India, Nov. 25 -- The recent discussion around bringing Chandigarh under the scope of Article 240 - followed quickly by the Union home ministry's clarification that no Bill is being moved - has once again pushed into public view a debate that never truly disappeared. The controversy lasted only a few days, yet it revived a question that has remained unresolved for nearly six decades: What should be the rightful status of Chandigarh in relation to Punjab? For Punjab, this is not a new conversation. It is an old claim resurfacing - a constitutional gap that has persisted since 1966, a political promise made in 1985 but never implemented, and a lived reality in which Punjab remains the only state in India without its own capital. No other state, old or newly created, stands in such an anomalous position. When the Punjab Reorganisation Act was enacted in 1966, it declared that Chandigarh - the capital painstakingly built by Punjab after losing Lahore in Partition - would "cease to be part of Punjab" and become a Union Territory. What the Act did not do is equally conspicuous. Nowhere does it say that Chandigarh would be the shared capital of Punjab. Nowhere does it offer any alternative capital to the state. The legal text contains no reference, no plan, no arrangement for Punjab's capital. A state that had just lost Lahore and invested in building Chandigarh from scratch was left without a capital of its own. This silence in the statute has shaped Punjab's predicament and anguish for nearly 60 years. In contrast, when Andhra Pradesh was reorganised in 2014, the law clearly provided that Hyderabad would serve as the joint capital of both states for 10 years before becoming solely the capital of Telangana. A time-bound, legally codified arrangement ensured clarity and fairness. No such clarity was given to Punjab. The difference is stark. Where Andhra Pradesh's transition was expressly legislated, Punjab's was left open-ended. Chandigarh's unique administrative trajectory also reflects this unfinished question. From 1966 to 1984, the city was headed by a chief commissioner. From June 1, 1984 onward, the governor of Punjab was appointed the administrator of Chandigarh - a practice that continues to this day. That continuity is not accidental. It reflects an institutional acknowledgement of the city's historic connection to Punjab, even as its legal status remained uncertain. The most explicit commitment regarding Chandigarh's future came through the Rajiv-Longowal Accord of 1985. It declared unambiguously that Chandigarh would be transferred to Punjab on January 26, 1986, with Haryana compensated through the transfer of certain villages. The accord was never repealed or superseded. It remains the last formal political settlement on Chandigarh's eventual integration with Punjab. Yet it remains unimplemented - a promise recorded by Parliament but not fulfilled. This background is essential to understand why discussions about Chandigarh, however technical, evoke strong reactions in Punjab. The recent episode was not about Article 240. It was about memory - of a question deferred, of a promise unredeemed, of a capital lost twice over. Whenever Chandigarh's administrative framework comes into debate, it inevitably brings this larger history into public disclosure. Punjab's journey to linguistic reorganisation itself was arduous. While the principle of linguistic states was established as early as the 1950s, Punjab had to wage a long political and social struggle before it was reorganised on linguistic lines in 1966. States like Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala were reorganised with less difficulty and without prolonged agitation. Punjab's reorganisation was delayed, contested, and burdened by compromises not seen elsewhere. The absence of a clear provision for its capital in the Reorganisation Act stands out as one such compromise. There are further anomalies. Chandigarh, built by Punjab and for Punjab, does not recognise Punjabi as its official language. Residents of Chandigarh are not considered domiciles of Punjab for electoral, educational or employment purposes in Punjab. A city that emerged from Punjab's historical wound of losing Lahore now stands administratively and legally detached from the very state that created it. These realities underscore why the public response in Punjab is not merely emotional. It is rooted in constitutional equity. If every other state in India has been guaranteed a capital - in law, in practice, and in federal principle - why should Punjab remain the singular exception? Why should a state that has made unmatched contributions to India's unity, security and freedom continue to live with an unresolved question about something as basic as its capital? The home ministry's clarification has helped calm the immediate concerns. It has affirmed that no legislative proposal is being advanced at present and that the existing arrangements of Chandigarh will remain undisturbed. That, however, does not settle the deeper issue. If anything, it underscores how sensitive and unfinished the question remains. Chandigarh's future is not a matter to be settled in haste, nor is it a matter that can be ignored indefinitely. It deserves a considered political conversation, one that is anchored in fairness, in constitutional logic, in historical truth, and in the commitments already made on record. A question deferred for nearly 60 years does not lose its legitimacy. If anything, its urgency grows with time. Punjab's claim over Chandigarh is not a demand born of sentiment alone. It arises from history, law, administrative practice and political assurances. The debate that resurfaced in recent days is a reminder that unresolved questions do not fade; they reappear until addressed. Chandigarh's place in India's federal landscape is one such question - long deferred, still open, and deserving of resolution grounded in justice and dignity....