We are once again in the season of disputes between states over natural resources. Maharashtra and Karnataka are battling it out over land — the status of Belgaum. Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka are locked in contention in a matter that concerns water, the question of the Babli dam over the Godavari in Nanded district of
Maharashtra. The argument is that the dam will obstruct the flow of water to Pochampad dam in the Telangana region. In the case of Belgaum, an issue that goes back more than five decades, political opinion cutting across party lines is caught in a chauvinistic whirlpool caused by linguistic currents. Looking at the potential political damage that may be caused to the Congress-NCP dispensation if he is not seen to be pro-active on Belgaum, Maharashtra chief minister Ashok Chavan has demanded Union Territory status for about 800 Marathi-speaking villages of Karnataka’s Belgaum district. In Andhra Pradesh, however, it is mainly the Opposition Telugu Desam Party that is in the forefront of protest. Interestingly, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi leader, K. Chandrasekhar Rao, has not struck a strident posture, preferring mainly to appeal to the Central Water Commission, although water supply to the Telangana area is the question of debate in this case. The ruling Congress in Hyderabad has kept a low profile over the issue. Some observers are led to think that the TDP is doing no more than return the Congress’ compliments. When the TDP was ruling Andhra Pradesh, the Congress — then the main Opposition party in the state — had led a shrill protest over the raising of the height of the Almati dam by Karnataka on the river Krishna, much to the discomfiture of Mr Naidu, who was chief minister.
It is hard to get away from the feeling that it is the spirit of politicking at work, both on the land question as well as the water issue, rather than genuine politics which in its highest forms must concern itself with people’s welfare. In the medieval era and earlier, Belgaum was very much part of the Kannada region in every respect. In the 17th century, parts of this area came under the sway of the Maratha ruler Shivaji. In the British period the entire area — indeed most of the present Karnataka state — fell under the Bombay Presidency. In independent India, under arrangements made by the States Reorganisation Commission on a linguistic basis, Belgaum district was made part of the then Mysore state though it was well understood that parts of it had a significant Maharashtrian population, and later came under the jurisdiction of Karnataka. Its status has been before the Supreme Court for some years, with the Maharashtra government challenging the stand taken by the SRC and the subsequent Mahajan Commission. However, the affidavit of the Union government in the apex court has questioned Maharashtra’s stand. It is therefore unclear what Mr Chavan’s political actions, aimed at securing at least some areas of Belgaum for Maharashtra, will achieve. It is clear, however, that had the chief minister kept quiet, the Shiv Sena might have gone on the rampage. Perhaps it is time for all parties to be persuaded to wait it out until the Supreme Court delivers its verdict. It should be kept in mind that the social or economic status of Belgaum city or Belgaum district has in no way been affected on account of being part of one state and not another. On the Babli dam, it is necessary to keep in view the sensitivities of Telangana, a water-deficient region. But the evaluation of the impact of the dam is best left to expert bodies, such as the Central Water Commission.