In a move likely to intensify tensions between Maharashtra and Karnataka, the Maharashtra government has reconstituted a high-powered committee to push for the inclusion of 814 Marathi-speaking villages in the Belagavi (Belgaum) region — even as the decades-long border dispute remains pending before the Supreme Court.
Mumbai/Belagavi/Bengaluru: The Maharashtra government, under the Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, has issued a fresh notification reconstituting a high-level committee on the Maharashtra-Karnataka border dispute. Fadnavis will chair the newly formed 18-member panel, which includes prominent political figures such as Deputy CMs Eknath Shinde and Ajit Pawar, NCP supremo Sharad Pawar.
The committee, seen as part of a renewed strategy to advocate for Marathi-speaking areas along the contentious border, has already sparked backlash from pro-Kannada activists and political leaders in Karnataka. Allegations have surfaced that this is another political ploy by Maharashtra to stoke sentiments and gain regional mileage ahead of upcoming political developments.
The timing of this move — while the dispute is sub judice in the Supreme Court — has led to concerns about Maharashtra’s intentions. Earlier, the Fadnavis-led government had attempted to implement health and education schemes in Kannada-administered villages with Marathi populations, triggering sharp protests and diplomatic interventions.
“This is nothing but a calculated provocation,” said a pro-Kannada leader, accusing Maharashtra of attempting to interfere in Karnataka’s internal affairs under the guise of cultural protection.
The border dispute primarily revolves around Belagavi and surrounding regions, where both states claim historical and linguistic stakes. Karnataka leaders are now demanding a firm response from the Siddaramaiah government, warning that Maharashtra’s repeated “interference” could escalate unrest along the border.
The Maharashtra government’s renewed push — despite repeated setbacks and national criticism — has again put the spotlight on the unresolved issue and reignited emotional appeals on both sides of the linguistic divide.
