Nationalist Congress Party's MP from Baramati, Maharashtra, Supriya Sule slammed the Chief Minister of Karnataka for talking nonsense over the past few days with regard to the Maharashtra-Karnataka border dispute and requested Union Home Minister Amit Shah to speak up on the issue.


In Lok Sabha's session on Wednesday, she said, "For the past 10 days, a new issue has cropped up in Maharashtra. The CM of our neighbouring state, Karnataka has been speaking nonsense. Yesterday, people of Maharashtra wanted to go to the Karnataka border but they were thrashed."


The border dispute between Maharashtra and Karnataka has been going on for quite some time now. The history of this ongoing dispute can be traced back to the 1950s. However, it resurfaced two weeks back.


Why did it resurface?


Maharashtra CM Eknath Shinde two weeks ago called a meeting to discuss the current state of the border dispute in Mumbai. Chandrakant Patil and Shambhuraj Desai, two senior ministers, were assigned by Shinde to coordinate and prosecute the boundary dispute both legally and politically. In addition, Shinde said that under the Jyotiba Phule Jan Arogya programme, freedom fighters in Belagavi and other Marathi-speaking regions of Karnataka would be eligible for pensions and would get free medical treatment.


Karnataka CM Basavaraj Bommai on the other hand offered funds for all Kannada schools in Maharashtra, a day later. Bommai added that the Karnataka government was considering claiming 40 villages in the Sangli district of Maharashtra's Jatt taluka.


The following day, Bommai said that the Karnataka government will assert rights over border villages in the Solapur region of Maharashtra.


Maharashtra Dy CM Devendra Fadnavis said the government will "not let a single village go to Karnataka" in response to this. Contrarily, Fadnavis declared that "Maharashtra will reclaim 865 villages, including Belgavi, Nipani, and Carvar."


On December 6, Maharashtra agreed to send ministers Patil and Desai to Belagavi for talks with various organizations and people. The Karnataka government, however, encouraged them not to send the delegation, therefore the planned visit was postponed.


Activists from the Karnataka Rakshana Vedika led by Narayan Gowda traveled to Belagavi, and allegedly hurled stones at the buses from Maharashtra at Hiregadwadi. Shiv Sena (UBT) members vandalised Karnataka buses in Pune as payback.


What is the Maharashtra and Karanataka border dispute?


The State Reorganisation Act, 1956, which reorganised states along linguistic lines, is the cause of the border dispute between Maharashtra and Karnataka. Maharashtra has argued for the incorporation of 865 villages since its establishment on May 1st, 1960, including Belagavi (formerly Belgaum), Carvar, and Nipani. But Karnataka has always resisted ceding any of its lands.


On October 25, 1966, the Centre constituted the Mahajan Commission. While rejecting Maharashtra’s claim over Belagavi, it recommended 247 villages/places, including Jatt, Akkalkote, and Solapur, to be made part of Karnataka. Additionally, 264 villages and locations, including Nippani, Khanapur, and Nandagad, were declared to be included in Maharashtra. However, Maharashtra rejected it.


The following attempts to end the dispute were all in vain. The Maharashtra government in 2004 filed a petition in the Supreme Court staking claim over Marathi-speaking villages in Karnataka.


The case has been pending in the Supreme Court since 2004.


Meanwhile, Karnataka renamed Belgaum Belagavi and designated it as the second capital of the state.


What will happen to the border dispute now?


Karnataka CM on Tuesday held talks with Maharashtra CM, post which he tweeted "Maharashtra Chief Minister Shri Eknath Shinde had telephonic discussion with me, we both agreed that there should be peace and law and order to be maintain in both the states. Since there is harmonious relation between the people of both the states, however there is no change in our stand as far as Karnataka border is concerned. And the legal battle will be pursued in Supreme court."