![](https://www.nextias.com/ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/5663232Screenshot_6.png)
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.
- The Maharashtra and Karnataka boundary dispute has its origins in the reorganisation of states along linguistic lines via the State Reorganisation Act, 1956.
- 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.
Inter-state border disputes in India
|
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
Previous article
Formation of Fog
Next article
Greenwashing