Set up on 11 Jan 2001, the Dixit Commission (Justice, Retd Virendra Dixit) was constituted to decide the permanent capital for Uttarakhand after the then Nityanand Swami’s interim government failed to reach a decision.
After almost 8 years and as many as 11 extensions, Dixit Commission finally submitted its report on 17 Aug 2008 which was tabled in Uttarakhand State Assembly on 13 Jul 2009.
The Dixit commission report provides a comparative feasibility study of five sites for the proposed permanent capital viz Dehradun, Gairsain, Kashipur, Ramnagar and Rishikesh. The report is based on a study conducted by the School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi. The parameters that have been used for the study of the location included geographic conditions, populations, accessibility, transportation system, forest area, proneness to earthquakes or landslides and security.
The commission appears to arrive at the inference that Dehradun is the most suitable location, ignoring the popular sentiments that Gairsain be declared the permanent capital. The report says that centralization of population, appropriate land distribution, relatively less vulnerability to landslides and earthquakes, easy transportation and connectivity, less possibility of deforestation and less pressure on agricultural land, security from international border, proximity to national capital and scope for expanding public facilities made Dehradun a preferred location.
Gairsain has been found less viable for the location of permanent capital. The reasons cited being poor connectivity, distance from the national capital, insufficient land for future development, insufficient water resources, steep slopes, proneness to landslides and earthquakes, difficult climate, proximity to flood area, non-centralization of population and possible threat from the international border.
Choosing a permanent capital is politically sensitive issue attached to the sentiments of the Uttarakhand people too. We all are aware that no govt is going to jump into fire by shifting the capital to Gairsain for vote bank politics. You might not be knowing the the 3 non-hill districts of Uttarakhand ie Haridwar, Dehradun and Udham Singh Nagar alone will represent 30 seats in the assembly as per the new delimitation policy.
On a different note: The demand for Uttarakhand state has its origin in a demand for a separate Hill State. After the delimitation of legislative assembly seats comes into effect, the hill state will loose hill representation in the Legislative Assembly. With the new distribution of seats coming into effect, the three non-hill districts viz Haridwar, Dehradun and Udham Singh Nagar will represent 30 seats in the assembly while the other 10 districts will represent the other 40 seats.
| District | Current Seats | New Seats | Change |
| Almora | 7 | 6 | -1 |
| Bageshwar | 3 | 2 | -1 |
| Chamoli | 4 | 3 | -1 |
| Champawat | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Dehradun | 9 | 10 | +1 |
| Haridwar | 9 | 11 | +2 |
| Nainital | 5 | 6 | +1 |
| Pauri | 8 | 6 | -2 |
| Pithoragarh | 5 | 4 | -1 |
| Rudraprayag | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Tehri | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| Udham Singh Nagar | 7 | 9 | +2 |
| Uttarkashi | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Total Seats | 70 | 70 |
Without the capital in the hills, the politicians and bureaucrats will have no REAL interest in developing the hill areas. Which is why most of them spend their time huddled in Dehradun or shuttling to Delhi, instead of paying attention to the problems of the people in the remote hills. It does not matter who is in power, BJP or Congress, both are full of lazy, incompetent and self-serving politicians, for whom the challenge of development of the hills is a non-issue.
The bureaucrats had decided from day 1 that they were not going to the backward hills, which they view as punishment posting. It would have been much cheaper and better even for the bureaucrats to have had the capital of Uttarakhand in New Delhi, which is as distant from the hills as Dehradun and spent all the funds splurged on development of Dehradun, for the betterment of the hill economy.
The committees and commissions in India such as this which recruit retired bureaucrats and judges serve the purpose of making a living for these people instead of help finding the actual solution on the ground.
This retd judge Dixit has taken almost nine years to decide such a question. What a shame.
I really appreciate and admire the thoughts and sentiments of my dear friends of Uttarakhand. But one cannot develop with mere sentiments. Many times for the sake of development we need to sacrifice. We cannot also outnumber the practical issues pertaining to shifting our state capital to Gairsain. It is highly expensive in all the ways. Instead moving capital here and there the money which would be incurred in worthless movement can be diverted to many backward hilly villages. So keeping apart these sentiments we should welcome the report of Dixit Commision because he has saved plenty of resources which otherwise were going to be wasted in capital movement.
Well before saying anything about the sentiments and relating the cause of ‘Gairsain as a capital’ just a sentimental instinct, lets have a look over the purpose of the formation of Uttarakhand as a separate state. The sole purpose of this was to have the development of the region, the community and the people residing over there in far flung areas which are still untouched by the name of development.
According to me development means better livelihood which comes through better road and rail connectivity, better Education, better Medical facilities’ etc. Historically, if you will see these things are taken care of only when influential people (Ministers along with the Chief-Minister, highly designated Officers, etc.) start living over a place who bring masses with them. And spending money in building roads, dams, educational and health institutes does not seems to be worthless which are actually the indispensable part of the development and desperately required which could actually serve the purpose of the demand of separate state.
The capital bring all these things ‘in and around’ with it, automatically. For instance in 50’s Delhi was just confined to few square kilometres and there was nothing much in the name of development but today it has expanded its arm concentrically in all directions to the neighbouring State as well which can be seen in the form of newly created suburbs let it be Panipat, Rohtak, Palwal, Gurgaon, Noida, Ghaziabad etc. every city has been benefited either directly or indirectly by the development of the National capital.
Also, I have few questions over the reasons provided by Dixit commission for Gairsain not being suitable for capital as follows:
1. Poor Connectivity – As discussed above development means good connectivity and when Government itself is saying that there is poor connectivity then we are forced to think that still the state is under developed because we could not suggest of the developed city in the State apart from Dehradun. This, what is required to develop as a part of development.
2. Distance from the national capital – It means MP, Rajasthan, UP, Haryana etc. should change their capitals from to Gwalior, Dholpur, Ghaziabad, Gurgaon respectively which are relatively more nearer to the national capital and very well connected with ease.
3. Insufficient water resources – That’s what is actually required to look after in terms of development. Think of the people staying over there and what about the places even away in far flung areas.
4. Prone to landslides and earthquake, proximity to flood – Recent monsoon has revealed which parts are more resilient to the natural disasters, if it is such a great factor and matter of concern then why the Tehri dam is built at such a location which can deluge many states in case of any mishap? Even the non-hilly areas are not safe which can be seen from recent prevailing conditions of Hardwar.
5. Non-Centralization of population – Centralization of population is a gradual phenomenon which can be achieved by creating equal opportunities over there in Gairsain. If ministries and centralized offices are shifted then population will automatically move over there. Also, decentralization should not be a big challenge because they have experience in de-centralizing the population in mass example Tehri.
6. Possible threat from the international border – Then we should have our national capital shifted to Bhopal not Delhi.
Going on similar lines if capital is shifted to Gairsain then development will automatically follow up, if we can rehabilate a huge population out and in for the construction of Tehri Dam in the name of development. Then, why we are giving such lame excuses to hinder the actual process of developing a city of the state Uttarakhand and in turn the Nation. We are already spending crores of money to beautify the already beautiful Dun un-necessarily, which is already developed and the development is required in hilly areas not in non-hilly areas. It is just like doing injustice to one of your sons who is less competitive then the other one and you are improvising just the stronger one rather than encouraging the weaker one to compete for the best. If we cannot do anything for the cause then we should not defy it rather we should at least provide the moral support for the cause. Also, it is clearly a political driven instinct for the vote banks residing in the non-hilly areas otherwise there seems to be no other reason for Gairsain not being appropriate for the capital as suggested in the article of ‘Dixit Commission report on Permanent Capital of Uttarakhand’.
But, I am a non-political personality and this is not written to hurt anyone sentiments but just to bring out some facts in front of every one which I felt after going through the above article and comments.
Anurag Panuly
Mob: +44-771-556-5955.
If govt. of uttarakhand tried the best effert to shift capital in Gairsen to best support given from people of uttarkhand