All around the world the boundaries created and left behind by Colonial forces have perhaps had the greatest impact on future generations. The emerging news States that were decolonized unfortunately continued to maintain these boundaries, and in the process of State-building were responsible for destroying peoples and nations by entrapping them within “artificial boundaries.” These imaginary lines were arbitrarily drawn without the consent of the people and has only re-enforced the concept of Westphalia, which is seen as the source of the modern Sovereign state.
Nihal Jayawickrama reminds us that many such boundaries are man-made by victors of the ‘great wars’ and notes that most boundaries had been drawn in a very arbitrary manner, slashing across ethnic settlements regardless of the cultural affinities that had existed from time immemorial. He asserts that most ethnic groups precede contemporary national boundaries by hundreds, if not thousands, of years. The question of boundaries in the Northeast is no different. Given the region’s political and historical context, the State pursues power through division, by segregating and stratifying societies and destroying the political community that existed prior to its imposition, into narrow rigid state identification.
The monopolistic nature of the State to organize political space has been an issue that has given rise to many conflicts in the world. Charles Tilly points out that War made States, and States, in turn, made War, and in due process with increasing tendency the States monitored, controlled and monopolized the effective use of violence; thereby, revealing the link between war-making and State structures. The violence of State boundaries is evident, and in many parts of the world over, it has consistently been the unrepresented peoples who have had to languish under State boundaries neither of their making nor of their choice.
Sadly, these State boundaries are succeeding in fragmenting the harmonious and dignified historical relationship shared between different political communities. The tumultuous issues over territorial boundaries are indicators that statecraft has indeed been thriving in creating a wedge between different political communities, and, therefore, enabling the State to maintain the status quo. The present acrimony over frontier lands is therefore grossly misrepresented, unless the intent of statecraft and the politics of state boundaries are put into perspective. However, it is possible for sustainable solutions to problems of boundaries to evolve if the broader issues of territory, people and rights are addressed.
Re-establishing dignified relationships and critical solidarity are essential if the Northeast region is going to live a shared humanity that is essential for the freedom and equal rights of all peoples. The questions of boundaries can be addressed more meaningfully in the interest of a shared humanity, only when the State boundaries are perceived as being soft overlapping spheres of shared influence, rather than a rigid line which cannot be altered. The people of the region and the Naga in particular, will have to question and discern for themselves, whether their political aspiration is to create another hegemonic State; or whether their political imagination will allow them to create an alternative sovereign unconstructured State that reflects the values of consent, full participation and justice. By this, it implies re-arranging the present districts; and perhaps even creating new ones and renaming them in accordance to the values of self-definition.
