The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Islands in the sun

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Dec 24, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Islands in the sun

By Rajeev Dhavan

The Maldives President, Abdul Gayoom, seems to regard Indian policies towards his regime as a protective political insurance. The time may have come to clear this misconception.

THE MALDIVES, comprising many beautiful islands, now faces an endemic crisis from which there is no predictable respite unless something is done about it. India's policies towards the islands range from strong intervention to a supportive role. On November 3, 1988 when there was a coup attempt, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi despatched troops to help to put it down. Over the years, India has developed trade ties with the Maldives — with the balance of trade in India's favour. In 1996, bilateral trade yielded Rs.130.7 crores of exports to India and Rs. 0.52 crores to the Maldives. In 2001, Indian exports rose to Rs. 188.6 crores and Maldivian exports to India increased to Rs. 1.31 crores. India's economic interest in the Maldives is of limited significance even though the 13,000 Indians there form the largest expatriate community among the population of 3 lakhs. India has taken particular care to assist general education in the Maldives. An agreement signed in this regard in 1999 was negotiated afresh in 2001. Maldives is clearly within what India regards as its zone of influence. However, after India's assistance to put down the 1988 coup attempt, the President, Abdul Gayoom, seems to look over his shoulder for Indian support whenever his repressive policies result in democratic protest. Even if India does not intend this, Mr. Gayoom seems to regard Indian policies towards his regime as a protective political insurance. The time may have come to clear this misconception.

Converted to Islam in 1153, the Maldives was placed under direct colonial rule only by the Portugese from 1558 to 1573. It gained independence from Britain's protection in 1965. Following some turmoil, Mr. Gayoom took over in 1978. There were coup attempts against him in 1980, 1983 and 1988 — with increasing opposition from liberals and Islamic fundamentalists alike. After 17 years of relatively undemocratic rule, Mr. Gayoom's response was to promulgate a new Constitution in November 1997. Following the Indian and South African constitutions, while some post-colonial Constitutions seem to look forward, the `Gayoom' constitution seems to look backwards. Under the Constitution, the President's power surfaced into absolutism. He appoints eight of the 50 members of the legislature (Majlis), the Speaker and Deputy Speaker and, is empowered to return bills back to the Majlis for reconsideration. Apart from the usual power of pardon and amnesty, his presence dominates the work of the judiciary. High Court judges are appointed by him. The President is the final judicial appellate authority to return or overturn High Court decisions. Such powers make the Star Chamber seem mild. He does not have to exercise such powers whose shadow is inevitably cast on the rule of law. Even though the President has such vast powers, elections to the presidency are indirect — nominees by the Majlis are then accepted or rejected by the people in a referendum. This reduces competition for the post. Although South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) observers blessed the 1999 Majlis election, some doubts have been cast on that election. There is also nervousness about the coming Majlis election on December 31, 2004.

The Constitution contains a Bill of Rights. This has not stemmed the increasing violations of civil liberties. Over the years, there has been an increase in the number of prisoners of conscience, including writer Mohamed Nasheed, who was arrested and kept in solitary confinement for writing articles exposing corruption in 1990; and again in 1992-93, 1994, 1996 and 2001 — to also be confronted with various trumped up charges. The spate of arrests continues to include prominent activists and politicians such as Mohamed Zaki, Ahmed Didi, Fatimath Nisreen, Naushad Waheed and Ibrahim Fareed. In 2001, when 42 people signed a petition to form the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), the request eluded approval. Many of the signatories were harassed. The Maldives has virtually become a single-party state. From this point, repression was increased. In May 2002, four journalists were arrested and given long prison sentences for inciting violence and defamation. In 2003, prison riots and street protests against custodial crimes were severely put down. After obtaining a sixth term in October 2003, the President's absolute power was exercised with relative absoluteness. In November 2003, reformist legislators and an Attorney-General were sacked for trying to form a new political party. In late 2003, access to the MDP's website was denied. The party leadership is in jail, effectively precluding its participation in the December 31 election. In February 2004, 15 MDP members were arrested. Repression increased to silence all forms of peaceful protest, free speech and political opposition.

In 2004, the European Union put pressure on Mr. Gayoom to cast the Constitution into a democratic framework. He responded by promising constitutional amendments in June 2004 whilst the regime continued to arrest persons and violate free speech. No absolutist gives up the path to absolutism easily. A constituent assembly was called but not allowed to function effectively. Protests that it be allowed to do so were taken as an excuse by Mr. Gayoom to declare a state of emergency in August 2004 — ordering arrests and suspending fundamental rights. No sooner did this happen than Mr. Gayoom sent his Health Minister, Ahmad Abdulla, to New Delhi which maintained a studied silence.

The E.U.'s reaction was to threaten sanctions which were not imposed. But the `emergency' has increased the state's power over the press and protesters while those in the Opposition have either fled the country are under house arrest or in jail. Mr. Gayoom's `South Asia' diplomacy has been good. At one point, there was pressure on Sri Lanka to deny refugee status to some of the dissidents, especially Mohamed Latheef. The MDP, unable to operate for various reasons in Colombo, has now shifted its offices to London.

India cannot stand wholly aloof from the Maldives' crisis. Its intervention in Mr. Gayoom's favour — when the present National Security Adviser, J.N. Dikshit, was India's Ambassador to Sri Lanka — remains within the memory of laypersons and politicians from the Maldives. This is not to suggest that those fighting for liberal governance in the Maldives supported the coup attempt. To that extent, there was some internal support in the Maldives for India's actions in 1988. But, what was support in 1988 is now viewed as an invisible insurance favouring Mr. Gayoom's rule. The Maldives is part of both the Commonwealth and SAARC. Ironically, a former SAARC Secretary-General from the Maldives, Ibrahim Hussain Zaki, is now in prison — charged with treason. It is not customary for SAARC nations to lecture each other on democracy. Were that so, such lectures would be directed towards Bhutan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and, no less, India — in greatly varying degrees. Before such matters are placed on the SAARC or Commonwealth agenda, some degree of consensus is needed. After due deliberations, the Commonwealth has been known to act collectively in such situations.

But India has a role to play. The rationale behind this role is not to perpetuate an international crisis in South Asia to confront the domestic crisis in the Maldives. Neither silence nor forbearance is an answer when there are voices that credit India with a protectionist policy in the light of its intervention in 1988 and, seemingly continuous support from 1988 till now. In 1995, America suspended Maldives' eligibility for tariff preferences because the Maldives did not grant internationally recognised rights to its own workers and trade unions. This was seen as American pressure for economic reasons. There is also some wariness about the E.U.'s initiatives to pressure the Maldives. But all international initiatives cannot be discredited. India needs to make a statement to clarify the ambiguity of its stance — formally and informally. This will help greatly in bringing the Gayoom regime to its senses and give courage to Maldivian democracy.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

BLOSSOMING PARTNERSHIP

PROFITS BEYOND PIRACY

Islands in the sun

Turkey, European Union and Cyprus