In 1988, when armed mercenaries had almost taken over the Maldivian capital of Male in a coup d’état, India’s daring rescue with the 17th Parachute Field Regiment (‘Operation Cactus’) flying non-stop from Agra, had saved the day for the Maldives.
The infamous trio of the current Maldivians-in-news i.e., Maryam Shiuna, Malsha Shareef, and Mahzoom Majid may have either been too young or perhaps not even born, thirty-six years ago – but as Maldivian politicians with apparent education, they couldn’t be oblivious to this historical reality.
What perhaps, they were pandering to was competitive partisan one-upmanship, albeit, in its most uncouth, boorish and pun-intended ‘clownish’ ways (after all, they had called out the Indian Prime Minister’s recent visit to Lakshadweep with grossly unbecoming terms like ‘puppet of Israel’, ‘terrorist’, ‘clown’ etc.,).
For all conjectures of lopsided partiality that the newly inducted Maldivian Government has been making, the role of India (with all its dispensations of varied ideological persuasions over the decades) has been supportive of its sovereignty and above all, non-expansionist, something that can never be said of China with its established ways with neighbouring Sri Lanka (taken over Hambantota Port pursuant to patent ‘debt-trap’) or the Gwadar port in Pakistan (to be militarized with Chinese naval presence and suction of natural resources).
In Politics, There is Always a Fine Slip Between the Cup and the Lip
Beyond healthy commercial ties, India shares cultural, societal, and civilisational bonhomie with the Maldives. Interestingly, Maryam Shiuna’s LinkedIn profile shows her proficiency in three languages (including one in Hindi, with ‘limited working proficiency’), such is the enmeshing of natural sensibilities, between the two sovereigns.
However, even within the realm of competitive partisanship, there are certain limits to language, expressions, and unsubstantiated accusations, that simply cannot be allowed, least of all to Ministerial level officials. The onus of maintaining the higher ground in terms of restraint and balance is always loaded onto politicians from the ruling dispensation, as opposed to the opposition parties who are expected to be shriller, cantankerous, and perennially accusative in order to keep the dispensation of the day, on its toes.
The infamous trio of Maldivian authorities belonged to positions of governmental responsibility and accountability, and they simply couldn’t afford to partake in loose or street talk, on matters that have acute sensitivity, whatever be their partisan agenda. Perhaps the temptation to sound proverbially, ‘more Catholic than the Pope’ in order to ingratiate themselves with the powers that be i.e., Presidentship of Mohamed Muizzu (with a stated anti-India stance after having campaigned on ‘India Out’) got the better of senses for the young politicians.
They will realise that in politics, there is always a fine slip between the cup and the lip, and that beyond a point, their vainglorious attempts to prove their partisan loyalty with jingoistic and accusative overtones, can become counterproductive. The rightful outcry that followed (both in India and duly fanned by opposition parties in Maldives) ensured that they were suitably dumped – a significant step, when viewed from the lens of President Mohamed Muizzu’s own rhetoric and chosen political path to Presidentship.
The Maldivian government under Muizzu has openly distanced itself with the official insistence, “opinions are personal and do not represent the views of the Government of Maldives” and added for telling measure, “all government officials responsible for the comments have been suspended from their post effective immediately”. There were simply no efforts at contextualise or justify, when it could have been expected from the narrative and environment, as set by Mohamed Muizzu.
Success of economic pressure exerted by Indian citizenry with threats of avoiding Maldives as a destination (Maldives is disproportionately dependent on tourism and Indians are the single largest tourists) is one thing – the move reflects Muizzu’s ‘red lines’ in terms of political rhetoric, play of local Maldivian politics, and intrigues within Muizzu’s People’s National Congress. It is important to understand these nuances and moderate the Indian reactions hereinafter, so as to avoid creating a long-term issue for itself. India did well, not to escalate the matters, officially.
Muizzu Possibly Senses the Folly of Overplaying the ‘India Out’ Promise
While India did make a strong point and elicited a positive reaction from Male, care to not overplay its angry hand is critical so as to avoid creating another Nepal where the angst is no longer political/partisan, but societal. Given the preponderance of India and Indians in the day-to-day livelihood and imagination of Maldivians, a certain creeping of overbearingness or like in the case of Nepal, a ‘big brother’ attitude, is always possible.
Rival politicians will always exploit the same to form ‘pro-India’ and ‘anti-India’ positions (bringing ‘pro-China’ on the rebound). But a lot of these political positions are grandstanding posturing for the masses, and India must avoid being seen taking sides in local politics, as the in-today-out-tomorrow dispensations can alternate India’s fortunes, detrimentally. More importantly, it feeds perceptions of interference, and a sizeable part of the populace would remain ‘anti-India’, even if the government is so-called ‘pro-India’.
Expectedly the ousted dispensation of Maldivian Democratic Party and its functionaries are raising an outraged hue-and-cry at the inelegance of the trio, but they too are playing their own politics. India cannot be seen leaning towards the same, as that suggests partisan preferences and given the complexities of various other local issues – the simplistic assumption of India having a position onto all those unrelated issues, also gets inadvertently and unfairly conflated. This is divisive and can leave a deep scar on a section of society who is better served without bringing India into unrelated conversations or equations.
Sadly, even beyond Nepal, the other neighbouring countries like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have seen the emergence of ‘India’ as an divisive election issue, where a set of parties have successfully convinced the electorate of the proverbial ‘India hand’, in its internal affairs.
Lastly, there are enough palace intrigues within the Muizzu’s ruling People’s National Congress that don’t meet the eye. Muizzu did campaign on an ‘India Out’ platform as originally conceived by his overbearing party senior and former President, Abdulla Yameen (since then, denied electoral participation owing to corruption cases), but Muizzu is also in a power strangle to breakout from Yameen’s shadow and emerge as his own man. Muizzu possibly senses the folly of overplaying the ‘India Out’ promise, now that he is practically in governance and not just pandering to provocative sloganeering as an opposition campaigner.
Moderating his stand against India will allow him that break from Abdullah Yameen and his prompt dismissal of three derelict officials, signals that. India must allow him that maneuvering space to temper down things without looking like having bullied Maldives into submission – tempting as that is, Nepal episode of the supposed ‘blockade’ in 2015 is instructive of how that perceived bullying can lead to permanent fractures.
Delhi did well to call out the bluff and Maldives reacted promptly and substantially, that itself is significant to the extent that it needs no further chest-thumping, officially. India has strategic reasons to keep Maldives on its right side, and that requires calibrated and not over-the-top reactions.
(The author is a Former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)