Khattar’s tri-city planning board idea has merit

Naveen S Garewal

Haryana and Punjab have too many legacy issues that keep coming up time and again. Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar was not entirely wrong in making a claim over Chandigarh that was originally announced to be the capital city of Haryana and Punjab was to be compensated for it. But over half a century later anyone with little imagination can say that it is now too late to go back into history and Khattar’s suggestion is not out of place to check the growth of concrete jungle on the periphery of Chandigarh.

At a public function earlier this week, Khattar staked the claim of Haryana over Chandigarh and demanded a tri-city planning board for Chandigarh and its adjoining cities of Panchkula and Mohali. The Punjab Chief Minister was quick to reject the suggestion saying that Chandigarh belongs to Punjab. Both were not entirely wrong as at different times Chandigarh was promised to both states, but with politics in Punjab getting aggressive, the Central government promised Chandigarh to Punjab.

In 1966, the Punjab Boundary Commission was constituted under the Chairmanship of Justice JC Shah to demarcate the territory of undivided Punjab into Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. The recommendations of the commission did not raise much controversy, except on the issue of Chandigarh. Two of the three members in the commission (Shah and MM Philip) awarded the entire capital project to Haryana along with Kharar tehsil, while former Foreign Secretary Subimal Dutt dissented. That was the start of the territorial dispute between the two states.

Haryana former Chief Secretary Ram S Varma quotes first Chief Minister Bhagwat Dayal Sharma’s annoyance at making Chandigarh a Union Territory and a joint capital of both states. He had said, “Chandigarh was given to Haryana by the Punjab Boundary Commission but it was wrongly made a Union Territory. In our own house we are living as tenants”. The then Chief Minister had a valid argument, but Khattar probably intentionally overlooked the fact that the Indira Gandhi Award of 1981 and the subsequent 1985 Rajiv-Longowal Award announced Chandigarh for Punjab.

Not to forget that Resolution 2 of the 1973 Anandpur Sahib Resolution,  which became a major reason for the conflict between Punjab and the Union of India, sought “a larger share of water for irrigation and the return of Chandigarh and Punjabi speaking areas to Punjab”. The Indira Gandhi Award had promised Chandigarh to Punjab in lieu of Hindi speaking areas of Abohar and Fazilka along with 110 villages. The Rajiv-Longowal Award too promised Chandigarh to Punjab but was silent on the issue of building a capital for Haryana with Central aid.

Meanwhile, the Centre has gradually diluted the strength of Punjab and Haryana officers in Chandigarh, replacing them with the Union Territory cadre officers. This has made Chandigarh, the UT, a much stronger entity than Chandigarh, the capital city of Punjab or Haryana. From a ratio of 60:40 officers on deputation from Punjab and Haryana to run the local administration, Chandigarh already has over 50 per cent IAS officers from the UT cadre.  

Meanwhile, the city built initially for less than one-fourth of its current population is bursting at the seams. There is unregulated mushrooming of concrete jungles in all directions. Since the territorial dispute between Haryana and Punjab over Chandigarh now seems to be irreconcilable, Khattar’s idea of setting up a tri-city planning board for greater planning of areas around Chandigarh carries weight. There is already an existing coordination committee headed by the Union Urban Development Secretary with the chief secretaries of Punjab and Haryana as its members to resolve development issues in the tri-city region.