DEHRADUN, 8 Nov: Even as Uttarakhand prepares to celebrate the Silver Jubilee of its formation with the Prime Minister’s visit to Dehradun on Sunday, the long-standing and politically sensitive issue of the state capital has once again taken centre stage. The latest spark came from Khanpur MLA Umesh Kumar, who has now demanded that Haridwar be declared the interim capital of the state, reigniting the old ‘Pahar versus Maidan’ (hill versus plains) debate that has divided the state’s politics for years.
Speaking at the inauguration of the crushing season at Laksar Sugar Mill, Umesh Kumar accused the government of neglecting Haridwar and declared that the district should be made the temporary capital. He added that Haridwar has so much land that one can build fifty airports, fifty medical colleges, and fifty secretariats here. He also demanded that while the government may continue to mull on whether to make Gairsain the permanent capital or not, Haridwar should immediately be declared the interim state capital. His remarks, however, have drawn sharp criticism and irony, as barely days ago he had demanded in the Assembly that Gairsain be made the permanent capital.
The matter gained renewed attention during the special session of the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly held from 3 to 5 November, convened to mark 25 years of statehood and deliberate on the state’s future roadmap. The session witnessed fiery debates on key issues, ranging from domicile and migration to demographic changes and the long-pending capital question. Very little focus was given in the debate on course the state needs to take over next 25 years or towards building a consensus on the blueprint for the state’s development.
The differences between the hills and plains came to the fore during the discussions. Congress MLA Kishore Upadhyay went to the extent of threatening to stop the waters of the Ganga from flowing towards Haridwar and the plains if the interests of the hill regions continued to be ignored. On the other hand, BJP legislators such as Munna Singh Chauhan and Vinod Chamoli raised concerns about the domicile policy and changing demography, urging the government to safeguard the identity and rights of the native hill population.
Members from the plains, however, dismissed these allegations, arguing that such statements only deepen regional divisions. They reminded that the residents of Haridwar were facing difficulties in obtaining domicile certificates. The issue of domicile became another flashpoint, with some MLAs pressing for recognition of domicile based on residence in the region since 1951, while others insisted that those living in Uttarakhand at the time of its formation in 2000 should be accepted as domiciled citizens.
The debate also turned personal at times. During the session, a heated exchange took place between Umesh Kumar and Vinod Chamoli, when Chamoli reiterated that it was the BJP government that had declared Gairsain as the summer capital under then Chief Minister Trivendra Singh Rawat and proposed that an Additional Chief Secretary-level officer be stationed there to make it functional. Umesh Kumar interrupted, demanding that the BJP make its stand clear. Chamoli, visibly irritated, retorted that Umesh Kumar should not act like the “Chaudhary of Uttarakhand” and tell others what to do, leading to an acrimonious exchange in the House.
This was not an isolated incident. The Pahar versus Maidan divide has long been exploited by political leaders across the parties. BSP MLA Mohammed Shehzad made a pointed remark that many MLAs from hill constituencies prefer to settle in Dehradun or Haldwani rather than staying in the hills. He clarified that neither he nor the people of the plains oppose special development schemes for the hills, but warned against using the emotional appeal of Gairsain or hill identity as a political crutch. He had emphasised that one needs to talk about how to reduce migration, how to bring industries to the hills, not just where the capital should be.
Congress MLA Tilak Raj Behad echoed similar sentiments, asserting that Dehradun already has the infrastructure, administrative facilities, and connectivity required to serve as the permanent capital, while Gairsain could continue as the summer capital. His remarks reflected a practical approach amidst political posturing and rhetoric.
The controversy comes at a time when the state is preparing for a major celebration. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to visit Dehradun on Sudnay to mark the Silver Jubilee of Uttarakhand’s formation and to launch projects worth over Rs 8,000 crore. The grand event, to be held at the Forest Research Institute (FRI) grounds, is expected to witness a turnout of nearly one lakh people. The Prime Minister will inaugurate and lay the foundation stones of several major schemes, including the Kedarnath Ropeway Project and the Jamrani Dam project, both expected to transform the Garhwal and Kumaon regions.
The State Government, led by Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami, has been making elaborate preparations for the event, viewing it as both a moment of pride and an opportunity to project the state’s developmental achievements. Dhami has repeatedly emphasised that Uttarakhand’s creation was not merely a political decision but the outcome of immense sacrifice and struggle by the statehood agitationists.
Yet, amid the pomp and celebration, the politics over the capital issue and the visible hill–plains divide threaten to overshadow the spirit of unity and progress that the Silver Jubilee ought to symbolise. The capital debate, which once galvanised movements and regional parties like the Uttarakhand Kranti Dal (UKD), has now become a tired refrain. The UKD, which made Gairsain its central issue, gradually lost political relevance because it failed to articulate a clear development vision for the new state.
Two and a half decades after the creation of Uttarakhand, the political class still appears trapped in the same rhetoric. The people, however, have moved on. They want roads, schools, hospitals, jobs, and better governance, not endless wrangling over whether the capital should be in Dehradun, Gairsain, or Haridwar. The growing irrelevance of parties that hinged their survival on the capital issue is proof that the electorate values progress over parochial politics.
The recent exchanges in the Assembly have once again shown that the ‘Pahar vs Maida’ fault line is being exploited for narrow political gains. Whether it is the demand for Haridwar as interim capital or the symbolic assertion over Gairsain, these debates only serve to divide rather than unite the state. What Uttarakhand urgently needs is not another round of capital politics but a coherent, time-bound policy for balanced regional development, one that bridges the divide between the hills and plains and upholds the real spirit of statehood.
