Tag: india maldives relations

Comment: India’s inconsistent commitment to Maldivian democracy cost the GMR deal

The Maldives and India have always shared strong bilateral relations in terms of strategic, economical and military cooperation. The diplomatic bond has remained firm despite the vast difference between the two states in size, population and economy. India remains a major destination for many Maldivians who travel abroad for education, medical and business purposes.

A significant number of Maldivians reside in Indian cities such as Bangalore, Thiruvananthapuram, Mysore and several others. Similarly, a large portion of the Maldives’ expatriate workforce including teachers, doctors, engineers and other technical expertise are Indians, who have contributed to the country’s economy.

If not for the timely decision by the Indian government to intervene, the 1988 terrorist attack on the Maldives’ national defense force base by the mercenaries of the Sri Lanka-based terrorist organisation People’s Liberation of Tamil Elam (PLOTE), would have cost the Maldivian people their civilian government.

19 Maldivians lost their lives, but if not for the successful ‘Operation Cactus’ led by the Indian armed forces, the death toll could have been more, and a possible military junta could have taken control over the affairs of the state. Neither the Maldives nor its history will forget this brotherly act by India that symbolised the strong bilateral bond between the two states.

However, India’s decision to recognise the regime that took charge of the country after it toppled the Maldives’ first democratically elected government on February 7 shocked many. Of course, it would have been completely irrational to expect another ‘Operation Cactus’, but on diplomatic grounds India could have done better.

Having had a diplomatic office established in the Maldives and the rebellion broadcast live on television, the decision showed India’s failure in grasping the local political environment of the country, despite it being a base to large Indian investments worth millions. This failure did not only bring dismay to the local populace, but to international spectators as well.

For instance, Indian journalist Sumon K Chakrabarti in his article in the South Asia Monitor described the misstep as India losing “the mango as well as the sack”.

“With lost credibility and a history of dumping friends – from Burma to Bangladesh and now Maldives, the reality is stark – India has, as the saying goes, lost the mango as well as the sack in the Maldives,” he wrote.

Another journalist, B Raman for the Eurasia Review, put it as “badly damaging” to India’s “traditional position as the sole arbiter of political fortunes”.

He writes – “the government of India’s traditional position as the sole arbiter of political fortunes in the Maldives has been badly damaged and a number of international actors from the UK, the US, the European Union and the United Nations have rushed to the Maldives to try their hand in internal peace-making, thereby marginalising the traditional role of India. Only China and Pakistan have not yet entered the political fray in the Maldives. If they do, that will be ultimate humiliation for Indian diplomacy at its southern door-step.”

For a regime installed through illegitimate means, an assent from the region’s major player would obviously be the perfect gift. A gift that took the country back three years  in terms democratic progress it achieved following the transition from a remorseless dictatorship. A gift that brought back the culture of state-sponsored torture, intimidation and harassment.

The accession of Vice-president Waheed Hassan resulted in a rudderless, clueless and mandate-less regime which neither entertained the popular support of the people nor had a contemplated plan to run the affairs of the state.

The unprecedented alteration to the dynamics of local politics saw the return of elements of past dictatorship back to power, which had previously been voted out in the country’s first free and fair presidential election in 2008.

Cabinet portfolios were divided among political parties with diverse political thinking, each of which had its own ambitions to come to power. Most of them do not carry any political weight or have any representation in parliament, including those with an religious element such as the Adhaalath Party.

Similarly ex-president Gayoom had his daughter and son appointed as state-minister level positions in the regime, much to the disappointment of those who had voted him out in 2008. But in Waheed’s words this was a “national unity government”.

A national unity government, whose elements while in opposition had made their antagonism towards Indian investments public, especially against infrastructure giant GMR, which was awarded a concession agreement to manage and develop Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) but was declared an economic enslaver.

India should have foreseen the consequences its investments would later face in endorsing a regime consisting of elements that had previously shown its disapproval towards major Indian investments. India should have taken its time to assess the political situation of the country and should have confirmed the legitimacy of the controversial regime before accepting it.

However, failure to do so resulted in the scrapping of its single largest investment by the very government it had recognised.

India’s concerns over the Maldives should have come earlier. Not when senior officials of the regime it give assent to nine months previously mocked, insulted and even accused its High Commissioner of indulging in bribery. Not when its largest investment in the country was evicted. None of which would have taken place had India taken a ‘prevention than cure’ approach towards the Maldives.

One must hesitantly agree to the point raised by the very ambitious Special Advisor to Waheed, Dr Hassan Saeed in his ‘candid’ letter to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

He observes: “The Indian Foreign Secretary’s visit to our country in February [2012] failed to resolve the political crisis largely because India is no longer seen as a friendly and fair neighbour who could broker an honest and fair deal.”

Hailed as the world’s largest democracy, India’s inconsistency in its commitment towards democracy in the Maldives not only cost the eviction of its single largest investment in the country, but also gave rise to noisy anti-India rhetoric led by religious fundamentalists and politicians sided with the current regime.

In nine months time, the Maldives will hold its second multi-party presidential elections. Perhaps it these will be the country’s last chance in the near future to overcome what it lost in terms of democracy. It might also be a golden opportunity for India to reassure its commitment towards the democratic process of the country, by pressuring Waheed’s regime towards a free and fair ballot.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“No Islamic fundamentalism in the Maldives”: Foreign Minister

The Indian government’s biggest concern is the internal stability of the Maldives,  Foreign Minister Abdul Samad Abdulla said today.

In a press briefing to brief media about his official visit to neighboring India, and his recent meeting with Sri Lanka’s Minister of External Affairs, Dr Samad, said the Indian government was eager to know how the Maldives had been progressing after the transfer of power that took place on February 7.

“The officials of the Indian government were concerned with the country’s internal stability after the events that unfolded on February 7,” he said.

Samad also said that India was concerned about whether the events that unfolded on February 7 involved Islamic fundamentalists, but he said he assured them that Islamic fundamentalism had no part to play in the events.

He expressed disappointment over statements made by officials of Nasheed’s government that the Maldives had a growing issue with Islamic radicalism and fundamentalism.

Samad further went onto dismiss such claims and said that religious fundamentalism did not exist in the country, and said he had assured Indian authorities that neither the transfer of power nor the vandalism of Buddhist relics in the National Museum on February 7 had involved any religious sentiment.

Speaking to Minivan News at the time, a museum official said that a group of five to six men stormed into the building twice, and “deliberately targeted the Buddhist relics and ruins of monasteries exhibited in the pre-Islamic collection”, destroying most items “beyond repair”.

A journalist asked Samad about the 2007 bombing of Sultan Park and the government’s subsequent clash with radical Islamists on the island of Himandhoo – footage of which later appeared in an Al Qaeda training video – to which the foreign minister replied “That was in the past.”

Dr Samad stated that he had met all key officials of Indian foreign affairs including the Minister of External Affairs, S M Krishna, and Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai. Samad said he briefed them about the events of February 7, the works of the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI), and the all party talks.

Samad also acknowledged support from Indian High Commissioner to the Maldives, Dnyaneshwar Mulay.

“I especially thank Indian High Commissioner Mulay for briefing them about what happened in Maldives. Mulay, who was there during my meetings with Indian officials, observed the events very closely and even former President Nasheed was talking to him,” Samad said.

Samad also stressed that the Indian government was a “reliable and loyal” neighbor which had always been there for the Maldives, regardless of which government was in power.

He said that the main purpose of the trip was to get assurance of Indian support for the current government, which he claimed had been “very positive”.

India was initially concerned of the safety of Indian investments in the country, Samad said – Indian infrastructure giant GMR is currently redeveloping Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), the single largest foreign investment in the Maldives. Samad  said he had assured Indian officials that the current government of the Maldives will give the “utmost priority” in protecting Indian investments.

“Several Indian companies have huge investments in the Maldives. They have been involved in housing projects and as well as the privatisation agreement of INIA with GMR. The Indian government was concerned about these investments and we assured them that it remains safe,” Samad added.

Last week, Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad declared that the Maldives Airport Company Limited (MACL) would be unable to pay the disputed airport development tax (ADC) without risking bankruptcy – a US$25 fee that was to be charged to outgoing passengers, as stipulated in the contract signed with in GMR in 2010. The government was to pay the fee from airport revenues after its collection was blocked by the Civil Court.

Samad also said that the safety of the Indian ocean was a priority for India.

“We are at the center of a very internationally strategic area and the Indian Ocean is a huge shipping lane as well.  The recent hijacking of a foreign vessel by Somalia pirates is a concern as well. India is highly concerned about the security of the Indian Ocean.”

Samad said he had discussed strengthening bilateral relations with India and had discussed in finding solutions the difficulty in obtaining visas for Maldivians travelling to India.

He also claimed that India would soon provide the Maldives government with land in Delhi to build a Maldivian Embassy, in the heart of diplomatic area.

Sri Lanka

Regarding the meeting held with the Minister of External Affairs of Sri Lanka, Professor GL Peiris, Samad said that he had briefed the Sri Lankan minister regarding the events of February 7.

He also said that the ministers had discussed resolving visa issues and complications faced by Maldivians travelling to Sri Lanka, particularly students, to which he said the Sri Lankan minister had been very positive.

Regarding the transfer of power in February 7, Samad claimed that the government had not changed on February 7 and that “technically” it was the same government and that only the president had changed.

“If you look at our constitution, we have a presidential system. This is not a parliamentary system to say that the government belonged to the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP). People voted both Nasheed and Waheed in the elections. Nasheed did not win the election on his own. Nasheed and Waheed got less than 25 percent of the votes in the first round [of the presidential elections 2008]. He won the presidency with the support of Gasim Ibrahim and Dr Hassan Saeed,” Samad contended.

“So if you say its Nasheed’s government that means its Gasim’s government as well, it’s even Umar Naseer’s government,” he claimed.

The MDP has contended that nearly all political appointments have been replaced with supporters of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who was voted out in 2008.

He also revealed that former government had not built any ‘special’ diplomatic relations with Israel.

“I don’t think what some people speak on political podiums is the real foreign policy. From the documents that I have, Naseem [referring to former Minister of Foreign affairs, Ahmed Naseem] did not build any special diplomatic relations with Israel like he has been saying,” Samad claimed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)