Tag: religion

Religion extensively used for political control in the Maldives: Himal magazine

Islamic radicalism, which played a key role in the ouster of the government of Mohammed Nasheed, continues to grow in the Maldives several months after his ‘resignation’, writes Yameen Rasheed for Himal Southasian magazine.

“While Nasheed has repeatedly warned of the danger of growing religious intolerance, political polarisation around the issue has also meant that for the first time space has opened up that allows protests and criticism of religious extremists.

Religion has historically been extensively used for political control in the Maldives. While the active targeting of political opponents as apostates might be relatively modern, the Maldives has had a xenophobic view of ‘foreign religions’ for much longer. This state of fear has been carefully preserved and cultivated instead of being eradicated by modern dictators like former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who found it a useful political tool.

As anti-Gayoom sentiments spread, religious radicalism gained acceptance as a legitimate avenue of dissent. Towards the end of the democratic uprising in the late 2000’s, as the restrictions on media and freedom of speech were gradually lifted, Salafi radio stations mushroomed and bookstores began to sell fiery, jihadi titles publicly. A casual stroll down the capital today reveals an overwhelming majority of women wearing burqas – a dramatic transformation that took less than a decade.

Unlike in the Gayoom era when Islamic fundamentalism was harshly suppressed to project an air of stability and peace, perhaps with the tourism industry in mind, Nasheed’s administration publicly acknowledged the problem of widespread religious fundamentalism. Consequently, his government made the calculated move to align itself closely with India and the West, while controversially renewing ties with Israel – a move that sparked an outcry from the religious right.

Nasheed often defended the traditionally liberal, moderate and Sufism-influenced Maldivian belief system, and appealed to the public to reject imported practices such as female genital mutilation and keeping concubines. He also publicly threw his weight behind cultural activities such as music and dance which had long been under attack from the ultra-conservative religious right.

Perhaps as a result, the events leading up to the dramatic toppling of the first democratically elected government in February 2012 had a distinctly religious nature. The first major protests against the MDP government launched in early 2010 were against the government’s alleged plans to permit the sale of alcohol to foreigners in an upmarket hotel in the capital. Following the success of that protest, all the subsequent protests against the MDP government took on a religious tone, labelling the MDP as a promoter of ‘irreligiousness’.

In October 2011, during the 18th SAARC summit in Addu city, opposition parties organised strong protests with radical religious overtones. When monuments such as the statue of a lion gifted by Sri Lanka were declared ‘idols of worship’ and vandalised, the vandals were hailed as ‘national heroes’ by the parties which are now represented in Waheed’s cabinet. These parties also condemned Navanetham Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, when she spoke against medieval practices such as public flogging, which are still prevalent in the Maldives. Protesters on the street raised placards demanding that Pillay be flogged.

The series of religious protests culminated in a massive rally on 23 December 2011, when a coalition of opposition parties came under one umbrella to label the government ‘un-Islamic’.

The December rally exposed a dangerous strategy employed by the then-opposition coalition – a disturbing willingness to steer the rhetoric to the far, militant right. The official website for the protest even put up a demand for people who ‘went against Islam’ to be killed. The article was soon taken down, citing ‘technical errors’, but not before it was reported in the local media.

Although the 7 February police and military mutiny that eventually led to the fall of the Nasheed-led government was sparked off by clashes between pro- and anti-government groups, it ended up emitting strong religious tones by the next day. Videos from that fateful day show uniformed military and police personnel marching down the streets to loud chants of ‘Allahu Akbar!’, as they proceeded to attack the MDP party campus.

Ironically, by giving voice to an Islamic party, Nasheed allowed the Adhaalath Party to run programs preaching the conservative form of Islam to targeted sections of the society, including prison inmates, police and military personnel. When Nasheed announced his ‘resignation’, top police officials, along with the alleged coup leaders, chanted religious slogans loudly in celebration.

Meanwhile, vandals had broken into the national museum and smashed ancient coral statues of the Buddha and other priceless artefacts from the Buddhist period of Maldivian history.

Stanford-educated President Waheed personally holds modern, secular, liberal views much like Nasheed. However, unlike Nasheed, he simply does not have enough political clout to stand up to the religious right. Indeed, in late-February in an effort to cement his support base among the Islamists, Waheed gave a fiery speech, invoking jihadi phrases and calling upon the ‘mujahideen’ to protect the national identity. Recently the Ministry of Islamic Affairs requested Waheed to allow the military and police to grow beards. Given that his fledgling National Unity Party has no elected members in either the Parliament or the local council, it remains to be seen how Waheed will respond to pressure from ultra-orthodox sections in his government.”

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Don’t follow our example, Pakistani civil society warns Maldives

Civil society organisations in Pakistan have expressed alarm over the political crisis in the Maldives, urging the country not to make the same mistakes as Pakistan and calling for the Maldives’ suspension from SAARC until democracy is restored.

Civil society activists from organisations including the Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research, the Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Sindh Development Forum, former Supreme Court judge Nasir Aslam Zahid and human rights activist Iqbal Haider addressed the Maldives’ situation at a joint press conference on Saturday.

“At least two countries in South Asia – Pakistan and Bangladesh – that have faced martial laws and coups in the past know very well how people suffer when democracy is brought down,” the civil society representatives said, according to newspaper Pakistan Today.

“We believe that democracy and governance are two different matters and the failure of governance should not be equated with the failure of democracy. An elected regime is brought in by the efforts and votes of the people through the institution of elections and the exit of an elected government should also follow the same procedure.

“There is no way use of force or coercion should be allowed to overthrow a democratically elected government. We also believe that if South Asia is to progress as a region, it will have to adopt democracy as a system of governance,” the representatives said.

“We also stress the need for the Pakistani government to take a strong stand with regards to the events in the Maldives. There are a lot of similarities between the Maldives and Pakistan. Like the Maldives, the elected government of Pakistan too came to power after a very long struggle against military rulers that had held power unconstitutionally for a long time,” they said.

The Pakistani civil society representatives warned that the Maldives was now following the same path of decline that had mired Pakistan in political, religious and economic turmoil.

“The growing strength of religious forces in the Maldives seeking to assert their political prowess and their role in the overthrow of the government is also a point where Pakistan could relate to its South Asian neighbour. The elected governments in Pakistan have battled and are still struggling with the same phenomenon.

“South Asia, as a region, has lost resources and valuable time over the quest by powerful military institutions to assert dominance over the state. This has to be discouraged and a culture of promotion of democracy needs to be cultivated,” the representatives stated.

“We also urge the government to call for the activation of the SAARC mechanisms to prevent the undemocratic move in the Maldives. A joint stand from the platform of SAARC needs to be taken to condemn the events in the Maldives. We also urge all South Asian publics to take this matter seriously and support their respective governments in condemning the action.”

Civil society organisations in the Maldives have been noticeably quiet since the controversial events of February 7-8.

Off the record, several civil society figures have said they have avoided making a stand for fear of politicisation.

“I don’t think taking the right stand means we are politicised,” said another, on condition of anonymity.

“To be frank, we’ve really tried to work on these issues but we’ve hit a wall with the media, [particularly broadcast]. We’re just not getting the time and attention we used to [under Nasheed’s government].”

Several NGOs, including Transparency Maldives, the Maldivian Democracy Network, the Maldives NGO Federation and Democracy House sent a letter to new President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan on February 29 – three weeks later – requesting observer status on Dr Waheed’s Committee of National Inquiry (CNI) into the circumstances surrounding the change of government.

The NGOs subsequently met with Dr Waheed and the CNI in an attempt to ensure the composition was acceptable to all political parties, as Nasheed’s MDP has currently boycotted the inquiry claiming it consists of key Gayoom loyalists.

The NGOs sent a second letter on March 15. Minivan News understands that they are still awaiting a reply.

“The onus is on the President to change [the composition], as the CNI has said it cannot,” said an NGO representative.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Women lead defense of Maldivian democracy: Huffington Post

Recent upheaval on the subject of birth control in the United States serves as a reminder of the way religion can be used as a tool to infringe on the rights of women, writes Mary Keck, Professor of English and Gender Studies at the University of Southern Indiana, for the Huffington Post.

In response to a coup d’état against their first democractically elected president on February 7, thousands of women gathered in the capital of the Republic of the Maldives. They marched in support of early, free, and fair elections. Although their stalwart protests were met by arrests and water cannons, they are undeterred. The struggle to maintain democracy in the Maldives is ongoing, and the women of this island nation know what is at stake.

The persistent activism of Maldivian women has been recognised around the globe. On Thursday, Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama stood beside Aneesa Ahmed after presenting her with the International Woman of Courage Award. Ahmed was not the first to be recognized for efforts to advance women in the Maldives. Mariya Didi was honored by Condoleeza Rice in 2007 for similar accomplishments. She was taken into police custody shortly after the coup.

Despite the courageous acts of these women, inhumane practices like flogging are still used in the Maldives mainly as a punishment for females accused of adultery. This Indian Ocean nation may have achieved democracy in 2008, but its constitution rests on an Islamic foundation, which is advantageous to many who wish to assert their fundamentalist beliefs.

A rising tide of extremism has threatened to crash over the Maldives for some time. In early December, the Adhaalath Party (a religiously-based political organization) fumed at the current government’s failure to arrest protesters advocating for freedom of religion. One of the protesters was blogger Ismail Rasheed who sustained a skull fracture when attacked during the gathering. Later that month, the parliament pushed a resolution to ban Israel’s El Al airline, which offers travel to and from the islands.

On February 7, hard-line Islamists raided the National Museum destroying Buddhist and Hindu relics and statues. This fanaticism isn’t only seen in street protests, but the use of violence in the name of Islam has seeped into the country’s political system.

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Leaked report reveals PR firm Hill & Knowlton responsible for majority of pre-2008 democratic reform

New York-headquartered public relations firm Hill & Knowlton (H&K) was responsible for recommending – and in some cases implementing – most of the pre-2008 democratic reform in the Maldives, according to details in a leaked 2003 report commissioned by then-President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

The company – one of the two largest PR companies in the world, representing groups as diverse as IBM, the Church of Scientology and the Ladies’ Home Journal – has come under criticism for working to improve the reputations of governments accused of human rights violations, including Indonesia and Turkey.

However, H&K’s report on the Maldives, titled ‘Issues audit and communications strategy for the Government of the Maldives’, reveals that the firm was responsible for much of the human rights and governance reform that paved the way for the country’s first democratic election in 2008.

The vast majority of recommendations in the report were subsequently implemented, portraying Gayoom as mellowing in the lead up to 2008 following the autocratic excesses of his 30 year rule.

H&K’s recommendations included the separation of the security forces into police, military and correctional institutions, constitutional reform and the introduction of multi-party democracy, strategies for the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM), reform of the Majlis, reform of the criminal justice system, including an end to the practice of flogging, and even the introduction of religious freedom.

The report opens acknowledging that the events of September 19, 2003 – unprecedented civil unrest sparked by the custodial death of Evan Naseem – were a “watershed” moment in Maldivian history, “and one after which nothing will ever be the same.”

“Perceptions of its significance are more diverse. Some believe it is a signal that the seal has now been broken and that further unrest could well follow. Others believe it was an understandable and genuine outlet of anger, yet one which can be avoided in the future, should meaningful reforms be introduced.  Yet others, point to an orchestrated event influenced by shadowy forces seeking regime change and which are backed by religious fundamentalists,” H&K stated, in 2003.

“Despite such divergences in views, what is clear, though, is that expectations have now been raised and presidential promises made; the delivery of meaningful reform is now required.”

The report, produced by H&K consultants Andrew Jonathan Pharoah, Timothy Francis Fallon and Biswajit Dasgupta following extensive meetings and consultations across Maldivian society, contains both a situational analysis of key issues and recommendations for Gayoom’s government on how to address them.

Human rights abuses

Stakeholders consulted by H&K were “almost unanimous” that human rights abuses were occurring in the Maldives. However, these abuses were in many cases believed “to be individual, not institutional.”

Outside the then nascent Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), complaints about arbitrary arrest and freedom of expression “were dismissed as being the hyperbole or outright lies of malcontents and trouble makers”.

H&K summarises the concerns of three institutions: Amnesty International, the UN Commission on Human Rights, and the US State Department.

“Critics of the Government continued to be detained, or imprisoned following unfair trials and should be regarded as prisoners of conscience. Government portrays convictions as being a result of criminal activities, but the real reason is as a result of political opposition,” H&K notes, citing Amnesty. The human rights organisation’s report is “littered with a number of individual case-study examples underpinning the accusations,” H&K adds.

The Maldives had meanwhile provided almost no information to the UN Commission on Human Rights, when challenged on issues such as racial discrimination.

“The Maldivian response had been to state that ‘no form of racial discrimination exists in the Maldives based on race or any other differences among the population’, and that ‘therefore, no specific legislation is required to implement the provisions of the Convention,” H&K cites.

The US State Department noted “unconfirmed reports of beatings or other mistreatment of persons in police custody during the year”, but noted that food and housing conditions at Maafushi prison were “generally adequate”.

The State Department’s opinion of the country’s media – which reflected few concerns other than politicisation of ownership – was “overly generous”, H&K suggested.

“Our own verdict was that the local media appeared to be uncritical, lacking any desire towards investigative journalism and averse to producing hard-hitting stories.

“Perceptually, the media was regarded by some as a Government mouthpiece and the close connections / ownership by the same did not help its cause in portraying itself as being an independent scrutineer. A kinder view may be that the media has limited resources and did not regard its job as doing the country down.

“ It was also suggested that negative perceptions were exacerbated as a result of the profession not being seen as a desirable career to enter. Consequently, the career did not attract the cream of the crop it is questionable whether there are many graduates in the profession.”

To address human rights issues, H&K recommended that HRCM be given a “clear and transparent mandate” with specific objectives and benchmarks, audited “by third parties such as Amnesty.”

“The Commission should play a key role in responding to the individual cases outlined by Amnesty International and others,” H&K suggested, and show a “clear and comprehensive communications structure” with “findings/initiatives widely publicised.”

Constitutional Reform

“Although the Maldives would like to be described as a young liberal Muslim democracy, the perception in the outside world perhaps not match this description,” H&K suggests.

“Critics have begun voicing disgruntlement. They describe an autocratic, six-term President, who does not allow any challenge to his leadership and who presides over a Parliament formed through bribery, corruption and fear.”

The agency urged Gayoom to allow multi-party democracy, stating that his existing position “is untenable, unsustainable and causing significant damage to perceptions of democracy.”

“To the external world there is an idealistic consensus that those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security. Moreover, the process gives the impression of a political elite which feels that it knows best,” H&K writes.

Parliament was meanwhile considered manifestly corrupt, as particularly on the islands H&K “got the impression that the process of candidates buying votes was commonplace and expected. Indeed, the agency heard some concern that the price of votes was going up and candidates had to spend way more than they did previously to secure the same votes!”

H&K urged “comprehensive reformation of the single candidate Presidential election system, with the adoption of a multi-candidate process”, and “a comprehensive reform of the Maldivian constitution to the extent whereby any political party can operate with complete freedom.”

The role of the Majlis was to be reviewed and given “more independence with greater powers of scrutiny”.

A further H&K recommendation – which was not implemented, and now seems somewhat prescient – was that “the office of an independent ombudsman should be introduced to investigate accusations of wrongdoing on the part of Majlis and Ministers.”

Criminal justice system

H&K called for “fundamental reform” of the criminal justice system, in which it said “there was little to no faith”: “Corruption is viewed as embedded, or alternatively justice is seen as being dispensed arbitrarily.”

“Structurally, there is concern at the signal sent out in having the President as the highest figure within the judiciary and also the executive. Similarly, there is also concern that the President has responsibility for the judicial appointments system and indeed the ages and experience of judges, who are all young and deemed inexperienced,” H&K wrote.

The consultants also noted that “despite his position, the President is not supposed to involve himself directly in the affairs of the judiciary. Yet, the President does review decisions – albeit through a three-man commission. Whilst this may have been established with the best of intentions, that the Commission has been described as ‘slow and lethargic’, ‘lacking in transparency and having no clear mandate’ only adds to the concerns.”

Basing the legal system on a combination of Sharia Law and 1968 Civil Law did not cause issues “in and of itself”, noting that it did not include punishments “which would be considered unacceptable in liberal democracies, such as stoning to death or amputations.”

Nonetheless, an end to the practice of flogging “would be an easy win”, H&K suggested.

As for judicial procedure, the accused “are often not given access to pen and paper and do not have enough time to prepare their case”, and “perversely, we also understand that neither are the police required to keep a police diary. It has also been claimed that the accused are not made aware of the full extent of the charges levelled against them (until they are in court) and that often they will not be informed of the date of their trial until the day itself. Anecdotal evidence also exists that prisoners have been in court charged with one offence and then convicted of another.”

The justice system was based on confession, “and the the police service believes that prisoners need to be held longer in order that they can extract a confession which is necessary to obtain a conviction – even when they believe forensic (and other) evidence may suffice.

“There is the perception that the police make clear to suspects that until they deliver a confession they will be held in prison indefinitely. There are also concerns that the need for a confession is one of the driving forces which leads to torture and or police brutality against prisoners.”

As a result, 90 percent of the prison population had confessed to their crime, H&K observed.

Recommendations for the reform of the criminal justice system included ending flogging and asking HRCM to review the practice of banishment: “Amnesty believes persons banished often have to undergo hard labour with an insufficient daily allowance for more than one meal a day. Women are also said to be easy targets for harassment and sexual abuse by village men.”

Furthermore, “the President must remove himself completely and permanently from any direct or indirect control or influence with regards to the Criminal Justice System, and that this position must be open to review/audit at any time by third party agencies.”

Police, NSS and correctional forces

There was, H&K said, “a common perception that the police considered themselves to be above the law – albeit, the general consensus was that abuses were considered individual rather than institutional. Moreover, that corruption exists amongst correctional guards was conceded at the highest levels.”

“In particular, there were a number of accusations of abuse of power. Amnesty, for example, points to a failure to return equipment after searches (which then leads to a loss of livelihoods), and also of widespread torture, ill treatment in prisons and the forcing of confessions.”

Joint training and the use of the same uniform at the time led to a crisis of identity among the security forces and, for the police, “a martial mindset which whilst suited to an armed forces, was felt not appropriate for policing.”

H&K recommended a “clear separation of duties and responsibilities assigned to the both the National Security Service and the Police Force”, with separate training facilities and “visible differences” in “look and operational style”. It also called for an “urgent review” of the competency of correctional officers.

Religious freedom

H&K’s most controversial recommendation was “that the Maldivian Government move as a matter of urgency towards a society and constituency whereby there is complete religious freedom.”

“One of the first – and most striking impressions – visitors to the Maldives receive is given to them when filling in the arrivals card. On the back, amongst hard hitting warnings about bringing drugs, spearguns and pornographic materials to the islands, stands further warnings forbidding ‘items of idolatry’ and ‘items contrary to Islam’,” H&K observed.

“The agency has seen reports in the media of bibles, effigies of Christ, Buddha and Krishna, being taken from visitors during baggage searches on arrival. Yet, through discussions we understand that, whilst the country is keen to preserve its Muslim traditions and forbids public worship of other religions, private worship is allowed. In this context, we were told, such items should not be being confiscated,” H&K stated.

The Maldives was in contravention of article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights concerning religious freedom, H&K noted, suggesting that “ordinarily [we would] make the recommendation that the Maldives change its laws and practices accordingly. However, we are aware that, regrettably, there is unlikely to be any appetite for this. Indeed, it could be argued that such a move could further encourage the Islamic fundamentalists who would regard as it as sign that the Government had sold out.”

Noting the US State Department’s concerns over freedom of expression, detention and counselling of potential apostates and detention and expulsion of foreigners for proselytising, H&K said it “ believes that this attitude is untenable and unsustainable alongside any claim to be in accord with human rights.”

“Notwithstanding the very clear infringement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the situation is manifestly unfair to the citizens of the Maldives who may wish to practice other religions. Indeed, it is worth noting that the Maldives has not always been a Muslim country,” H&K stated.

“Whilst the agency can accept that the Maldives is keen to maintain its Muslim traditions, some form of compromise – perhaps along the current lines – should be adopted.”

Following the government’s unfavourable response to this suggestion, and noting “significant resistance”, H&K  subsequently offered supplementary recommendations, including replacing hostile warnings on boarding cards with a notice “that private worship is permitted” – noting that “these will only be seen by foreigners”, “Take steps to make clear to diplomatic channels and holiday tour groups and reps that private worship of other religions is permitted”, and “Encourage authorities to turn a blind eye to incidences of Maldivians worshipping other faiths in private – be it individual or group worship.”

Action plan

H&K outlines a strategic program “to achieve balanced coverage of the Maldives and recognition for the very real changes which are being made by the Government.”

“In this regard, we need to be prepared for people to be critical of what we do and we must recognise that there are a number of people who will be implacably imposed to whatever the Government does.”

H&K proposes a “reactive, rapid rebuttal” strategy, “to ensure that no inaccuracies are allowed to stand without an attempt at rebutting them having been made.”

“There is also undoubtedly also a need to change the culture of communications. At present, we have witnessed a desire to engage only on the Maldives’ own terms,” H&K observes.

“We acknowledge concerns that journalists may twist stories and perhaps include comment from critics. However, if the journalists are intending to do this – they will go ahead regardless of whether or not they are proactively engaged. Better then at least to have the opportunity to put the story across with our own messages.”

“Second, not giving interviews will not help in demonstrating openness and transparency which are prerequisites for messages communicated to be believed. Third, from our experiences we have seen that changing perceptions is a case of turning the proverbial oil tanker; it takes time and results are not immediate. In any event engagement will need to take place at some stage – at least if we start now, we can begin to draw a line and at least try tackling the issues on the front foot.

“Fourth, even if journalists were to misreport the story, it provides us with a platform with which to go higher up the ladder and take issue with managers or editors. In this way, even were stories not to be retracted, corrected or the Maldives given a chance to respond, it nevertheless helps to ensure that in the future greater care and attention will be given to reporting.”

H&K puts forward a number of journalists to specifically target, and offer press visits to the Maldives.

“In organising the itinerary for such a trip it is important that we enable those attending to get a balanced picture of what is going on and therefore we must be prepared for them to meet with people who are to some extent critical of Government,” H&K stated.

“This is often quite a difficult step for Governments to overcome but unless we do this we believe journalists may feel we are trying to hide the truth from them. We should not expect that a journalist will not ask us difficult questions nor have relations with others who are critical.”

The journalists included: Dilip Ganguly (Associated Press), Krishan Francis (Associated Press), Zack Ijabbar (The Island, Sri Lanka) Warren Fernandez (Foreign Editor, Straight Times), Sunday Leader, Sri Lanka, Scott McDonald, (Reuters Colombo), Lindsay Beck, (Reuters Colombo), Chris Lockwood (Asia Editor, Economist), Catherine Philp (Times South Asia Correspondent in New Delhi), Alex Spillius (South-East Asia Correspondent, Daily Telegraph/Sunday Telegraph), Randeep Ramesh (Guardian, Delhi), Kathy Marks and Mary Dejevsky (The Independent/Independent on Sunday), Tom Walker (The Sunday Times), Tracy McVeigh (Observer), Khozem Merchant (Financial Times) and Rita Penn with BBC World.

Minivan News was not among the media targeted. The edits of H&K’s inaugural ‘e-newsletter’ in 2005, also obtained by Minivan News, described Minivan News as a “clandestine newsletter”.

“The peaceful and positive tone of the President’s address was in stark contrast to the incendiary language of certain sectors of the Maldivian press over the past week, who were calling for and even encouraging violent demonstrations to coincide with our National Day,” H&K’s newsletter states.

“If we could rephrase this,” reads the edit. “Many locals do not attach legitimacy to Minivan News; they only recognise as press what is in circulation in the country under registration. Hence, it may cause an uproar. ‘Clandestine newsletter’ maybe, your call.”

Reaction

The H&K report corroborates comments made by former Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed in a Q&A with Minivan News in June 2011, following his appointment as UN Special Rapporteur on Iran.

“I do not know the motives of Gayoom in hiring Hill & Knowlton,” Dr Shaheed told Minivan News at the time.

“But my links with them were on the basis that they would contribute to reform in the Maldives. So I agreed to be a liaison person with them, but only if they would work on a governance reform project,” he explained.

“Their first task was an audit of governance in the country: meeting various stake-holders, gauging public perception and making recommendations on what ought to be done. Their recommendation was that we needed to implement rapid political reforms, including political pluralism.”

Based on the 2003 report, Gayoom engaged H&K on a longer-term basis, Dr Shaheed explained.

“This entailed assisting him with reforms internally, and projecting those reforms externally. It was not purely a PR function and it did entail real policy prescriptions for Gayoom,” he said.

Dr Shaheed confirmed that H&K was not just making recommendations, but actively writing policies for Gayoom’s government.

“When you are in office for 30 years and your ministers and associates make recommendations to you, you don’t believe them. But if you have a posh firm from London making recommendations, you tend to believe them,” Dr Shaheed said. “And Gayoom did.”

“Things that Gayoom did on their recommendation included separating the army from the police, a whole raft of reforms on judicial function, prison reform, constitutional reform – all these things were done at their request.

“The only H&K recommendations he left out – Hill & Knowlton wanted [Gayoom’s half brother and STO Chairman] Yameen and the then Police Chief (Adam Zahir) sacked, and they also suggested that freedom of religion was something that was internationally demanded,” he said.

“Of course, there’s no way any government here can introduce freedom of religion, and H&K’s usefulness finally ended when they recommended Yameen be removed – at that point Gayoom stopped listening to them.”

Download the full H&K 2003 report (English)

Download the H&K recommendations (English)

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Operation Haram to Halal – the Islamist role in replacing Nasheed with Waheed

‘Since Mohamed Nasheed of Kenereege who held the post of the President of the Maldives is an anti-Islamic, corrupt, authoritarian, and violent individual who abused the Constitution; and given that Vice President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik is the man to steer the country to a safe harbour, the Consultative Committee of Adhaalath Party has taken the unanimous decision to pledge allegiance to Dr Waheed and to support his government until 2013’. – Adhaalath Party, 7 February 2012

Maldivian Islamists played an instrumental role in the events of 7 February 2012, which forced the country’s first democratically elected president Mohamed Nasheed to ‘resign.’ Coup Deniers and followers of Islamists vehemently object to any such claim. The Islamists themselves, however, have been very public, and very publicly proud, of the ‘religious duty’ they performed by facilitating the removal from power of Nasheed – in their opinion an anti-Islamic heretic.

This is clear from the many proclamations and announcements they made in the lead up to and in the aftermath of Nasheed’s ‘resignation’. Having declared Nasheed a heretic on 7 February, Adhaalath Party put out a press release on 8 February, the worst day of violence since transition to democracy. It called on people to stand up against Nasheed, “with swords and guns” if needs be. Any Maldivian who failed to do so was a sinner, and had no right to live in the country. Fight Nasheed or emigrate; Jihad against him or be eternally damned, it said. The ‘truth’ of their words was bolstered by selective quotations from Islamic teachings. Accepting Waheed—”a just ruler”—was portrayed as a religious duty of Maldivian Muslims.

Replacing Nasheed with Waheed, the ‘haram’ president with the ‘halal’ president, appears to be what Adhaalath President Sheikh Imran Abdulla referred to on 31 January as ‘Phase Two’ of ‘the work we have been doing until today.’ What was the work Adhaalath and its allies had been doing until then?

Setting the stage: grooming the population

Out of necessity, Nasheed had to include Adhaalath Party in the coalition government he put together in 2008. To put it mildly, the liberal minded president and the ultra-conservative Adhaalath Party had nothing in common. Despite the frequent clashes over various issues—selling alcohol on inhabited islands, making Islam an optional rather than a compulsory subject in secondary school, introduction of ‘religious unity regulations’, provision of land for an Islamic College in Male’—Nasheed had no choice but to stick to his coalition agreement. The turbulent political marriage of convenience came to an end only in September 2011 when Adhaalath voted to sever the coalition agreement citing Nasheed’s lack of cooperation in its efforts to ‘strengthen’ Islam in the Maldives.

In the intervening period, driven by pragmatic reasons and by an oversimplified belief that freedom of expression is sacrosanct—no matter what the consequences—Nasheed failed to impose any restrictions on the increasingly extremist and hardline rhetoric of the Islamists. With Adhaalath’s Dr Abdul Majid Abdul Bari at the helm of the Islamic Ministry, radical preachers from abroad and from within the country were given free-reign, and funds from the public coffer, to address the Maldivian population. 2010 saw, for example, the Indian televangelist Dr Zakir Naik, as well as Jamaican Dr Bilal Philips and British Sheikh Abdurraheem Green address the Maldivian public. In addition to the foreign preachers, Maldivian missionaries trained at madhrasaas in Pakistan and ultra-conservative schools and universities in India, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere bombarded Maldivians with radical rhetoric from every available public platform.

Anti-Semitism, xenophobia, and intolerance of other religions became a part of daily discourse, broadcast on national television, played incessantly in public spaces from taxis and ferries to loudspeakers on the streets. Close to 90 percent of books stocked in most Maldivian bookshops during this period came to be those authored by the extremists whose words were designed to influence every little detail of a Maldivian’s life from toilet to conjugal relations. While extremist literature flourished and their voice took over the public sphere, the liberal voice floundered. When concerned liberals approached Nasheed asking for his help in countering the voices of extremism, his response was—more on less—to tell them ‘do it yourselves.’ The government, he said, could not impose restrictions on speech.

Despite the strong civil society that flourished during Nasheed’s government, the extremist movement had become too strong by then for individuals—acting without any support from the State—to organise against it. The labels of apostasy, heresy and anti-Islamic agent’ had become too powerful as political tools by then for any anti-extremist group or movement to be able to get a foothold in the public sphere. Many individuals attempted to organise into groups, but were shutdown as anti-Islamic before they could become a coherent voice in society. Anyone who expressed doubt about their faith in Islam was branded an apostate and ostracised. The strength of these prevailing sentiments was seen in the suicide of Ismail Mohamed Didi, a 25-year-old man who hanged himself in July 2010 after being hounded by friends and family for expressing doubt over his belief in Islam. The extremists were determined that the myth of ‘Maldives is a hundred percent Muslim nation’ will be maintained, even if it meant the oppression and death of those who did not believe.

Phase One: Nasheed as heretic

The push to drive Nasheed out began in earnest at the end of 2011. Many incidents towards the end of the year proved fortuitous for the extremists. In November Maldives hosted the annual summit meeting of SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation). Among bilateral gifts exchanged were various monuments and statues depicting the culture and traditions of the gifting country. In the spirit of ‘building bridges’, the summit theme, Maldives displayed a welcome banner at the airport in which religious figures dear to all members of SAARC were included. An image of Jesus was on the banner. Alleging that the banner promoted Christianity and that several of the gifts—including one from Pakistan—were anti-Islamic idols of worship, religious organisation and parties galvanised the public into what can aptly be described as mass-hysteria. The banner was taken down, and the monuments were put under police protection until they were destroyed. All in the name of protecting Islam.

On 24 November 2011, visiting UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay addressed the Maldivian parliament and spoke out against the practice of flogging, which continues to this day. The public furore incited over the ‘idols’ had not yet died down down. Islamists saw another opportunity to keep the hysteria alive. They led about a hundred or so angry people to the doors of the UN building to protest against Pillay’s call for a humanitarian approach to punishment. Although Nasheed’s Islamic Ministry unequivocally condemned the speech, Nasheed himself spoke in favour of Pillay’s stance. For the ultra-conservatives in Parliament and in socio-political positions of power, it was a sure sign that Nasheed was an anti-Islamic ‘Western puppet.’

The next plum opportunity for the Islamists came on 10 December, the International Human Rights Day, when a handful of young Maldivians staged a minor ‘silent protest’ against the growing religious intolerance in the country. Despite the fact that Nasheed’s government imprisoned one of the protesters, the Maldives’ only openly gay activist, religious conservatives were furious with Nasheed for not meting out severe punishment against the protestors. It was deemed as further evidence of Nasheed’s heresy.

It is against this backdrop, and armed with these pretexts, that the campaign to depose Nasheed was launched. Its first major public display was on 23 December in the form of a protest under the banner: ‘Maldivians Defending Islam.’ Having been bombarded since November by messages that Nasheed is a threat to their faith, and convinced by the relentless extremist rhetoric of years, thousands of Maldivians spilled onto the streets of Male’ in ‘defence of Islam’. What a majority of the people had not had the time or space to understand is that the threat to Maldivians’ faith has come not from Nasheed but from the extremists.

For hundreds of years, insulated as the country had been from the rest of the world, Maldivians were largely ignorant of the various conflicts within and around the ‘Islamic world’. The Islam that Maldivians practised was personal—a deeply held faith that did not need mediation by ‘scholars’ or preachers. Public displays of piety, such as having women shrouded in black or men hiding behind waist-length beards, were never part of the Maldivian belief system. Suppression of women as second-class citizens, violence in the name of religion, disputes over which prayer to be said at what time, insistence on imposing the death sentence, child brides, sex slaves—these were not part of the fabric of ‘Maldivian Islam.’ The extremists introduced such ideology and practices into the Maldives, and spread it across the country using the very freedoms of democracy they rally against. The success of the extremists had been their ability to use its newfound freedom of expression as a tool for convincing an unsuspecting population that until the arrival of these missionaries, Maldives had been ignorant of the ‘right Islam’.

It was in the defence of this extremism, which Nasheed had failed to act against—and which he was now being accused of threatening—that thousands of Maldivians gathered in Male’ on 23 December.

Phase One, Stage Two: the unholy alliance between ‘democrats’ and Islamists

It would be a mistake to assume that the Islamists, as widespread and powerful as their influence among the general population has been, would have been able to successfully depose Nasheed on their own. Rather, this occurred when opposition parties, having proven time and again their penchant for regarding Islam—and democracy itself for that matter—as open to opportunistic appropriation, allied with the Islamists with this very goal in mind.

Eight opposition parties of the Maldives and allied NGOs put their organisational and rallying tools behind the 23 December protests. That this was an alliance, for the political parties at least, wholly devoid of any Islamic piety is clear from who appeared as its leading members. A core group of them were resort owners—rich tycoons who have no qualms being purveyors of alcohol, pork, and ‘hedonistic’ pleasures to ‘infidels’. What smacked of hypocrisy and opportunism even more was the involvement of figures who had previously spoken out against the rising extremism in the country. Present among them were, for example, Dr Hassan Saeed who co-authored the book ‘Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam’ which argues that Islam is a religion of tolerance. He is now the newly appointed President Waheed’s special advisor.

Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom had a statement read out in favour of the protests despite his long career being rich with seminars and papers arguing the tolerance and liberalism of Islam. Without the easy manner in which these figures dismissed their own convictions for the sake of political power, the Islamists would not have been able to push their agenda onto the Maldivian people so easily. It was a case of political parasites feeding off each other.

The next step was the publication of a pamphlet by Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), or Maldivian National Party, that provided alleged details of a secret agenda pursued by Nasheed to undermine Maldivians’ Islamic faith. The 30-page pamphlet, ironically, can easily rival Dutch politician Geert Wilder’s hate-filled anti-Islamic film ‘Fitna’ in its use of the Qur’an to incite hatred. There was very little that matters to Muslims that was not exploited for political gain in the publication. Nasheed government’s decision to foster business with Israel was depicted as an ‘alliance with Jews’ at the expense of Palestinians and his bilateral ties with Western governments was portrayed as friendships with ‘enemies of Islam’. Blatant lies, such as Christian priests being appointed as Nasheed’s emissaries, were mixed in with facts that were twisted beyond recognition.

While using the democratic principle of freedom of expression, freely granted by Nasheed, it sought to convince Maldivians that modernity and Islam are diametrically opposed to each other. Equating the overthrow of Nasheed’s government with a religious duty, it called on all Maldivians to do what they can to unseat the immoral heretic from power. Dr Hassan Saeed, author of the book ‘Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam’, is the deputy leader of DQP. Its leader is Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed. He is now the Minister of Home Affairs in Dr Waheed’s newly formed cabinet. In 2007 Dr Jameel was Gayoom’s Justice Minister, and resigned seemingly in protest against Gayoom’s failure to reign in the increasing Islamic militancy in the country. Less than five years later, his supposedly staunch principles were nowhere in sight as he pushed Maldivians to protest against Nasheed’s liberal government and embrace Sharia.

Phase One, Stage Three

Nasheed’s orders to have Judge Abdulla Mohamed arrested on 16 January 2012 was like a manna from heaven for the politico-religious coalition which was now calling itself the December 23 Alliance. Here was an opportunity to marry Nasheed’s alleged anti-Islamic activities with his violation of the constitution. Not one member of the opposition, nor the self-proclaimed champion of the constitution, President Waheed, has ever spoken out against the unconstitutional acts that has allowed Judge Abdulla to remain on the bench. The very same leaders, who now bellowed and whipped the people into a frenzy over the Judge’s detention, had presided over—and evidence exists, orchestrated—the events which allowed convicted criminals and sex offenders to remain on the bench in violation of Article 285 of the Constitution.

Deleted from public discourse, and therefore missing from public understanding, was the sad truth that at the time of Judge Abdulla’s arrest there were no democratic institutions capable of reigning in his many unlawful acts on the bench. He had no scruples over letting dangerous criminals walk free, espousing political views, and displaying sexual depravity in the courtroom. And he bestowed on himself the authority to overrule the Judicial Service Commission, the independent institution established by the Constitution to oversee the ethical and professional standards of the judiciary. That the opposition’s use of the judge’s arrest for inciting public protests was nothing more than political opportunism becomes clear in the fact that following Judge Abdulla’s release—on the same day that Nasheed was deposed—there has been no move to investigate the charges against him. Nor has President Waheed, taken any steps to initiate an investigation into the failures of the JSC. It is as if Judge Abdulla has no pending complaints of judicial misconduct against him, nor a criminal background. Exhausted by the ‘ordeal’ in which he seems to have had no role to play, he is now on a month-long holiday.

Phase Two: in the name of God and country

The two hundred or so members of the public who came out to protest against Judge Abdulla’s arrest for 22 consecutive nights were a motley crew. Some were there to defend extremism, others were there to defend the Constitution and demand the freedom of a politically biased, criminally convicted judge who remained on the bench in violation of the Constitution. It was their honestly held belief that reinstating a judge found guilty of political bias was the way to give themselves an independent judiciary. The rest were people who would protest the opening of an envelope, social deviants, and hired thugs egged on by opposition MPs and party leaders who incited them to continued violence daily for three weeks.

On 31 January, a week before Nasheed was forced to resign, the 23 December Alliance met in the wee hours of the morning. Presiding over the meeting was the President of Adhaalath Party Sheikh Imran Abdulla. At his side, displaying proudly the alliance between the political opportunists and the Islamists, is the Vice President of former president Gayoom’s new Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Umar Naseer. They both announced that since Nasheed had stepped outside of the boundaries of the constitution, their alliance had made a unanimous decision to pledge their allegiance to the Vice President. Their decision was reached, they said, after meeting with Vice President Waheed earlier that night. Umar Naseer, who had repeatedly incited violence during the weeks of protests, calmly called upon the armed forces of the country to refuse to obey any orders by their Commander in Chief Nasheed as he had ‘violated the Constitution.’ Umar Naseer appeared not to know—or not to care—that calling on the nation’s security forces to disobey their leader did not figure anywhere in the constitution either. Giving credence and weight to this call to unlawful acts, at least for those who were convinced Nasheed was also a heretic, was Sheikh Imran and other religious ‘scholars’.

Would the mutinying police and military officers that joined them have helped overthrow Nasheed’s government were they not convinced they were acting, not just for the country, but for Allah too? It is possible—for reports suggest that Allah was not the only God worshiped on that day; Mammon, too, commanded much devotion. Yet, it is Allah that the men in uniform who took over the state broadcaster with such violence thanked loudly for their success. ‘Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar!’ is what a band of military men marching on the streets of Male’ on that day were calling out in unison. It is Allah’s name that 2013 presidential candidate and owner of the Villa Resorts chain took when announcing Nasheed’s resignation to the public before it happened. One of the first acts of violence carried out on 8 February was the destruction of Buddhist relics from the pre-Islamic history of the Maldives dating back to the eleventh century. It is not the first time that Madivian Islamists have emulated the Taliban in their actions, and it will not be the last for many are disciples of the same form of Islam practised by the Taliban and several are alumni of the same madhrassas and universities Taliban leaders attended.

It cannot be denied that a large number of those who celebrated the departure of Nasheed were glad to see him go ‘because he violated the constitution.’ But those who do genuinely believe in the constitution, and are convinced that following it is the way forward for the country, know that deposing a democratically elected president by a coup is hardly constitutional. They are the many hundreds who have taken to the streets in ‘colourless’ protests—they are not supporters of MDP, nor necessarily of Nasheed. They, however, disagree with how the democratically elected leader has been forced out.

Apart from the diehard supporters of former president Gayoom and his allies, paid-for supporters of Gasim, and other tycoons who have the country’s politics in a stranglehold, the only people who remain jubilant at the overthrow of Nasheed are those convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that he was an anti-Islamic heretic. In helping depose him, in celebrating his departure, they have performed a religious duty. Replacing the haram Nasheed with the halal Waheed may not be democratic but it has assured them of a place in heaven. Little do they understand that, in this life, the rewards of their toil will be reaped not by them or their children but by those who have so shamelessly exploited their belief in Allah.

Phase Three?

President Waheed denies any knowledge of a coup, and refutes all allegations that he was party to the plot that forced Nasheed from office. Even if he is given the benefit of the doubt, and under the unlikely circumstance that he is, indeed, ignorant of the machinations of the politico-religious alliance that facilitated his assumption of office, he should be aware that his position is precarious indeed. The only reason he has been given the seal of approval, Adhaalath has made clear, is because he has not openly sided with Nasheed in his many stand-offs with the extremists. Reading between the lines of President Waheed’s utterances since assuming office, this was not out of choice—Nasheed did not allow him to participate in any decisions that mattered. This is, in fact, President Waheed’s biggest gripes against Nasheed, seemingly on a par with the deposed president’s unconstitutional arrest of the judge.

President Waheed has close to him as his Special Advisor Dr Hassan Saeed and as his Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed. Two leaders of the party that authored the pamphlet of hate against Nasheed. One of the ‘sins’ the pamphlet alleges former president Gayoom committed as a leader was not forcing his wife to cover-up, and not bringing his children in line with hard-line Islamic principles. For this, the pamphlet condemns Gayoom. President Waheed’s wife is guilty of the same ‘sin’, and his children, Western-educated and brought up in the United Sates, are unlikely to heed any paternal demands to toe an ultra-conservative Islamist line. At least one of his children is a liberal and an outspoken supporter of democracy. Already, President Waheed is treading a thin line.

It is only a matter of time before the Islamists begin re-instating their position, and President Waheed becomes the focus of their ire. It makes little sense for them to have brought down ‘Nasheed the Heretic’ if not for a promised bounty that is not yet known. In their 8 February press release, it quotes from Islamic teachings as saying:

‘It is the duty of every Muslim to wage a Jihad against those who apply any law other than that of Islamic Sharia. And, until such time as they have accepted Sharia and begun applying Sharia among the people, it is your duty to wage war against them. ‘

Clearly, the Islamists’ work has only begun. Would President Waheed, who describes himself as committed to democracy, allow Islamic extremism to further takeover the country and destroy hundreds of years of peaceful, traditional Maldivian Islam? Would he stand up for his principles? Or would he allow them to be sacrificed at the altar of his political ambitions? It remains to be seen. As do details of the deal that was done between political opportunists and the Islamists to ensure Nasheed the haram president was replaced by Waheed the halal president.

Azra Naseem holds a doctorate in International Relations.

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)

Rising religious conservatism a challenge for tourism industry: WSJ

The Maldives, known for $2,000-a-night white-sand-and-turquoise-ocean atoll retreats, is hoping to build a more affordable tourism industry. But it’s facing a challenge from the country’s more religiously conservative population, writes Tom Wright for the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).

“Former Tourism Minister Mariyam Zulfa, who lost her job last week as the national government was ousted, had a plan to develop mid-range accommodation on some of the Indian Ocean nation’s lesser-developed islands. There are about 1,200 islands in all, although only 200 of them are inhabited.

The plan also called for a job-creating entertainment complex of bars, nightclubs and even a casino on an island close to Male, the capital, modeled on Singapore’s Sentosa island development.

Even before the plan got off the ground, it ran into opposition from Islamist leaders. They rejected what they viewed as the encroachment of Western cultural imports – like alcohol and scantily-clad women – into local communities.

Since 1972, conservative Maldivians have acquiesced in the country’s development of luxury resorts. They were restricted to uninhabited atolls, to which hotel managers fly in Spanish chorizo and French champagne, as a way of minimizing contact with locals. That’s why the plan to bring mid-market tourism to inhabited islands became a rallying point for Islamists late last year.

The fight over the tourism plan played a significant role in the downfall of former President Mohamed Nasheed, who says he was ejected in an armed coup last week.

In the weeks leading up to Mr Nasheed’s ouster, Islamist leaders staged daily street protests which painted his government as un-Islamic, focusing on its plans for tourism. His political adversaries, including some big resort owners, joined the protests.”

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Foreign Minister to file defamation case over DQP’s claims he voted to form State of Israel

Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem has announced he will file a defamation case against the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), after it published a pamphlet alleging among other claims that he had secretly voted for the formation of the state of Israel.

“I was not even born then,” Naseem said today. “But the Maldivian public do not know this – many of them don’t know when the state of Israel was created.”

Naseem said people were now shouting at him in the street calling him a “Jew-lover” and making threatening telephone calls following publication of the pamphlet.

The Maldives co-sponsored a resolution to grant Palestine full membership to UNESCO, but the delegation returned before voting.

The resolution was adopted with 107 countries voting in favour, 14 voting against and 52 abstaining, signaling a significant symbolic victory for Palestine’s bid for statehood ahead of a similar vote at the UN General Assembly in New York.

However in the chapter of the contentious pamphlet headed “Helping the Jews instead of aiding the poor people of Palestine”, the DQP states that: “Nasheed’s current Foreign Minister ‘Kerafa’ Naseem is a person who voted on behalf of the Maldives at the UN to [recognise] Israel as an independent nation. Naseem’s action was contrary to both the order and view of the government at the time.”

The party further accused the government of efforts to “familiarise Maldivians with Jews and Israel, and show their virtue and induce love and empathy in Maldivian hearts. Nasheed’s government has brought in teams under different names such as doctors and agriculturists and begun the actual work of acquainting Maldivians with Jews.”

Police interrogated and briefly detained leaders of the DQP on January 12, after the President’s Office requested an investigation into “slanderous” statements alleging the government was working under the influence of “Jews” and “Christian priests” to weaken Islam in the Maldives and incite religious hatred.

DQP council members including former Justice Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed and ‘Sandhaanu’ Ahmed Ibrahim Didi were summoned for questioning, while party leader and former Attorney General, Dr Hassan Saeed, accompanied the pair as their lead lawyer.

The Criminal Court’s decision not to extend the detention of the pair eventually led the government to accuse Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed of corruption and political favouritism, and in the absence of activity from the judicial watchdog, order his detention on Girifushi until the judicial crisis was resolved. The move has sparked more than a week of opposition-led protests.

Naseem said today that the international community had not expressed concern about the contents of the DQP pamphlet – “I think they see it as totally ridiculous. No one has spoken to us about it, and I don’t think it’s relevant,” he said.

“The DQP doesn’t have even 2000 members in its party. The leaders are the same people who passed sentences against people with no trial or legal representation [under the former government],” Naseem alleged. With the detention of the chief judge, “Now, suddenly, they have discovered democracy.”

ICC

A group of lawyers have meanwhile forwarded the chief judge’s case to the International Ciminal Court, contesting the conditions of the judge’s arrest and his detention at Girifushi.

One of the lawyers, Maumoon Hameed, said the case was submitted “as the continued detention of Judge Mohamed is in clear violation of the International Convention on the Protection of all Persons against Enforced Disappearance.”

Naseem responded by welcoming the submission of a case alleging human rights violation to the ICC: “Our aim is for all Maldivians to have access to the highest court in the international criminal legal system so as to achieve remedy and redress for grave crimes against humanity,” Naseem said, although he said he suspected the lawyers had misconstrued the definition of “crimes against humanity” as defined in the Rome Statute.”

“It’s a good sign in a democracy when locals use the international legal system. This is a proud moment for the government,” Naseem said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dr Jameel summoned for questioning again, as government goes on diplomatic offensive

Police on Wednesday evening summoned Vice President of the minority opposition Dhivehi Quamee Party (DQP), Dr Mohamed Jameel, for questioning for the fourth time in a week.

Police are investigating Dr Jameel following accusations by the government that the party was attempting to incite religious hatred.

DQP council member ‘Sandhaanu’ Ahmed Ibrahim Didi, a former Amnesty Prisoner of Conscience, had called on the public to “rise up and defend Islam”, stating that “we brought [President Mohamed] Nasheed to power by mistake. Nasheed is a madman.”

Among the “slanderous allegations”, according to the government, were claims that it was “operating under the influence of Jews and Christian priests” and had been “attempting to spread irreligious practices and principles in the country.”

The government has expressed particular alarm at a pamphlet published by the party in Dhivehi entitled “President Nasheed’s devious plot to destroy the Islamic faith of Maldivians”.

The pamphlet advises that “the Jew’s plan and way of thinking is to divide Islamic countries”, and that Maldivian government officials hold secret identities as “Christian priests”.

Monuments gifted by SAARC countries during the Addu summit in November 2011 were secretly “religious statues, depicting other Gods for praying [towards].”

The traction of such allegations is hard to judge in the Maldives. Historically a moderate country, it has recently found itself facing a rising trend of religious extremism – a stark contrast to the Western hedonism of the resorts, from which the country indirectly derives 70 percent of its income.

The DQP has defended their allegations under Article 27 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression “subject to the tenets of Islam”, and is presenting this argument to foreign embassies in Colombo this week.

The government has however claimed that the party’s remarks are “racist, bigoted and anti-Semitic”.

“Freedom of speech does not entitle you to maliciously shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre,” President Nasheed’s Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair has said.

Leader of the DQP, former Attorney General Dr Hassan Saeed, has refused to speak to Minivan News. Dr Jameel was not responding at time of press.

Diplomatic push

In a bid to justify the continued investigation of DQP politicians – disrupted by the Criminal Court’s refusal to grant police an extension of detention, following the arrest and incarceration of Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed on corruption charges – the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was today briefing the international community on the “recent increase in extremist religious rhetoric being used by certain opposition political figures in the Maldives.”

The Foreign Ministry said it was “extremely concerned by the increase in extremist rhetoric used by certain politicians and NGOs, which can lead to stigmatisation, stereotyping and to incitement to religious violence and hatred.”

“The government of the Maldives shares the concern of others in the international community “at instances of derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatiation of persons based on their religion or belief, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations. We also condemn, in this context, any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence,” the Foreign Ministry stated.

“Opposition politicians in the Maldives are using the new climate of free speech and freedom of the press to promote negative religious stereotyping, especially about Christians and Jews, and to incite religious hatred, hostility and violence,” the Ministry claimed.

“This represents a deeply worrying trend that can and will have a lasting negative impact on tolerance across Maldivian society,” it added.

A person familiar with the matter told Minivan News that the government had noted and archived statements made by senior political figures endorsing extremism during and following the opposition-sponsored ‘Defend Islam’ protest on December 23 last year, and was in the process of compiling briefing notes for interested international agencies.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Mahlouf accuses Maldives history website of promoting other religions

Undersecretary at the President’s Office Fareesha Abdulla has said she intends to file a defamation case against Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) MP Ahmed Mahlouf, after he appeared on DhiTV’s ‘Habaru Therein’ (In The News) and accused her of trying to introduce other religions to the Maldives.

“I have asked the Maldives Police Service on January 11, 2012 to investigate this case,” Fareesha said in a statement.

Mahlouf told Minivan News today that “Fareesha, and her husband, I think he’s a foreigner, run a website called Maldives Culture promoting other religions in Dhivehi.”

“Her husband was [previously] deported and Fareesha stayed away from the Maldives for a long time. Under this government, she is now working in the President’s office,” Mahlouf said.

Maldives Culture is a website run by Fareesha and her husband Michael O’Shea, containing English translations of documents about the history, culture and society of the Maldives.

“There’s no Dhivehi in the site – it’s all in English,” Fareesha said. “There’s nothing about other religions, and Michael was never deported.”

Fareesha told Minivan News that while she could laugh off Mahlouf’s allegations, “they have serious ramifications for me. He is a member of the Majlis and people do trust what he says – they may not check the truth for themselves. I am concerned for my physical safety – I may not be able to walk on the streets without being attacked.”

Mahlouf meanwhile claimed that the government was using the police “to try and stop us talking.”

“There’s no way they can stop us,” he said.

Documents available on Maldives Culture cover topics ranging from Maldivian art, history, social customs to historic photographs and maps of the Maldives, and a Dhivehi-English dictionary.

The site also includes translations of the works of famous explorers who visited the Maldives throughout its history, including the Ibn Battuta, François Pyrard de Laval and HCP Bell.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)