Poonam Sharma
A fresh political storm has erupted in Punjab after the Centre announced plans to introduce the Constitution 131st Amendment Bill, 2025, that proposes bringing Chandigarh under Article 240 – a provision that empowers the President to make regulations for certain Union Territories. While the move has triggered aggressive resistance from AAP, Congress, and Akali Dal alike, the sharpest reactions have come from Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, who has described the bill as a “conspiracy to snatch Punjab’s capital.”
But beneath the din of political outrage, one key question rises: Is Bhagwant Mann actually standing up to defend Punjab’s rights, or merely resurrecting an emotional issue to distract attention from his government’s growing troubles?
A Familiar Playbook: Emotional Issues Over Administrative Realities
The assertion by the CM hits at an emotional sentiment that has been sustained for long: “Chandigarh was, is, and will always remain Punjab’s”. In the 1950s, villages were uprooted, families displaced, and land acquired to build the city that would replace Lahore as Punjab’s post-Partition capital. The historical pain is real.
But it is equally true that for nearly six decades, Chandigarh has served as a Union Territory and joint capital of both Punjab and Haryana. Never in all these years has a state government — including those led by the Akalis or Congress — taken decisive legal or administrative steps to alter this reality.
Why is the AAP government suddenly projecting the issue as a do-or-die moment, then?
Timing provides its own clues.
Rising local discontent and governance failures.
During the last couple of years, there has been growing concern over:
deteriorating law and order,
farmers’ growing indebtedness and protests;
widespread unemployment among the youth,
drug trafficking still rampant,
shifting of industrial units to neighboring states, and
The state’s fiscal stress reached alarming levels.
The Mann government has been facing growing criticism on these fronts, not only from the opposition but also within the public. The “Delhi-style reforms” promised in 2022 either slowed down or failed to materialise at the ground level.
As political analysts point out, the raising of the Chandigarh issue serves as a perfect emotional diversion-dramatic enough to dominate headlines and simplistic enough to frame as “Centre vs Punjab.”
The AAP Strategy: Make Federalism into a Political Weapon
Arvind Kejriwal’s statement, labelling the Centre’s move as “an attack on Punjab’s identity”, reflects a larger tactic. This narrative of the “Delhi Model under attack” is one which AAP has deployed repeatedly to counter the BJP politically. By extending that script to Punjab, Kejriwal and Mann hope to energise their support base and present themselves as protectors of federalism.
The Chandigarh issue fits neatly into this mould because:
It is historically sensitive.
It evokes Punjabi pride.
It requires no administrative solution from AAP, just strong words.
It allows AAP to accuse the Centre of overreach without debating governance lapses within Punjab.
In short, it’s a high-impact, low-responsibility political weapon.
Opposition’s Response: Genuine Concern or Competitive Outrage?
Congress and Akali Dal, traditionally seen as Punjab’s primary defenders on the Chandigarh question, have also jumped into the fray — but their reaction is largely defensive. The problem for them is that with AAP occupying the emotional high ground, any failure to oppose the bill strongly enough will make them appear weak.
This will create political competition based on anger rather than constructive dialogue.
The irony is that all these parties failed to make any progress on the “Punjab’s sole claim over Chandigarh” demand when they were in power themselves. Their outrage appears more like reactive politics rather than principled federalism.
Is Mann Playing Divisive Politics?
The answer lies in the language he uses.
He says, “Our villages were destroyed to build Chandigarh, and only Punjab has the right over it,” but he is deliberately ignoring the shared administrative reality with Haryana.
When he frames the issue as a “dictatorship attack,” he is transforming constitutional procedure into a cultural threat.
When he invokes “Punjabis’ sacrifices,” he is framing a technical bill as a civilisational battle.
These rhetorical choices turn what is essentially a governance question into a “Punjab vs Delhi” confrontation. And that is where divisive politics begins.
The Real Risk: Emotional Politics Over Rational Solutions
If the aim were to reach a genuine settlement to the Chandigarh issue, all three parties-Punjab, Haryana, and the Centre-would have to sit across the table to work out an enduring administrative model. No such dialogue is anywhere in sight.
Instead, the political parties are fanning emotional sentiment when Punjab desperately needs stability, economic revival, and social harmony. Chandigarh is no longer just a capital; it has now become a political chess piece. And in this game, Bhagwant Mann is using it, not to defend Punjab’s rights but to defend his own political standing.
