Saptrishi Soni । While Punjab views the Centre’s Article 240 proposal as a threat, many in Chandigarh argue that the move could be the beginning of a long-awaited administrative reform that gives the city a clearer identity of its own. For decades, Chandigarh has existed in a complicated framework—functioning as a Union Territory, serving as the shared capital of both Punjab and Haryana, and being governed by the Punjab Governor acting as the Administrator.
The new proposal seeks to change this by appointing an independent Administrator, similar to other Union Territories. Supporters of this idea believe that Chandigarh, as a modern planned city, deserves governance systems tailored specifically to its needs rather than being tied to political developments in one state or the other.
Chandigarh was designated a Union Territory in 1966 and has since remained under central governance. However, the arrangement has always carried ambiguity because the administrative head was the Punjab Governor, creating the perception that the city was still partially under Punjab’s control. The Centre’s latest move aims to remove that ambiguity and place Chandigarh in a governance model consistent with other UTs.
Advocates argue that Chandigarh’s residents often experience delays or uncertainties due to its dual-capital status. For example, decision-making on infrastructure, policing, administrative appointments, and institutional reforms has historically been slowed by competing political claims from Punjab and Haryana. A distinct UT framework, they argue, may allow the city to function more efficiently with streamlined administration and faster execution of development plans.
The recent controversy over the restructuring of Panjab University only highlighted this dilemma. With both Punjab and Haryana trying to assert influence, the Centre found itself navigating conflicting regional interests. Supporters of the Article 240 proposal claim that giving Chandigarh its own Administrator may ease such conflicts in the future and strengthen institutional neutrality.
For the residents of Chandigarh—who identify themselves as neither exclusively Punjabi nor Haryanvi—the idea of reinforcing their city’s unique identity is appealing. The shift in administrative structure, they believe, can enhance transparency and improve governance quality, especially in areas such as urban planning, public services, and civic amenities.
Still, the transition is not without challenges. The emotional and historical significance of Chandigarh for Punjab cannot be ignored. While the Centre’s reforms may strengthen Chandigarh’s autonomy, they risk deepening political friction with Punjab, which fears losing symbolic and constitutional ties to the city.
Ultimately, the Article 240 proposal brings Chandigarh to a critical crossroads. It raises essential questions: Should the city continue as a joint capital shaped by interstate politics, or evolve into a fully independent Union Territory with its own administrative identity? The coming debates in Parliament and public forums will determine how Chandigarh redefines itself in India’s federal framework.
Hashtags: #ChandigarhDebate #Article240Reform #UTGovernance #ChandigarhIdentity #AdministrativeReform #IndianPolitics #CentreStateIssues #UrbanGovernance #PoliticalChange #ChandigarhFuture
