The Karnataka-Maharashtra Border Tensions Are A Fallout Of Competitive Politics : Daily Current Affairs

Date: 12/12/2022

Relevance: GS-2: Indian Constitution- historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure.

Key Phrases: Long-Standing Dispute Over The Control Of Belagavi, State Reorganisation Act, 1956, Mahajan Commission, Fazal Ali Commission.

Why in News?

Tensions have flared once again along the Karnataka-Maharashtra inter-state border over the long-standing dispute over the control of Belagavi, a border town in Karnataka.
A petition has been filed by the Maharashtra government, challenging some provisions of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, and demanding 865 villages from five districts of Karnataka.

When did the dispute begin?

The border dispute dates back to 1957 after the reorganisation of states on linguistic lines based on States Reorganisation Act, 1956.
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.
On November 1, 1956, Mysore state – later renamed Karnataka – was formed, and differences between the state and the neighbouring Bombay state – later Maharashtra – erupted.

Maharashtra’s claim:

Maharashtra laid claim to Belagavi which was part of the erstwhile Bombay Presidency as it has a sizeable Marathi-speaking population.
It also laid claim to 814 Marathi-speaking villages which are currently part of Karnataka leading to a decade-long violent agitation and formation of Maharashtra Ekikaran Samithi (MES), which still holds sway in parts of the district and the eponymous city.
Maharashtra approached the Supreme Court in 2004, challenging the State Reorganisation Act.

What was the Centre’s response?

Amid protests and pressure from Maharashtra, the Union government set up a Mahajan Commission under retired Supreme Court judge Justice Meharchand Mahajan on October 25, 1966.
The commission submitted its report in August 1967, where it recommended merging 264 towns and villages of Karnataka (including Nippani, Nandgad and Khanapur) with Maharashtra, and 247 villages of Maharashtra (including South Solapur and Akkalkot) with Karnataka.

What happened to the report?

Though the report was tabled in 1970 in the Parliament, it was not taken up for discussion. Without the implementation of the recommendations, demands of Marathi-speaking regions to be part of Maharashtra and Kannada-speaking regions to be part of Karnataka continued to grow.
The issue led to political polarisation in border areas of Belagavi, with many people aligning with parties based on language.

Karnataka’s claim:

The Karnataka government has claimed Jath taluk in Maharashtra, evoking a strong response.
He subsequently also claimed that Solapur and Akkalkot regions in Maharashtra belonged to Karnataka.

Arguments of Karnataka:

Karnataka maintains that the demarcation done on linguistic lines as per the Act and the 1967 Mahajan Commission Report as final.
Karnataka has resorted to Article 3 of the Indian Constitution arguing that the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to decide the borders of states, and only Parliament has the power to do so.
However, Maharashtra has referred to Article 131 of the Constitution, which says that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in cases related to disputes between the Union government and states.

Do you know?

Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:

Original jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and adjudicate upon the matter as the court of first instance.
Article 131 elucidates the original jurisdiction of the Apex Court. It provides that the Court will be competent to exercise original jurisdiction:
In disputes between the Union Government and one or more States
In such disputes, where the Union Government and one or more states constitute one party and one or more states constitute the other party
In disputes between two or more states

Article 3 in The Constitution Of India: Parliament may by law-

form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;
increase the area of any State;
diminish the area of any State;
alter the boundaries of any State;
alter the name of any State; provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of the States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State.

Why tensions rise in Belagavi in winter?

In 2007, Karnataka started building the Suvarna Vidhana Soudha (Legislative Assembly) in Belagavi to assert its control over the region. The building was inaugurated in 2012, and the winter legislature sessions are held here annually.
The border issues springs up every time the Karnataka Assembly session is held in Belagavi.

Is the eruption of strong language chauvinism on the border of Karnataka and Maharashtra primarily linguistic?

The tradition of bilingualism has been an essential element of the culture of the area. The castes and communities on both sides of the disputed border have their extended families spread on either side of it.
The amity and cultural entanglement between the two languages, cultures and states shows that although the dispute is in the name of language, but it is not linguistic in essence. It is in the name of a border, but it is not territorial too in essence.

Politics behind the border dispute:

Elections in Karnataka are round the corner and in recent times, there have been a lot of emerging issues in the state.
Thus, attempts are being made to divert attention from these real issues by mobilising the majority against the minority by generating economic blockade, making hijab and love-jihad as issues.
What matters to the political leaders is to find a way of diverting the discontent, no matter what harm it brings to the harmony of communities in the area.
The truth is, neither the language nor the people along the state border are an issue for them, as they should be.

Source: Indian Express

Mains Question:

Q. Is there a need for a second State Reorganization Commission ? Critically analyze in the recent backdrop of border disputes among various states. (150 words)