The passionate and innate relationship between human beings and land has and continues to define the dialectical parameters of what constitutes a peoples’ understanding of a 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, the richness of a people’s culture, the manifestation of rightful ownership over its resources and more importantly the ritualistic symbols of a peoples perceived chosen traumas and chosen glories.
Boundaries define spaces of authority and therefore reflect an existing set of power relations. A boundary is said to be the outer limit of authority that defines the bounded space within which a political community exercises its sovereignty. Borders and frontiers have a different meaning. While a border is the area or zone of confrontation or transit between two bounded spaces, a frontier is a zone of expansion. The multiple and varying degree of boundaries illustrates its significance in defining relations 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 relationship would be misplaced. Nevertheless, existence of rigid boundaries itself has been associated with many of the world’s conflicts because it has been blind to the realities of the people. Boundaries in reality are not the same as what one see on a map; they shift, change, overlap and make adjustments pushed by human factors. Boundaries are in constant transformation because they manifest the dynamism of ever-changing power relations; and are hence not static entities.
States have time and time again regimented within its 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. As a result, modern States have become extensions of colonialism for unrepresented peoples, who willingly or unwillingly live within the borders of the present States, of which they now form a voluntary or involuntary part.
Modern states through the institution of the United Nations have fiercely tried to maintain the ‘territorial integrity’ of its member states. So much so that the exclusive structure of the United Nations today indicates that the United Nations is not a union of “Nations” but a union of “States.” Therefore as an institution of States, it remains a symbol of political status rather than a search for realization of human dignity for all.
Nevertheless, the argument of “state territorial integrity” as an absolute right has proved unrealistic. 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.” Perhaps the freedom of East Timor from Indonesia illustrates where the government did 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 interests of the peoples of a territory and is meaningful only so long as it continues to fulfill that purpose to all sections of the people. No State can therefore claim to safeguard the interest of peoples when they have used force to establish its sovereignty over a territory and when the people have themselves not expressed their consent and will to be part of that union.
The expressed will of a people inevitably prevails over the notion of territorial integrity. However, resolving issues of boundaries means addressing our perception of boundaries and it may very well begin by perceiving them as soft, flexible and mobile rather than immobile and rigid lines. Boundaries can be friendly, supportive and flexible; not just obstacles to a movement. Simply becoming “unstuck” from limited perceptions of what boundaries can open up possibilities for dialogue and understanding.
Judge Hardy Dillard in the International Court of Justice case on Western Sahara said “It is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory the destiny of the people.” From this standpoint, the Naga Rally calling for unification of Naga homeland can be perceived firstly, as a symbolic act that challenges the notion of state territorial integrity and secondly as an affirmation of the idea that it is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory.
The Naga Rally as a symbolic expression of their ‘birthright’ will remain symbolic unless Naga Hoho with all the Naga tribes transforms it into a basis to initiate the political task of determining the bounded political community that is going to exercise their sovereign rights within its defined boundary. In effect, unification of a homeland is limited to the practical basic necessities of defining and identifying the boundaries of a political community striving to realize its birthright. The more essential task will be negotiating the parameters in which a political community exercises its sovereignty?
