Time for Haryana to get a new capital

The Centre’s recent decision to replace the adviser to the Chandigarh administrator with the position of chief secretary has ignited a fresh political storm. This move has reignited the long-standing contention over Chandigarh and deepened the rift between the two states. For Punjab, the decision is a perceived encroachment on its historical claim to Chandigarh. At the same time, for Haryana, it serves as a reminder of its own incomplete identity—a state still grappling with the absence of a capital that genuinely belongs to it.

Punjab has already opposed the allotment of land by the Centre for Haryana Vidhan Sabha building in Chandigarh and this recent administrative shift has further complicated the tangled relationship between Punjab and Haryana, rooted in the contentious legacy of the Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966. Chandigarh as a city state status is not workable, as Chandigarh — since its inception — has been meant to be a Union Territory, serving as the shared capital of both states. However, what was envisioned as a practical administrative arrangement has become a bitter, decades-long dispute that has overshadowed meaningful progress in resolving the issue.

Chandigarh: A disputed jewel

Chandigarh, conceived as the “City Beautiful,” has become a persistent source of discord, much like a contested inheritance between two heirs. Its status as a Union Territory and joint capital has never been universally accepted, with Punjab claiming it as its rightful territory and Haryana seeking equitable compensation for its share.

The roots of this conflict are deep. Chandigarh was carved out of Ambala district, and the Shah Commission initially recommended its inclusion in Haryana. However, political expediency led to its designation as a Union Territory. Over the years, this arrangement has fueled mutual resentment, with each state accusing the other of undue advantage. Adding to the complexity are related disputes over the distribution of Ravi-Beas waters and the allocation of Hindi-speaking areas.

What could have been resolved through cooperative federalism instead became a theatre of political posturing. Successive state and central governments have treated this issue as a convenient tool for political gain rather than a challenge to be addressed with statesmanship.

A vision for resolution

The Union government’s latest move has brought the Chandigarh issue back into sharp focus, offering both states and the central leadership an opportunity to revisit the matter and chart a path toward resolution. While several options exist, the most pragmatic and equitable path forward involves delinking Chandigarh from its symbolic status as a shared capital and empowering Haryana to build its capital within its territory. Among the options available are:  

Maintain the status quo: This would only perpetuate dissatisfaction in both states, leaving the underlying issues unresolved.

Transfer Chandigarh to Punjab: A solution endorsed by Parliament but never implemented.

Transfer Chandigarh to Haryana: Although supported by the Shah Commission, the central government rejected this idea.

Permanently make Chandigarh a Union Territory: Both states could be encouraged to develop their capitals.

Compensate Haryana for a new capital and high court: This approach would enable Haryana to create a dedicated administrative and cultural hub that is reflective of its identity and aspirations.

The fifth option stands out as the most reasonable. Haryana’s leadership must seize this moment to steer the state towards a future where its administrative and cultural identity is firmly anchored within its territory. By delinking Chandigarh from related issues like water distribution and territorial disputes, the state can lay the foundation for lasting solutions.  

Why Haryana needs a new address

A state capital is more than just a seat of government; it symbolises a region’s aspirations, identity and cultural pride. Haryana’s vibrant history and dynamic populace deserve a capital that reflects its unique ethos—a place that serves as a hub for governance, culture and economic growth.

Chandigarh, though a modern marvel in urban planning, fails to capture the spirit of Haryana. It remains a shared and contested space, unable to fully satisfy the state’s need for a distinctive identity. A new capital within Haryana’s territory would resolve administrative challenges and foster a sense of ownership and pride among its people.

Toward a new era

Creating a new capital for Haryana is not merely an administrative necessity but a historical imperative. This initiative would begin a new chapter for the state, bringing cultural renaissance, economic opportunities, and political maturity. It would also signal a break from the shadow of historical grievances, enabling Haryana to redefine itself on its terms.

The central leadership must take a decisive role in resolving this issue, ensuring that Punjab and Haryana receive equitable treatment. Haryana’s leaders, too, must rise above short-term political considerations and take bold steps to build a capital that reflects the state’s rich heritage and promising future.

The Union government’s decision to alter Chandigarh’s administrative structure has inadvertently reopened old wounds, but it also presents an opportunity to address the broader issue of Haryana’s incomplete identity. By taking proactive steps to build its capital, Haryana can move beyond the limitations of its current arrangement and step confidently into the future.

This moment calls for statesmanship and vision—a chance to transform Haryana’s longstanding grievance into a source of pride and progress. A new capital is not just a necessity; it is a promise to the people of Haryana.

chopramohinder54@gmail.com

(The writer is a retired senior IAS officer of Haryana cadre. Views expressed are personal)