The passionate and innate relationship between human beings and the land in which they exercise their sovereign rights had and continues to define the dialectical parameters of what constitutes a peoples’ understanding of their existential dignified existence. A political territorial space represents more than just the boundary of a (un)recognized sovereign State; it embraces the soul and aspiration of a people’s national identity to determine its own future, manifests the richness of a people’s culture and demonstrates the rightful ownership over its resources.
The multiple and varying degree of boundaries illustrates its significance in (re)defining relationships between political communities. There are therefore either good boundaries or bad boundaries, but there is no such thing as an entity without boundaries because all forms of political relationship would be misplaced. Nevertheless, existence of rigid and imposed boundaries itself has been associated with many of the world’s conflicts because it has been blind and ignorant to the realities of the people and have caused the obstruction of a people’s dignity, particularly the indigenous peoples.
It is quite essential to recognize that boundaries in reality are not the same as what one see on a map; they shift, change, overlap and make necessary adjustments pushed by historical and human factors. Boundaries are in constant transformation because they manifest the dynamism of ever-changing power relations. It is here that States have time again regimented within its parochial fold the power to monopolize the organizing of territorial space. Subsequently, in the presence of contradicting interests where people resist state imposed boundaries, the state with utmost guile manipulates state-people conflict into a matter of people-people conflict.
The art of imposing new identities and artificial boundaries has indeed been the focal point of statecraft. It is nonetheless important not to forget that the rationale of territorial integrity is not the end, neither is it absolute in itself. The ultimate purpose of state territorial integrity according to international law is to ensure that the interests of the people of a given territory are safeguarded. Consequently, the rationale of state territorial integrity is applicable and meaningful only so long as it continues to fulfill that purpose. No state can claim to safeguard the interest of the people when the people have themselves not expressed their consent and will to be part of it.
Human security precedes territorial security. The limitation of territorial integrity is best illustrated by Judge Hardy Dillard in the International Court of Justice case on Western Sahara, when he said, “it is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory the destiny of the people.” It will be worthwhile to examine why India has viewed borders and boundaries in the northeast as rigid and inflexible lines which cannot be altered, even if it contravenes the basic rationale of territorial integrity, while it has no compunction in redrawing and creating new state boundaries in the Indian subcontinent.
By declaring that the existing boundaries in the northeast will remain unchanged, this contradicting position obviously clearly displays the inherent lack of political will when it comes to addressing complex issues of self-definition. Perhaps it would best serve democracy; if people through a democratic referendum collectively demonstrate that existing territorial boundaries are unable to safeguard their interests. The expressed will of a people inevitably prevails over territorial integrity. After all in the end, it should be people who should determine the destiny of the territory!
