Chandigarh, the shared capital of Punjab and Haryana, has long been a point of contention between the two states and the Union Government of India. The recent appointment of the Chief Secretary of Chandigarh by the Union Government has reignited the debate over Punjab’s rightful claim to the city and accusations of systematic discrimination by the central government. Critics argue that such actions are part of a broader strategy to erode Punjab’s control over Chandigarh and diminish its rightful autonomy in matters concerning the Union Territory.
Historical Context: Punjab’s Claim to Chandigarh
Chandigarh was designed as India’s first planned city after Partition and was declared the capital of Punjab in 1953. However, during the reorganization of Punjab in 1966, Haryana was carved out as a separate state, and Chandigarh was declared a Union Territory, serving as the capital of both Punjab and Haryana. The Union Government promised that Chandigarh would eventually be transferred to Punjab, but this has yet to materialize even after decades.
Over the years, Punjab has repeatedly demanded that Chandigarh be handed over to the state, citing the assurances made by the central government in the past. The failure to honor this promise has fueled a perception of discrimination against Punjab and has created resentment among the people of the state.
The Issue of Administrative Control
The recent appointment of the Chief Secretary of Chandigarh by the Union Government has become a flashpoint in this ongoing controversy. Critics argue that this decision undermines Punjab’s authority over Chandigarh and reflects a larger pattern of marginalizing the state’s interests. They see this as part of a deliberate effort to centralize control over Chandigarh, effectively reducing Punjab’s influence over its own historical capital.
This move also comes in the backdrop of other administrative changes, such as the implementation of central service rules for Chandigarh employees in 2022, which were perceived as an attack on Punjab’s autonomy. Such decisions have not only widened the trust deficit between Punjab and the central government but have also sparked protests and political outrage in the state.
Why Does the Union Government Want to Retain Control?
The Union Government’s actions regarding Chandigarh are often viewed through a political lens. Chandigarh is a strategically significant city, both geographically and administratively. Its status as a Union Territory allows the central government to maintain direct control over the city, which serves as a power center for the administration of both Punjab and Haryana.
Additionally, Haryana’s claim to Chandigarh complicates the issue. The central government has historically tried to maintain a balance between Punjab and Haryana, often at the expense of Punjab’s interests. The demand for a separate high court for Haryana, the sharing of river waters, and now the administrative control over Chandigarh are all examples of how Punjab’s claims have been sidelined to appease competing interests.
The Political Implications for Punjab
The perceived discrimination against Punjab in the Chandigarh issue has deepened political divisions in the state. Regional political parties, including the Shiromani Akali Dal and the Aam Aadmi Party, have accused the central government of working against Punjab’s interests. These parties argue that the central government’s actions reflect a systematic erosion of federalism and an attempt to undermine the states’ rights.
Punjab’s unique cultural, historical, and political identity makes it particularly sensitive to issues of autonomy and self-governance. The central government’s actions are seen as a direct affront to this identity, further alienating the people of Punjab from the larger Indian polity.
Conclusion: The Way Forward
The issue of Chandigarh remains a thorn in the relationship between Punjab and the Union Government. To resolve this long-standing dispute, the central government must revisit the promises made during the reorganization of Punjab in 1966 and engage in meaningful dialogue with all stakeholders. The demands for federalism and respect for state autonomy are not unique to Punjab, but they hold particular significance in this case due to the historical and emotional attachment to Chandigarh.
The recent decisions concerning Chandigarh, including the appointment of the Chief Secretary, only deepen the mistrust between Punjab and the Union Government. For India to function as a true federal democracy, it is imperative to address these grievances and honor commitments made to the states, starting with the long-overdue transfer of Chandigarh to Punjab.