India, an epitome of unity in diversity, is not untouched by inter-state disputes over borders. One such dispute making headlines lately is the Maharashtra-Karnataka border argument. The conflict is escalating as both states unanimously support a legal course to address the disagreement.
What is the Maharashtra-Karnataka Border Dispute?
The bone of contention in the Maharashtra-Karnataka border dispute centres on Belagavi, Karwar, and Nipani in North Karnataka. These areas were incorporated into Mysore state (now Karnataka) during the state boundaries’ redrawing based on linguistic lines under the States Reorganisation Act of 1956. The Act was informed by the Justice Fazal Ali Commission report of 1955.
Maharashtra has maintained claims over parts of Belagavi, citing Marathi as the dominant language there. However, the 1966 Mahajan Commission recommended keeping Belgaum and 247 surrounding villages with Karnataka. Maharashtra rejected these findings and moved the Supreme Court in 2004.
The Basis for Maharashtra’s Claim
Maharashtra’s demand for a border readjustment rests on the premises of contiguity, relative linguistic majority, and the desires of the people. It also underscores that revenue records in the claimed Marathi-speaking areas are kept in Marathi.
Karnataka’s Standpoint
On the other hand, Karnataka insists that the boundary settlement via the States Reorganisation Act is final and inflexible. From Karnataka’s perspective, revisiting the border could unearth border issues that were not included in the Act.
Ways to Resolve the Issue
Disputes like these are often resolved through collaboration between the respective states, with the Centre acting as a facilitator or neutral mediator. If the parties come to an agreement, Parliament can enact a law to adjust the state boundaries, as exemplified by the Bihar-Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of Boundaries) Act of 1968 and the Haryana-Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of Boundaries) Act of 1979. In this case, Union Home Minister Amit Shah has recommended a six-member team comprising three ministers from each state to address boundary issues.
Other Available Methods
Besides negotiations, judicial redressal and the Inter-state Council offer two more pathways for dispute resolution. Under Article 131, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes between states or between one or more states and the Government of India. Meanwhile, Article 263 empowers the President to set up an Inter-state Council to resolve disputes between states. The Council was recommended by the Sarkaria Commission in 1988 as a permanent body for discussion between the states and the Centre.
Other Inter-State Disputes in India
Apart from Maharashtra and Karnataka, several other states are embroiled in similar conflicts. Some examples include Assam-Arunachal Pradesh, Assam-Mizoram, Assam-Nagaland, Assam-Meghalaya, Haryana-Himachal Pradesh, and Ladakh-Himachal Pradesh. Most of these disputes revolve around differing border perceptions and land claims.
Potential Solutions and Way Forward
Resolving interstate disputes in India may be facilitated by methods like satellite mapping to accurately determine border locations. Reviving the Inter-state Council and Zonal councils under Article 263 of the Constitution could also aid in dispute resolution. These councils would discuss topics of common interest to states in each zone, including social and economic planning, border disputes, inter-state transport, and more.
Fostering a spirit of cooperative federalism is critical for strengthening India’s unity amidst diversity. Both central and state governments need to embrace this ethos to navigate these intricate disputes efficiently and amicably.