Maharashtra-Karnataka Border Dispute

In Context

• Recently, tensions rose along the Maharashtra-Karnataka border after vehicles from both states were attacked and defaced.

More about the Maharashtra-Karnataka border dispute

• Beginning in reorganisation of states:
  • The Maharashtra and Karnataka boundary dispute has its origins in the reorganisation of states along linguistic lines via the State Reorganisation Act, 1956. 
    • MES (Maharashtra Ekikaran Samiti): The MES (Maharashtra Ekikaran Samiti) came into existence in 1948.
    • It had the sole aim of pushing for integration of Belgaum with Maharashtra during the reorganization of states.
  • Maharashtra’s demand:
    • Since its creation on May 1, 1960, Maharashtra has claimed that 865 villages, including Belagavi (then Belgaum), Carvar and Nipani, should be merged into Maharashtra. 
    • Significance of the demand:
      • The claim of the pro-Marathi groups is that Belagavi is a largely Marathi-speaking region with many parts being exclusively Marathi speaking.
      • It claims that the region should be a part of Maharashtra instead of Karnataka which is a Kannada-speaking state.

• Karnataka’s stand:
  • Karnataka, however, has refused to part with its territory.

Union Government’s attempts to resolve the issue

• Mahajan Commission:
  • In October 1966, the Centre constituted the Mahajan Commission headed by the then Supreme Court Chief Justice Meher Chand Mahajan, at the insistence of Maharashtra. 
  • Recommendations of the commission:
    • While rejecting Maharashtra’s claim over Belagavi (then Belgaum), the commission recommended 247 villages/places, including Jatt, Akkalkote and Solapur, to be made part of Karnataka. 
    • It also declared 264 villages /places, including Nippani, Khanapur and Nandagad, to be made part of Maharashtra.
  • Rejection by Maharashtra:
    • The commission’s report was outrightly rejected by Maharashtra. 
    • Reason:
      • Successive governments in Maharashtra maintained that the commission had not adequately addressed its concerns, Karnataka saw the commission ruling in its favour.
  • Several attempts were subsequently made to resolve the row but in vain. 

Current status of the dispute

• Petition in the Supreme Court:
  • In 2004, the Maharashtra government filed a petition in the Supreme Court, staking claim over Marathi-speaking villages in Karnataka, which contested the claim. 
  • Exploiting public sentiments, Karnataka changed the name of Belgaum to Belagavi and made it the second capital of the state.
• Need of legal solution:
  • Both Karnataka and Maharashtra reckon that the complex issue will not be resolved politically, and requires a legal solution.

Issue of political benefits 

• Both Maharashtra and Karnataka have used the border dispute to stoke regional sentiments during elections. 
  • In Maharashtra, the boundary dispute is part of every political party’s election manifesto. 
  • It even features in the governor’s annual address to the joint session of the state legislative assembly and council. 
  • Setting aside their ideological differences, political parties in Maharashtra have found a common cause in the Maharashtra-Karnataka boundary row. 

Way ahead

• Significance of special rights:
  • Carving out political units that neatly correspond with various linguistic groups is impossible in India. 
  • As a result, almost all States have linguistic minorities that are accorded special rights. 
• Need of harmony:
  • It is wise to defer to the Court’s decision on any dispute, but harmony can be achieved only through embracing and promoting a political culture that is respectful of diversity that cannot be neatly demarcated.

Source: TH