Tracing the evolution of territorial boundaries

Hareshwar Goshwami (Writer & Political Activist)
The terms boundary, border, and frontier are often used interchangeably in everyday discourse. In political geography, however, they have distinct meanings and significance.
Although all three relate to the territorial limits of states, each denotes a different concept in terms of its legal status, geographical characteristics, and political function.
Boundary: Boundary has been often defined in various ways by different scholars and disciplines. For this study, however, the term refers to a political or administrative line that demarcates the territorial limits of countries or states. The distinguished Thai scholar Thongchai Winichakul, referring to Richard Muir in his seminal work Siam Mapped, describes boundaries as follows: “Boundaries have been loosely described as being linear; in fact, they occur where the vertical interfaces between state sovereignties intersect the surface of the earth.” This definition highlights the boundary as a precise territorial limit separating the jurisdiction and sovereignty of one political entity from another.
Border: A border is not merely a line but an area or zone adjoining or surrounding a boundary.
Unlike a boundary, which is a clearly defined demarcation, a border generally refers to a geographical region adjacent to the boundary line. Its extent may vary depending on the context and scale of reference. For instance, from a national perspective, Manipur is often described as a border State of India because it shares an international boundary with Myan- mar. Similarly, within Ma-nipur, districts such as Chandel, Tengnoupal, Ukhrul, and Kamjong etc. are commonly referred to as border districts owing to their proximity to the international boundary.
Frontier: Unlike a border, a frontier is a broad transitional zone rather than a precisely defined line. Historically, it referred to the outer limits of a state's effective control, where authority was often weak, administration sparse, and no clearly demarcated boundary existed. Frontiers were typically characterized by interaction among neighbouring peoples and political entities and could extend across adjoining territories on either side. Although modern states are generally defined by fixed boundaries, the term frontier is still used in historical, strategic, and geopolitical contexts to describe such transitional regions.
In essence, a border is the area adjoining a recognized boundary, whereas a frontier may exist where no clearly defined boundary has been established.
How Boundaries Evolved
From ancient times to the modern era, the evolution of state boundaries has largely been shaped by three principal factors. The first and most fundamental was the human distinction between "us" and "them," giving rise to the ethnic origin of boun-daries. Communities sha- ring common myths, history, culture, traditions, values, and a collective identity regarded themselves as "us," while those with different identities were seen as "them." As a result, the earliest boundaries emerged as social and cultural frontiers separating distinct communities, long before they became formally defined territorial borders.
The second major factor contributing to the formation and evolution of territorial boundaries is the occurrence of wars, armed conflicts, forcible amalgamations, and the annexation of territories. Throughout history, military conquests, political rivalries, and imperial expansion have repeatedly altered the geographical extent of kingdoms, states, and nations. Victorious powers have often redrawn borders through conquest, treaties, or imposed settlements, while defeated states have been compelled to cede territory or accept new political realities. As a result, the boundaries of many countries have been continuously shaped, reshaped, expanded, or diminished over time, reflecting the changing balance of political and military power.
The third factor, which accounts for the creation of most modern political boundaries, was largely shaped by the administrative convenience of the European colonial powers, particularly the British, who at one time or another exercised control over nearly two-thirds of the world's land surface. In pursuit of efficient colonial administration, they drew and redrew political maps with little regard for long-established natural, ethnic, cultural, or historical boundaries. As a consequence, many traditional homelands and communities—those belonging to both "us" and "them"—were divided, amalgamated, or arbitrarily reconfigured.
As discussed above, the concept of a political boundary is fundamentally rooted in the principle of State sovereignty, marking the line where the sovereignties of two political entities meet on the Earth's surface. Although clearly demarcated boundaries are largely a feature of the modern Nation-State, many scholars argue that notions of territorial limits existed from the time of early chiefdoms and kingdoms. In Persia and Democracy (2006), Piroz Mojtahed Jadeh notes that the concepts of territory and boundary evolved together during the Sassanid era, suggesting that the intellectual foundations of modern boundaries predate the European nation-state system.
Ancient Concept of Boundary
As noted earlier, a boundary is the line or zone where the sovereignties of two political entities meet on the Earth's surface. In ancient times, kingdoms and empires rarely had precisely surveyed or perma- nently demarcated boundaries. Instead, they con- structed defensive structures such as walls, embankments, stockades and gates at strategically important locations to protect their territories, regulate movement, collect taxes, and secure trade. Examples include the Khoibu Pal (Eastern Great Gate) and Haochong Pal (Western Great Gate) of ancient Manipur and the Great Wall of China. These fortifications were generally built within frontier zones rather than along exact boundary lines and, therefore, should be regarded as strategic defensive works rather than precisely defined political boundaries in the modern sense.
In ancient times, boundaries were seldom marked by fixed pillars, fences, or precisely defined lines as they are today. Instead, they were understood through customary practices, traditional usage, and the effective sphere of control exercised by a community or kingdom. The territorial limits of a sovereign state were generally determined by the extent to which its people could freely move and carry out activities such as hunting, fishing, cultivation, grazing, trade, and other social or economic pursuits without interference from neighbouring groups.
Thus, effective occupation, customary use, and peaceful enjoyment of a territory served as the principal basis for recognising the boundaries of ancient sovereign domains. The Ashvamedha Yajna (horse sacrifice) performed by the Pandavas, as described in the Mahabharata illustrates the ancient concept of territorial sovereignty and boundary formation.
During the ritual, a consecrated horse was allowed to roam freely across neighbouring kingdoms. Any ruler who permitted its passage without resistance implicitly acknowledged the suzerainty of the Pandavas, while those who challenged it faced battle. The outcome determined whether a kingdom remained independent or became subject to the victor's authority. Thus, territorial expansion in ancient India was achieved not through precisely demarcated boundary lines, but through the establishment and recognition of sovereign power.
In the context of Mani-pur, historical evidence indicates that the indigenous people of the kingdom could travel freely from the Ningthi (Chindwin) River in the east to the Ti-Lao (Brahmaputra) River in the northwest for various socio-economic activities. Nume- rous primary sources and official records support the historical extent of Mani-pur's territory. Michael Symes, in An Account of an Embassy to the Kingdom of Ava (1800), noted that the Chindwin (Keen Duen) River formed the boundary between Burma and Cassay (Manipur), while the Anglo- Manipuri Treaty of 1763 recognised Manipur's northern extent up to the Brahmaputra River.
Together, these sources provide important historical evidence of the kingdom's traditional territorial limits.
Thus, the territorial limits of ancient and medieval kingdoms were seldom defined by fixed boundary pillars, walls, or fences, but by the extent of their effective control and influence. A kingdom's authority was measured by its ability to govern, collect tribute, regulate trade, and ensure the free movement of its people within its sphere of influence. Although victory pillars, forts, and other symbolic structures were sometimes erected at strategic locations, they served primarily as expressions of sovereignty rather than as precise boundary markers. Consequently, territorial limits were fluid and functional, resembling the modern concept of a frontier more closely than the rigid, surveyed international boundaries of the modern nation-state.
Modern Concept of Boundary
According to Mojtahed Zadeh, a noted Persian historian, the concept of defining boundaries as precise lines emerged with the rise of the modern nation-state system in nineteenth- century Europe. This development was driven largely by the administrative and fiscal needs of states, and, in the colonial context, by the convenience of European powers in governing, taxing, and controlling their territories.
As a result, the modern concept of precise linear boundaries largely replaced the traditional understanding of boundaries as flexible zones based on customary usage, effective control, and historical realities, often disregarding long-established ethnic, cultural, and historical patterns.

(To be contd)