The Union Government’s move to introduce the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, which proposes bringing Chandigarh under Article 240 of the Constitution, has revived an emotionally and politically charged debate that has lingered for decades. Chandigarh, one of India’s most celebrated planned cities, carries a history deeply intertwined with the state of Punjab. For Punjabis, the city is not just an administrative centre, but a symbol of identity, sacrifice, and post-Partition reconstruction. The new legislative attempt has therefore rekindled discussions about the historical claims of Punjab, the Centre’s past commitments, and the unresolved disputes over status and governance.
To understand Punjab’s position, one must revisit the origins of Chandigarh. After the Partition of India in 1947, Punjab lost its historic capital—Lahore, which became part of Pakistan. The state was left without an administrative headquarters, prompting the Indian government to conceive and build a new capital. Thus, Chandigarh emerged as a city of hope and rebirth, designed by the world-renowned architect Le Corbusier. It was built expressly as the capital of Punjab, reflecting Punjabi aspirations and the determination to rebuild after immense displacement and loss. For nearly two decades, Chandigarh served exclusively as Punjab’s administrative and cultural nerve center.
The controversy arose only after the Punjab Reorganization Act of 1966, when the state was divided to form Punjab and Haryana. Chandigarh was made a Union Territory but continued to serve as the shared capital of both states. Importantly, the federal government repeatedly assured that this sharing arrangement was temporary, acknowledging that Chandigarh was originally created for Punjab alone. Over the years, several political promises reinforced this position. In 1970, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s government formally announced that Chandigarh would be transferred to Punjab, with equivalent Hindi-speaking areas allocated to Haryana. This commitment was later reaffirmed in the historic 1985 Rajiv–Longowal Accord, which explicitly stated that Chandigarh would return to Punjab by January 26, 1986. Though the accord could not be fully implemented due to political turmoil, the assurance stands as a documented promise from the highest levels of government.
Against this backdrop, the introduction of the 131st Amendment has raised concerns that the Centre may be veering away from its earlier commitments. Bringing Chandigarh under Article 240 would vest greater authority in the President to govern the Union Territory through regulations, thereby deepening central control. Many fear this could further weaken Punjab’s historical claim and move Chandigarh even farther from the constitutional commitments made in the past. Political observers argue that such a step — instead of addressing long-standing demands — risks inflaming tensions and undermining the delicate balance of federalism in India.
For Punjab, the question of Chandigarh is not a mere administrative dispute. It is rooted in history, culture, and emotion. Chandigarh was born out of Punjabi struggle and resilience; it stands as a living reminder of how the state rebuilt itself after losing Lahore. Its architecture, its institutions, and its social landscape reflect decades of Punjabi investment, leadership, and identity. Punjab’s claim is therefore anchored not only in historical facts but also in moral and cultural significance.
As the government prepares to move forward with the proposed constitutional amendment, the debate surrounding Chandigarh’s status has once again taken centre stage. Whether the Centre engages with Punjab’s concerns or proceeds unilaterally will determine not just the future of Chandigarh, but also the strength of India’s federal principles and its respect for historical commitments.