Recent developments in the Maldives should be a matter of great concern for India and the international community. Earlier this month, former defence minister Tholath Ibrahim was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on charges of detaining a senior judge three years ago. Few days earlier, the popular political leader and former Maldivian president Mohamed Nasheed was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment for the same charge under the anti-terrorism law.
The prosecution charge was that the two accused were directly involved in the arrest and detention of former judge Abdulla Mohamed for 22 days in 2012. However, according to perceptive observers of the Maldivian scene they were trumped up charges aimed at sending Nasheed into political oblivion.
The detention of Nasheed is an illustration of the dismantling of democracy in the Maldives. It is intended to stifle dissent and perpetuate the dictatorial regime of Yameen Abdul Gayoom, half-brother of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. It may be recalled that Maumoon Abdul Gayoom dominated the political scene for more than three decades. The Gayoom era not only witnessed naked dictatorship, but also widespread corruption and amassing of wealth. To quote Nasheed when he was elected president in the historic election in 2008, the dictatorship bequeathed “a looted treasury, a ballooning budget deficit and a rotten judiciary”.
Located in the south of Lakshadweep, the Maldives straddles across the Indian Ocean, It is a country of about 1200 islands, with a population of 3,50,000, whose economy depends upon tourism and the export of tuna. Five families control the economy by owning the country’s tourist resorts. They are also inter-related through kinship networks. Unless their economic and political stranglehold is removed, democratic traditions are unlikely to take deep roots.
The strategic significance of the Maldives became apparent in November 1988, when Abdulla Latufi attempted to capture power through an armed coup. The conspirators took the assistance of Tamil mercenaries from Sri Lanka belonging to the People’s Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE). It is reliably learnt that the mercenaries were to be provided access to two uninhabited islands from where they could carry on armed struggle against the Sri Lankan government. The mercenaries wanted to capture the radio station to cut off links with the outside world. Gayoom in desperation requested for Indian help and prime minister Rajiv Gandhi responded readily. The attempted coup was nipped in the bud.
The People’s Republic of China is evincing considerable interest in the Maldives. And the present government in the Maldives is eager to cultivate China to restrict Indian influence in the archipelago. Chinese tourists are flocking to the holiday resorts.
Abdul Gayoom owed his power to New Delhi. If New Delhi had not favourably responded in 1988, the history of the Maldives would have been different. Gayoom lulled New Delhi into inertia by repeatedly affirming his friendship. And New Delhi failed to convince Gayoom that it was essential to democratise the regime. The Special Rapporteur of the UN Human Rights Council described the political situation in the Maldives when Nasheed was elected president as follows: the Maldives finds itself at a difficult cross roads, where the democratic transition is being tested, while remnants of its authoritarian past are still hovering.
Nasheed is the Maldives’ man of destiny. He graduated in maritime studies from the University of Liverpool. Nasheed was impressed by the vibrant democratic traditions in England and wanted to bring about democratic transition in his motherland. In 1991, he wrote an article in the Sangu, in which he exposed the stranglehold of the Gayoom family and how the election in 1989 was rigged. He was detained, tortured and forced to eat food containing crushed glass pieces. The Amnesty International named him a prisoner of conscience. Detention, torture and release for short intervals became a way of life for him. But iron walls could not break his indomitable spirit. Like Nehru, Nasheed spent his time in prison reading books; he also published three books on Maldivian history.
The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) was formed in exile in November 2003. The British government recognised Nasheed as a political refugee. On 30 April, 2005, Nasheed returned to the Maldives and began a vigorous campaign for ushering in democracy. In November 2008, in the presidential election he was able to trounce Abdul Gayoom. Nasheed polled 54.25 per cent of the votes, whereas Gayoom could poll only 45.75 per cent of the votes.
A new era began in Maldives. The government introduced media freedom, allowed space for civic organisations and introduced new social protection programmes. Nasheed was sensitive to the environmental threat posed to the low-lying islands; he pledged to make the Maldives “carbon-neutral” by making use of solar and wind power.
Nasheed underestimated the strength of vested interests, especially in the judiciary, who were still loyal to Gayoom. Many serving bureaucrats had a shady past; they were accused of corruption, embezzlement and human rights abuses. A whispering campaign was begun against Nasheed by Islamic extremists; to quote Nasheed, “they threw anti-semitic and anti-Christian slurs—branding as apostates anyone who tried to defend the country’s liberal Islamic traditions”. Nasheed requested the United Nations for help and asked the UN to investigate judicial abuses and ordered the detention of Abdulla Mohamed, the chief judge of the criminal court. In a dramatic turn of events, Gayoom’s supporters staged violent demonstrations and forced Nasheed to resign. Nasheed later accused Gayoom of planning the demonstration and staging a coup d’état.
In the first round of 2013 presidential election, Nasheed polled 45 per cent of the votes, whereas his opponent received only 25 per cent. The Supreme Court meddled in the electoral process—repeatedly annulling, cancelling and postponing the poll to favour Yameen, Gayoom’s half-brother, who later became the president. On one occasion, in order to save his life, Nasheed took shelter in the Indian High Commission and requested for asylum. Unfortunately, New Delhi declined and threw Nasheed to the wolves. As mentioned earlier, he was detained, charged with sedition and sent to prison. It must be pointed out that Nasheed’s lawyers walked out in protest against what they called a biased trial aimed at destroying his political career. The Amnesty International rightly characterised the trial as “flawed from start to finish and the conviction is unsound”.
The struggle in the Maldives has wider ramifications. It is the story of a nation and a people grappling with the basic question: Who should exercise power, to what end and for whose benefit? Can India remain a silent witness when ominous developments are taking place next door?
suryageeth@gmail.com
The writer is Nelson Mandela professor in Afro-Asian Studies, Mahatma Gandhi University,Kottayam.