“Caution” seems to be the watchword for India in responding to calls for intervention in troubled Maldives, writes P.K.Balachandran in South Asian Monitor.
Despite its reservations about the Abdulla Yameen regime in the Maldives, India does not appear to be responding to the call of the Maldivian opposition leader Mohamed Nasheed to initiate a “military-backed diplomatic initiative” to force Yameen to retract from his drastic actions against the judiciary.
According to the Maldivian National Defense Force (MNDF) the Indian government has assured that it will not deploy its troops in the Maldives to resolve the ongoing political crisis in the Indian Ocean archipelago.
Describing media reports about an imminent Indian military intervention on the lines of Operation Cactus of 1988 as “rumors” the Maldivian Defense Forces said: “Such rumors are designed to undermine relations between Maldives and India.”Bottom of Form
Some observers say that this is tantamount to recognition by India of its inability to intervene, given the fact that intervention will bring it into a confrontation with China which is well entrenched in the Maldives, economically, if not militarily.
Political Dimension
But others say that India’s inaction or indifference is due to the fact that in the run up to the elections to several State Assemblies and parliament between now and 2019, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi would not like to be venturesome if the action contemplated has no electoral dividends to offer.
These observers point out that the Maldives is distant from the consciousness of the Indian voter and therefore no electoral advantage can be gained by any military or even diplomatic action in the remote Indian Ocean archipelago.
“Maldives is not Pakistan. For Modi, action against Pakistan whether in word or deed, could get nationalistic Indian votes. But action against the Maldives will have little or no impact on the Indian voter,” a perceptive observer in Maldives who knows India well, said.
“Further Modi knows that any military backed diplomatic intervention in Maldives will fail given the foothold China has in the Maldives. China has a kind of cloutin the Maldives which no other country in the world has, let alone India,”the observer added.
China’s Threat
And China has come out strongly against any military adventure in the Maldives.The Chinese government itself has been toeing a soft line with the Foreign Ministry spokesman, GengShuang, saying that China is in touch with India on the Maldives situation.
But the Chinese Communist Party run publication Global Times has strongly warned India against armed misadventures in the Maldives. Writing in Global Times dated February 12, commentator Ai Jun said that China will “intercept” Indian troops en route to the Maldives.
“The critical situation of Maldives may be getting even volatile as Asian superpower China warned South-Asian giant India, of intercepting troops should they cross into Maldivian waters for state intervention,” Ai said.
“This is the country’s internal affairs and China firmly opposes outside interference. More than that, China should take necessary measures to stop India if New Delhi moves to intervene militarily,” Ai added.
“Without UN empowerment, there would be no righteous cause for any armed force to intervene. China will not interfere in the internal affairs of the Maldives, but that does not mean that Beijing will sit idly by as New Delhi breaks the principle,” the Communist party publication warned.
“If India one-sidedly sends troops to the Maldives, China will take action to stop New Delhi. India should not underestimate China’s opposition to unilateral military intervention,” the editorial stressed.
“Ever since incumbent president Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom took the office in 2013, Maldives has proactively interacted with US, China and Saudi Arabia, even adding more strength to the ties with Pakistan and gradually moving toward more independent and balanced diplomacy. This in turn could have irritated New Delhi,” the Global Times noted.
The publication alleged that India has been seeking an opportunity to move its military to its “backyard,” that is the neighborhood.
“Malé is tired of New Delhi, which at all times tries to dominate Maldives’ politics,” the Global Times writer said.
However, no one knows for sure what New Delhi would do, since it has not spoken after Nasheed made his brazen request.
In a way, the demand for a diplomatic initiative stands to reason as India, being the largest country in the region with a self-proclaimed role as the “net security provider” cannot remain blind, deaf and mute when there is a crisis in a neighboring country. But this has to be done without abridging the sovereignty of the Maldives, as China has suggested.
In fact, China is ready to accept an international role in bringing about a settlement in the Maldives so long as the intervention takes into account Maldivian sovereignty, Chinese spokesman Geng Shuang said. Geng even said that Beijing is in touch with New Delhi on the Maldives question.
Already Marginalized
But New Delhi may have marginalized itself vis-à-vis the Maldives already by not entertaining the latter’s Special Envoy.
The excuse for not meeting the envoy was that the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister were not available. But observers point out that a top official or one of the junior Foreign Ministers could have heard the Maldivian case.
Seeing New Delhi’s sensitivity, Sri Lanka too refused to receive Maldivian Foreign Minister Dr. Mohamed Asim, who was expected to stopover in Colombo enroute from Islamabad to Male.
Asim had drawn a blank in Pakistan too. But this was not because the Pakistan government was against the Yameen regime but because of the latter’s actions against the judiciary, especially the Chief Justice, who had been arrested. Pakistani political leaders had opposed tooth and nail, President Pervez Musharraf’s actions against the then Chief Justice and therefore they could not openly endorse Yameen’s actions which had been primarily against the Chief Justice and the judiciary.
With Pakistan and Sri Lanka opting out, there has been no regional urgency for New Delhi to act in the Maldives.
Lack of Equal Access
Even if India wants to act, it has to have equal access and credibility vis-à-vis the two parties in the conflict. But as on date, India’s intervention will be wholeheartedly welcomed only by the opposition, and that too mainly by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) led by Mohamed Nasheed.
The Yameen government is ready to engage with New Delhi, but this sentiment has not been reciprocated, forcing the Maldives to seek others who would lend an ear. Hence the despatch of envoys to China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
In order to intervene, New Delhi will have to understand and appreciate the stand of both the government and the opposition. While New Delhi tends to appreciate Nasheed’s concerns, it has so far turned a deaf ear to Yameen’s.
Yameen’s Case
The Maldivian government has said that the nation’s Supreme Court has defied the supreme authority in the country, namely the Constitution, by ordering the immediate release and retrial of nine top opposition leaders who had been jailed for serious crimes like terrorism, murder, bribery and fraud, without due process.
Given the serious nature of charges, President Yameen told Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed why his orders could not be complied with. But this was in vain.
The Supreme Court’s order dated February 1, declared that the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has no mandate over Supreme Court Justices, overriding Article 159 of the Constitution which empowers the Judicial Services Commission to appoint, investigate complaints against, and give recommendations for dismissal of judges.
The court also ordered the Executive to hold the Opening of Parliament as scheduled, and to release nine individuals from prison. This order was given in the Judges’ Chamber and not in an open court and without a hearing.
“The Chief Justice was in Chambers and had purposely refused to communicate with the Attorney General and the Prosecutor General,” the government charged.
There were concerns about the order to release convicted prisoners without quashing or overturning their convictions.
Also, the Supreme Court did not provide an opportunity to the Attorney General or the Prosecutor General to present their positions, in relation to the previous and on-going cases referred to in the Court Order, the government pointed out.
Dismissing President
The Supreme Court Bench deliberated on a motion to declare the President dismissed from his post. The Motion was tabled by the Chief Justice and the debate took place in Chambers.
“The Attorney General was not given an opportunity to present the State’s position, nor was the President given an opportunity to defend himself,” the government said.
However, the Motion was rejected by a majority decision, 3 judges dissenting and 2 assenting.
Following these developments, the Supreme Court was told that it has no constitutional and/or legal power to dismiss a sitting President from Office. It can be done only by parliament.
“The Supreme Court thus, attempted to subvert the government and hold hostage the work of the government by obstructing the work of the Executive in carrying out its constitutional mandate and legal duties,” the government said.
t Despite its reservations about the Abdulla Yameen regime in the Maldives, India does not appear to be responding to the call of the Maldivian opposition leader Mohamed Nasheed to initiate a “military-backed diplomatic initiative” to force Yameen to retract from his drastic actions against the judiciary.
According to the Maldivian National Defense Force (MNDF) the Indian government has assured that it will not deploy its troops in the Maldives to resolve the ongoing political crisis in the Indian Ocean archipelago.
Describing media reports about an imminent Indian military intervention on the lines of Operation Cactus of 1988 as “rumors” the Maldivian Defense Forces said: “Such rumors are designed to undermine relations between Maldives and India.”Bottom of Form
Some observers say that this is tantamount to recognition by India of its inability to intervene, given the fact that intervention will bring it into a confrontation with China which is well entrenched in the Maldives, economically, if not militarily.
Political Dimension
But others say that India’s inaction or indifference is due to the fact that in the run up to the elections to several State Assemblies and parliament between now and 2019, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi would not like to be venturesome if the action contemplated has no electoral dividends to offer.
These observers point out that the Maldives is distant from the consciousness of the Indian voter and therefore no electoral advantage can be gained by any military or even diplomatic action in the remote Indian Ocean archipelago.
“Maldives is not Pakistan. For Modi, action against Pakistan whether in word or deed, could get nationalistic Indian votes. But action against the Maldives will have little or no impact on the Indian voter,” a perceptive observer in Maldives who knows India well, said.
“Further Modi knows that any military backed diplomatic intervention in Maldives will fail given the foothold China has in the Maldives. China has a kind of cloutin the Maldives which no other country in the world has, let alone India,”the observer added.
China’s Threat
And China has come out strongly against any military adventure in the Maldives.The Chinese government itself has been toeing a soft line with the Foreign Ministry spokesman, GengShuang, saying that China is in touch with India on the Maldives situation.
But the Chinese Communist Party run publication Global Times has strongly warned India against armed misadventures in the Maldives. Writing in Global Times dated February 12, commentator Ai Jun said that China will “intercept” Indian troops en route to the Maldives.
“The critical situation of Maldives may be getting even volatile as Asian superpower China warned South-Asian giant India, of intercepting troops should they cross into Maldivian waters for state intervention,” Ai said.
“This is the country’s internal affairs and China firmly opposes outside interference. More than that, China should take necessary measures to stop India if New Delhi moves to intervene militarily,” Ai added.
“Without UN empowerment, there would be no righteous cause for any armed force to intervene. China will not interfere in the internal affairs of the Maldives, but that does not mean that Beijing will sit idly by as New Delhi breaks the principle,” the Communist party publication warned.
“If India one-sidedly sends troops to the Maldives, China will take action to stop New Delhi. India should not underestimate China’s opposition to unilateral military intervention,” the editorial stressed.
“Ever since incumbent president Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom took the office in 2013, Maldives has proactively interacted with US, China and Saudi Arabia, even adding more strength to the ties with Pakistan and gradually moving toward more independent and balanced diplomacy. This in turn could have irritated New Delhi,” the Global Times noted.
The publication alleged that India has been seeking an opportunity to move its military to its “backyard,” that is the neighborhood.
“Malé is tired of New Delhi, which at all times tries to dominate Maldives’ politics,” the Global Times writer said.
However, no one knows for sure what New Delhi would do, since it has not spoken after Nasheed made his brazen request.
In a way, the demand for a diplomatic initiative stands to reason as India, being the largest country in the region with a self-proclaimed role as the “net security provider” cannot remain blind, deaf and mute when there is a crisis in a neighboring country. But this has to be done without abridging the sovereignty of the Maldives, as China has suggested.
In fact, China is ready to accept an international role in bringing about a settlement in the Maldives so long as the intervention takes into account Maldivian sovereignty, Chinese spokesman Geng Shuang said. Geng even said that Beijing is in touch with New Delhi on the Maldives question.
Already Marginalized
But New Delhi may have marginalized itself vis-à-vis the Maldives already by not entertaining the latter’s Special Envoy.
The excuse for not meeting the envoy was that the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister were not available. But observers point out that a top official or one of the junior Foreign Ministers could have heard the Maldivian case.
Seeing New Delhi’s sensitivity, Sri Lanka too refused to receive Maldivian Foreign Minister Dr. Mohamed Asim, who was expected to stopover in Colombo enroute from Islamabad to Male.
Asim had drawn a blank in Pakistan too. But this was not because the Pakistan government was against the Yameen regime but because of the latter’s actions against the judiciary, especially the Chief Justice, who had been arrested. Pakistani political leaders had opposed tooth and nail, President Pervez Musharraf’s actions against the then Chief Justice and therefore they could not openly endorse Yameen’s actions which had been primarily against the Chief Justice and the judiciary.
With Pakistan and Sri Lanka opting out, there has been no regional urgency for New Delhi to act in the Maldives.
Lack of Equal Access
Even if India wants to act, it has to have equal access and credibility vis-à-vis the two parties in the conflict. But as on date, India’s intervention will be wholeheartedly welcomed only by the opposition, and that too mainly by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) led by Mohamed Nasheed.
The Yameen government is ready to engage with New Delhi, but this sentiment has not been reciprocated, forcing the Maldives to seek others who would lend an ear. Hence the despatch of envoys to China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
In order to intervene, New Delhi will have to understand and appreciate the stand of both the government and the opposition. While New Delhi tends to appreciate Nasheed’s concerns, it has so far turned a deaf ear to Yameen’s.
Yameen’s Case
The Maldivian government has said that the nation’s Supreme Court has defied the supreme authority in the country, namely the Constitution, by ordering the immediate release and retrial of nine top opposition leaders who had been jailed for serious crimes like terrorism, murder, bribery and fraud, without due process.
Given the serious nature of charges, President Yameen told Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed why his orders could not be complied with. But this was in vain.
The Supreme Court’s order dated February 1, declared that the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has no mandate over Supreme Court Justices, overriding Article 159 of the Constitution which empowers the Judicial Services Commission to appoint, investigate complaints against, and give recommendations for dismissal of judges.
The court also ordered the Executive to hold the Opening of Parliament as scheduled, and to release nine individuals from prison. This order was given in the Judges’ Chamber and not in an open court and without a hearing.
“The Chief Justice was in Chambers and had purposely refused to communicate with the Attorney General and the Prosecutor General,” the government charged.
There were concerns about the order to release convicted prisoners without quashing or overturning their convictions.
Also, the Supreme Court did not provide an opportunity to the Attorney General or the Prosecutor General to present their positions, in relation to the previous and on-going cases referred to in the Court Order, the government pointed out.
Dismissing President
The Supreme Court Bench deliberated on a motion to declare the President dismissed from his post. The Motion was tabled by the Chief Justice and the debate took place in Chambers.
“The Attorney General was not given an opportunity to present the State’s position, nor was the President given an opportunity to defend himself,” the government said.
However, the Motion was rejected by a majority decision, 3 judges dissenting and 2 assenting.
Following these developments, the Supreme Court was told that it has no constitutional and/or legal power to dismiss a sitting President from Office. It can be done only by parliament.
“The Supreme Court thus, attempted to subvert the government and hold hostage the work of the government by obstructing the work of the Executive in carrying out its constitutional mandate and legal duties,” the government said.
(The featured image at the top showing an Indian naval vessel interdicting a Tamil militants’ vessel)
