Democracy for Chandigarh

The reported move to revert to the Chief Commissioner system in the Union Territory of Chandigarh is a retrograde step. That it should be linked to the recent controversies relating to the Chandigarh Administration would be missing the bigger picture – like the proverbial wood for the trees.

There is little doubt that some of the controversies are the result of a faulty system of administration in the city. You have an Administrator for Chandigarh whose powers and responsibilities are unclear, especially vis-à-vis the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. The fact that the Administrator is also the Governor of Punjab further confounds this confusion, especially in respect of the jurisdiction of courts (on powers of the Administrator). The confusion has only helped feed egos of its functionaries.

But does that mean that UT should go back to the Chief Commissioner system? Certain people with lack of basic understanding of governance have been pushing this concept. Where on earth is a bureaucratic system the answer? Remember the days when the city had Chief Commissioner…. status quo prevailed for nearly three decades. And there were no dearth of scams (remember the infamous lottery scam?), despite there being only a handful of media persons around then to unearth them. Do we want that? And should a Chief Commissioner not work out, would you bring in a Police Commissioner?

The need is correct the fault lines in the system by bringing in a more democratic system. The Chandigarh Municipal Corporation, despite its lack of powers, has shown that the City is now ready for a more vibrant democracy – like Delhi, Goa and other places. This is all the more important since the noise about its political fate (of being transferred to Punjab or Haryana) is no more than symbolic now. It is high time that not just the political parties but the sector associations and other social groups get together to empower themselves. Since Chandigarh’s size could be an issue to replicate the city state concept, the democratic system could be specially customized for it. A Committee of Parliamentarians and others could be asked to chalk out the system suitable for it.

Of course, since Chandigarh is a highly planned city, there would be fears that a democratic system could undermine its basic concept, architect and planning – even to the extent of destroying it. These fears are legitimate. But there is a way around this issue. Certain basic concepts (like height of buildings, fate of its villages etc) could be spelt out in the form of a Statute, which could be altered only with Parliamentary approval.

The system of governance in Chandigarh surely needs to change but the way to go is forward and not backward.