The Central government’s latest move to establish a Chief Secretary for Chandigarh, replacing the position of Advisor to the Administrator, is being viewed by political parties in Punjab as an attempt to weaken the state’s claim to the city. This decision, issued late on Tuesday by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, follows a pattern of steps that have fueled suspicions regarding the future of Chandigarh’s status and its association with Punjab.

Just months ago, tensions were raised after reports surfaced suggesting that Haryana had been allocated land in Chandigarh to build its own Assembly complex. Punjab Governor Gulab Chand Kataria intervened at the time, assuring the public that no environmental clearance had been given for the proposed land allotment. However, the latest notification by the Ministry of Home Affairs has intensified political divisions, especially among non-BJP parties in Punjab, who argue that the appointment of a Chief Secretary for Chandigarh is a direct blow to the state’s longstanding claim to the city.

The restructured administration now comprises several senior positions, including the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, and Finance Secretary, all drawn from the Union Territory cadre. In the past, key administrative roles had been filled by officers from Punjab or Haryana, a practice that the new changes seem to undo.

Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala was quick to criticize the move, accusing the Modi government of undermining the rights of Haryana and Punjab. He emphasized that no Prime Minister in the past had altered the administrative setup of Chandigarh, and this recent decision to create a Chief Secretary role reflects the Centre’s intention to consolidate its control over the city. Surjewala warned that the new arrangements would further diminish the influence of both states over the administration of their shared capital.

The ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in Punjab also voiced strong objections. Senior spokesperson Neel Garg pointed out that Chandigarh, as a Union Territory, does not require a Chief Secretary, as this position is typically found in states. Garg accused the Centre of showing “anti-Punjab” bias and demanded the decision be reconsidered, citing the division of Punjab in 1966, which promised that Chandigarh would remain a Union Territory until Haryana established its capital. He stressed that Punjab continues to face discrimination, as it has yet to regain control of Chandigarh.

Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leader Sukhbir Singh Badal also condemned the decision, calling it a further attempt to diminish Punjab’s rightful claim to Chandigarh. He warned that such actions would have lasting consequences on the state’s interests.

Another point of contention is the growing presence of non-Punjab cadre IAS officers in Chandigarh’s administration. Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann had previously raised concerns about the Centre’s replacement of Punjab-cadre officers with officials from other states. According to the latest notification, the number of IAS officers in Chandigarh has increased from nine to 11, and all of these officers will be from the Union Territory cadre, further eroding Punjab’s representation in the city’s administration.

The ongoing debate over Chandigarh’s status is rooted in its complex history. After the partition, Shimla served as Punjab’s temporary capital before the idea for a new capital, Chandigarh, emerged. The city was designed by architect Le Corbusier and became the capital of Punjab in 1953. However, following the creation of Haryana in 1966, both states laid claim to the city, and the Centre made it a Union Territory in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Despite several decades of direct federal administration, tensions between the two states have persisted, with both Punjab and Haryana continuing to vie for control.

With these latest changes, the Centre’s efforts to reinforce Chandigarh’s status as a Union Territory have intensified, and political leaders in Punjab are increasingly vocal about their concerns. The situation remains fluid, with the future of Chandigarh’s administration and its relationship with both states still uncertain.