The issues surrounding the question of territory, since the emergence of the modern state, has been a matter of State sovereignty, and, in accordance of such a parochial perception, ensured that the manner in which space and territory is organized, becomes monopolized by the sovereign State. Hence, it is not surprising that the question of territory has always been central to the idea of sovereignty.
It is nonetheless important to remember that the rationale of State territorial integrity is not the end, nor 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 from 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 themselves have not expressed their consent and will to be part of it.
The rationale of territorial integrity is legitimized only when the people have collectively expressed their consent and will to be part of it, which is in relation to the State’s responsibility to ensure that the interest of such a people are safeguarded. This dual condition needs to be fulfilled when the question of territorial integrity is invoked. 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 North East region of the subcontinent as rigid and inflexible lines which cannot be altered, even if it contravenes the basic rationale of territorial integrity. Clearly, it has no compunction in redrawing and creating new State boundaries in the Indian subcontinent. This double standard overtly displays the inherent lack of political will when it comes to addressing complex issues of self-definition, and certainly shows that its core policies are still driven by self-interests and fear.
The matter concerning unifying Naga areas has been a critical issue ever since the relationship between India and the Nagas turned conflictual. In 1947, T. Sakhrie of the Naga National Council requested of Sir Akbar Hydari that the territories inhabited by the Naga be united at once, and he demanded that ‘old boundary be restored.’ Almost seventy years later, the same question of territory – and hence sovereignty – is once more at the epicenter of what proves to be the decisive factor in determining future Indo-Naga relations.
What perhaps needs more understanding is how Nagas relate to their land. The innate relationship between Nagas and their land has, and continues to define the dialectical parameters of what constitutes their understanding of a dignified existence. The land represents the aspiration of a national identity to determine its own political, social and economic future; all of which is central to their humanity. Territory in this sense is not perceived as having rigidly defined lines, but as overlapping spheres of boundary.
In the interest of peace and democracy the affected people that are living along the border and whose territories are being contested by different political powers can best resolve these disputes through having a democratic referendum which would collectively decide their political status. After all in the end, the universal principles that in democracy, sovereignty lies with the people should be exercised, wherein, the people living in these affected borders need to determine the destiny of the territory!
