Redrawing state borders is tricky business, more so in an ethnic cauldron like the North-east. The fresh border spat between Assam and Nagaland shows how even a small piece of disputed land can threaten peace and stability in a much larger area. It is not surprising, therefore, that the violence over a small stretch on the Assam-Nagaland border is threatening to become a full-blown political conflict involving the two states and a faction of the Naga rebels. The new — and potentially dangerous — twist to the old dispute is the perception that the rebels want to change the territory’s demography by force. The presence of a camp of the National Socialist Council of Nagalim, led by Mr Isak Swu and Mr Thuingaleng Muivah, close to the scene of violence, lends credence to the perception. Whatever the truth of the claims and counter-claims by different tribes to the territory, it cannot be established by the power of the gun. If the NSCN(I-M) had wielded the gun to help local Nagas lay claim to the land, it would be a blatant violation of the group’s ceasefire agreement with New Delhi. Such use of force would expose the NSCN(I-M) to the charge that it was taking to violent ways to expand the so-called Nagalim or Naga-inhabited areas, beyond the borders of Nagaland.

Such a perception would be dangerous for the whole of the North-east. It could trigger a fresh wave of ethnic unrest, not just on the Assam-Nagaland border, but in several other states in the region. It may be a mere coincidence that the border violence happened at a time when the NSCN(I-M) was holding another round of peace parleys with New Delhi’s emissaries in Amsterdam. It is not difficult to see why the NSCN(I-M) leaders are upset over the commitment of the United Progressive Alliance government not to change the territorial boundaries of the north-eastern states. The addition of Naga-inhabited areas spread over other states to the present territory of Nagaland has been an old demand of the Naga rebels. The previous National Democratic Alliance government stirred a violent backlash in Manipur three years ago by making hasty commitments on the issue. New Delhi has to move cautiously on it so that ethnic passions are not fuelled again in Manipur or some other state adjoining Nagaland. It cannot serve the cause of peace if a concession to the rebels ignites an ethnic conflict elsewhere. In fact, the peace talks with the rebel Nagas need not be tied down to any particular issue. Despite occasional problems, the ceasefire in Nagaland has held since 1997, thanks to the flexibility of approaches shown by both sides. A small boundary dispute must not be allowed to stymie the big peace initiative.