For decades, Punjab has carried a deep sense of grievance that successive central governments—regardless of political party—have systematically discriminated against the state. This perception is rooted in long-standing disputes over water rights, fiscal allocations, and industrial investment. The reorganisation of Punjab in 1966 reduced the state’s geographical and river-water base, while central directives redistributed key river resources to neighbouring non-riparian states, creating a structural imbalance that Punjab continues to claim has been imposed upon it.¹ Punjab’s historical role as the agricultural backbone of India further intensified this tension: although it ensured national food security for over five decades, Punjab did not receive commensurate investment in industrial diversification or ecological rehabilitation, leaving the state locked in a cycle of resource depletion and limited economic expansion.³
One of the most prominent examples of this alleged discrimination is the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal dispute. Conceived by the Centre in 1982, the canal aimed to divert Punjab’s river water to Haryana and other regions.² At the time, Punjab argued—based on riparian principles—that it did not have surplus water to share and that the diversion would severely impact agriculture, groundwater levels, and long-term sustainability. Haryana, backed by central directives, completed its segment of the canal, while Punjab’s portion remained unfinished amid political upheaval, militancy, and widespread public opposition. Over four decades later, the project remains incomplete, symbolizing Punjab’s claim that central policy decisions have often disregarded ecological science, federal balance, and state sentiment.²
These grievances expanded beyond water issues to concerns about central infrastructure, industrial corridors, and railway modernization. Successive governments in Punjab have argued that large-scale central projects regularly bypass the state, favouring politically strategic regions or larger vote-bank states.⁶ Economic researchers have noted that while Punjab contributed disproportionately to national grain procurement, it received comparatively fewer high-value manufacturing clusters, central universities, or defence-sector investments than other states.³ This unequal distribution has contributed to Punjab’s current economic stagnation, rising debt, and a lack of diversification in employment-generating sectors.
Against this historical backdrop, the political narrative shifted when the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) formed the government in Punjab in 2022 under Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann. Many citizens initially hoped that a new leadership model—focused on transparency and cooperative federalism—would repair Punjab’s strained relationship with the Centre. The state expected stronger engagement with central ministries, particularly in infrastructure, education, health, and water management. However, this optimism did not fully materialize. Instead, the relationship between the Mann government and the Centre grew increasingly confrontational, especially on issues handled through the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB).⁴
In May 2025, tensions escalated sharply when Chief Minister Mann accused the Centre and BBMB of “step-motherly treatment” regarding water release decisions affecting Haryana. He publicly challenged BBMB’s announcement to divert water from Punjab, calling it biased, unconstitutional, and designed to favour Haryana at Punjab’s expense.⁴ The Punjab government subsequently approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, alleging that vital facts were concealed by the Centre and Haryana to justify the water release.⁵ These frequent confrontations reinforced Punjab’s narrative of historical discrimination but also intensified political bitterness between the state and central leadership.
Analysts argue that the situation has been further complicated by Chief Minister Mann’s rhetorical style. Instead of pursuing institution-based negotiation, he has often adopted a sharply personalised tone against central leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.⁶ While political criticism is a normal feature of democracy, repeated personal attacks—and public framing of national leaders in confrontational language—have, according to critics, weakened Punjab’s bargaining strength at the central level. This dynamic has raised concerns among policy experts that Punjab’s development prospects may be suffering due to avoidable political hostility rather than structural federal disputes alone.
Punjab’s political history has always included strong ideological disagreements, but it has rarely witnessed the type of personalised attacks on leaders’ families or private life that have become more visible in the recent period. Traditionally, even when political parties opposed each other fiercely, leaders maintained certain conventions and boun