The Chandigarh dispute between Punjab and Haryana has once again escalated. Haryana has recently requested land in Chandigarh to construct a new Vidhan Sabha building, which has become a flashpoint. The ruling party of Punjab, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), has strongly opposed the move, claiming that Chandigarh belongs solely to Punjab. The party has categorically refused to allow Haryana to construct a Vidhan Sabha building, despite the fact that the current Vidhan Sabha, or the Haryana State Assembly, is located in the Union Territory of Chandigarh itself.
Though the issue is escalating between the two states, it is not a new battle. The two neighbouring states of Punjab and Haryana have been at loggerheads over Chandigarh since 1966, when Haryana was carved out of Punjab. At that time, Congress’s handling of Punjab’s reorganisation was fundamentally flawed and has been left unresolved for decades, deepening the dispute between the two states as time passes.
The issue came to fore after the Union Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change reportedly gave clearance allowing the allotment of 10 acres of land in Chandigarh to Haryana for the construction of its assembly building. In exchange, Haryana has offered 12 acres of land in Panchkula near IT Park Road in Chandigarh.
Notably, the demand for a separate Assembly building was raised by the then Haryana Chief Minister, Manohar Lal Khattar, during the 30th meeting of the Northern Zonal Council in Jaipur on 9 July 2022. Later, Home Minister Amit Shah announced the allocation of land. The Chandigarh administration decided to provide 10 acres of land to the Haryana government in return for 12 acres of Panchkula land bordering Chandigarh. The process was stayed owing to environmental and forest clearance issues, which have now been resolved.
But now the Punjab govt is opposing this allocation, claiming that the entire Chandigarh belongs to Punjab. Haryana govt does not agree with it. Haryana minister Anil Vij said that Punjab can have Chandigarh if they give Hindi-speaking areas to Haryana. He added that at present Chandigarh belongs to none of the states as it is a union territory, and therefore both states have equal rights on it.
The flawed foundation – Congress’s decision in 1966
Before the partition, Lahore was the capital of the undivided Punjab province. After Lohore went to Pakistan, Shimla was made the temporary capital of Indian Punjab state. At that time, the government decided to set up a modern city, and thus Chandigarh was created, India’s first planned city. It became the capital of Punjab in 1953.
Punjab was again divided in 1966, and Haryana was carved out of the state comprising Hindi-speaking areas. Chandigarh was on the newly demarketed border of the two states, and became the capital of both Punjab and Haryana. At that time, the Congress government decided not to assign Chandigarh to one of the two states or to divide the city itself, instead declaring it a Union Territory (UT).
This decision was described as temporary, with the Indira Gandhi government at the centre announcing that Harana would eventually receive its own capital city. In 1970, the central govt announced that Chandigarh city should go to Punjab, and Haryana would get a new capital city. However, successive governments failed to fulfil this promise, leaving Chandigarh in limbo. It has remained a shared capital between Punjab and Haryana to this day, with no resolution to the matter in sight.
Notably, giving Chandigarh the status of a UT was not a solution, but merely a deferral of the real problem. The Congress government at the time avoided taking a clear stance on the ownership of Chandigarh, fearing backlash from Punjab or Haryana, whichever state lost the city. Over time, there has been a consistent lack of clarity from the central government—irrespective of the ruling party—on the city’s status. The situation has now reached a point of contention between the two states, with no resolution in sight.
The administrative infrastructure in Chandigarh is shared by both states, including their Vidhan Sabha offices. This arrangement has functioned reasonably well for decades but was never intended to be a long-term solution.
Not to forget, on 29 January 1970, the central government announced that Chandigarh should, as a whole, be transferred to Punjab. The announcement was made after Fateh Singh, leader of the Punjabi Suba movement, threatened to self-immolate if Chandigarh was not handed over to Punjab. On a temporary basis, Haryana was provided accommodation for running offices in the civil secretariat and given space in Punjab’s Vidhan Sabha. This arrangement was intended to last only five years, but six decades have since passed. Political unwillingness to resolve the matter has left Chandigarh as a “disputed” city.
At the time of the independence in 1947, India had only 12 states, now the number is 28. The original states have undergone several splits to arrive at the current status. After every split, the new states got their own capitals within their geographical boundaries. But the split of Punjab was unusual in this regard and has led to the current dispute.
Haryana’s demand for a new Vidhan Sabha building
In recent years, Haryana has intensified its demand for a separate Vidhan Sabha building in Chandigarh. The state’s leaders have argued that the existing shared arrangement is no longer appropriate to meet its growing administrative needs. Haryana seeks to construct its own Assembly building within the Union Territory to address the logistical challenges it has been facing, which, according to the state government, would improve governance.
Currently, the Haryana Assembly operates out of the Punjab Civil Secretariat. This building was not designed to accommodate two independent legislatures and secretariats. Over the past six decades, the shared infrastructure between the two states has proven to be inefficient, especially as Haryana’s administrative requirements have expanded.
Haryana Minister Anil Vij spoke to media on the matter and said, “If we talk about Chandigarh, he should read the previous agreements in which it is clearly written that the Hindi speaking areas will be given to Haryana…We have as much right on Chandigarh as Punjab has. Chandigarh is a Union Territory and not a part of Punjab… All the employees working in the Union Territory are from both Punjab and Haryana.”
#WATCH | Ambala: On the statement of Punjab Minister Harpal Singh Cheema, Haryana Minister Anil Vij says, "…If we talk about Chandigarh, he should read the previous agreements in which it is clearly written that the Hindi speaking areas will be given to Haryana…We have as… pic.twitter.com/Utnl1RE0TS
— ANI (@ANI) November 16, 2024
Punjab’s rejection – Why state opposes Haryana’s plan
The ruling party of Punjab, AAP, has outrightly opposed Haryana’s request. Finance Minister Harpal Singh Cheema has declared, “Chandigarh belongs to Punjab,” and vowed to block any move to allocate land to Haryana for its Assembly building. AAP appears to view the issue as a political opportunity to gain an electoral upper hand in the state. Speaking to media, Cheema said, “We have given a memorandum to the Governor stating that Haryana should not be allotted land in Chandigarh (to construct Haryana Assembly) and their request should be declined…Punjab has the right to Chandigarh and we will not let it go. AAP will fight for this. Haryana’s claim is absolutely wrong.”
#WATCH | Chandigarh | On AAP delegation's meeting with Punjab Governor, Punjab Minister Harpal Singh Cheema says, "We have given a memorandum to the Governor stating that Haryana should not be allotted land in Chandigarh (to construct Haryana Assembly) and their request should be… pic.twitter.com/ccTxNa30MO
— ANI (@ANI) November 15, 2024
Notably, the rhetoric that Chandigarh belongs exclusively to Punjab is not only impractical but also inflammatory. Chandigarh has served as the shared capital for both states for nearly six decades. While Punjab claims that Chandigarh historically belongs to it, Haryana’s demand for a functional administrative space does not challenge Punjab’s claim to the UT. AAP’s hardline stance risks alienating Haryana while doing little to address the larger issue of Chandigarh’s status.
Taking a dig at Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann’s statement that he would not allow Haryana to construct new Vidhan Sabha in Chandigarh, Haryana CM Nayab Singh Saini said, “First they stopped the SYL water, now they have come to the Vidhan Sabha. Haryana has a right over Chandigarh too. You should work for the people. I would like to tell Bhagwant Mann that you could have bought the crops of the farmers, you are not giving them MSP. You want to divert attention by saying that you will not let us form the Vidhan Sabha here. I would request him to take steps in the interest of the farmers. Why do they say such things that we have stopped the water, we will not let them form the Vidhan Sabha. What does this mean? One should act wisely…”
#WATCH | Chandigarh: On Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann's statement, Haryana CM Nayab Singh Saini says, "…First they stopped the SYL water, now they have come to the Vidhan Sabha. Haryana has a right over Chandigarh too. You should work for the people. I would like to tell Bhagwant… pic.twitter.com/N81KwjdMHG
— ANI (@ANI) November 15, 2024
The path forward – Dialogue over divisive rhetoric
If Punjab, Haryana, and the central government genuinely wish to resolve the Chandigarh dispute, they must initiate a dialogue with a balanced approach that respects all stakeholders’ claims and needs. Haryana’s request for a new Assembly building is not unreasonable, given the logistical challenges of the current shared arrangement. On the other hand, political leaders must move beyond rhetoric and engage in constructive discussions to find a long-term solution.
The current strategy of politicising the matter will only further complicate the issue and deepen the divide between the two states. It will also make future negotiations more challenging. The Chandigarh dispute is a legacy of Congress’s indecision, but resolving it will require political will and cooperation—not inflammatory rhetoric or short-term political gains.
