I only speak of what I know (which may not be correct)

* What does it mean for Lakadh to not have a legislature? Does it mean that this province cannot have elect local leaders?

> I think this means that they will not have legislative power in the government (aka similar to USVI or Puerto Rico in the US)

* Why are the prominent politicians under house arrest? What is their offence?

> I believe this is mostly to silence them to not agitate people. Also, these articles are widely misused and politicians amassed a lot of land since no outsiders can hold land in the area.

* Why were these two articles repealed?

> This is partly for political as well as some economical. Since no one can own a property or land in Jammy & Kashmir other than its residents, economy growth is much smaller in Kasmir than the rest of India and it helps boost Kasmir's economy. The political reason might be that the BJP government wants more power in the area.

> I think this means that they will not have legislative power in the government (aka similar to USVI or Puerto Rico in the US)

This is incorrect. Not having a legislature here means not having a state legislature. They will still have an elected representative in the national parliament, unlike Puerto Rico, or even Washington DC. Perhaps Washington DC would be the most apt comparison, as in the national government governing a province.

>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 Why were these two articles repealed?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.

> Does it mean that this province cannot have elected local leaders?

They will have no locally elected representatives in the local government. However they will still elect a Member of Parliament who will represent them in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of the Indian Parliament).

I'll try to answer your questions. I may be partially wrong on some points. * India has multiple levels of government - village, district, state, centre. Now Ladakh will not have any state government as such. All the responsibilities will be handled by a Lt. Governor appointment by the center. It makes sense because Ladakh is very sparsely populated and the state legislature would have very few legislators to be effective. People would continue to vote in village, district, and central leaders. * Since Article 370 and 35a were in place, nobody else (except people of the state) could buy land. Subsequently there is very little industialization, and investment. These leaders amassed lots of land and wealth. They would do anything to keep it, including fomenting violence. They were placed under house arrest to stop this.

(I am also not sure but trying what I can say)

1 - Yes it will work like other UTs. 2 - To avoid nuisance and violence. To avoid future offence. P.S. A precautionary measure to keep the state in peace. 3 - Because they kept this state departed from India. Now its one nation one constitution one flag.

There are both sided opionions but overall this decision is liked by Indians + Ladakhis no idea of kashmiris. Jammu people have liked this.