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

Introduction

The Union Home Minister convened a meeting with the Chief Ministers of Maharashtra and Karnataka regarding the ongoing border dispute between the two states. Both parties reached an agreement to halt further assertions of their claims until the Supreme Court delivers a verdict on the matter. Additionally, it was decided that a panel comprising three ministers from each state would convene to deliberate on the issue in depth. However, it's noteworthy that border disputes are not unique to Karnataka and Maharashtra alone. In December of the previous year, the Central government informed Parliament about various boundary disputes stemming from demarcation discrepancies and conflicting territorial claims between several states, including Andhra Pradesh-Odisha, Haryana-Himachal Pradesh, UT of Ladakh-Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra-Karnataka, Assam-Arunachal Pradesh, Assam-Nagaland, Assam-Meghalaya, and Assam-Mizoram. Additionally, certain matters concerning asset division remain unresolved between Andhra Pradesh-Telangana and Bihar-Jharkhand.

Need for an Interstate Boundary Commission

• Given the contentious nature and intricacies of these disputes, establishing an independent Interstate Boundary Commission emerges as a top priority.
• This commission, following thorough consultation and analysis, should endeavor to formulate a solution that addresses the concerns of all stakeholders involved.
• One potential approach could involve the central government utilizing disputed lands following compensation to both states.
• Alternatively, options such as compensating one state while allocating land to the other or dividing the disputed territory equally between the states could be explored based on stakeholder consensus.
• Once a solution is agreed upon and accepted by the states, the judiciary should assume a supervisory role to ensure compliance and address any arbitrary actions.

Reasons for Border Disputes

• At the grassroots level, organizations such as the Maharashtra Ekikaran Samiti (MES) in Maharashtra and pro-Karnataka groups like the Karnataka Rakshana Vedike in Karnataka have been instrumental in keeping the issue alive.
• The genesis of many inter-state border disputes can be traced back to the 1950s during the reorganization of states, which was primarily based on linguistic considerations. Despite the States Reorganisation Commission emphasizing that territorial adjustments should not lead to disputes akin to those between foreign powers, conflicts arose, largely attributable to the Commission's 1955 report.
• The demarcation of state boundaries during this period, primarily influenced by language, has resulted in disputes between Karnataka and Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, among others.
• Moreover, these delineations often relied on British-era maps, which delineated district boundaries rather than village boundaries. Consequently, discrepancies in administrative borders outlined on colonial cartographies have contributed to conflicts, underscoring the significance of precise map delineations in preventing disputes.

Measures Required

• Inter-state border disputes can find resolution either through dialogue and political settlements between the concerned states or through intervention by the Central government.
• Historically, commissions appointed by the Central government have provided recommendations; however, acceptance of these reports by one state or the other has often proven challenging.
• Alternatively, disputes can be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. For instance, Assam may soon seek judicial intervention in its ongoing dispute with Mizoram to establish a status quo.
• Despite recommendations such as those by the Sundaram Commission proposing a border delineation between Assam and Nagaland, conflicts persist, with Nagaland rejecting the report. Legal recourse has been sought, with Assam filing cases in the Supreme Court regarding disputes with both Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, yet these matters remain unresolved.
• Recognizing the urgency for resolution, the Setalvad Study Team on Centre-State Relationships advocated for an inter-state council in 1968, emphasizing the need for swift and impartial settlement of inter-state disputes to prevent friction, promote development, and foster goodwill among all parties. Unfortunately, this recommendation was never implemented.

Conclusion

• India's strength lies in its diversity, symbolized by the principle of unity in diversity. However, to reinforce this unity, both the Central and state governments must embrace the spirit of cooperative federalism.
• Nevertheless, it is often the ordinary citizens who bear the brunt of frequent protests and acts of violence arising from such disputes, regardless of the languages they speak.
• The Central government consistently maintains that inter-state boundary disputes necessitate amicable settlement with the cooperation of the involved state governments, underscoring its role as a facilitator in promoting mutual accommodation and understanding during the resolution process.