Hyderabad should not be another Chandigarh

After so many years of existence of Chandigarh as a Union Territory, ‘Chandigarhians’ developed vested interests and wanted the status quo to continue

Union Ministry of Home Affairs prepared a note with three options on the status of Hyderabad: (1) Making Hyderabad a Union Territory on the lines of Delhi or Chandigarh; (2) Granting Telangana State with 10 districts with Hyderabad as its capital; (3) Declaring Hyderabad as a temporary capital for Seemandhra for 10 years while Telangana continues to have it as a permanent capital, with the Centre controlling law and order and land administration during this period.

Two options about permanent or temporary status of UT to Hyderabad are not rooted in CWC’s resolve. While there should not be any objection for providing seat for Seemandhra capital till another capital is built, deprivation of constitutional rights of the new State is not convincing. The Centre might use Article 258A of Constitution which empowers Governor of State to entrust Government of India or its officers with any of State’s executive powers. One option is about “Chandigarh type solution” for Hyderabad.

Ignoring SRC suggestion, a bilingual state of Punjab was formed in 1956 against wishes of people. After Lahore was lost to Pakistan, Nehru took keen interest in developing Chandigarh as a world class planned capital of Punjab spending Rs 50 crore. Within four years, in 1960 an agitation for separate Haryana resurfaced. After six years, in 1966 division was agreed upon, but both demanded Chandigarh city.

The Union took Chandigarh out of Punjab with a promise to return it in five years. Claiming Chandigarh, Darshan Singh Pheruman (83) went on fast and died after 73 days, intensifying the agitation. The whole of Punjab was in a big turmoil with growing militancy which even took the life of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Though Rajiv tried to buy peace by signing the Rajiv-Longowal accord with a promise of returning Chandigarh in 1985, Haryana did not agree to lose Chandigarh even when 70,000 acres of land was offered in lieu of the capital city.

The question, therefore, is: Should Hyderabad be converted into another Chandigarh? Famous architect Le Corbusier designed this city as capital for one State. He could not imagine it would have three capitals and three Governors in it. Two States shared these designer buildings, such as civil secretariat; the Upper House in Assembly building became Assembly of Haryana.

The High Court was meant for six judges; it is accommodating double that number. Two States later developed mini secretariats at different places, Haryana in Panchkula and Punjab in Mohali. They lost more than 40 years but remained capital less. The unthoughtful political (in)decision of the Union deprived the people of their rights of access to governance in their own capital. With this, development was stunted.

Chandigarh, as a city and UT, also missed out on IT revolution and many development projects. After so many years of existence of Chandigarh as a Union Territory, ‘Chandigarhians’ developed vested interests and wanted the status quo to continue.

For Hyderabad, Chandigarh is a very bad, unhealthy and undemocratic example dealing with the serious issue of language, culture and social character of the movement for a separate State. Nowhere in the world had two States shared a capital without controls. When Haryana and Punjab battled for Chandigarh, the Centre converted it into its ‘own zone’ and, playing with emotions, denied the claim of both the States. Because of the historical blunder of the Union, Chandigarh lost its character; it belongs to neither Haryana nor Punjab. In fact, two States are devoid of capital; they lost growth engine or symbol of identity and missed the pride of having a capital city of their own. It’s pathetic that the problem boiled into such a conflict and remained a crisis even today as an unresolved territorial dispute.

Hyderabad is not Chandigarh. Hyderabad has a wonderful history of more than four centuries; Chandigarh was created after Independence. While Chandigarh is attached to both the States, Hyderabad is far off from Seemandhra. Successive governments concentrated ‘development’ in Hyderabad and ignored other cities of Telangana and Seemandhra. They did not care to take new public sector undertakings or development projects to other cities. While Andhras were city-less in 1953, they remained so even after 57 years. Neither Kurnool nor Guntur was considered alternative development centers for a big State of 23 districts; a great failure of successive governments.

“Integrationists” do not really want to retain unity of the State, they are asking for Hyderabad, or control over it to protect their gains; rich lands around the city, or to share it as common capital for ever, or to make it a Union Territory for ever or for a long time, etc.

It is high time the Centre dropped the idea of making Hyderabad a Union Territory or common capital for a decade. With the Chandigarh experience, people in Telangana will not believe that after 10 years Hyderabad will be transferred to Telangana. The Centre has no authority to destroy the history, culture and geography of Telangana by making it a UT.

(The writer is Professor & Coordinator, Center for Media Law & Public Policy, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad)