E-Paper
Haryana, Punjab spar over Chandigarh capital claim
Cutting across party lines and displaying a rare show of unity, the majority of the legislators of the 90-member Vidhan Sabha dubbed as a “political ploy” the Punjab assembly resolution, spearheaded by that state’s new Aam Aadmi Party government.
The Haryana assembly on Tuesday unanimously adopted an official resolution reiterating the state’s right over Chandigarh, its capital, a move that comes four days after the April 1 resolution by the Punjab assembly urging the Union government for a “complete transfer of Chandigarh to Punjab.”
Cutting across party lines and displaying a rare show of unity, the majority of the legislators of the 90-member Vidhan Sabha dubbed as a “political ploy” the Punjab assembly resolution, spearheaded by that state’s new Aam Aadmi Party government.
“This House notes with concern the resolution passed in the Legislative Assembly of Punjab on April 1, 2022 recommending that the matter for transfer of Chandigarh to Punjab be taken up with the Central government,” read the Haryana resolution moved by chief minister Manohar Lal Khattar that was adopted unanimously by the House.
Punjab’s April 1 resolution is the latest in the long history of the fight for Chandigarh -- a low-intensity sparring that has played out since Haryana was carved out of Punjab on November 1, 1966. Back then it was decided that the two states would share Chandigarh, which would be made into a Union territory, as capital, although there have been at least two separate Union government decisions to transfer Chandigarh completely to Punjab.
Nothing came of those decisions, though. The latest demand for Chandigarh’s transfer came in December from the Shiromani Akali Dal in the run up to the state elections.
On Tuesday, after a three-and-a-half-hour debate during which legislators vociferously attacked the newly formed AAP government in Punjab and repeatedly said its resolution was a deep-rooted conspiracy, the Haryana assembly said: “This is not acceptable to the people of Haryana. Haryana continues to retain its right to the Capital Territory of Chandigarh.” It urged the Union government not to take any steps “under these circumstances” that would disturb the existing balance.
Former Haryana chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda set stage for the discussion saying Punjab’s resolution was not only meaningless but also a “political gimmick” and that while the state’s role only as an elder brother (to Haryana) was acceptable that of “big brother” was not.
Haryana also hit back by raising the long-pending issue of the Sutlej Yamuna Link canal. The canal was expected to give Haryana access to the waters of the Ravi and the Beas rivers. The resolution stated that while the Haryana assem bly has unanimously, on at least seven occasions, passed resolutions urging the early completion of the SYL canal, the work remains incomplete.
It further said that several agreements, accords, tribunal findings and judgments of the highest judiciary of the nation have all singularly upheld the claim of Haryana to the waters and directed the completion of the SYL canal.
“In defiance and contrary to these directions and agreements, legislations were enacted by Punjab to deny the rightful claims of Haryana,” added the resolution.
Urging the Centre to take measures for the construction of SYL Canal as per the directions of the Supreme Court, the house urged the Union government to prevail upon Punjab to withdraw its case that is currently holding up the project.
The house also touched the issue of transfer of Hindi speaking villages from Punjab to Haryana, saying this process has also not been completed even as the Indira Gandhi agreement, the Rajiv- Longowal accord and the Venkatramaiah Commission accepted the claim of Haryana to Hindi-speaking areas that fall within the territory of Punjab. According to experts, these commissions had nothing to do with transfer of Chandigarh to Punjab and that they had to only identify Hindi speaking areas in Punjab.
The Haryana resolution also said that the recent amendment in the rules of the Bhakra Beas Management Board by the central government for appointment of whole time members goes against the spirit of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, which treats river projects as common assets of the successor states of Punjab and Haryana.
The house noted with concern that the share of officers on deputation from Haryana government to the administration of the Union territory of Chandigarh has been reducing over the years.
The house urged the central government to ensure that the proportion earmarked for officers from Haryana to serve in the administration of Chandigarh is continued in the same proportion as settled when the reorganisation of Punjab was envisaged (60:40 for Punjab and Haryana).
