>What does it mean for Lakadh to not have a legislature? Does it mean that this province cannot have elected local leaders? India has a few 'union territories'

>What does it mean for Lakadh to not have a legislature? Does it mean that this province cannot have elected local leaders? India has a few 'union territories' already. They send elected representatives to the Lok Sabha (the lower house / house of representatives equivalent). The new Ladakh UT, will also do the same. > Why are the prominent politicians under house arrest? What is their offence? They are prominent local leaders, and the center wants to avoid them from leading civil unrest. > Why were these two articles repealed? Any answer to this question is broad over simplification. I'll try to give my most un-biased opinion. - The status quo was perceived as not working in resolving Kashmir's status since the last 70+ years. It didn't improve for India, Kashmiris or Pakistan who stake claim. - It increases the leverage India has for any future solution of Kashmir. - It would reduce the barriers of Kashmir's integration with rest of India. The desirability of above, depends on who you're.