Time for Haryana to get a new capital

{ GUEST COLUMN }

- MS Chopra

The Centre's recent decision to replace the advisor 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, 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.