Inter State Border Dispute | Current Affairs & Hindu Analysis: Daily, Weekly & Monthly - UPSC PDF Download

Introduction

The Home Minister organized a meeting with the Chief Ministers of Maharashtra and Karnataka to discuss the border conflict between the two states. They reached an agreement that neither state would pursue their claims further until the Supreme Court makes a ruling on the matter. Additionally, a group of three ministers from each state will meet to discuss the issue in detail. It's worth noting that there are several other border disputes between various states in India, including Andhra Pradesh-Odisha, Haryana-Himachal Pradesh, UT of Ladakh-Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra-Karnataka, Assam-Arunachal Pradesh, Assam-Nagaland, Assam-Meghalaya, Assam-Mizoram. There are also outstanding issues related to the division of assets between Andhra Pradesh-Telangana and Bihar-Jharkhand.

Need for the Interstate Boundary Commission:

• To tackle the complicated issue of conflicting claims between the parties involved, the most important step should be the establishment of an independent interstate boundary commission. This commission should conduct a thorough consultative study and formulate a solution that takes into account the concerns of all stakeholders. 
• One potential solution could involve the central government utilizing the disputed land after compensating both states. Another option could involve compensating one state and awarding land to the other, or dividing the disputed land equally between the two states involved. 
• After the states agree on a solution, the court could serve as a watchdog to ensure that arbitrary actions are not taken.

Reasons for border disputes

On the ground, the Maharashtra Ekikaran Samiti (MES) and pro-Karnataka organizations like Karnataka Rakshana Vedike have been keeping the issue of the border dispute between the two states alive.

The states reorganization:

• During the reorganization of states in India in 1953, the States Reorganization Commission emphasized that territorial adjustments between states should not lead to disputes between alien powers. However, it is the commission's 1955 report that political scientists believe most inter-state disputes in India can be traced back to. The reorganization was primarily based on language, which led to several inter-state border disputes such as the ones between Karnataka and Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala, and Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.

Language and British era maps as a basis:

• The state identity was linked to language, which meant that if an area that primarily spoke the language of one state was merged with another state, it could lead to future conflicts. Moreover, many state boundaries were based on district boundaries created by the British, rather than village boundaries. When borders are tied to maps that do not provide a clear administrative border, it can lead to disputes. However, most states in India were created based on colonial cartographies, and they seldom acknowledge the socio-cultural significance of borders.

Measures Needed

• There are several measures that can be taken to resolve inter-state border disputes, including dialogue and political settlements between the states themselves or with the assistance of the central government. In the past, the central government has appointed commissions to give their reports, but one state or the other has not accepted them. Disputes can also be settled by the Supreme Court, which Assam may soon approach regarding its current row with Mizoram, seeking status quo.
• The Sundaram Commission suggested a border between Assam and Nagaland, but Nagaland rejected the report. In 1988, Assam filed a case in the Supreme Court, and it did the same over its dispute with Arunachal Pradesh in 1989. Both cases are still pending. In 1968, the Setalvad Study Team on Centre-State Relationships recommended the creation of an inter-state council to settle inter-state disputes quickly and impartially, as they can become festering sores that hinder development and generate hard feelings on all sides. However, the recommendation was never implemented.

Conclusion

• India is known for its diversity, and to further strengthen unity, both the central and state governments should adopt cooperative federalism. Unfortunately, in disputes like these, it is the common people who bear the brunt of the violence and protests, regardless of the language they speak. 
• The central government has maintained that inter-state border disputes can only be resolved through the willing cooperation of the states involved, and its role is limited to facilitating a settlement that fosters mutual understanding and compromise.