SOURCE:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/24032015-indias-stakes-in-maldives-power-struggle-analysis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29
http://www.eurasiareview.com/24032015-indias-stakes-in-maldives-power-struggle-analysis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29
Former Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed. File photo.
India’s Stakes In Maldives’ Power Struggle – Analysis
By Observer Research Foundation
By Ravi Joshi*
In a bizarre twist to the ongoing power struggle in Maldives, the founder leader of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and the first democratically elected President of the country Mohammed Nasheed has been branded a ‘Terrorist’ and sentenced to 13 years in prison under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). On Friday 13th March 2015 Mohd. Nasheed was found guilty of ordering the ‘forcible kidnap and unlawful detention’ of a Chief Judge of the Criminal Court in January 2012, and was sentenced by a three judge bench, two of whom were state witnesses in the same case earlier.
Assuming that Nasheed had actually ordered the arrest and detention of the Judge of a subordinate court who was reportedly delaying and preventing the prosecution of corrupt ministers of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s government, could the President be charged with ‘Terrorism’? Does it not make the entire Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF) that carried out the order a ‘terrorist group’? That was precisely the argument of Nasheed’s defence lawyers who argued the matter in the initial stages of the trial, all four of who finally resigned in disgust before the end of this farcical trial by a Criminal Court.
At best Nasheed could have been charged with arbitrary or excessive use of power not granted to the Executive against the Judiciary by the Constitution of Maldives. In fact, Nasheed was initially charged under Article 81 of the Penal Code, which makes it “an offense for any public servant by reason of the authority of office he is in, to detain or arrest in a manner contrary to law”. “Person guilty of this offense shall be subjected to exile or imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding MVR 2,000,” reads the article.
This charge was dropped by the Prosecutor General and the case was closed. And Nasheed was re-arrested on 22nd February 2015, within days after he came out in support of the other opposition leader Gasim Ibrahim of the Jumhoree Party to form a united front to defend the Constitution against the arbitrary orders of President Yameen. He was then booked for an act of terrorism under the PTA that carries a maximum sentence of 15 years. This absurd charge has neither been established nor proved, certainly not in the eyes of the international community that has been closely watching this repeated murder of democracy by an inept Judiciary.
The US, UK and the EU have strongly condemned the arrest and sentencing of Nasheed by a ‘flawed judicial process’ and have called for his release pending further appeal and to provide him with a fair and transparent trial. India too has expressed ‘deep concern’ at the event and is monitoring the developments closely.
The rank and file of the MDP have been protesting in the streets of Male, ever since the verdict and some minor skirmishes have also been reported between the Special Operations force and the people. The MDP supporters who have won the democratic gains incrementally through a lot of pain and suffering from 2004 to 2008 against a more hardened autocrat are unlikely to give up the fight easily.
Another security threat that emanates from Maldives is the Islamic radicalization of its youth. Radical Islam was kept in check as long as former President Maummon Abdul Gayoom was firmly ensconced in power and remained unchallenged. Only when the threat of democracy loomed large from 2005 onwards, he let the genie of Islamisation out of the bottle. In the last few years of his rule, Gayoom permitted the mushrooming of madrassas and mosques in Maldives, mostly funded by Saudi Arabia.
In fact, the first major protest organized by Gayoom’s party and his allies, when they were in opposition, against President Nasheed were in the name of protecting Islam. They falsely accused him of favoring the Christian West and Jews and raised the bogey of ‘Islam in danger’.
The result of all this cozying up to Islamic fundamentalists has resulted in Maldives producing hundreds of young jihadi fighters who have gone to join the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). As per the last count, over 200 Maldivians have reportedly joined the Jabhut ul- Nusra in Syria and the ISIS. And that is a shockingly disproportionate number in a total population 3,40,000 Maldivians. More shocking is the fact that most of them were ex-military men of MNDF and as per some estimates, 5 of them have died fighting in Syria.
President Yameen too has been soft on Islamists while putting down the democratic activists with a firm hand. For dictators, Islam has always been far too easy to co-opt than political dissent.
With the Indian Prime Minister pursuing a very active Indian Ocean region diplomacy, Maldives cannot be kept away from his outreach programme. Maldives is key to our strategic interests in the Indian Ocean and any instability or discord in its internal affairs would have a bearing on our security, especially when distant powers are fishing in its troubled waters.
*The author is a Distinguished Visitor at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi. He had served on a diplomatic assignment in Maldives for three years
Courtesy: The Economic Times
In a bizarre twist to the ongoing power struggle in Maldives, the founder leader of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and the first democratically elected President of the country Mohammed Nasheed has been branded a ‘Terrorist’ and sentenced to 13 years in prison under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). On Friday 13th March 2015 Mohd. Nasheed was found guilty of ordering the ‘forcible kidnap and unlawful detention’ of a Chief Judge of the Criminal Court in January 2012, and was sentenced by a three judge bench, two of whom were state witnesses in the same case earlier.
Assuming that Nasheed had actually ordered the arrest and detention of the Judge of a subordinate court who was reportedly delaying and preventing the prosecution of corrupt ministers of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s government, could the President be charged with ‘Terrorism’? Does it not make the entire Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF) that carried out the order a ‘terrorist group’? That was precisely the argument of Nasheed’s defence lawyers who argued the matter in the initial stages of the trial, all four of who finally resigned in disgust before the end of this farcical trial by a Criminal Court.
At best Nasheed could have been charged with arbitrary or excessive use of power not granted to the Executive against the Judiciary by the Constitution of Maldives. In fact, Nasheed was initially charged under Article 81 of the Penal Code, which makes it “an offense for any public servant by reason of the authority of office he is in, to detain or arrest in a manner contrary to law”. “Person guilty of this offense shall be subjected to exile or imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding MVR 2,000,” reads the article.
This charge was dropped by the Prosecutor General and the case was closed. And Nasheed was re-arrested on 22nd February 2015, within days after he came out in support of the other opposition leader Gasim Ibrahim of the Jumhoree Party to form a united front to defend the Constitution against the arbitrary orders of President Yameen. He was then booked for an act of terrorism under the PTA that carries a maximum sentence of 15 years. This absurd charge has neither been established nor proved, certainly not in the eyes of the international community that has been closely watching this repeated murder of democracy by an inept Judiciary.
The US, UK and the EU have strongly condemned the arrest and sentencing of Nasheed by a ‘flawed judicial process’ and have called for his release pending further appeal and to provide him with a fair and transparent trial. India too has expressed ‘deep concern’ at the event and is monitoring the developments closely.
The rank and file of the MDP have been protesting in the streets of Male, ever since the verdict and some minor skirmishes have also been reported between the Special Operations force and the people. The MDP supporters who have won the democratic gains incrementally through a lot of pain and suffering from 2004 to 2008 against a more hardened autocrat are unlikely to give up the fight easily.
President Yameen’s threat perception
Why did President Yameen have to do this? Why did he arrest an opposition leader who had gracefully accepted his defeat in November 2013, though it was clear that the popular mandate was repeatedly thwarted and subverted by the same Judiciary that is so pliant in carrying out the bidding of the Gayoom family? Was Yameen scared by the coming together of MDP leader Nasheed and Jumhoree Party leader Gasim Ibrahim? Did he foresee a replay of events of Sri Lanka in Male where another very powerful family was dislodged by the unity of Opposition leaders? Perhaps, that was the trigger. So he had to break the unity of Gasim and Nasheed. Yameen knows very well that he would not have won the election of 2013 without the last minute support of Gasim and now if Gasim now joined hands with Nasheed, the opposition would be too formidable. Hence the arrest of Nasheed and a hefty fine of $100 million on Gasim Ibrahim for not developing the islands allotted to him for resort building as unpaid rents and fines.India and Maldives
What are India’s stakes in Maldives and in the ongoing power struggle? As a democracy we have every reason to support the democratic aspirations of the people of Maldives; to uphold the rule of law and to ensure a fair and transparent trial for the beleaguered former President. This is expected of us not only by a majority of Maldivians but by the international community, as well. In fact, we could act together with the US, UK and the EU to bring overwhelming pressure on the government. On a more pragmatic level, President Yameen’s open alignment with China’s interests and granting islands close to our borders for China’s Maritime Silk-route Project is a direct threat to our security interests.Another security threat that emanates from Maldives is the Islamic radicalization of its youth. Radical Islam was kept in check as long as former President Maummon Abdul Gayoom was firmly ensconced in power and remained unchallenged. Only when the threat of democracy loomed large from 2005 onwards, he let the genie of Islamisation out of the bottle. In the last few years of his rule, Gayoom permitted the mushrooming of madrassas and mosques in Maldives, mostly funded by Saudi Arabia.
In fact, the first major protest organized by Gayoom’s party and his allies, when they were in opposition, against President Nasheed were in the name of protecting Islam. They falsely accused him of favoring the Christian West and Jews and raised the bogey of ‘Islam in danger’.
The result of all this cozying up to Islamic fundamentalists has resulted in Maldives producing hundreds of young jihadi fighters who have gone to join the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). As per the last count, over 200 Maldivians have reportedly joined the Jabhut ul- Nusra in Syria and the ISIS. And that is a shockingly disproportionate number in a total population 3,40,000 Maldivians. More shocking is the fact that most of them were ex-military men of MNDF and as per some estimates, 5 of them have died fighting in Syria.
President Yameen too has been soft on Islamists while putting down the democratic activists with a firm hand. For dictators, Islam has always been far too easy to co-opt than political dissent.
With the Indian Prime Minister pursuing a very active Indian Ocean region diplomacy, Maldives cannot be kept away from his outreach programme. Maldives is key to our strategic interests in the Indian Ocean and any instability or discord in its internal affairs would have a bearing on our security, especially when distant powers are fishing in its troubled waters.
*The author is a Distinguished Visitor at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi. He had served on a diplomatic assignment in Maldives for three years
Courtesy: The Economic Times
Observer Research Foundation
ORF was established on 5 September 1990 as a private, not for profit, ’think tank’ to influence public policy formulation. The Foundation brought together, for the first time, leading Indian economists and policymakers to present An Agenda for Economic Reforms in India. The idea was to help develop a consensus in favour of economic
No comments:
Post a Comment