Disputes between Indian states — over land, water or some other issue — are not new. But the verbal duel between the chief ministers of Assam and Nagaland over a stretch of disputed land is both unprecedented and ominous. Mr Neiphu Rio of Nagaland, who fired the first salvo, clearly behaved more like a leader of an ethnic group. As chief minister, he is responsible for upholding the rule of law in his state. The manner in which he exhorted Nagas to “reclaim their land” was worse than an abdication of that responsibility; it was an open call to a defiance of the law. It is most unfortunate that Mr Rio should advocate such a solution to a dispute that dates back to 1963, when Nagaland was created as a Union territory. It also amounts to challenging the authority of the Supreme Court, which has yet to give its verdict on a petition by Assam on the disputed land. Assam’s chief minister, Mr Tarun Gogoi, had little option but to dismiss Mr Rio’s suggestion for an out-of-court settlement of the dispute. But he could have done better to avoid the intemperate language that he used to counter Mr Rio’s offensive.

Since Mr Rio heads a National Democratic Alliance government and Mr Gogoi belongs to the Congress, it is not unfair to assume that political rivalry has played its part in their war of words. It is also possible that they would try to exploit ethnic sentiments over the issue during the coming Lok Sabha elections. But that makes it even more dangerous. There could be disastrous consequences for both states if partisan politics sharpens an ethnic divide over the dispute. Given the history of ethnic tensions in the North-east, the last thing that the people in either state would want is a repeat of the situation of 1985, when the police forces of Assam and Nagaland fought a three-day battle over the disputed land. If the people of both states had harboured no ill feelings toward each other over this issue for nearly four decades, it cannot be of any great consequence to their lives. It would be sheer madness for politicians to blow its importance out of proportion and thereby sow seeds of discord. Instead of engaging in further public debates, Mr Gogoi and Mr Rio should lose no time to sit together and cool passions. New Delhi too should do its bit to make the two sides see reason. It may not be enough to increase the strength of the Central forces deployed in the area. The Centre and the two states together must have the political will to not allow the dispute to get out of hand. And the sooner the damage-control exercise starts, the better its chances of success. After all, its potential for trouble is far bigger than the size of the land.