The issues surrounding the question of territory has since the emergence of the modern state 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 the monopoly of 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 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. 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 duty of the state to ensure that the interest of such a people are safeguarded. This dual condition needs fulfillment 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 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. This double standard obviously clearly 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 fear.
The matter concerning unification of Naga areas has been a critical one ever since the relation between India and the Nagas turned conflictual. In 1947, T. Sakhrie of the Naga National Council requested Sir Akbar Hydari that the territories inhabited by the Naga be united at once and he demanded that ‘old boundary be restored.’ Sixty years later, the same question of territory 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 embraces and 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 rigid lines, but as overlapping spheres of boundary.
By declaring that the existing boundaries in the northeast will remain unchanged, the state has with utmost guile manipulated state-people conflict into a matter of people-people conflict. In essence it has shown that the art of imposing new identities through artificial boundaries has been the focal point of statecraft. Perhaps it would best serve democracy; if people through a democratic referendum collectively demonstrate that existing territorial boundaries are unable to safeguard their interests. After all in the end, it should be people who should determine the destiny of the territory!
