Give Chandigarh to Punjab

In my book, Indira Gandhi: An Era of Constitutional Dictatorship (2018), I referred to what Zail Singh had written in his book, Memoirs of Giani Zail Singh — The Seventh President of India: “On my return from tour of the three foreign countries, I was met by Swaran Singh (who was asked by the government to negotiate with the Akalis), who gave me the tidings that an understanding had been reached between the government and the Akalis. It was, inter alia, agreed upon by the two sides that the Anandpur Sahib Resolution would be referred to a parliamentary committee and the contentious city of Chandigarh would be transferred to Punjab… I was told by Swaran Singh that the central government had accepted these propositions and was about to make an announcement to this effect… The Akali Party had also accepted the arrangement. But the government changed its stance and sprang a surprise. An altogether different statement was made by home minister, P C Sethi, in Parliament… I came to know later that it was due to the intransigent attitude of Darbara Singh… who took the oft-repeated line, that if these solutions were accepted, things would go out of his control. He also thought that if Swaran Singh got the credit for solving the tangle, it would lower the prestige of the state government. Obviously, the Punjab state leaders were more interested in their prestige than in finding an acceptable solution to the long-standing problem.”

I have given this long quotation to bring out the inner workings of the state and central governments. It also bears out the criticism of opposition leaders that Indira Gandhi was not able to assert herself in finding a lasting solution to the Punjab problem. Indira Gandhi in her last term as prime minister was quite a contrast of what she was prior to 1977. In spite of a resounding popular mandate, India was let down by Indira Gandhi in tackling the Punjab problem. More importantly, she paid for it with her own life.

For years the Chandigarh question has become linked with the Fazilka-Abohar area. This is because of Indira Gandhi’s insistence that Chandigarh can be given to Punjab only if Punjab agrees to give the Fazilka-Abohar area to Haryana, as compensation. A G Noorani in his essay “A White Paper on a Black Record”, included by Patwant Singh and others in Punjab — The Fatal Miscalculation, brought out several aspects that have rarely come into public discussion. When the linguistic states were created in 1956, only two states were excluded from it, namely, East Punjab and Bombay. Later, after prolonged agitation, Bombay city was given to Maharashtra and the separate states of Maharashtra and Gujarat were formed. But Punjab’s demand for Chandigarh continued to be overlooked. On 22 January 1984, some 150 eminent Punjabis highlighted that Chandigarh was built to compensate Punjab for the loss of its capital, Lahore. There was no reason for that decision to be altered.

B R Ambedkar was fond of saying that boundary marking is the job of a surveyor; boundary making is the task of a statesman. This is amply brought out by the Chandigarh imbroglio. At no time the decision of the Centre to link it up with Fazilka and Abohar was justified. There was no justification for making Chandigarh a Union Territory (UT). A new capital could easily have been constructed for Haryana. The latest example is that of Andhra Pradesh where Chandrababu Naidu, with his astute leadership and commendable statesmanship, decided to build a green-field capital for the state at Amaravati. Even in this case, suggestions were made to declare Hyderabad a UT, and following the example of Chandigarh, make it the capital of both Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Fortunately, wiser counsels prevailed.

If Indira Gandhi had taken a reasonable position on the subject and Chandigarh given to Punjab, the Punjab agitation would have taken a different and a more conciliatory turn. For all that I know, even Operation Blue Star could have been avoided.

It is unfortunate that even after Indira Gandhi’s assassination, this issue has remained unaddressed. A new beginning should be made by announcing the transfer of Chandigarh to Punjab and building a new capital for Haryana. As for the future of other Punjabi and Hindi speaking areas in dispute, a boundary commission may be appointed with a clear guideline that, as in all other cases so far, village should be adopted as the unit, subject to the other usual criteria such as contiguity, communications, cultural ties etc.

I have urged in my latest book, India — A Federal Union of States: Fault Lines, Challenges and Opportunities, that the continuance of other UTs needs to be considered afresh. At present, there are eight UTs. The justification for the continuance of these UTs has never been examined so far. I am sure Delhi would have to be continued as a UT, whichever political party comes to power at the Centre. For strategic considerations, Andaman and Nicobar, and Ladakh would have to continue as UTs. Kashmir valley and Jammu region, which were converted into a UT in 2019, should be upgraded and given statehood soon after the delimitation question is addressed. The remaining UTs should be merged with the adjoining states. In view of its history as a French colony, Puducherry should be made a separate district of Tamil Nadu to maintain its identity.

The writer is a former Union Home Secretary