In the world of geo-politics, one needs to question if there is any such thing as good boundaries. World history is replete with examples of how wars are waged over perceived and real boundaries. Redrawing boundaries and maps by colonial powers for their own conveniences led to imposed boundaries from above. The lines were drawn randomly and arbitrarily without respecting ancestral boundaries shared between neighbours. As a result, imposed boundaries disrupted historical and existing relationships between neighbours.
The Naga experience is no exception. Internal and external boundaries were drawn randomly without peoples’ consent, thereby impacting relationships both internally and externally.
The natural and innate relationship between people and land defines the dialectical parameters of what constitutes a peoples’ understanding of a dignified existence. A political territorial space represents more than just the boundary of an (un)recognized sovereign entity. It embraces a people’s heart and aspirations to determine their own future, the richness of a people’s culture, and their ability to be stewards of its resources.
While boundaries define spaces of authority that reflect power relations, they operate quite differently on the ground. In reality, from a cultural perspective, they are always in a state of flux, shifting, overlapping and adjusting. Boundaries are in constant movement because they manifest the dynamism of ever-changing power relations. Some boundaries are porous, and others are flexible. However, it is the rigid institutionalized state boundaries which are usually a flashpoint of many of the world’s armed conflicts.
States have regimented the power to monopolize and organize territorial space. Subsequently, in the presence of contradicting aspirations and interests where people resist state imposed boundaries, the state manipulates conditions of state-people conflict to turn them into a people-people conflict. Most of these conflicts are actually manufactured between two neighbours, and the state assumes the role of a mediator. The art of creating new state identities, imposing artificial boundaries and pacifying people has indeed been the focal point of statecraft.
Modern states have fiercely tried to maintain the territory they ‘inherited’ from colonial powers. Nevertheless, the argument of “state territorial integrity” as an absolute right has proved unworkable. It is conditioned by the right to self-determination which is accorded priority when a State is not “possessed of a government representing the whole people,” and is applicable to political communities within existing sovereign and independent States in situations where the “government does not represent the governed.”
In the final analysis, the rationale of state territorial integrity is not an end in itself. The ultimate purpose of state territorial integrity is to safeguard the peoples’ interests of a territory and is meaningful only so long as it continues to fulfill that purpose for all the people. The paradox is that no State can sincerely claim to safeguard the interest of peoples when the people have themselves not consented to be part of it.
Re-establishing a dignified relationship and developing critical solidarity among the people of the North East involves honest discussions about colonial state boundaries, as well as shared ancestral boundaries. A process of genuine dialogue at the peoples’ level on the question of boundaries can be addressed more meaningfully only when it is recognized that, “it is for people to determine the destiny of the territory and not for the territory the destiny of the people.”
The people of the North East, and the Naga in particular, need to question and discern for themselves, whether their political aspiration is to reinforce the hegemonic Westphalian State. Or, whether their political imagination will allow them to create an alternative, which derives its legitimacy from the consent and will of the people. The Naga response to this question will define its relationship with its neighbours.
