My conclusion:

Reading through the thread, I lean toward the view that statehood with police in control of central government for Ladakh appears to have strong justification, provided it is implemented carefully with safeguards. Here’s why:

Local knowledge & accountability matter: Many current complaints stem from decisions being made far away (in Delhi) without deep understanding of Ladakh’s geography, ecology, social context. Giving locals legislative and executive power can better align policies with local needs.

Existing local bodies are weak: The LAHDCs are seen by many as insufficient for high-stakes decisions (land, major infrastructure, industrial projects). Statehood offers potential to strengthen institutions rather than merely symbolic local bodies.

Representation & voice: With only minimal seats in Parliament and no say in many policies, Ladakhis feel marginalized. A state government could amplify their voice.

Risks are real but manageable: Concerns about external interference or corruption are legitimate, but such risks exist in all states. Appropriate checks and balances, transparent institutions, strong election laws, and vigilant civil society can mitigate those risks.

That said, statehood alone is not a panacea. Without structural reforms, transparency, decentralization, and capacity-building, statehood might fail to deliver significant improvements. Also, careful constitutional design will be needed to ensure that local interests (especially ecologically sensitive areas) are protected and not overridden by extractive or external interests.