate easily with locals Religious discrimination at native/ district/state Caste rivalry at native/district/State There are friends working in Leh-Ladakh.

181 (90.5) 36 (18) 122 (61) 10 (5) 37 (18.5) 183 (91.5) 93 (46.5) 25 (12.5) 25 (12.5) 95 (47.5)

18 (9.5) 164 (82) 78 (39) 189 (95) 163 (81.5) 16 (8.5) 106 (53.5) 174 (87.5) 175 (87.5) 105 (52.5)

Out of the total responses of migrants to Leh Ladakh district, 91.5 percent of the respondents state that what attracts them to Leh is the peaceful environment. Following the same, 90.5 percent of the respondents were driven to migrate in order to earn more money for their own family responsibilities. Connected to the same, 81 percent agreed that the high returns and good pay packages made them migrate. 72.5 percent identified good weather especially during summer season as an important reason to migrate. Further, lack of suitable employment in ones native place was identified by 71 percent of the respondents. The possibility to get work easily was opted by 67.5 percent. This was followed by 66.5 percent of the respondents who identified other individuals from native were also coming to Leh- Ladakh as an important factor. 64.5 percent stated that the Ladakhi community is caring and friendly. It is interesting to note that 61 percentage of respondents identified that the skill they possess are needed most in Leh-Ladakh, there is greater degree of felt security in Leh-Ladakh and they do not feel threatened. The same number of respondents, also stated that their movement was also a personal decision to experience travelling and adventure and felt that poor standards of living at home also force them to migrate in search of a better standard of living. A total of 48 percent of the respondents have come to Leh-Ladakh before to work and have contacts, 47.5 percent have friends already working in the area. Respondents ability to understand and communicate easily with locals accounted for 46.5 percent and good standard of living compared to home was opted by 42.5 percent. Further, in comparison to other places Leh-Ladakh provided 41.5 percent of the respondents a better standard of living. The same number of respondents also
45

stated that they were treated well by Ladakhi contractors. 41 percent felt and experienced less chances of being exploited as compared to other places. Further, 40 percent of the respondents stated that the absence of cultivable land in their native place was a reason for migration. The geographical location, especially accessibility and easiness to reach, was identified by 38 percent as a reason to move to LehLadakh. 32.5 percent believe that it was easy for them to get schooling facility for their children and 31 percent stated that there are relatives working in Leh-Ladakh and this prompted them to migrate. Interestingly, a total of 21 percent stated that what prompted them to migrate were the police atrocities in their native place. 18.5 percent identified the crowded living conditions at home as a reason. Connected to the same the absence of housing in native place was accounted by 18 percent of respondents and an increase in political problems at home prompted them to migrate. Two other reasons, namely religious discrimination at native place and caste rivalry was opted by 12.5 percent of the respondents. A mere 5 percent of respondents identified family quarrels and their dislike of the prevailing family atmosphere as a reason for migration. Data as shown in the above table reveals that the highest percentage of migrants moved to Ladakh because of its peaceful environment. This is important in the light that conjecturally migration is generally seen as being driven by financial motives. To extend the finding further, it could be argued that what takes precedence in a migrants mind is a sense of being in a secure place where one experiences peace and tranquillity.

46

5. Ever-Altering Lifestyles: Capturing Regional Specificities and the Concomitant Perils While migrants bring with them a different cultural taste and style, the same is not considered crucial at this point in time. Only small changes are being observed on this front. An example which reflects this reality was highlighted in the words of Dr.Noorboo a senior physician from the Ladakhi community. Dr. Noorboo states The migrant labourers are also the main reason for proliferation of tobacco products to which the local population is not generally used to. The contractors who employ labourers get provisions from local grocery stores. As most of the migrant labourers use one or the other tobacco product, the contractors encourage the provision storekeepers to stock such products. Earlier, because such products were not available in the local stores; the local youth were not using it. Now that it is easily available, the local youngsters have also taken to it. Citing other such instances where migrant lifestyles have had an impact on the local community, Dr. Noorboo narrated an incident that occurred in 1991. He stated there was an epidemic of cholera in central Leh Shey, Thiksey, Chushul etc. Cholera is not a common disease in this part of the country. The strains of cholera came from migrant labourers employed by the Border Roads Organization in road works that were going on in the upper parts of Leh. The migrants used to be put up near the streams. They were unknowingly polluting the water in the course of their daily chores, without realizing that the local population was using the water for drinking purposes downstream. For centuries, the local population considered such streams as sources of pure water and used to drink water from the streams without any treatment. As the weather was favourably warm the virus proliferated, resulting in an epidemic in areas which used the polluted water for drinking. Thus, the migrant labourers act as a source of disease not known to this region.

47

Geographical romanticism captures the reality of Ladakh. International borders and internally stark cultural borders, tough terrain, dry or ice covered hill tops attracts migrants who are generally young and energetic. In such a case many issues emerge especially concerning migrants individual behaviour and physical needs, especially sexual needs. With regard to sex seeking behaviour among migrants, Dr.Norboo stated that, there is the emergence of this reality too. In Leh there are pockets were such phenomena is interplayed. Most migrants are in the sexually active age group of 20-35. There have been instances in areas like Upshi, where the local poor and some Nepali migrants have resorted to prostitution for easy money. This is an area through which the national highway passes and truck drivers look for easy sex. This is generally behaviour that is observed across the world. In situations where poverty, urbanization and war-like situations dominate, such environments are commonly considered conducive for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIVAIDS. Source of Migration Out of the total sample size available to the researcher within three well demarcated organizational frameworks - Government Contractors, individual contractors, homeowners and BRO GREF, 26 percent were permanent residence of the state of Jharkhand. Most of these migrants were employed with the Border Roads Organization in GREF. This was followed by migrants from Nepal who accounted for 19.5 percent and were engaged across organizations and sectors but mostly with Government Contractors. Migrants from the state of Bihar accounted for 17 percent and were found more concentrated with individual contractors and homeowners. Residents and migrants from Jammu and Kashmir but outside Leh District formed about 15 percent of the total migrant group and those from Uttar Pradesh formed about 9 percent of the total migrant work force. Those from states like Punjab, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh accounted for 5.5 percent, 4 percent, 1 percent, 1 percent, 1.5 percent and 0.5 percent respectively. The above data is reflected in table 2.2.
48

Table 2.2 Distribution of Temporary Migrants by State/Country

State Assam Bihar Himachal Pradesh Jammu and Kashmir Jharkhand Madhya Pradesh Nepal Punjab Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Total Frequency 2 34 3 30 52 1 39 11 8 18 2 200 Percent 1.0 17.0 1.5 15.0 26.0 .5 19.5 5.5 4.0 9.0 1.0 100.0

Table 2.3 titled Distribution of respondents by caste and tribe shows data regarding respondents ethnic and social background. In the context of the research and the reality in the country it was considered imperative to know the ethnic and social background of respondents. The intricate connection between caste and occupation followed by skills learnt and possessed, requires that an in-depth enquiry into this link be carried forth. The initial data reveals that out of the total respondents OBC Other Backward Classes formed 37 percent of the migrant work force. This was followed by 33.5 percent of the category other which included general category, migrants from Nepal, those who were not sure about their background and some respondents who did not want to divulge their caste identity. Those who were clearly identifiable as either belonging to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes constituted 24.5 and 5 percent respectively. Table 2.3 Distribution of Respondents by caste and tribe
Caste SC ST OBC Other Total Frequency 49 10 74 67 200 Percent 24.5 5.0 37.0 33.5 100.0

Table 2.4 shows the cross tabulation of state and caste background. Data reveals that there was a high degree of those belonging to the Schedule Caste category from the
49

states of Jharkhand and Bihar accounting for 20 and 13 migrants respectively. Eight from Uttar Pradesh, Six from Punjab and one each from Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan. Those respondents from the Schedule Tribe category were distributed among the states of Jharkhand and one each from Assam, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Further verification into the status of the Schedule Tribe from Uttar Pradesh revealed that he belonged to one of the small tribal groups in the state. Table 2.4 Distribution of Migrants by state and caste
SC Assam Bihar Himachal Pradesh Jammu and Kashmir Jharkhand Madhya Pradesh Nepal Punjab Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Total 0 13 1 0 20 0 0 6 1 8 0 49 24.5% ST Caste OBC 1 1 1 6 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 5.0% 31 10 1 11 0 6 8 0 74 37.0% Total Other 0 14 2 1 13 0 28 5 1 1 2 67 33.5% 2 34 3 32 50 1 39 11 8 18 2 200 100.0%

As regards distribution of respondents by specific district table 2.5 shows Distribution of migrants according to districts. Table 2.5 Distribution of Migrants according to home districts
Uttar Pradesh Jharkhand Rajasthan Himachal Pradesh Jammu and Kashmir Madhya Pradesh District/ State/ Country Did not respond Arhria Badalpur Baka Balliya Betiya Bilaspur 10 1 West Bengal Punjab Assam Nepal Bihar

2 1 3 14

50

Total 3 1 3 14 1 10 1

Birgunj Chamba Chitawan City Darjeeling Doda Dumka Ganga nagar Godda Gopal ganj Gorakpur Gurdaspur Jajarkot Jalandar Jamtalda Johnpur Kailali Kangra Madhyapura Mauga Bazar Muthvihar Okhaldhunga Palgang Punjab Ranchi Rol-pa Rukum Salyan Sitapur Sonitpur Tanahu Tarra Uri Total 2 34 3 2 32 50 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 7 30 38 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 30 38 8 8 7 2 12 6 12 6 16 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 1 1 3 2 1 8 3 4 2 1 1 2

16

2 1 8

39

11

18

200

In the process of identifying the districts within specific states, data shows that in the state of Bihar the districts of Badalpur, Baka, Betiya, Gopalgunj, Muthvihar, Madhyapura, Palgang and Arhia were the districts which respondents identified as their hometown. The highest number came from Baka. From the state of Jharkhand, majority of the respondents (38) came from Dumka, 7 from Godda, 3 from Ranchi, 1 each from Tarra and Jamtalda. Those from the state of Jammu and Kashmir were predominantly from the district of Doda and Uri. Respondents from The Punjab were mainly from Gurdaspur (6),
51

Sitapur (3) and Jalandhar (1). From the state of Uttar Pradesh 12 of the respondents were from Gorakpur and one each from Balliya and Johnpur. All of the respondents from Rajasthan are from the district of Ganga Nagar. Those from Nepal were predominantly from Jajarkot (16), Kailali (3), Okahldunga (6) and one each from Chitawan and Birgunj. Both the respondents from Assam are from Sonitpur. Available data about Nepal states that most of the identified districts in which respondents have come from are located in a development region called as Far Western Development Region. This region is supposedly one of the most backward regions and the landscape is characterised by difficult terrain. Most of the migrants to Ladakh have had some work experience. They had either been working in their own district/state or had at some point in time migrated to other states to engage in an activity for financial return. Among the respondents to this study, the distribution by age as shown in Table 2.6 shows 14 percent of those between the age group of 18 to 20, 40 percent which is the largest group falls between the age group of 21 to 25, 23.5 percent between 26 to 30, 12.5 percent between 31 to 35 and those beyond the age of 36 account for 10 percent of the total sample. Table 2.6 Distribution of migrants by age
Age above 18 till 20 21 to 25 26 to 30 31 to 35 36 and above Total Frequency 28 80 47 25 20 200 Percent 14.0 40.0 23.5 12.5 10.0 100.0

Table 2.7 titled Percentage of migrants with work experience shows that migrants with work experience before migrating to Leh Ladakh stands at 57 percent to 43 percent without any prior work experience. This, as accounted by respondents, was work experience gained mostly outside the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The same is spread throughout India with some respondents with experience from outside the
52

country. Table 2.7 Percentage of migrants with work experience

Nos of worker who worked in other state/District Yes No Total Percent 114 86 200 57.0 43.0 100.0

Table 2.7.1 titled Distribution of number of years of work experience revealed data about the experience that respondents have come with. Respondents illustrating the same revealed that the years of work experience however differed from each other and ranged from one year of experience to about eight years. The highest number of respondents that accounted for a total of 5 percent had experience of two years or more. To this question while those without experience stands at 43 percent, 42 percent did not reply to this query. Table 2.7.1 Distribution of number of years of work experience
Years of work experience One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Did not respond Total System Total Frequency 3 10 4 2 1 8 1 1 84 115 86 200 Percent 1.5 5.0 2.0 1.0 .5 4.0 .5 .5 42 57.5 43 100.0

Those with work experience in other countries, Table 2.8, within the sample accounted for 2 percent. This finding is significant in the light of the fact that their motivation and movement towards Ladakh is very high. It is in this context that the reasons for migration become meaningful.

53

Table 2.8 Distribution of Migrants with work experience in other countries

Frequency Been to other county Not been to other country Total 4 196 200 Percent 2.0 98.0 100.0

The educational qualification of the respondents (as shown below in Table 2.9) ranges from illiterate to first year of graduation. No respondent had studied beyond the first year of graduation and majority (46 percent) were illiterate. Table 2.9 Distribution of migrants by specific educational qualifications
Standard Illiterate 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Total Frequency 92 18 8 10 21 8 6 18 7 4 4 3 1 200 Percent 46.0 9.0 4.0 5.0 10.5 4.0 3.0 9.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 .5 100.0

While quantifying the educational bracket of the respondents, data in Table 2.10 reveals that while 46 percent were illiterate, 18 percent had studied till primary, 17 percent has studied till 7th standard, 14.5 percent till 10th standard and finally 4 percent has moved beyond the 10th standard. Table 2.10 Distribution of migrants by educational qualification
Frequency Illiterate Till Primary 5th to 7th 8th to 10th above 10th Total 92 36 35 29 8 200 Percent 46.0 18.0 17.5 14.5 4.0 100.0

54

After the educational qualification was taken, five clear distinct areas of work around occupation were unravelled. Table 2.11 shows Distribution of migrants by occupation. A total of 37.5 percent stated that they were engaged in agriculture, 32 percent were labourers, 22 percent were skilled labourers, a small percentage of 3.5 percent were traders and 5 percent was engaged in other non classified activities. Table 2.11 Distribution of migrants by occupation
Occupation Agriculture Labour Skilled labour Trader Other Total Frequency 75 64 44 7 10 200 Percent 37.5 32.0 22.0 3.5 5.0 100.0

55

6. The Skill Import: Mapping Tasks and Identifying Specializations Seasonal temporary migrants to Leh Ladakh bring with them capabilities in terms of skills within a particular occupation. While majority of the sample had capabilities beyond their traditional occupations, some were engaged in unskilled occupations especially those within the daily wage labour market. Table 3.1 below identifies specific capabilities of each of the respondents. While the occupational skills are spread out very widely across work areas, the majority of the respondents which constitute 50 percent of the total were and had identified themselves as daily wage labourers. This was followed by masons who constitute 10.5 percent of the total. Other trades and occupations that they brought with them as being experienced in are agriculture work, builder, brick making, carpentry, painting, clay making, cobbler, cook, driver, ice cream vendor, JCB operator and helper, jeweller, machine operator, making sweets, mechanic, mining charcoal, mistry (carpentry), making mud pots, musician, pipe line laying, plumber, rock breaking, roller driver, running dhabas( restaurants) and even rag picking. Table 3.1 Distribution of Migrant by occupational capabilities
Occupation Agriculture work Bal Builder Brick making Carpenter Carpenter, Painter Carpenter, Brick maker Clay making Cobbler Contract work Cook Driver Ice-cream seller JCB helper JCM Operator Jeweler &Cook Labour Machine operator Making Lol plant Frequency 2 1 5 5 1 1 1 4 1 2 4 1 2 1 1 100 3 1 Percent 1.0 .5 2.5 2.5 .5 .5 .5 2.0 .5 1.0 2.0 .5 1.0 .5 .5 50.0 1.5 .5

56

Making sweets Mason Mechanic Mining Charcoal Mistry (carpenter) Mistry, automobile Mud pot Musician Painter Pipe line Plant operator (Computer) Plumber Rag Picker Rock Breaker Roller Operator Running Dhaba (restaurant) Supervisor Road Drilling Vibrator Working on cashier Total

1 21 1 2 1 1 2 1 19 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 200

.5 10.5 .5 1.0 .5 .5 1.0 .5 9.5 .5 .5 .5 2.0 .5 .5 1.0 1.0 .5 .5 100.0

Taking leave from table 3.2, and in continuation of occupational skills, most respondents showed that the skill they possessed were also in use in Leh. However the number of those engaged in labour had gone up 60 percent from the 50 percent identified earlier. Each of the skills possessed prior to coming to Leh were made use of in the district. The demand for the same was high. The data reflects that the availability of work is greatly restricted to occupations that are related to construction. Table 3.2 Current task performed in Leh
Tasks Bal Builder Brick maker Carpenter, Brick making, Carpenter Carpenter Cobbler Commander Contractor Cook Cook & labourer Driver Helper in Dhaba (restaurant) Ice-cream seller JCB helper JCB Operator Frequency 1 2 1 6 4 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 Percent .5 1.0 .5 3.0 2 .5 1.5 .5 .5 .5 .5 1.5 1.0 .5

57

Labourer Labourer, stone lifting, clay making Machine operator Making Lot plant Mason Mistry Carpenter and automobile Painter Pipe line layer Plant operator (Computer) Plumber Rag Picker Road construction labourer Roller operator Running a Dhaba Supervisor Road drilling Vibrator Working as cashier Total

120 1 2 1 18 1 1 13 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 200

60.0 .5 1.0 .5 9.0 .5 .5 6.5 .5 .5 .5 2.0 .5 .5 1 1.0 .5 .5 100.0

While cross tabulating occupation currently engaged in and the caste background of respondents, data in table 3.3 reveals that there was an even spread of occupation among various social groups. Those from the schedule caste community or previous untouchables are higher on the daily wage labour side constituting 29 respondents out of 49 scheduled caste. Among the schedule tribes, data points to the similar engagement in daily wage labour accounted by 10 respondents. Out of the Other Backward Classes, 46 respondents were daily wage labourers and there were 35 key respondents within the general category(non SC/ST/OBC) who were engaged as labourers. As the table shows there was quite a spread of respondents across other skills and trades. Table 3.3 Distribution of migrants by occupation and caste
Tasks performed now in Ladakh by way of work Bal Builder Brick making Carpenter Carpenter, Brick making, Mistry Cobbler Commander Contract work SC 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 ST 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 OBC 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 Other 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 2 6 1 4 1 1

58

Contractor Cook Cook & Labourer Driver Helper in Dhaba Ice-cream seller JCB helper JCB Operator Labourer Labourer, stone lifting, clay making Machine operator Making Lol plant Mason Mistri (carpenter) Mistri (automobile) Painter Plant operator Plumber Rag Picker Road construction labour Roller operator Running Dhaba Supervisor Road Drilling Vibrator Working as cashier Total

1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 29 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 49

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 20

1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 46 0 1 0 8 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 74

0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 35 0 1 1 6 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 57

2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 120 1 2 1 18 1 1 13 1 2 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 200

59

7. A Ubiquitous System that Employs: There is no organized system that employs the labourers with the exception of the Border Roads Organisation and Indian Army. Within local contractors and homeowners most are employed by word of mouth and physical selection of labourers. There are a number of registered contractors with the government. Labourers assemble in the market area near the Leh polo ground in the morning at around 8.00 am. The contractors depending on their needs pick them up from the location and begin the process of getting the necessary documents. They start with a photograph of each labourer. This is in relation to those who are to be transported to Nubra and Nyoma (areas where entry permit from the District Collector is required). For those working in Leh town, labourers are directly picked up for work and no documentation is carried forth as the same is not required. In one interesting case, a small agency was located in Skampari close to the Assistant Labour Commissioners office called National Service Agency. The proprietor who runs the agency states that he has set up the agency in order to streamline the process of supplying labour. He states that in Leh, there is an increase demand for migrant labourers and the supply falls far short compared to the demand. He further explained that the current minimum rate for any labourer is Rs. 130 as per government norms. However the rate for labourers in the market is much higher as the demand is more. The process for registering with his agency is simple. The group leader who has come with a number of migrant labourers brings all of them to the agency. In many cases the group leader gets in touch with the agency through telephone and decides upon the required number of labourers. Interestingly it was revealed by the proprietor that when his need is about 100 labourers, the group leader would at times bring at least 20 to 30 more labourers. Even then work for the remaining 30 labourers is easy to find. Every time the group leader comes to Leh, he or she brings new migrant labourers. Other than those labourers who come under the guidance of the group leader there are those migrant labourers who approach the agency directly on their own. The
60

agency on its behalf helps organize accommodation and food for the migrants. They make available accommodation that costs around Rs. 300 per month and rations for each migrant. This is during the time of registration with the Deputy Commissioners Office, Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Police. The process of registration takes around thirteen to fifteen days. It is reported that there has never been a case where the agency has fallen into any kind of problem with the State system or the labourers till date. However it was stated that the current administrative system and procedures are so long drawn out and slow that labourers are unnecessarily put through a lot of hardship. The proprietor also stated that Skampari alone can accommodate about 1000 temporary labourers where each can get residence for Rs.300 a month. One of the contributions of the agency to the labour market process is that it acts as a buffer for labourers and also stabilizes the market prices of labour and their working hours. Table 4.1 titled Source of information about Leh-Ladakh shows and identifies the various individuals and institution that facilitated the initial process of migration. It is noted that 31 percent of respondents identified their friend/s as having provided initial information about Ladakh. Another 27.5 percent received their information from their contractor, 7.5 percent had become aware about Ladakh within their own native place as they have heard it being discussed by those who had migrated earlier. This is also added by 8 percent stating that their relative/s were the ones who had given them the needed information. Overall there was a clear spread of various individuals and groups who carry information around about Ladakh. It is important to note that almost all the respondents identified one source of information and none of the respondent had come without having sought the information.

61

Table 4.1 Source of Information about Leh-Ladakh

Frequency Advertisement Brother Brother in law By road Company Contractor Father in law Friend Friend, neighbour Husband Mat (Supervisor) Parents worked here Native Neighbour Other from village who are here Own Parents People from my village were already working Relatives Road Sister-in-law Sister Uncle Uncle, friend Total 6 7 2 1 1 55 1 62 1 5 4 1 15 2 1 1 6 5 16 1 1 1 4 1 200 Percent 3.0 3.5 1.0 .5 .5 27.5 .5 31.0 .5 2.5 2.0 .5 7.5 1.0 .5 .5 3.0 2.5 8.0 .5 .5 .5 2.0 .5 100.0

Table 4.2 titled Number of migrants being accompanied shows that 85 percent of respondents were accompanied by someone on their way to Leh and a total of 14.5 percent came alone. One respondent did not respond. Table 4.2 Number of Migrants being Accompanied
Accompanied by someone Came alone Did not respond Total Frequency 170 29 1 200 Percent 85.0 14.5 .5 100.0

Table 4.2.1 titled Individual who accompanied migrants reveals that 36.5 percent of migrants were accompanied by their contractor into Leh. Another 21 percent had come along with their friends. Overall there is an even spread of various individuals
62

and groups who partake in the process of movement of migrant populations into Ladakh. Table 4.2.1 Individual who Accompanied Migrants
Individual accompanied Brother Brother in law Cousin Come on their own Company Contractor Driver Father in law Friend Friend, neighbour Husband Husband,brother MAT (Supervisor) Native Own but guided Parents People from my village were already working so joined them Relatives Fellow Road Travellers Sister-in-law Sister Uncle Villagers Total Frequency 8 1 2 1 8 73 1 1 42 1 10 1 6 14 1 7 4 11 1 1 1 4 1 200 Percent 4.0 .5 1 .5 4.0 36.5 .5 .5 21.0 .5 5.0 .5 3 7 .5 3.5 2.0 5.5 .5 .5 .5 2.0 .5 100.0

Eighty five percent of those who come to Leh in search of work, state (as shown in Table 4.3) that they had travelled by train till Jammu or the closest railway station to Leh and then travelled by road to reach their destination. Those who had come by Air accounted for 14.5 percent and those coming directly by road constitute 0.5 percent of the total migrant labour force within the sample. Table 4.3 Means of Transport used to come to Leh
Air Road Bus/Jeep Total Frequency 29 170 1 200 Percent 14.5 85.0 .5 100.0

63

Table 4.4 shows the number of work hours of the labourers per day. Data reveals that 49 percent work a total of 8 hours and 40 percent work a total of 9 hours. The general trend as the data revealed is observed across the kind of occupation or task performed. The work starts early and ends before the sun sets. With the problem of electricity in Leh, there is less dependency on electricity for the same. Table 4.4 Number of Work Hours Per Day
Number of work hours Four Five Seven Eight Nine Ten Twelve Total Frequency 1 4 4 98 81 8 4 200 Percent .5 2.0 2.0 49.0 40.5 4.0 2.0 100.0

Table 4.5 titled Work Contract Fixed prior to coming to Leh shows that 54 percent of respondents had their work contract fixed prior to coming to Leh. A total of 46 percent have arrived at Leh without any prior fixing of work relying only on the knowledge that there is plenty of need for labour within the district. Currently this is the prevalent reality and it is not difficult for a labourer to get a job fixed as soon as they reach Leh. Table 4.5 Work Contract Fixed Prior to Coming to Leh
Work Fixed prior to coming to Leh Yes No Total Frequency 108 92 200 Percent 54.0 46.0 100.0

64

8. Capturing the Period of Stay and Work Destinations: A perception gaining ground among the local population is that there are an increasing number of migrant labourers who are settling down in Leh and many more who harbour intentions of settling down. The study thus considered it important to find out more about the same and also understand the intricate dynamics that purports various perceptions. From the sample of the study, each of the respondents were asked about their period of stay in Leh especially in relation to their work. Table 5.1 titled Planned period of stay shows in detail, the number of months that each of the 200 respondents planned to be in Leh. Of the total sample, 33.5 percent stated that they would be in Leh for an exact period of 4 months. Those who plan to stay for 5 months accounted for 30 percent and those extending their period of stay to 6 months accounted for 19.5 percent. While 9 percent did not respond to the query, 4 percent of migrants stated they would stay on for 11 and 12 months respectively. This data goes to prove that there are migrants, although very small in number who plans to seek residence in Leh. This establishes the fact that the perception of locals is true. Table 5.1 Planned Period of Stay in Leh
Months One Two Three Four Five Six Eight Eleven Twelve Did not respond Total Frequency 3 1 1 67 60 39 3 4 4 18 200 Percent 1.5 .5 .5 33.5 30.0 19.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 9.0 100.0

Table 5.2 titled Preferred village to work shows the various villages that migrant labourers preferred to work in. Of the town/villages, Leh was preferred by 18 percent of respondents while 5.5 percent preferred Nubra. Respondents who accounted for 7.5 percent were ready to go anywhere in the district as long as they get work. Sakti
65

was another village that 2.5 percent preferred to work. The other villages were preferred by few respondents. However the spread of villages and towns preferred shows the magnitude and spread of migration across Leh District. Table 5.2 Preferred Villages to Work
Frequency Any where Changthang Homa (chajths) Kharu Kungyan Kural Leh-town Lowar Mahey Nubra Nyoma Ravil say Sakti Salili Sham village Shayok Shey Any Town Any Village With Friends With Relatives No idea Did not respond Total 15 1 1 1 4 1 36 1 3 11 1 1 5 1 1 5 3 2 7 2.0 1 3 94 200 Percent 7.5 .5 .5 .5 2.0 .5 18 .5 1.5 5.5 .5 .5 2.5 .5 .5 2.5 1.5 1.0 3.5 1.0 0.5 1.5 47.0 100.0

Table 5.3 shows the current place of residence of the migrant labourers. The highest number of respondents resided in Sakti accounting for 27 percent and 16 percent were stated to be temporarily residing in the Leh bus stand. Those residing in the polo ground area accounted for 6 percent of the total sample. There was, as shown in table, a wide spread of residential areas that are inhabited by the migrant labourers.

66

Table 5.3 Current Place of Residence

Frequency Below leh place Bus stand Chemday Choglamsar Corner Manelselding Gogsum Ibex Colony Idgah Kharu Leh-town Lhara hotel Lower manetselding Manelseldy Money khacy(Leh) Near bus stand Near cinema hall (leh) Old Leh-city Pologround Sakti Shey Skampari Skara Stalam Taras Taro Total 3 32 6 5 1 6 5 2 8 2 2 1 4 2 1 1 2 12 54 6 9 4 19 2 11 200 Percent 1.5 16.0 3.0 2.5 .5 3.0 2.5 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 .5 2.0 1.0 .5 .5 1.0 6.0 27.0 3.0 4.5 2.0 9.5 1.0 5.5 100.0

67

9. Unravelling the Intricacies of Earning and Saving Earning and saving is the key determining factor - motivating a migrant labourer to travel to various locations notwithstanding the hardships that such movement entails. Table 6.1 titled Income per month prior coming to Ladakh shows data of income earned by migrant labourer in other places prior to moving to Leh. Among those who have had this experience, 45 percent of respondents stated that they had previously earned Rs.2500 or below. Those who had earned between Rs.2501 to Rs.5000 accounted for 34 percent of respondents. Only 6 percent had previously received an amount between Rs.5001 and Rs.7500. Table 6.1 Income per month prior coming to Ladakh (Approximately)
Amount per month Less than 2500 per month between 2501 to 5000 between 5001 to 7500 Not applicable Total Frequency 91 68 12 29 200 Percent 45.5 34.0 6.0 14.5 100.0

Since being in Leh the amount and returns earned is revealed in Table 6.2. Respondents earning above Rs.10,001 account for 2 percent, those earning between Rs.7,501 and Rs.10,000 accounted for 12 percent and those receiving Rs.5,001 to Rs.7500 form 20.5 percent. The highest percentage of respondents,53.5 % receive between Rs.2501 to Rs.5000. Another 7 percent receive less than Rs.2500 per month. Table 6.2 Income per month in Ladakh (Approximately)
Amount per month Less than 2500 per month between 2501 to 5000 between 5001 to 7500 between 7501 to 10000 Above 10001 Not applicable Total Frequency 14 107 41 24 4 10 200 Percent 7.0 53.5 20.5 12.0 2.0 5.0 100.0

68

Responses on savings were considered crucial to understanding the dynamics of the labour market and its sustaining attraction to migrants. Table 6.3 reveals that out of 180 respondents who answered the question on savings, respondents stated that firstly they are able to save money from their labouring in Leh. The amount of saving as shown in the table below unravels that 32.5 percent save below Rs.2000 per month. Other respondents who accounted for 37.5 percent were able to save between Rs.2001 to Rs.4000, 13 percent were able to save Rs.4001 to Rs.6000 and 7 percent saved Rs.6001 and above per month. Table 6.3 Distribution of Migrants saving per season
Savings below 7000 between 7001 to 15000 15001 to 21000 21001 to 35000 35001 and above Did not respond Total Frequency 22 78 27 33 26 14 200 Percent 11.0 39.0 13.5 16.5 13.0 7.0 100.0

Per season the respondents who replied showed that those below Rs.7000 accounted for 11 percent, those saving Rs.7001 to Rs.15000 constituted 39 percent, those saving between Rs. 15001 to Rs.21000 form 13.5 percent of total respondents. Others who could save Rs.21001 to Rs.35000 accounted for 16.5 percent and above Rs.35001 were 13 percent. Fourteen respondents did not reply to this question as shown in Table 6.3 titled Distribution of Migrants Saving per season. Table 6.4 Method of collecting money from Employer
Collect money Lump sum Daily Weekly Monthly Seasonally Total Yes 74 28 66 36 .00 192 Total 74 28 66 36 .00 192

69

This amount that is received by the labourer is collected in various ways keeping in mind the floating nature of work and stay. Table 6.4 titled Method of collecting money from employer shows that migrants collect their pay in lump-sum (38.5 percent), on a daily basis (14.6 percent), weekly basis (34.4 percent) and monthly basis (18.8 percent). Table 6.5 Institutions where money is saved by migrants
Institutions Bank By own Keep with contractor Post office Send home No Response Total Frequency 56 98 14 1 5 26 200 Percent 28.0 49.0 7 .5 2.5 13.0 100.0

Table 6.5 titled Institutions where money is saved by migrants shows where respondents save their earnings. While 49 percent keep their saving with them, 28 percent deposit the same in the bank. Others amounting to 7 percent keep the money with the contractor, 0.5 percent deposit in the post office, 2.5 percent send the money home immediately and 13 percent did not respond. Table 6.6 Money sent to Family/Home
Yes No No response Total Frequency 164 32 4 200 Percent 82.0 16.0 2.0 100.0

Table 6.6 shows how many of the respondents send money home. A total of 82 percent responded in the positive, that they send money home without fail while 16 percent responded in the negative. This data is significant keeping in mind that there are respondents whose motivation for migration is to earn more money to contribute to family needs.

70

Table 6.6.1 Method of sending money Home

Frequency Did not respond A.T.M. By hand By post Demand Draft Friends Friends and Relatives Money order Natives Neighbour/Natives Through own people Parents Relatives Take along with them Total 41 1 1 6 51 7 1 67 2 1 1 1 5 15 200 Percent 20.5 .5 .5 3.0 25.5 3.5 .5 33.5 1.0 .5 .5 .5 2.5 7.5 100.0

Finally Table 6.6.1 titled Method of sending money home shows that the migrant labourer uses various methods to reach this money home. The ATM is used by 0.5 percent, Post is used by 3 percent, Demand Draft by 25.5 percent, and Money Order by 33.5 percent and 7.5 percent respondents prefer taking the money with them. Other means of sending money though friends, relatives, natives, neighbours, parents were also used.

71

10. Do Migrants have Families? The study considered important to know and understand the role and movement of the family of these migrant labourers. The reality that is presented to families that either follow or join the labour force is characterised by multiple problems, each posing as barriers to entry. Table 7.1 titled Distribution of migrants by age and marital status shows that respondents within the age group of 21 to 25 years, 50 percent were married and an equal percentage were unmarried. Out of the 124 respondents who were married, this same grouping accounted for 32.3 percent of the total. Those between 26 to 30 years accounted for 29 percent and those aged 36 years and above were 15.3 percent of married individuals. A total of 62 percent of respondents were married while 37.5 percent were unmarried. Table 7.1 Distribution of migrants by age and marital status
Age above 18 till 20 21 to 25 26 to 30 31 to 35 36 and above Total Yes 5 40 36 24 19 124 62.0% Married No 23 40 11 1 0 75 37.5% Did not respond 0 0 0 0 1 1 .5% Total 28 80 47 25 20 200 100.0%

Among those who were married as shown in Table 7.2, falling within the 18 to 20 years of age did not report having children. However those who were 21 to 25 years accounting for 26.1 percent stated that they had children. Those who were 26 to 30 years accounted for 32.6 percent of sample having children. Respondents within the 31 to 35 years range, accounted for 22.8 percent and those 36 years and above accounted for 18.5 percent of the total of 92 respondents who stated to be having children.

72

Table 7.2 Distribution of Migrants Family status by Age and Children

Children Age above 18 till 20 21 to 25 26 to 30 31 to 35 36 and above Total Yes 0 24 30 21 17 92 46.0% No 28 56 17 4 3 108 54.0% 28 80 47 25 20 200 100.0% Total

Data further reveals (as shown in table 7.3 titled Distribution by number of children per family) that respondents with one child accounted for 22.8 percent, those with two children was 31.5 percent and those with three children were 16.3 percent of the total 92 respondents who had children. Other respondents above the four child threshold was 14.1 percent, those with five children were 9.8 percent, with six children were 4.3 percent and there was only 1.1 percent with seven children. Table 7.3 Distribution by number of children per family
Number of Children One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Total Frequency 21 29 15 13 9 4 1 92 Percent 22.8 31.5 16.3 14.1 9.8 4.3 1.1 100.0

Among the respondents who had few children, those who travelled in search of work as migrant labourers, whether skilled or unskilled, there was lesser responsibility of caring for children as compared to those who had more children. It further needs to be probed if the children and whole family is travelling or is stationed at home. While there was no clear data showing family accompanying the labourer, yet there are clear indicators that show a movement of the floating family in search of livelihood.

73

11. The Women Question within the Migrant Labour Structure: Out of the total respondents in the study there were a total of 11 percent women within the identified labour (as shown in Table 8.1). Empirical verification shows that women were equally engaged in work in construction sites and also in Road making. It is interesting to note that throughout Leh town and on the way to Khaltse one could see a large number of women workers cleaning roads and also travelling in trucks to work sites. A significant feature however is that most of these women are locals and there are very few women from outside the local community. This observation of local women working was related to employment under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme implemented in the District. Table 8.1 Distribution of Migrants by Age and Sex
Sex Age above 18 till 20 21 to 25 26 to 30 31 to 35 36 and above Total Male 25 70 46 21 16 178 89.0% Female 3 10 1 4 4 22 11.0% 28 80 47 25 20 200 100.0% Total

Data in Table 8.1 above, points to the fact that there are more male labourers compared to women. Out of the total sample, 89 percent were male and 11 percent were female. However field verification reveals that there is comparatively a large contingent of women engaged in labour activities in the district. On a single day of empirical verification there were a total of 20 women labourers out of a total of 73 labourers who were verified and permitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner to avail the Restricted Area Permit. Most of the women labourers also came with their sons and daughters.

74

12. Demystifying the Migrant Child Labour Myth: While moving towards understanding and empirically verifying the migrant labour phenomena, the researcher assumed the possibility of child labourers. It is interesting to note that most empirical data collected did not reveal the presence of child labourers. Verification from Border Roads Organization shows that no labourer less than 18 years of age is recruited. The same could not be verified from the Indian Army as this data was not possible to get officially. When respondents were asked about the same, they stated that child labour was present but rare, as both government contractors and homeowners were not keen to recruit them. When asked if children should also be allowed to work (results shown in the Table 9.1) 18.5 percent answered in the positive and felt there was nothing wrong as long as the child wishes to, 57 percent responded in the negative and 24.5 percent could not say. Table 9.1 Migrants perception of childrens need to work
Yes No Can't say Total Frequency 37 114 49 200 Percent 18.5 57.0 24.5 100.0

From among those who said that it was acceptable for children to work, they were of the opinion that children should be at least 15 years old. Table 9.2 Migrants perception of acceptable age for children to work
Frequency Above Six years Above 10 years Above 15 years Total 1 2 36 39 Percent 2.6 5.1 92.3 100.0

Very few respondents were accepting of an age limit for child labourers. Verification in the Assistant Labour Commissioners Office showed that contractors did try to
75

bring children aged between 14 to 15 years while availing the Restricted Area Permit. On a single day of verification nearly 7 children falling within this age were out rightly rejected employment by the Assistant Labour Commissioner.
Picture 3: Migrant Workers Constructing Walls in Mountainous Leh-Ladakh

76

13. Understanding the State System and its Current Response to the subject of Migrant Labour: All migrant labourers entering Leh District are advised to register with the respective police station. This is much needed in Leh town and the police tries to follow up strictly on the same. Those migrant labourers, who work in the two geographical regions of Nubra and Changthang, are mandated to seek the prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner (DC). The DCs office issues the Restricted Area Permit that allows the migrant labourers to enter the two places. Three formalities need to be completed as part of the process for the issuance of the Restricted Area Permit. The DCs office writes to the Police Station for verification of the construction activity in the said area, as requested by the contractor. After the Police Station sends the report, an affidavit is submitted to the Office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner for verification of the labourers employed by the contractor. The Assistant Labour Commissioner verifies the name, age, sex, fathers name, district and picture of the labourer. Further, the purpose of work, period of stay and date of return journey is also checked. The Assistant Labour Commissioner rejects labourers below the age of 18 years. This is then sent to the DCs office for the compilation and issuance of the Restricted Area Permit. The Assistant Labour Commissioner scrutinizes documents produced by Contractors which includes name, parentage, address and age of the migrant labourer. The Assistant Labour Commissioner then informs the labourers that in case of illness and death, the Contractor is responsible of taking care of them and their family. Table 10.1 Distribution of migrants registered with police
Yes No Not needed Total Frequency 79 78 43 200 Percent 39.5 39.0 21.5 100.0

Table 10.1 shows the distribution of migrant labourers who were registered with the
77

police or in some way had to inform and take consent of the police. This maybe because of their need to seek the Restricted Area Permit. Of those who needed to take permission and consent from the police, 39 percent stated that they have already registered themselves with the police and 39 percent responded that they have not. A total of 21.5 percent stated that they did not need to register as the organization they are working with have taken the responsibility for the same. Owing to its reputation an organization like the BRO does not have to go through such processes. Table 10.2 Distribution of migrants who has Restricted Area Permit
Frequency Yes No Not Needed Total 38 110 52 200 Percent 19.0 55.0 26.0 100.0

Table 10.2 reveals the percentof migrants who have the Restricted Area Permit. The Restricted Area Permit as stated above is needed to travel to the two blocks of Nubra and Nyoma. Respondents who have the Restricted Area Permit constitute 19 percent of total sample and those who do not constitute 55 percent. A total of 26 percent did not respond to the question. Picture 4: Migrant Workers Assisting Government Activity in Leh

78

14. Availability of Critical Infrastructural Facilities Shelter for a migrant and a migrants family is considered crucial and basic to the process of work. Questions regarding the number of people currently living under one roof were asked. Table 11.1 below shows that responses ranged from residing alone to staying with 62 other people also engaged in the identified tasks. While there was a higher degree of people staying alone or in pairs (which at times include their immediate family they may have come with) three migrants living together constitute 10 percent of respondents. Those sharing accommodation with four and five people were 18 percent and 17.5 percent respectively. Those with six residing together constitute 6 percent. A lesser number stay with seven migrants and above. In the tents of the Border Roads Organization (BRO) the numbers residing in one tent is very high, however they are taken care of by the GREF and are provided all basic facilities. Table 11.1 Number of people staying under one shelter
Number of People staying within a single shelter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 14 15 21 30 31 33 34 35 36 40 41 42 Frequency 10 12 20 36 35 12 9 6 3 1 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 5 7 3 6 1 9 Percent 5.0 6.0 10.0 18.0 17.5 6.0 4.5 3.0 1.5 .5 1.0 1.5 1.0 .5 1.5 .5 .5 2.5 3.5 1.5 3.0 .5 4.5

79

43 45 47 48 50 52 62 Total

2 1 1 1 1 5 1 200

1.0 .5 .5 .5 .5 2.5 .5 100.0

It is interesting to note that the rent being paid by the migrants range from a minimal amount of Rupees 100 (4 %) to Rupees 900 (0.5 %). Some of the respondents reported staying in the bus shed in Leh town. This is because they have just arrived and have not got their work assignment from any contractor or the contractor has not been able to fix any shelter for them. It may also reflect that these respondents were on their way to restricted areas like Nubra and Nyoma blocks of the district. Table 11.2 Distribution of amount of rent paid for housing
Amount (Rs) paid for housing 100 110 150 1500 180 200 225 250 300 3350 400 50 500 600 650 70 700 75 800 900 Did not respond Contractor paid Free of cost Rent paid by company Temporary shed in bus stop Uncle pays Total Frequency 8 1 7 1 8 25 1 6 6 1 6 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 93 8 2 1 11 1 200 Percent 4.0 .5 3.5 .5 4.0 12.5 .5 3.0 3.0 .5 3.0 1.0 .5 1.0 .5 .5 1.0 .5 1.5 .5 46.5 4.0 1.0 .5 5.5 .5 100.0

80

Table 11.2 shows the exact amount migrants pay as rent for residence. A total of 82 migrants paid less than Rs.1000 as rent. Rent ranged between Rs.50 to Rs.3350, (the highest amount paid) however majority of the respondents who had to pay rent fell within the bracket of Rs.50 to Rs.1000. Most residential needs of the migrants working with Border Roads Organization GREF were taken care of by the organization itself. Some migrants were accommodated free of cost by contractors. The 5.5 percent who were staying in the temporary shed at the Leh bus stand were mostly respondents who had just arrived and planned to move for work under contractor supervision to the two Restricted Area of Nubra and Nyoma. They reported staying in the temporary shed for the last five to six days on an average. Those migrants who already had family in Leh did not find accommodation a problem as they could temporarily reside with their relatives. Table 11.3 Distribution of comfort in stay
Very comfortable Manageable Not comfortable Total Frequency 96 76 28 200 Percent 48.0 38.0 14.0 100.0

An enquiry was made into the level of comfort migrants experience at the current place of stay. Table 11.3 reflects their general sense of comfort where 48 percent stated that they were very comfortable, 38 percent stated that the residential facilities were manageable and 14 percent were having difficulties with accommodation. Most respondents explicitly stated that they would prefer comfortable stay because of the nature of work they engaged in and also the difficult terrain they are exposed to. Table 11.4 Experience with bathing facilities
Frequency Very Difficult Not difficult Manageable Total 94 105 1 200 Percent 47.0 52.5 .5 100.0

81

Further elucidating about their basic needs: Table 11.4 shows the migrants experience with bathing facilities. Bathing facilities are either made available or they have to find on their own facility outside the accomodation. While 47 percent found bathing facilities difficult, 52 percent stated that bathing facilities were not a problem. Of the total, 0.5 percent stated that the same was manageable. Table 11.5. Availability of toilet facilities
Toilets Available Toilets Not Available Manageable Total Frequency 61 125 14 200 Percent 30.5 62.5 7.0 100.0

In response to availability of toilet facilities, the respondents were overwhelming in their response that toilets are a difficulty in the district. Most of them explained that while they had somewhat adjusted to the Ladakhi toilet some still preferred to defecate in the open. This was more so with migrants staying in Skampari and other areas within Leh town. Those working with BRO spoke of using places in the mountains that are near streams.

82

15. The Demand for and Supply of Migrants Skill A Gain or Loss for the Ladakhi Community In the context of Leh Ladakh, the process of the emergence of demand and supply within a tightly bound and somewhat autonomous political boundary is empirically observable. However the tasks performed by migrants play two supplementary roles. At one level the tasks engaged in are those which the local community does not participate in or only few partake in. At another level, some tasks performed by migrants are perceived by locals as insignificant and thus there is no need to engage in. Either way what is clearly observable is a subtle transfer of skills concomitant with the movement of the economy from subsistence agriculture to a service centred economy. The fact that Ladakh as a region, both geographically and economically is heavily dependent on outside institutions, groups and forces to exist is important to note. The skill set that the community possessed prior to this economic shift was well embedded in the community and much in consonance with their culturo- economic system. However, with the change in economic structures new skills have emerged in order to accommodate and respond to the transition process. It is on this count that at least in the case of Ladakh, Technical Institutes are seen as important. They prepare the local community to learn these skills in demand and respond to the situation. It must be noted that initiative on this end has already begun but streamlining of the process by matching needs and supply is yet to take place.

83

16. The Mud versus Cement DebateA Community in a Hurry to Build: Change has set in at a very rapid pace in the Ladakhi community. Traditional systems of Governance, livelihood, education, health and culture are experiencing transitions. While change is stimulated externally by various forces which include the market and state, internal social rifts are emerging around identity and culture. The Ladakhi community, especially the town folk are in a state of a hastened transition process. This transformation has also affected the overall physical infrastructure of majority of the habitations and the same is amplified more starkly in Leh Town. This is observed by the numerous constructions taking place in all Blocks - from previously environment friendly mud houses to concrete buildings. There are pillars protruding from structures with the hope that more floors are added in the future. The movement from mud bricked walls and roofs to cement pillars, walls and roofs are obvious across habitats. It must be mentioned that this change seems quite incongruous in the physical milieu, especially when contrasted with the surrounding mountains and hills. An elderly member of the Ladakhi community opined that the fast pace change process that has seeped into the Ladakhi community is irreversible and unstoppable. Lifestyles of people are changing rapidly and the demand of the younger generation for quick returns for anything they engage in is starting to have repercussions on society at large. He argued strongly we would need to accept the same and go with the flow of the change process.. the question that troubles my mind is how does the community sustain. The entry of new technology that has high energy consumption ( eg. washing machines, tractors, total electrification, fridges, heavy industries) is exerting tremendous pressure on the land and its people. Mr.Tashi Rabgyas, the leading intellectual of the community warned that while the current system of the community can absorb these changes, outside forces especially
84

the market will have to be watched carefully. The community needs to foresee changes and plan for the future. With the coming of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, it has become easier for the community to have a better hold of processes and even direct the change process.

85

17. The Politics of Labour Markets, Subsequent Migration and its Impact on Leh-Ladakh In the neoclassical view, migration is an outcome of the geographical differences in the supply and demand of labour, and at the individual level is an investment in human capital and a result of rational calculations of costs and returns. Within this paradigm it must be noted that Leh is geographically isolated to some degree. However being a closely bounded and to an extent, an autonomous political vessel, the demands of development vis--vis labour is growing at a very fast pace. Migrants in Leh are paid very high compared to other geographical regions across the country. As data reveals, hospitality provided by the local populace is also a major factor that attracts migrants. This floating in of a huge migrant population into Leh district is a phenomenon that will continue for more years to come. The Army and the Border Roads Organization have highly organized institutional set ups for managing their labour force, and will always be in demand because of the nature of work and requirements of activities undertaken. However, the Ladakh Autonomous Hill District Councils institutions beg more foresight from its leaders. Table 12.1 shows migrants response to a question regarding their felt need to stay back in Leh for any specific task during the harsh winter season. While the number is not significant, the very fact that some see the same as an option is an indicator of demand for labour and also sense of willingness of migrants to brave the cold. Table 12.1 Distribution of migrants felt need to stay during coming winter
Frequency Planning to stay during winter Leaving before winter Not sure Total 32 144 24 200 Percent 16.0 72.0 12.0 100.0

Details about ones felt need to return to Leh next season were enquired about. The response as shown in Table 12.2 reflects an increased desire among the floating
86

migrant population to revisit Leh in search of work. Out of the total sample size, 57 percent were positive that they would make efforts to come back for work. Table 12.2 Felt need to come back to Leh-Ladakh
Will come back Not planning to come back Not sure Total Frequency 114 11 75 200 Percent 57.0 5.5 37.5 100.0

Table 13.1 constitutes the core findings of the research. The Table tiled Distribution of migrants ranking of reasons to come to Leh-Ladakh reflects specific and key motives for the reason to migrate. Respondents were asked to rank from a scale of 1 to 5 each of the stated reasons which they had marked as Yes within reasons for coming to Leh. Table 13.1 Distribution of Migrants Ranking of Reasons to come to LehLadakh
REASONS Total response of Yes 8 3 21 22 18 41 9 4 142 4 79 20 61 6 0 1 0 0 13 1 1 6 0 0 64 1 11 1 16 1 0 Rankings 2 3 1 2 4 1 5 2 2 44 1 25 3 22 1 0 3 2 2 3 2 7 11 4 0 27 2 31 7 14 1 0 4 2 0 3 7 4 10 1 1 4 0 6 5 8 2 0 5 1 0 0 8 5 9 2 1 3 0 6 4 1 1 0

Relatives working in Leh-Ladakh Political problem at home district/state/country Have come here before to work and so have contacts Others from native were coming to LehLadakh Ladakhi communities are caring to LehLadakh Lack suitable employment at native place Treated well by Ladakhi contractors Less chance of being exploited as compared to other places Paid very well Police atrocities at native/district/state Easy to get work Absence of land cultivate at native Good weather Good standard of living compared to other places Geographical location-easy to reach

87

Good standard of living compared to home Skills possessed are needed most in Leh-Ladakh For the travel and adventure experience Nice place to settle permanently Easy to get schooling facilities for children Feel secure in Leh-Ladakh, no threats To earn more money for family responsibilities Absence of housing at native Poor standards of living at home Dislike atmosphere at home (family quarrels etc.) Crowded living conditions at home Peaceful place Can understand and communicate easily with locals Religious discrimination at native/ district/state Caste rivalry at native/district/State There are Friends working in LehLadakh There are Relatives working in LehLadakh Total

10 16 48 3 9 8 132 8 53 1 1 37 7 0 0 7 7

0 1 8 0 0 0 41 3 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 194

1 2 12 0 2 2 36 2 17 0 0 4 1 0 0 2 0 197

2 11 4 1 1 4 33 2 7 0 0 9 2 0 0 3 0 192

5 2 12 2 1 2 14 1 4 0 1 10 1 0 0 2 1 111

2 0 12 0 5 0 8 0 5 1 0 14 3 0 0 0 0 91

Respondents ranking of the 31 reasons identified by researcher was tabulated. There were a total of 194, 197, 192, 111 and 91 respondents out of 200 who chose to rank reasons in order of importance within the specified scale respectively. In the ranking of 31 reasons, 64 respondents identified high financial returns and good pay packages as the foremost reason that attracted them to migrate to Leh Ladakh. Following the above, 41 respondents identified possibility of earning more money for family responsibilities as the primary reason for migration. Twenty other respondents ranked poor standard of living condition at home as the primary reason for wanting to migrate. Another 16 respondents ranked good weather in Leh Ladakh as their primary reason. Interestingly, 13 respondents stated that their primary reason for migration was because they know the place well and have come before to work in Leh Ladakh. Eleven respondents identify the ability to get work easily as their primary reason to migrate. Eight respondents migrate for the new travel and adventure experience that entails in the process of migration and 6
88

respondents ranked lack of employment at home as the main reason for migration and an equal number of respondents had other primary reasons out of the 31 identified by the researcher. Very minimal number of 3 respondents ranked no housing in native place as the primary reason. Following this one respondent each identified police atrocities at home, skills needed in Ladakh, good standard of living in Ladakh, good friendly relations with Ladakhi people and finally, the presence of other individuals from native place who were also going to Ladakh. Many other reasons were ranked by respondents as second primary reason within the 1 to 5 scale. Out of the total 197, 44 respondents identified good pay packages as the reason to migrate. This was followed by 36 respondents identified possibility of more money for family responsibilities, another 25 respondents for easiness to get work, opportunities in Leh, 22 respondents identified good weather, 17 identified poor standard for living at home, 12 respondents for the adventure and travelling experience, 5 respondents for lack of employments and opportunities at home, 4 respondents for Ladakh being a peaceful place and other individual form native place also moving to Ladakh, 3 respondents for relatives already being in Ladakh and absence of cultivable land at home, 2 respondents each for having friends working in Leh Ladakh, less exploitation, treated well by Ladakhi contractors, have come before, skills possess are needed in Ladakh, good facilities for childrens education, feeling of security in Leh Ladakh and finally absence of housing in native place. 1 respondent each identified ability to understand and communicate with locals, friendly nature of Ladakhi people, good standard of living compare to home and other places and political problems and police atrocities at home as the second most important reasons for migration. Reasons that were ranked third by respondents was more money for family responsibilities (31 respondents), easy to get work (31 respondents), paid well (27 respondents), good weather (14 respondents), lack of employments opportunities at home (11 respondents), skills possessed needed in Ladakh (11 respondents), Ladakh being a peaceful place (9 respondents), poor standard of living at home, absence of
89

cultivable land and Ladakh being friendly people (7 respondents), treated well by Ladakhi contractors, feeling of security and travel and adventure experience (4 respondents), have come before and having friends in Leh (3 respondents), relatives in Ladakh, political problems at home, other natives who are coming to Ladakh, police atrocities at home, good standards of live compare to home, no housing in native place and understand and communicate well with local (2 respondents) and finally good standard of living in Ladakh, nice place to settle permanently, good educational facilities availability (1 respondent each) was chose by respondents as third reason that prompted them to migrate. Another 111 respondents identified the following reasons as the fourth rank that prompted them to migrate. More money for family responsibilities (14 respondents), travel and adventure experience (12 respondents), Ladakh being a peaceful place and lack of employment at home (10 respondents each), good weather (8 respondents), presence of other native (7 respondents), easy to get work (6 respondents), absence of cultivable land and good standards of living compare to home, Ladakhi being friendly people, paid well poor standards of living at home (4 respondents), have come before (3 respondents), presence of relatives in Ladakh, good standard of living in Ladakh, skills possess needed in Ladakh, nice place to settle permanently, feeling of security and having friends in Ladakh (2 respondents). Finally treated well by Ladakhi contractors, less exploitation, educational facilities for children, no housing at native place, crowed environment at home and understand and communicate with local people (1 respondent each). Finally out of 91 respondents within the fifth ranking, reasons identified were Ladakh being a peaceful place (14 respondents), travel and adventure experience (12 respondents), lack of employment opportunities at home (9 respondents), other individuals from native place coming to Ladakh, more money for family responsibilities (8 respondents), easy to get work (6 respondents), educational facilities for children and poor standard of living at home (5 respondents), absence of
90

cultivable land (4 respondents) , paid well and understand and communicate with locals (3 respondents), treated well by Ladakhi contractors and good standard compare to home (2 respondents). Finally, presence of relatives in Ladakh, a less exploitative environment, good weather, good standard of living and disliking ones native home atmosphere (1 respondent each). There are likely pressures especially on food reserves and medical facilities due to the influx of migrant labour. This happens especially when migrants do not return during winter. The capacity of the local market to store food - reserves is limited and their stocks are kept mainly keeping in mind the needs of the local population. Once the region is landlocked during winter fresh stocks are not available. In such circumstances, when there are an unexpected number of migrants who chose to stay back, food reserves deplete faster. Similarly, the only government hospital in Leh, which has limited inpatient facilities to cater to the restricted local population, is also likely to be under pressure from the migrants.

91

18. Managing Emerging Realities The Imperatives of a Planned Response by State and Community What emerges clearly from the available data and through engagement with the current State system is the fact that neither the Ladakh Autonomous Hill District Council and its various agencies or the community and its local and traditional governance systems have woken up to the reality of migrants That the state and the community do not perceive the same as problematic is a reality. Complaints about Nepali migrants are not uncommon. This, as indicated by many of the local community members is due to the fact that the likelihood of Nepali migrants staying back for a longer duration and the probability of them making Ladakh their home is more real, compared to migrants from other identified communities. It may be mentioned that contrary to such beliefs, the fact is that the service and labour rendered by migrants is crucial in sustaining the Ladakhi community at this juncture of the development process that Ladakh, and Leh district in particular are experiencing. A glimpse into history reveals that the formation of government institutions (legislative, judicial and executive) took place in Leh after social and political rifts with the Jammu and Kashmir Government. When the majority Buddhist Leh subsequently took up the option of establishing a Hill Council, Kargil (with Zanskar) retained its previous status. For consequent elections, Leh District was divided into 26 constituencies and four councillors are nominated members. Out of the total elected councillors, four members were elected as executive councillors, headed by Mr.Thubstan Chhewang, (lately head of the Ladakh Buddhist Association). The council is now slowly, and with occasional checks, finding their way forward in managing the affairs of the said region. It is observed that there is rapid development taking place in most of the blocks within the councils jurisdiction. The streamlining of development processes by the Ladakh Autonomous Hill District Council is in place but the demands and pace at which the community is expanding itself within towns, especially Leh town, is far exceeding the pace of procedural
92

planning of the Council. Critical infrastructural demands made in this development process outweigh what is currently available. In the context of the Council and the community being able to handle and accommodate the issues and subsequent demands made by the migrant population, no institution is in place. Picture 5: Migrant Worker in Leh Ladakh

93

Mapping Migrant Workers in Leh- Ladakh: Politics and Process

MIGRANT LABOURERS - Nepal, Jharkhand, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Assam, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir - Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist - Higher Number of Illiterate REASONS FOR MIGRATION -High returns & good pay packages -Earn more money for family responsibilities -Poor standard of living at home -Good weather -Familiarity with place -Easy to get work -For travel & adventure experience -Lack of employment opportunity at home -No housing in native place -Skills possessed needed in Leh -Increase police atrocities at native -Friendly nature of Ladakhi people -Good standard of living in Leh -Presence of individuals from native place

MIGRANT NEEDS -Temporary Shelter -Sanitation Facilities

RECOMMENDATION -State recognized migrant subsidiary agencies -Simple & fast procedures of administrative processing -Time bound work days and work permit

TYPES of MIGRANTS -Temporary -Seasonal -Contract & Casual -Seeking permanent residence

SERVICES PROVIDED -Building Construction -Agriculture -Plumbing -Road Construction -Automobile Repair -Restaurant -Shoe Repair -Driver -Trading

LAHDC -Administrative Role -Facilitative Role -Agencies Involve: District Collectors Office, Asst Labour Commissioners Office, SSP & Police Stations, Councilor - Monitoring of in-flow and out-flow of migrant population

EMPLOYERS -Government Contractors -Individual Contractors -Homeowners -Restaurant Owners -Agricultural Land Owners

EXTERNAL DEMANDS -Need to Respond to Tourists Flow -Large presence of Army -In-Flow of migrants into Leh District -Increase interest of market forces to enter Ladakh -J&K Govt need to integrate Ladakh

OCCUPATIONS -Brick Making, Carpentry, Road Construction, Plumbing, Laying Pipeline, Painting, Automobile, Driver, Cook, Cobbler, Contractor, Ice-Cream Selling, Machine Operator, Rag Picker, Roller Driver, Supervisor, Clay Making, Stone Lifting & Crushing, HEMANK PROJECT -Task Oriented -Perpetual need

NTPC -Task Oriented -Time bound

STATE

COMMUNITY -Population Size: 1,37,204 -Spread over 113 Villages -Households: 24147 -Avg Household Size:5 -Main Workers: 38776 -Marginal Workers: 19349 -Agricultural Laborers: 2488

INTERNAL NEEDS & DEMANDS -Changing dimensions of Needs of people -Wide exposure to outside world -Changing perspective of community life -Emergence of rational governance & modern education

MONITORING PROCESS -Internal Monitoring Mechanisms -Name Registration -Clear work Roles -Accountability system in Place

ARMY -Task Oriented -Perpetual need

IMPACT ON COMMUNITY -Hasten the process of change -Increase pace of lifestyle changes -Pressure on land and natural resources -Cultural contact and influence -Increase migration into towns and hastening the process of urbanization -Increase demands on individual capabilities -Local community systems disintegrating 94 -Conflict issues and areas broadening especially religion and religious systems -Increase crime rate

TENSION AREAS & EMERGING REALITY -Community systems -Culture, identity and religion -Increase demand and supply of market -Governance- Local vs State -Migrants and migration -Land ownership and distribution -Water, pollution and management of urban waste

Bibligraphy Ancient Future Learning from Ladakh. Oxford University Press, New Delhi Rizvi.J (2007). LADAKH Crossroads of High Asia. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Bray.J (Ed) (2005). Ladakhi Histories Local and Regional Perspectives. Brill Academic Publishers Ladakh Studies International Association for Ladakh Studies. Ladakh Studies No.3 June, 1990; Ladakh Studies No.8 December, 1996 and Ladakh Studies No.24, June 2009 Nilza,R (2008), Socio Economic Conditions of the Changpas of Ladakh and Recent Changes, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Unpublished Dissertation Kaul.S and Kaul H.N (2004) Ladakh Through The Ages. Towards a New Identity. Indian Publishing Company, New Delhi Martijn Van Beek, Ithaca Contested Classifications of People in Ladakh An analysis of the (1997) Census of Jammu and Kashmir1873-1941, Tibetan Studies, Vol 1, Proceedings of the 7th Seminar of International Association of Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995. Van Beek, Martijn(2000) Dissimulations: Representing Ladakhi Identity. Perplexities of Identification: Anthropological Studies in Cultural Differentiation and the Use of Resources. H.Driessen and T. Otto. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press: 164-188. Van Beek, Martijn (2001) Public Secrets, Conscious Amnesia and the Celebration of Autonomy for Ladakh. In Hansen.T.B and Stepputat.F (2001)(Ed).States of Imagination Ethnographic Explorations of Post Colonial States. Duke University Press. Durham and London 2001. http://leh.nic.in/pages/leh.pdf leh.nic.in, LAHDC Leh, Official Website of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, as on 29-008-2012 http://leh.nic.in/pages/ Vision 2025, LAHDC Leh, Official Website of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, as on 29-008-2012 Tobdan & Dorje.C (1996) Historical Documents From Western Trans-Himalaya Lahul, Zanskar and Ladakh. Book India Publishinh Co. Delhi-110035 Tsering Norboo (undated) Overview of Disaster and Food Security Situation of Ladakh. Unpublished note by the author Norberg-Hodge.H (1991).

95

Annexure

Interview Schedule
(May 2008)

1. Socio Demographic & Background Data

Code 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5.1 1.6 1.6.1 1.7 Variable Name (optional) Age Sex Married Children If you have children then how many? Are Family members accompanying you currently If Yes- Who? Religion Data (Specify actual) 1. Male 1. Yes 1. Yes 1.Male1. Yes

2. Female 2. No 2. No 2.Female2. No

3.NA

1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 2.1 2.1.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8.1 2.8.2 2.9 2.9.1 2.9.2 2.10

Caste 3.OBC Caste Name State/Country District Educational Qualification Occupation prior to coming to Ladakh Have you worked in other states/ 2. No districts in India? If Yes then How long? (Specify actual) Have you worked in other Countries? 1. Yes 2. No If Yes then Where? Specify actual What are you capable of doing in work actual actual (type of works you are good at) Tasks performed now in Ladakh by actual actual way of work? Are you registered with the police? 1. Yes 2. No Have you got the inner line permit? 1. Yes 2. No Village/town worked in Ladakh prior to actual actual current work assignment. Where are you staying currently? (Specify actual) (Name of place) How many people stay with you? (Specify actual) How much you have to pay as rent? (Specify actual) Would you consider your stay 1. Yes 2. No comfortable? Do you have problems with 1. Yes 2. No bathing facilities? Where do you go for toilet? 1. Ladakhi 2. Open fields toilet Income per month before coming (Specify actual) to Ladakh (Approximately)

( Specify Actual) Hindu-1 Muslim-2 Indegenous-3 Christian-4 Buddhist-5 1.SC 2.ST/NT Specify Actual (Specify Actual) (Specify Actual) Specify Actual (Specify actual) 1. Yes

NA

4.Other

NA NA

NA

3. Manageable 3.Manageble 3. Flush toi

96

2.10.1 2.10.1.1 2.10.1.2 2.10.1.3 2.10.1.4 2.10.1.5 2.10.1.6 2.10.3 2.10.4 2.10.5 2.10.6 2.10.7 2.10.7.1 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.15.1 2.15.2 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.18.1 2.18.1.1 2.19

Income per month in Ladakh (Approximately) How much is the pay for : a. Skilled male b. Unskilled male c. Skilled female d. Unskilled female e. Child below 10 years (state male/female) f. Child below 15 years (state male/female) How much do you save per month? How much do you save per season (during your work period in Leh)? Do you collect your money lump-sum/ daily/ weekly/ monthly/ seasonally? Where do you save? (Where do you safe-keep the money) Do you send money home? If Yes, then how do you send money? Planned Period of stay in Leh (Approximately) Preferred village/town of work in Leh-Ladakh (if any) How many work hours per day you put in? How did you come to know of Leh-Ladakh? Has someone brought you to Ladakh? If Yes then who? When was your work contract fixed? Do you plan to stay in LehLadakh during the coming winter season? Will you come back next time to Leh-Ladakh? Do you fall ill regularly If Often then what sickness? Where do you take treatment when you fall ill? (Elaborate) What means of transport did you use to come to Leh? Should children also work? If Yes then from what age onwards?

(Specify actual) Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. (Specify actual) (Specify actual) 1.Lum p-sum 2.Daily 3.Weekly 4.Monthl y 4.Season ally

(Specify actual) 1. Yes (Specify actual) (Specify actual) (1) actual (Specify actual) (Specify actual) 1. Yes Specify actual 1. Before coming to Leh 1.Yes 1.Yes 1.Often (Specify actual) Specify actual 1.Air 2.No 2.No 2.Never 2. No (2) 2. No NA

2. After coming to Leh 3.Not Sure 3.Not Sure 3.Sometimes NA NA

2.20 2.20.1

1.Yes 1. Above 6

2.Road 2.Bus & 3. Train 4.Truck 5.Jee Train & Jeep p 2.No 3.Cannot Say 2. Above 10 3. Above 15

97

2.21 2.21.1

Has anyone else from your family also come along with you to Leh to work? If yes who (specify)

1. Yes 1.Wife 2. Children 3. Brother(s)

2. No 4. Sister(s) 5. (specify)

2. Reasons for Choosing to Migrate to Leh-Ladakh

Code 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.26 3.27 3.28 3.29 3.30 3.31 3.32 3.33 Reasons There are Relatives working in Leh-Ladakh. Political problem at home district/sate/country Have come here before to work and so have contacts. Others from native were coming to Leh-Ladakh. Ladakhi community are caring and friendly. Lack suitable employment at native place Treated well by Ladakhi contractors Less chances of being exploited as compared to other places Paid very well. Police atrocities at native / district/ state. Easy to get work. Absence of land t cultivate at native. Good weather. Good standard of living compared to other places. Geographical location easy to reach. Good standard of living compared to home. Skills possessed are needed most in Leh-Ladakh. For the Travel and adventure experience. Nice place to settle permanently. Easy to get schooling facilities for children. Feels secure in Leh-Ladakh; no threats. To earn more money for family responsibilities. Absence of housing at native. Poor standard of living at home. Dislike atmosphere at home (family quarrels etc). Crowded living conditions at home. Peaceful place. Can understand and communicate easily with locals. Religious discrimination at native / district/ state. Caste rivalry at native / district/ state. There are Friends working in Leh-Ladakh. (Specify) (Specify) 1. Yes 2. No Overall ranking of Yes (Top 1 to 5) Specify Actual

Note : Mention in brief the Subjective Experience of the Researcher on (1) and (2): (Emotional state; willingness to talk; expression of fear; ability to communicate; opinion on genuineness of data; etc)

Date of Interview: ________2008

Signature of Interviewer: _______________ 98

Some Facts About Leh District

Leh is one of the 22 Districts of J&K State. Leh and Kargil districts together constitute the Ladakh Region one of the three regions of Jammu and Kashmir. In terms of area, Leh District with 45, 110 square kms. (82,665 including the area illegally occupied by China) is probably the largest district in India. Leh is located at an altitude ranging between 2900 and 5900 meters between 3236 degree north latitude and 7580 degree east longitude. This makes it one of the most elevated (and coldest) inhabited regions of the world. It is a mountainous region with most villages inhabited along Shayok, Siachen, Zanskar and Indus rivers flowing in between paralled ranges of the Western Himalayas the Zanskar, the Ladakh and the Karakuram ranges. Leh is a cold desert with extremely cold climatic conditions. Winters are severe (temperature falling upto 30 c) when most areas become inaccessible due to snow at high passes. The region itself cannot be accessed (except by air) between October and May as the two highways, i.e., Leh Srinagar and Leh Manali, remain closed at Zujila and Ratangla passes respectively. District of Leh has 112 inhabited villages and hamlets and is administratively divided into 3 sub divisions (Khaltse, Nyoma and Nubra), 3 Tehsils (Leh, Khaltse and Sumur), 9 Blocks Leh, Chhuchot and Kharu blocks (in upper Leh known as Stod region), Diskit and Panamic blocks (in Nubra region), Durbuk and Nyoma (in Changthang region) and Khaltse and Saspol (in Lower Leh or Sham region). Villages are organized in 93 Halqa Panchayats. Villages are also organized as Revenue Villages with 110 Gobas (Nambardars). According to 2001 census, Leh District had a population of 1, 17,232 people out of which around 24% were semi urban and 76% rural. Leh is predominantly Buddhist, with Muslims as the minority (around 14%) and Christians and Hindus constituting other groups (about 1%). The density of the population in Leh District is 3 per sq. km. (against 100 in J&K). The decadal growth between 1991 and 2001 was 31.20% (against 29.98% in J&K). Male literacy rate of the District was 75.60% and female literacy 52.37% (source, Economic Review of Leh District 2008 2009).

99