Guest Column| Punjab’s real border: Limits of internal accountability

Over time, a powerful perception has taken root in Punjab—that the state’s strategic space across governance, economy, security, and socio-cultural life has been constrained. This perception is neither wholly accurate nor entirely misplaced. It is the product of a long historical arc, institutional experience, and, most critically, contemporary governance failure. To understand what truly ails Punjab, one must move beyond binaries and confront a more uncomfortable truth: The state’s predicament lies as much in autonomy deferred as in accountability diminished.

The state’s historical grievances are real and cannot be dismissed. Political settlements such as the Nehru-Tara Singh Pact and the Rajiv-Longowal Accord promised accommodation within the federal framework but remained only partially implemented. The unresolved status of Chandigarh and the enduring dispute over the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal became enduring symbols of this incompleteness. Similarly, the Anandpur Sahib Resolution of 1973, which articulated a demand for greater federal balance, was met more with suspicion than structured engagement. Over time, what could have been negotiated politically hardened into a lasting perception of neglect.

This perception has been further shaped by Punjab’s unique security context. As a border state, it has remained central to India’s national security calculus. The insurgency of the 1980s and continuing concerns over cross-border terrorism and narcotics trafficking have necessitated sustained involvement of central agencies. Such involvement is both legitimate and unavoidable. Yet, its persistence has also fostered a parallel belief—that critical aspects of governance operate beyond the state’s full control. In a region already marked by historical mistrust, this belief has found easy resonance.

Caught in debt trap

However, this narrative—powerful as it is—obscures a more immediate and decisive reality. Punjab’s present condition is not primarily the outcome of external constraint. It is the cumulative result of internal policy choices that have weakened the state’s own capacity to govern.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Punjab’s fiscal condition. With a debt burden approaching half of its GSDP and a large share of revenues pre-empted by salaries, pensions, and interest payments, the state’s financial position is severely constrained. Successive governments have deepened this stress through expansive subsidies and welfare commitments that remain politically attractive but fiscally unsustainable. These are not policies imposed by the Centre; they are decisions made within the state.

The consequence is predictable. Public investment in infrastructure, industrial growth, and human capital has been steadily crowded out. Fiscal weakness, in turn, translates into diminished autonomy. A state that lacks financial flexibility cannot exercise meaningful policy choice. Dependence on central transfers and borrowing limits becomes inevitable. What appears as external control is often the outcome of internal imbalance.

This fiscal fragility is mirrored in governance. Policymaking continues to be driven by electoral cycles, short-termism rather than long-term strategy. Administrative systems suffer from frequent transfers and politicisation, eroding both continuity and competence. Key sectors, such as water, industry, agriculture and urban development, reflect this drift, marked by episodic interventions rather than sustained reform.

The consequences are stark and increasingly visible. Punjab’s agricultural model, once the engine of its prosperity, is now ecologically unsustainable. Groundwater depletion has reached alarming levels, driven by the persistence of the wheat-paddy cycle despite repeated warnings. Industrial growth has lagged behind comparable states, limiting employment opportunities. Youth unemployment continues to drive outward migration, resulting in a steady loss of human capital.

At the same time, the spread of drug addiction has evolved into a serious public health crisis. Its impact cuts across regions and social groups, reflecting not just a law-enforcement challenge but a deeper failure of governance and social response.

Leadership vacuum

These outcomes are not imposed from outside. They are the direct result of policy inertia and institutional decline within Punjab. The deeper issue, therefore, is one of leadership. Political leadership has repeatedly prioritised short-term electoral gains over structural reform, reinforcing a cycle of populism and fiscal stress. Bureaucratic leadership, once a pillar of the state’s administrative strength, has been weakened by politicisation and instability. Social and religious institutions continue to wield considerable influence, yet their role in shaping a coherent developmental vision remains limited.

This vacuum of effective leadership has consequences beyond governance. It creates the conditions in which the perception of external control gains credibility. When internal systems appear weak, it becomes easier to attribute outcomes to forces outside the state. Accountability diffuses, and autonomy begins to feel constrained—even when formal powers remain unchanged.

What emerges is a self-reinforcing cycle. Historical grievances feed political suspicion. Security interventions deepen it. Governance failures then provide contemporary evidence that appears to validate the narrative. Over time, external constraint becomes the dominant explanation, while internal accountability recedes from scrutiny.

Accountability cure

This is not merely a misdiagnosis; it is a politically convenient one. It allows difficult reforms to be postponed and responsibility to be shifted. Breaking this cycle requires action on two fronts.

For the Union government, credibility lies in resolving long-pending issues with clarity and finality. The questions of Chandigarh and the Sutlej-Yamuna Link canal cannot remain indefinitely deferred. Equally important is the need for greater transparency and structured consultation in matters relating to security and fiscal oversight. A balanced approach, one that recognises both national security imperatives and the autonomy of state institutions, is essential to restoring trust.

For Punjab, however, the more fundamental challenge is internal. Fiscal discipline must replace populist expansion. Public expenditure must be redirected towards investment rather than consumption. Governance systems must be stabilised to ensure continuity and professionalism. Economic strategy must move beyond agrarian dependence towards diversified growth. The drug crisis must be addressed through a sustained, integrated approach combining enforcement, rehabilitation, and community engagement.

Above all, the state requires a shift in political mindset—from short-term populism to long-term governance. The debate between autonomy and accountability appears, in many ways, a false choice. Punjab’s crisis is not the result of one at the expense of the other; it is the product of their simultaneous erosion. Autonomy has, at times, been constrained. But accountability has been far more consistently weakened from within.

A state that does not fully utilise the space it already possesses will inevitably experience that space as restricted. It will continue to misread its condition, treating consequences as causes. The issue is, therefore, much less about more autonomy, but it is more about building the capacity to exercise the autonomy the state already has.

Until that happens, the real constraint will not lie outside the state—but within it. sureshkumarnangia@gmail.com