Maharashtra-Karnataka Border Disput

Why in News?

• The border dispute between Maharashtra and Karnataka is intensifying, with both states has recently a unanimous resolution to support a legal battle to resolve the dispute.

Highlights

• The border dispute over Belagavi, Karwar and Nipani in North Karnataka is long-standing.
• When state boundaries were redrawn on linguistic lines as per the States Reorganisation Act of 1956, Belagavi became part of the erstwhile Mysore state.
• The Act was based on the findings of the Justice Fazal Ali Commission which was appointed in 1953 and submitted its report two years later.
• Maharashtra claims that parts of Belagavi, where Marathi is the dominant language, should remain in Maharashtra.
• In October 1966, the Centre set up the Mahajan Commission, led by former Chief Justice of India Mehr Chand Mahajan, to resolve the border dispute in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala.
• The Commission recommended that Belgaum and 247 villages remain with Karnataka. Maharashtra rejected the report, and in 2004, moved the Supreme Court.
• Maharashtra’s claim to seek the readjustment of its border was on the basis of contiguity, relative linguistic majority and wishes of the people. If the claim over Belagavi and surrounding areas was based on Marathi-speaking people and linguistic homogeneity, it laid its claim over Karwar and Supa where Konkani is spoken by citing Konkani as a dialect of Marathi.
• Its argument was based on the theory of villages being the unit for calculation and enumerated linguistic population in each village. Maharashtra also points out the historical fact that the revenue records in these Marathi-speaking areas are also kept in Marathi.
• Boundary disputes between the states can be settled by using satellite mapping of the actual border locations.
• Reviving the Inter-state council can be an option for resolution of an Inter-state dispute.
• Under Article 263 of the Constitution, the Inter-state council is expected to inquire and advise on disputes, discuss subjects common to all states and make recommendations for better policy coordination.
• Similarly, Zonal councils need to be revived to discuss the matters of common concern to states in each zone—matters relating to social and economic planning, border disputes, inter-state transport, etc.
• India is the epitome of unity in diversity. However, to strengthen this unity furthermore, both the centre and state governments need to imbibe the ethos of cooperative federalism.