Punjab Outlook

In a strong statement, Dhillon alleged that the Department of Housing and Urban Development and local bodies have consistently ignored commitments made to regions such as Patiala over the years. According to him, many politicians who rose to power after winning elections from Patiala encouraged investors and businesses to invest in the city, presenting it as a promising hub for development. However, Dhillon claimed that many of these leaders themselves chose to move their investments elsewhere—particularly to areas around Chandigarh, as well as to Delhi and international destinations such as the United Arab Emirates and countries across Europe.

Dhillon described this trend as “playing on the emotions of poor and helpless voters,” questioning whether such actions could be considered a betrayal of public trust. He emphasized that while voters were persuaded to believe in the promise of development in their hometowns, the political and administrative elite quietly shifted their economic interests to more lucrative regions outside the city.

The senior Congress leader also pointed to what he described as a violation of historical agreements dating back to the merger of the former princely state of Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU) with Punjab. Dhillon stated that under earlier understandings, several departmental head offices were meant to remain in Patiala and nearby regions. However, over time, he alleged that these commitments have been disregarded, with most senior officials choosing to live and operate out of Chandigarh instead.

“Only junior-level officers remain in Patiala and other cities, while the senior bureaucrats and their administrative machinery prefer to stay in Chandigarh,” Dhillon said. He argued that this pattern has weakened administrative presence in other parts of Punjab and concentrated decision-making power in the Chandigarh region.

Dhillon further claimed that the growing development in and around Chandigarh—referred to as the Chandigarh Peripheral Region (CPR)—has become a financial burden on the state. According to him, the concentration of infrastructure, government institutions, and investment in this belt effectively turns the region into a “tax drag” on the wider population of Punjab, as state resources are disproportionately directed toward a limited geographical area.

He alleged that a small group of influential individuals and political interests have long manipulated Punjab’s resources in favour of development projects in the Chandigarh peripheral belt, while other historic cities such as Patiala struggle for attention and investment. Dhillon argued that such policies have widened regional disparities and undermined balanced development in the state.

Despite the criticism, Dhillon expressed optimism that younger generations would eventually challenge the current model of governance. Referring to emerging youth-led discussions on policy reform, he said that initiatives such as “The Shivalik Dialogue” aim to create awareness and encourage a broader debate on regional equity and governance in Punjab.

“The new generation will not accept this imbalance forever,” Dhillon stated, adding that a movement for course correction is gradually building momentum. “The rebellion for fair distribution of resources is in the making, and it cannot be stopped.”

Dhillon’s remarks have reignited debate on regional development policies, the concentration of administrative power in Chandigarh, and the role of political leadership in ensuring balanced growth across Punjab’s historic cities and districts. Observers say the issue could become a significant topic in future political and policy discussions within the state.