The debate over regional imbalance in Karnataka has resurfaced, driven by familiar concerns that have persisted for decades. A recent letter by Kagawad MLA Bharamagouda Kage to the Chief Minister and the Prime Minister has reignited discussions around the long standing demand for a separate North Karnataka state. In the letter, he argued that the northern districts have faced consistent neglect in development, administration, and resource allocation.
Across Belagavi, Dharwad, Kalaburagi, and several other districts, the issue is being viewed with careful attention and quiet recognition. For organisations like the Uttara Karnataka Horata Samiti, which has spent years pointing to disparities in irrigation, infrastructure, and employment, the letter is being treated as a fresh reminder of unresolved questions. Others see it as a political moment that has appeared many times before, often around major legislative sessions.
Historical context is central to understanding the mood in the region. North Karnataka has struggled with water scarcity, limited investment, and slower infrastructural growth since the reorganisation of states. Over the years, multiple committees, including the Nanjundappa Committee, have identified significant gaps between the northern and southern districts in terms of income, irrigation potential, educational access, and public services. Although successive governments have announced schemes, the belief that development never truly caught up with the region remains widespread.
At the same time, the demand for a separate state has rarely evolved into a unified mass movement. Unlike Telangana, which generated a substantial share of its former state’s revenue, North Karnataka continues to rely heavily on funds from southern Karnataka. Several leaders across party lines acknowledge that a full separation may create new challenges rather than resolve existing ones.
At moments of stress, issues like this tend to stir up. The Mahadayi and Krishna river disputes, recurring droughts, and budget allocations that are seen as skewed toward the south often revive concerns. For many residents, these issues feel more personal than statistical, tied to everyday struggles for water, jobs, and stable infrastructure.
As the winter session approaches, questions arise. Whether the government responds with dialogue, policy commitments, or restraint remains to be seen. What is clear among people in the northern districts is that the demand is less about drawing borders and more about being heard, recognized, and finally seeing development that is long overdue.
