Tag: MDP

Maldives: President Muizzu’s Coalition Wins ‘Super Majority’ in Parliamentary Elections

Muizzu’s victory will be noted in India, which has had to accommodate the new government’s demand for withdrawal of Indian troops operating three aircrafts in the Indian Ocean island nations.

New Delhi: In a major victory for Maldives President Mohammed Muizzu, the ruling People’s National Congress has won an overwhelming three-fourth majority in the parliamentary elections, with the Maldivian Democratic Party relegated to a state where it has received its lowest tally ever.

The latest provisional results released on Maldivian media says that People’s National Congress (PNC) and its aligned parties have won 71 seats in the 93-member Majlis, a figure which is being called a “super-majority” in Maldivian polity. It has exceeded the majority that MDP had received in the last parliamentary elections.

Around 72% of the electorate turned out to vote in the parliamentary elections on Sunday, April 22, which was the first major political fight for President Muizzu after he took over his current post last November. This was the lowest voting percentage in Maldives parliamentary elections since political parties were allowed to contest in 2009.

Immediately after counting began at 6 pm local time, the results began to trickle in fast and quick.

The results are a major boost for President Muizzu, who went into the elections faced with internal factionalism in his own ruling coalition, as well as estrangement from his political mentor, former President Abdulla Yameen. 

All the candidates for the ruling coalition of Progressive Party of Maldives and People’s National Congress (PPM-PNC) stood in elections under the PNC banner.

As per the updated provisional results, PNC has won 68 seats.

Muizzu’s victory will also be noted in India, which has had to accommodate the new government’s demand for withdrawal of Indian troops operating three aircrafts in the Indian Ocean island nations.

The MDP chairman Fayyaz Ismail conceded defeat, describing the results as disappointing. He also congratulated PNC for their victory.


According to provisional results, MDP has won only 10 seats, with several members who had won multiple terms before having lost their re-election bid.

It is likely the worst showing of the MDP, which lost the presidential elections last September. It had won 65 seats in the 2019 parliamentary elections, becoming the first party to win a majority in Maldives parliament till now.

Former Mohamed Nasheed’s The Democrats, which split from MDP, did not win a single seat. 

President Muizzu had campaigned on the platform that the ruling coalition would not be able to execute its plans and policies unless it received a majority in the parliament. He also said in campaign speeches that he feared a ‘coup’ if the opposition continued to have a majority.

The provisional results also showed that Muizzu had been able to take the ruling coalition to victory despite not having the backing of former President Yameen, in contrast to the presidential elections.

Maldives Police Arrests Man for Allegedly Threatening To Bomb Indian High Commission

Following the threat, the police have increased security at the Indian high commission and the Chinese embassy.

New Delhi: Amidst concerns about rising anti-India rhetoric in the Indian Ocean nation, the Maldives police announced on Saturday that it had arrested a man for threatening to bomb the Indian high commission.

The announcement comes a day after the Maldives foreign ministry advised the media that publishing “false news” against foreign diplomatic personnel would be detrimental to the country’s foreign relations.

The Indian high commission had last month written a letter to the Maldivian government over articles and posts which “attacked the dignity” of its diplomatic staff.

According to the Maldivian police, a 42-year-old man was arrested following a threat to bomb the Indian high commission in a tweet. The probe is being conducted by the Serious and Organized Crime Department.

Following the threat, the police have increased security at the Indian high commission and the Chinese embassy, said the press note. As per the Maldivian foreign ministry, security had been beefed upon the request of the two diplomatic missions.

The Maldivian police also pointed out that providing security to diplomatic missions was a responsibility of security services.

As per a report in local news website Sun, the Maldivian police said that urged all parties to be “more responsible in disseminating information” as putting diplomatic personnel at risk has the potential of disrupting diplomatic relations.

“Furthermore, Maldives Police Service instructs all parties not to engage in any act which may compromise the safety and security of diplomatic missions of foreign countries stationed in Maldives,” said the press release, as translated by Sun.

A couple of hours after the report, another local news website, Mihaaru, identified the arrested man as an activist from the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

This is a twist in the tale as the anti-India campaign has been a political initiative of the opposition party in order to target the MDP-led ruling alliance for its close ties with the South Asian giant.

Also read: India Asks Maldives to Act Against ‘Malicious’ Media Reports Targeting High Commission Staff

Relations between India and Maldives had earlier been fractious, as a perception had gained ground that Abdulla Yameen’s PPM government laid out the red carpet for China to increase its presence in the strategically-located nation.

However, there had been considerable improvement in relations between India and Maldives since Ibrahim Solih won the presidential elections after defeating Yameen in 2019.

The MDP had on Friday issued a strong statement condemning the local news website, Dhiyares, for publishing “defamatory propaganda which is only motivated by the desire to sow discord and animosity”.

Maldivian parliamentary speaker Mohamed Nasheed, who is also a former president, had tweeted on Friday that “hostile” and “disrespectful” language was being deployed by some quarters against India.

He also urged the opposition and critics to “maintain a certain standard when speaking about foreign diplomats appointed to work in the Maldives”. Nasheed is currently in Germany where he travelled for medical treatment after an attempted attack through a bomb blast.

As per media reports, the Maldives parliamentary committee on independent institutions had asked the Maldives Media Council to look into the reports on Indian diplomats published by the website.

The co-founder of Dhiyares, Ahmed Azaan has tweeted that he has written to international media watchdogs that he will be arrested on “trumped-up charges” for his reports on activities of the Indian high commission.

On India’s Request, Maldives Govt Asks Local Media Not to Publish False News on Diplomats

The Indian high commission sent a note verbale to the Maldivian foreign ministry on June 24 that complained about malicious news articles and social media posts “attacking the dignity” of diplomatic personnel.

New Delhi: Following a request from the Indian government, the Maldives government has asked the local media not to publish false news against foreign diplomatic personnel as it impedes their work as stipulated under international law.

The Indian high commission sent a note verbale to the Maldivian foreign ministry on June 24 that complained about malicious news articles and social media posts “attacking the dignity” of the diplomatic personnel posted in the Indian Ocean nation.

In the letter, India had asked the Maldivian foreign ministry to take steps so that the freedom and dignity of India’s diplomats were not compromised in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

While the letter was dated June 24, it was published first by the Maldivian media on Tuesday.

Two days later, the letter was leaked into the media and the Maldivian foreign ministry issued a statement criticising the publication of “false news and accusations” against diplomatic personnel accredited to the Maldives. The note, issued only in the local Dhivehi language, did not mention India by name.

It stated that under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, Maldives had the responsibility to give full protection to foreign diplomats assigned to work in the country.

The Maldivian statement also expressed that these articles could not only impact relations with country, but also threaten the diplomats and obstruct them from doing their official work.

The main political party in the ruling alliance, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) also released a statement, which directly named India and the concerned media group.

“The Maldivian Democratic Party is deeply concerned over the recent reports in Dhiyares, expressing disparaging and ill-founded remarks about Indian diplomats in the Maldives,” said the MDP communique.

It also indicated that the articles about India on the website were part of a “political campaign”, hinting that the opposition was behind it. There has been a vocal campaign by the opposition parties which has tried to corner the Maldivian government over its close ties with India.

“While the MDP always respects freedom of expression and welcomes robust debate on foreign policy, and the national interests, MDP condemns such defamatory propaganda which is only motivated by the desire to sow discord and animosity,” added the party.

In New Delhi, when the MEA spokesperson was asked about the Indian high commission’s letter, he pointed to the statements from Maldivian foreign ministry and MDP.

Who Stands Where: Fact Checking the Rahul Gandhi-Jaishankar Twitter War on Foreign Policy

Foreign minister S. Jaishankar took to Twitter to reply point-by-point to Rahul Gandhi’s recent video on a deterioration in diplomatic ties with India’s neighbours under the BJP government. The Wire breaks down the debate.

New Delhi: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi recently began a new series of videos on current affairs that aim to break down the reasons that led China to initiate multiple stand-offs along the line of actual control in Ladakh. In reply to his critique of the Modi government’s foreign policy, external affairs minister S. Jaishankar took to Twitter with a rebuttal.

This is The Wire’s in-depth analysis of Rahul Gandhi’s critique from June 17 and Jaishankar’s response.

Gandhi began his first video with a question as to “why the Chinese have chosen this particular time” to have a confrontation with India. “A country is protected by its foreign relationships; it is protected by its neighbourhood. it is protected by its economy, it is protected by the feeling its people have, the vision that its people have,” he said.

Jaishankar’s replies came specifically on the claims raised by Gandhi about foreign policy. And while he made claims about and defended the Modi government’s record, many of his tweets were framed as an attack on the Manmohan Singh government’s record.

Major power relations

Gandhi: “Our relationship with the outside world used to be with multiple countries. we had a relationship with America; a strategic partnership with America. That is very important. We had a relationship with Russia. We had a relationship with Europe, and these countries used to help us manoeuvre in the world.

Today, we have a transactional relationship. We have a transactional relationship with the US. We have disturbed our relationship with the Russians. We have a transactional relationship with Europe.”

Jaishankar: The foreign affairs minister responded by asserting that our relationships with major powers are “strong” and that India’s “international standing” is going higher. He cited the “regular summits” and informal summits with the US, Russia, Europe and Japan.

Reality: Bilateral summits are a routine part of diplomacy in the modern world. Such summits have always taken place in both UPA and NDA years and there has been no change in their pace.

India and the European Union began their annual summits in 2000. The relationship was upgraded to a strategic partnership in November 2004. The tradition of annual summits between India and Russia began in October 2000 and has been followed diligently through the UPA years and beyond. With Japan, the annual summit between the prime ministers commenced under Manmohan Singh in 2006, when both countries established a “strategic and global partnership”.

There is no system of annual summits with the US. Manmohan Singh made eight visits to the US as prime minister between 2004 and 2013. These included a state visit in 2009, when the Obamas hosted their first state banquet for a foreign leader. His 2005 visit to Washington, followed by George Bush’s visit in 2006, led to the signing of the civil nuclear deal and associated agreements, while Barack Obama endorsed India’s candidature for a permanent seat in UNSC for first time during his visit to Delhi in 2010.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has already visited the United States six times. During this period, there have been two presidential visits – by Obama for the Republic Day celebrations in 2015, and Trump in February 2020.

India under Modi has started the new concept of ‘informal’ summits with two countries – China and then Russia – to let the top leadership drive the relations that had either drifted or gone south. So while these summits could be considered the Modi government’s accomplishments, they also reflect the fact key relationships entered choppy waters on its watch. Thus, the Doklam crisis led to the start of the first such informal summit between India and China in Wuhan. When India announced the ‘informal summit’ with Russia in Sochi, informed observers felt that a meeting, sans deliverables, was necessary to affirm the relevance of the strategic partnership, amidst growing negative perception due to differences over Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Gandhi’s reference to a transactional relationship is more difficult to parse as there is an inherent sense of quid-pro-quo in bilateral relations. The strategic partnership has been lubricated by more than $10 billion worth of arms purchases by India over the past decade. And for all the bonhomie with the US, India has not been able to convince it to restart the GSP benefits, waive tariffs on aluminium and steel and stop the Damocles sword falling on visa matters,

However, the US has been helpful to India on other fronts which it deems as politically important to the Indian government – counterterrorism. At the same time, the US used its diplomatic muscle to list Masood Azhar as a global terrorist, but in return received assurances of India ending Iran oil imports.

China

Gandhi: The Congress leader did not mention China in a specific way, except to use the ongoing border conflict to frame the core question.

Jaishankar: The minister refers to China in three separate tweets. First, he claims that India engages with China on a “more equal terms politically”. In the following tweet, he states that India speaks its mind “more openly now” on issue related to China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, Belt and Road Initiative, South China sea and UN-sanctioned terrorists.

He then asserts that there has been incremental growth in infrastructure along the border with China during the NDA’s six years, compared to the previous six years under the UPA.

Reality: India’s statement that criticised the Belt and Road initiative was issued on the eve of the first summit by China on its flagship development partnership project in 2017. Jaishankar, as foreign secretary, had also obliquely criticised BRI in 2016. But, while the US, EU, Japan and Australia have joined the chorus, none of the alternate connectivity proposals mooted by them have fructified. Except for Bhutan, all of India’s neighbours have signed China’s BRI and continue to be part of it, despite concerns about burgeoning debt burden.

The outline of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor had been doing the rounds well before the official launch in 2015. India expressed concern over some of the CPEC projects located in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) after the details of the CPEC became public during the visit of Chinese president Xi Jinping.

In South China Sea, India’s catchphrases have not really changed from UPA to NDA years. As the latest statement from the MEA spokesperson on July 16 and the 2012 speech of then external affairs minister demonstrate, India has been using similar terms – “freedom of navigation”, “unimpeded lawful commerce” and “peaceful resolution of maritime disputes in accordance with international law” have been around since the UPA time.

In 2006, India allowed ONGC Videsh to explore block 128 in Vietnam, despite the territory being disputed by China. New Delhi had told Beijing that OVL’s project was commercial in nature. Despite no major finds, this agreement is renewed periodically by India.

Ahead of the 2016 ruling of the Arbitral Tribunal on the case borough by Philippines against China, India had been party to the Russia-India-China statement, where the line on South China Sea had words reflecting the Chinese position. However, India’s statement after the Tribunal ruling had positively noted the order, but stopped short of calling for its compliance. A few months later, Jaishankar had implied the binding nature of the verdict, but subsequent Indian statements have not repeated that formulation.

In the India-US context, these phrases had been included in the 2010 joint statement but without taking specific names. They were again repeated in the 2015 joint declaration, with explicit mention of “South China Sea”. However, the citation to ‘South China sea’ was dropped in the 2016 India-US joint statement, even though it had the accompanying catchphrases.

Navy personnel of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy take part in a military display in the South China Sea April 12, 2018. Picture taken April 12, 2018. Credit: Reuters/Stringer

Navy personnel of Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy take part in a military display in the South China Sea April 12, 2018. Photo: Reuters/Stringer

Similarly, with Japan, the explicit reference to ‘South China Sea’ in bilateral documents has been ‘off and on’. The last two joint statements issued after the annual summits in 2017 and 2018 dropped the term, despite being mentioned in 2016. Unlike stand-alone statements from New Delhi, these joint statements are also a reflection not just of India’s relations with China, but also that of the other partner. For example, Japan had been warming up to Beijing in last couple of years.

Since 2009, China had put a technical hold on the proposal to list Azhar as a global terrorist four times. One and half months after Jaish-e-Mohammad claimed responsibility for the Pulwama terror attack, Beijing removed its hold in May 2019, largely under pressure from the West. The final listing, however, did not have any mention of his activities on Kashmir.

A major failing on the China front was the misreading of Beijing’s approach to Indian membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Ironically, this was a failure that is directly attributable to Jaishankar as foreign secretary. He over-anticipated India’s chances of membership being approved at the NSG’s Seoul plenary in 2016 and even convinced Modi that a one-on-one meeting with Xi Jinping in Tashkent would do the trick. But with the Chinese sticking to their guns, the Modi government ended up with a self-goal: eight years after it had recognised India’s credentials as a responsible nuclear power (compared to the other major country outside the NPT, Pakistan), the NSG did a U-turn and said it would evolve common membership criteria for both India and Pakistan.

Finally, on border infrastructure, the NDA vs UPA record may not be as cut and dry as Jaishankar suggests, certainly not in the Congress’s telling, as this analysis of border road construction suggests, with the big push, even under Modi, coming only after the Doklam wake-up call in 2017.

Sri Lanka

Gandhi: The Congress leader said that “our neighbourhood, other than Pakistan, was working with India and saw itself as being partnered with India”.

On Sri Lanka, Gandhi’s said that “Sri Lankans have given a port to the Chinese”.

Jaishankar: External affairs minister retorted by pointing out that the Hambantota agreement between Sri Lanka and China was concluded in 2008.

Reality: Sri Lanka did allow China Harbour Engineering Company to construct the Hambantota Port Development Project, but only after offering it to India first. None in the Indian public sector were willing to take it up as it was not economically feasible. That was when the UPA was in power.

When Mahinda Rajapaksa lost the elections in 2015, New Delhi was pretty pleased, with the new government promising to review all projects with the Chinese.

Instead, the new government signed an agreement with Chinese firms to hand over the port and thousands of acres of land around it for 99 years in December 2017. The saving grace was that the concession agreement spelled out prohibition of military activities and put the security of the port in Sri Lankan hands. The vessel arrivals at Hambantota still remains sluggish, compared to other Sri Lankan ports. After a hiatus, Sri Lanka also gave the green signal on the resumption of Colombo port city project in 2016, another China-led project that India has reservations on. All of this was on the NDA’s watch.

Hambantota port. Credit: Reuters

Incidentally, Ranil Wickremesinghe as prime minister offered another project – the airport at Mattala near the Hambantota port. But India did not finalise the contract despite several rounds of talks, due to its economic feasibility. When the Rajapaksa brothers came back to power, it was no longer on the table.

Under the previous government in Colombo, some of India’s long pending rail projects were completed, but progress couldn’t be made on the strategic projects like the Trincomalee oil tank farm and the East Container terminal project, largely due to concerns of previous President Maithripala Sirisena.

As per tradition, Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s first presidential visit was to India in November 2019, with both sides finding common ground in counter-terrorism. But in other areas, the gap may be widening. India’s agreement to operate Colombo port’s East Container terminal with Japan is now in the doldrums with the unions and the opposition targeting it, with an eye on the coming parliamentary polls. Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa has already put a question mark by announcing a review of the project.

Maldives

Gandhi: The Gandhi scion said that the “Maldives is disturbed”

Jaishankar: The minister replied saying that relations with the Maldives have been difficult and accused the Indian government of doing nothing when President Mohamed Nasheed was “toppled” in 2012. He said that India’s ties with the Maldives now stand “transformed” and claimed that Indian businesses have been a beneficiary.

Reality: After the rout of Abdulla Yameen and the return of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) to power in late 2018, relations have certainly improved a lot. However, China continues to be economically entrenched in Maldives.

Due to the current economic crisis exacerbated due to COVID-19, India offered a $150 million foreign currency swap, which was part of a $1.5 billion financial package announced in 2018. In June, China offered to partially suspend debt repayment for four years and review the terms for the remaining loans. Maldives also remains a part of the Belt and Road Initiative, which it had first signed in September 2014.

Bangladesh

Gandhi: Made no specific reference to Bangladesh.

Jaishankar: The minister cited the signing of the land boundary agreement in 2015, which he said opened the “path for more development and transit”. He also stated that “terrorists no longer find safe haven there”.

Reality: The Manmohan Singh government revived and signed the land boundary agreement with Bangladesh in 2011. It required parliamentary approval due to its territorial handover aspect, but it was strongly opposed by BJP. It was only after BJP came to power that the Bill was brought out of backburner and parliament approved it in 2015.

As with the UPA, the  NDA government has invested considerable diplomatic and financial capital in maintaining ties with the friendly Sheikh Hasina government, which has resulted in close relations on the security front.

Prime minister Narendra Modi and his Bangladesh counterpart Sheikh Hasina. Photo: Twitter/@MEAIndia

Dhaka had been relatively circumspect during the National Register of Citizens process in Assam, even though there were rumblings of concern. on the home front. But, public opinion over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, along with anti-Bangladeshi statements by BJP leaders, led even Sheikh Hasina to speak out publicly ad express scepticism about the necessity of this Act. After home minister Amit Shah mentioned Bangladesh as a country where minorities face persecution in parliament, the MEA had to step in that the criticism was only directed at previous regimes in Dhaka and that the present government was protecting minority rights.

As a signatory to BRI, Bangladesh maintains close ties with China even under Sheikh Hasina. From this month, 97% of Bangladesh’s exports will have duty free access to the Chinese market. The economic crisis precipitated by the COVID-19 crisis would certainly open more doors for Beijing in South Asia.

Nepal

Gandhi: “Today, Nepal is angry with us. If you go to Nepal and speak to the Nepali people, they are furious with what has happened.”

Jaishankar: The minister cited Modi’s visit to Nepal in 2015 as a top achievement that led to a “swathe of developmental projects: power, fuel, housing, hospital, roads, etc”.

“Ask their citizens,” he added.

Reality: Out of all the countries in South Asia, the minister’s reply to this question was most perplexing, as relations with Nepal are visibly at an all-time low at this time. A certain portion of the blame can be put on the ultra-nationalist platform of Prime Minister K.P. Oli, who has also cultivated close ties with China. But it is also true that Oli got a boost in the last parliamentary elections due to his hardline stance, as perceived by the Nepali population, against India during the so-called border blockade of 2015.

The deterioration in ties over the new constitution and the consequent five-month long blockade took place just a year after Modi’s successful visit to Kathmandu. There is visible discomfort in the Nepali establishment over the strained relations with India over the new political map and a string of provocative statements from Oli.

Indian PM Narendra Modi and Nepal PM K.P. Sharma . Photo: PTI

But the fact is that public opinion in Nepal has become more stridently anti-India since the blockade. The constitutional amendment to incorporate territories claimed by India in the national coat of arms was supported unanimously by all political parties in Nepal. Even if Oli’s days in  power are numbered, which is looking increasingly unlikely, no party will initiate any process to overturn this amendment.

Bhutan

Gandhi: “Bhutan is disturbed.”

Jaishankar: The minister used the disruption in LPG supply just before the 2013 elections to point out that Bhutan doesn’t “worry about their cooking gas” anymore. India is now a “stronger security and development partner” for Bhutan, he said.

Reality: Bhutan was and remains India’s closest ally in South Asia, with Thimphu being the largest recipient of New Delhi’s foreign aid. Jaishankar was recalling the events before the second general elections in Bhutan, when there was disruption in LPG supply from India. Despite denials from New Delhi that it was a “technical lapse”, it was widely perceived in Bhutan as a political move to snub the Druk Phuensum Tshogpa (DPT) government for its outreach towards China. In the 2013 elections, the DPT was defeated and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) came to power.

Despite close ties between the two countries, Bhutan dropped away from BBIN motor vehicles agreement due to fears among the populace of being swamped by vehicles from India and Bangladesh. A similar popular undercurrent against the rising number of Indian tourists had led to the Bhutan government imposing an entry fee on regional tourists, despite protests from the hospitality sector.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Bhutanese Prime Minister Lotay Tshering inaugurate the Thimphu Ground Station of the South Asia Satellite. Photo: PTI

India did come to Bhutan’s aid when Chinese troops entered Doklam, which led to a two-and-half-month long stand-off in 2017. The two sides withdrew from the face-off site and the vicinity, which the Indian government has projected as a victory. However, as former foreign secretary Shyam Saran has stated, China has consolidated its position in Doklam plateau since then and altered facts on the ground.

Afghanistan

Gandhi: Again, Gandhi made no mention of specific problems with Afghanistan.

Jaishankar: The NDA years has led to completion of projects like the Salma Dam and Afghan parliament and expansion of training. He also stated that there was expansion in training and “serious” connectivity.

Reality: Construction for Salma Dam and Afghan parliament began in 2002 and 2005, respectively. The long delays in the project, along with the escalating costs, have been due to the security environment, lack of manpower and resources.

That New Delhi has learnt its lesson from this experience is evident that India has not taken up any major big-ticket projects in Afghanistan. Instead, it has concentrated on small community projects that can have a quick turnover in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, India remains invisible in the current developments in Afghanistan, where almost all external actors, including the EU and US are pushing for the start of intra-Afghan talks. New Delhi does have some influence, with Abdullah Abdullah having been appointed as chairman of the High Council for National Reconciliation as part of the resolution of dispute over 2019 presidential elections. As a recent Carnegie paper advocated, India will have to recalibrate and take hard policy choices in Afghanistan, despite potential costs.

Pakistan

Gandhi: Made no mention of Pakistan.

Jaishankar: To buttress his view that the UPA’s foreign policy with Pakistan was disastrous, the minister raked up two controversial meetings with the Pakistani leadership – at Sharm-el-Sheikh and Havana – and the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack. The minister then mentioned the air strikes and “surgical strikes” after the Pulwama and Uri terror attacks to bolster the NDA’s case.

Reality: As the principal opposition party, BJP had been highly critical of UPA government’s so-called appeasement of Pakistan through the reference to Balochistan after the 2009 Sharm-el-Sheikh meeting, as well as, the setting up of a joint anti-terror mechanism at Havana in 2006. While the BJP’s accusation in 2009 was that India had scored a self-goal by allowing Pakistan to hint at Indian interference in Balochistan, the direct reference Modi made to that province in his independence day speech of 2016 was seen by analysts as grist to the Pakistani establishment’s rumour mill that India was aiding secessionism there.

In any case, the Sharm-el-Sheikh and Havana meetings Jaishankar reminds Rahul Gandhi of have had their counterparts during the first term of Prime Minister Modi, especially his uninvited dash to Lahore to meet Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif and the approval to a Pakistani probe team, including an ISI official, to visit Pathankot air base, despite opposition protests

The Uri surgical strikes, by its public announcement, and the Balakot cross-border air attack did push the envelope on retaliation against Pakistan after a terror attack. The number of terror incidents in Kashmir have gone down significantly in 2019, as recorded by South Asia Terrorism Portal. However, for 2020, there may be an upward trend, with the first six months recording 216 incidents in Kashmir, compared to 369 in 2019.

Maldivian Democratic Party Heads For Landslide Victory in Parliamentary Elections

According to the current projections, the MDP could take a near two-thirds majority in parliament, the first time a party has had such a majority since the first multi-party elections in 2008.

Male: Maldives President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih’s party is heading for a historic landslide victory in parliamentary elections, provisional results showed, a move that will help him to investigate the scale of debts to China.

With 85% of ballot boxes counted, candidates from Solih’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) lead in more than 60 out of the 87 constituencies, according to local media projections.

The Indian Ocean archipelago has been caught in a battle for influence between India and China, which invested millions of dollars during Yameen’s rule as part of its Belt and Road plan.

Since he unseated pro-China leader Abdulla Yameen in September, Solih’s MDP, which has governed in a coalition with three other parties, has warned that a building boom has left huge debts to Chinese lenders.

The MDP has pledged to investigate the infrastructure projects and determine the islands’ true debt to China, which it fears could run as high as $3 billion and risks sinking the economy. Yameen denies any wrongdoing in relation to the Chinese debt.

Also Read: Maldives: Ex-President Nasheed Set to Make Comeback in National Parliament

According to the current projections, the MDP could take a near two-thirds majority in parliament, the first time a party has had such a majority since the first multi-party elections in 2008.

The party’s leader, former president Mohamed Nasheed, also won his seat in a newly formed constituency in the capital Male.

MDP supporters gathered at the eastern end of the capital to celebrate. Jubilant supporters waving the party’s yellow flags embossed with blue scales of justice sang and danced in celebration.

Addressing the supporters at the victory rally, President Solih reiterated his zero tolerance policy for corruption.

“This is the moment for all the citizens to work together in unity. We are ready to work together to fulfill the needs of the people and serve them, without any discrimination, ” Solih said.

“You will see the commission tasked with investigating corruption and recovering state assets function with the support of the new parliament,” he added.

“The work of the commission investigating unresolved deaths and enforced disappearances will progress more quickly with the support of this parliament.”

The MDP only had a majority in the previous parliament with the support of its coalition partners, including The Jumhooree Party, which has been absent from votes to begin any graft investigation.

The Jumhooree Party and Yameen’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) are both campaigning on a nationalist, religious platform.

Last month, Yameen spent more than a month in police custody over a graft scandal aimed at siphoning money from the islands’ tourism board.

He was released on bail on March 28, in time for the last week of campaigning, and denied the charges.

(Reuters)

Maldives: Ex-President Nasheed Set to Make Comeback in National Parliament

Preliminary results from Saturday’s election showed Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party as winning 50 out of the 87 seats.

Male: The exiled former leader of the Maldives has led his party to a landslide victory only five months after returning to the country, preliminary results showed Sunday.

Ex-president Mohamed Nasheed, 51, is set for a dramatic return to the top of the national parliament, with his Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) headed for a two-thirds majority in the 87-member assembly.

Saturday’s poll was the first test of public opinion since autocratic former president and Nasheed’s arch-rival, Abdulla Yameen was forced to stand down after his five-year term, facing charges of money laundering and embezzlement.

Nasheed returned to the country after his former deputy President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih won an unexpected victory in September presidential elections for the MDP. Yameen had barred Nasheed from contesting.

Also Read: India’s Strategy on Maldives Delivered Results, Says Ex President Nasheed

Preliminary results from Saturday’s election showed the MDP winning 50 out of the 87 seats, while private media reports projected the party eventually getting up to 68 seats.

“The Maldives is about to welcome a new dawn, a golden yellow dawn,” Nasheed told his supporters in Male on Saturday. Yellow is the colour of his party.

Election officials estimated the final turnout to be between 70 and 80%, down from the 89% recorded at the September presidential election which unexpectedly toppled Yameen.

Nasheed, now set to take over the leadership of the legislature, has promised to turn the country into a parliamentary democracy by scrapping the executive presidential system adopted under political reforms in 2008.

President Solih said in a statement that the MDP had “secured a huge majority in Majlis (parliament)”.

“While we celebrate, we must also not forget the immense challenges that lie ahead of us,” he said.

Solih campaigned for the MDP asking voters to return a parliament that could work with him to deliver on his election promises in September to investigate corruption under Yameen.

Also Read: Maldives Court Orders Arrest of Former President Over Alleged Corruption

While Yameen was not a candidate, his Progressive Party of Maldives was seen as the main challenger to the MDP – but ended up with a poor showing, and is projected to get only four seats.

Nasheed was jailed for 13 years on a controversial terrorism charge when Yameen was in power. However, the conviction was overturned last year after the presidency changed.

Election commissioner Ahmed Shareef told reporters there had been no complaints of irregularities in the run-up to the vote, during balloting or at the count.

Maldives was on the verge of being slapped with Western-led sanctions before Solih won the presidential election on a pledge to end corruption in the country best known for its luxury tourism.

India’s Strategy on Maldives Delivered Results, Says Ex President Nasheed

In an interview with The Wire, Nasheed talks about the subtleties of Indian diplomacy, the difference between the BJP and the Congress and the upcoming elections in Maldives.

In around two months, when Maldives will elect a new parliament, former Maldives president Mohamed Nasheed has a high chance of returning to power – not as the head of state, but as the leader of the political party with the majority in the house.

This would cap the Maldivian Democratic Party’s return to power after Nasheed ‘resigned’ in 2012 following a mutiny by the security forces – a possibility that even most optimists would not have predicted six months ago.

Now, with his childhood friend Ibrahim Solih as president, Nasheed’s role is being carefully calibrated. He has been campaigning for the parliamentary elections scheduled for April 7, but also visited New Delhi last week on the invitation of the ministry of external affairs.

In an interview with The Wire, he spoke about India’s role in the elections, Indian diplomacy and his job profile after the parliamentary polls.

Also Read: India-Maldives ‘Very Liberal’ Visa Regime to Come into Effect on March 11

Nasheed also maintained that China’s influence in Maldives will be curtailed and asserted that Chinese projects will be reviewed. Maldives faces an external debt crisis, with over 75% of its external debt of $1.8 billion owed to China.

Here are excerpts from the interview, which have been edited for clarity.

When you were in Delhi last time, the circumstances were completely different. You were invited by a think-tank and there was no official meeting with the Indian government. This time, you have been invited by the ICCR and have scheduled meetings with the Indian prime minister and the external affairs minister. How do you reflect on this change?

At that time, it was understandable that they couldn’t publicly make a show of meeting us, especially given the situation at home. And of course, what we are seeing right now is actually their true feelings towards democracy in Maldives and towards us. So, this is very refreshing and encouraging.

But when you were here the last time, you had a bit of a complaint that India was not being active and was not advocating democratic values.

I did say this. In hindsight, maybe, what we were looking for was support for a strategy that we had drawn up. But India had its own strategy, and in hindsight, they were very clever. Right now, what we understand is that both sides, India and us, were looking at the same outcome. Indian diplomats were extremely clever and they have actually delivered.

How did India help you?

By raising concerns. We also felt that India’s ability to reach out to other countries and to bring in other actors into the play helped in ensuring that Maldives has reasonably fair elections. Much of the international pressure worked because of India.

India did remain quiet compared to Canada, Australia and the UK. There were far less public statements. Admittedly, India was more vocal on the February 1 Supreme Court judgment.

There were a few statements… Of course, Indian diplomacy is not the same. It is not implemented in the same manner as some other countries might do. Again, I must say in hindsight, that this is fairly effective.

Maldives President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Credit: Reuters

One of the complaints often heard in the neighbourhood is that Indian diplomacy doesn’t always make it explicitly clear what it wants or doesn’t like. Has that been an issue in India’s relations with Maldives?

Countries such as ours, which are not so competent in reading diplomatic language and also do not have the capacity and means to observe and analyse things in the manner that India or some other country might do… Don’t quite know what is required. So, I think that we must do better in reading the tea leaves or India should be clearer.

Have you seen any change in the conduct of Indian diplomacy?

India is, in many ways, rapidly changing, especially in the manner that it is engaging with the international community. We are seeing boldness and frankness as well. It differs from political outlook. The Congress is more subtle but the BJP is very direct. The institutions remain as the basis.

The issue is not necessarily who forms the government. I think that diplomats are trained in a certain manner. So, your question is whether Indian diplomacy has changed? I think it becomes different when necessary. It has not yet seen a strong need to be so bold.

But, sometimes, it does not do any good (to be subtle). My conversations with a number of other regional leaders reveal that they too find similar difficulties (about understanding India’s demands).

Since you mention Indian political parties and their different approaches, do you think that there will be any change in foreign policy if there is a change of government in India?

Maldives policy (for India) is strategic. I can’t see how that can change. It should not change.

Also Read: Maldives Defence Minister: No Need for Close Military Ties With Countries Other Than India

Sure, but in recent years, Maldives’ importance to India has also increased due to the rising profile of China. Do you think a coalition government, with parties of different ideologies, would have a different political approach that could impact ties between India and Maldives?

I think that the BJP will come back to power.

Why are you so confident?

Because they have delivered a lot. They have delivered on Maldives. You should vote for them now (laughs).

That is a strong endorsement.

But they have delivered on Maldives. As a Maldivian, my interest is with Maldives. Nobody wanted to topple (Abdulla) Yameen. We wanted to have a free and fair election. So, that was facilitated and then the people spoke.

In 2013, the Indian government’s pressure also facilitated your candidacy for the presidential elections.

Yes. The difference between 2013 and 2018 is that we won in 2018 and we lost in 2013. But, yes, there won’t be much of a difference, whoever comes to power.

Maldives Election, Yameen

Former Maldives President Abdulla Yameen. Credit: Fred Dufour/Pool via Reuters

I understand that you conversed on the Chinese debt trap with your Indian interlocutors. Can you throw some light on it?

Basically, we are suggesting that we are heavily in debt to a single country. Therefore, that debt is used as a leverage, as a disciplining agent. That, to my mind, would not be in our interest or in India’s interest.

What should India do?

Maldives and many other countries must impress upon China that this is wrong. Do not do this. We all want investments, but make it more transparent and ensure that there is democratic oversight. We are asking China that there should be a tender process every time they give something. These loans should not be for unsolicited projects. Let democratic oversight remain so that these contracts can be scrutinised.

You have spoken earlier about reviewing Chinese loan terms. Is that finally going to happen?

Yes, it will happen. That’s what we have been saying. And the government is on it. The finance minister, foreign minister and the president have all said it. So, they are on it.

Will China get any new projects?

I think we should sort out the existing ones. Also, we can’t be giving out sovereign guarantees anymore. We just can’t take any more debt.

On the subject of the forthcoming parliamentary elections, why has the MDP decided to contest all the seats, even though the party is part of a coalition?

We run an organised structural party and we have branches on every island. Of course, we are not going to win 87 seats, but if we don’t field a candidate, it means that party activity on that island dies. Our party, rank and file and activists will not necessarily vote for another party just because there was no candidate from us. We are not a party which is strong only on one island. We have a core vote on every island.

Why won’t MDP supporters vote for another party in the coalition?

It is ideology. Today, the MMPRC list is coming out [editor’s note: this interview was recorded on February 14] with the names of all the people who have benefited from corruption. There are no MDP members or MPs on the list. But all the others are. So how do we go and defend them? Also, in many, many instances, we do not see eye-to-eye. For example, on income tax or judicial reforms.

Also Read: Interim Budget: Maldives Aid Allocation for 2019-20 Quadrupled

There is also difference of opinion on changing to a parliamentary form of government.

The reforms of the constitution on judiciary and the form of government must come from the president. I wouldn’t want to advocate in that regard.

How do you characterise your working relationship with the president? How will it change if you are elected to parliament?

The president will find it immensely relieving if I am in parliament… Otherwise, he was looking after parliament for me. All throughout, he was doing it for me. I need to do it for him now.

What would managing parliament mean exactly?

My job would be to manage legislation and ensure that nobody goes against the president. If I am not there (in parliament), it’s not easy to do it. Of course, we trust all our MPs and so on. But, if I am in there, it would become a different story.

In the past, we tried to deliver our pledges without proper legislative frameworks. That made life very difficult for us. Actually, it is a learning curve for us.

When we first brought in our social protection programme, we just did it without any legislation because it was passed in the budget. The constitution allows us to do that. But then, it became so difficult. Different ministries were not able to coordinate their actions. There were court cases. We were getting bogged down. Now we understand that a legislative agenda to deliver the pledges and empower the government is absolutely necessary.

How important is changing the form of government for you?

The MDP has always advocated for a parliamentary system. Even while I was president, we were doing that.

But there are differences of opinion even within the party.

There are. There are differences within the party.

Are you and the president on the same page on this?

I shouldn’t speak on his behalf, but we have aligned our political thinking all through our lives and have not seen any differences or disagreements.

My point here is that I will not move it (the constitutional amendment). If he wants to, he must. So, he would also be a good judge of how the government is going, what kind of challenges we will have, what the people will be thinking…

The MDP is the frontrunner in the parliamentary elections. But, would a ‘super majority’ for one party be good for Maldivian democracy?

Yes, it will be the best thing for the country. We are a responsible party. We have internal democracy.

I can’t see what wrong it can bring. I think there is a need for a majority in parliament for a single party. I mean, for God’s sake, which country has been able to run without that?

Maldives’ Diplomatic Campaign, Including a Presidential Dash to India, Has Not Helped Much

India will not push the Maldivian government too far, lest it rolls into China’s lap. But it remains unhappy with Malé’s seemingly arbitrary actions, especially the jailing of opposition figures.

India will not push the Maldivian government too far, lest it rolls into China’s lap. But it remains unhappy with Malé’s seemingly arbitrary actions, especially the jailing of opposition figures.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, right, shakes hands with Maldives' President Yameen Abdul Gayoom before a delegation level meeting in New Delhi, India, Monday, April 11, 2016. Yameen Abdul Gayoom is on a two-day visit to India. (AP Photo/Manish Swarup)

Narendra Modi with Maldives’ President Abdulla Yameen. Credit: PTI

New Delhi: Just over a week ago, Maldives President Abdulla Yameen had asked for India’s “continued support” against any “punitive action” by the Commonwealth Ministerial Advisory Group (CMAG) – the oversight body which monitors so-called “commonwealth values” in member states.

After the CMAG gave a largely negative assessment about democratic progress in Maldives at its meeting in London on April 20, India on Friday noted that New Delhi was aligned with the commonwealth body’s appraisal and remedial measures.

“India is a member of CMAG. After its deliberation, a concluding statement has been issued. Obviously being a member of CMAG, we are party to the statement. I think that statement speaks for itself. I have nothing further to add,” Ministry of External Affair’s spokesperson Vikas Swarup said. Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar represented India at the CMAG meeting.

He added that India has “always supported stability, development, democracy and pluralism in Maldives”. “This is a long standing position and was most recently articulated during President Yameen’s visit to India”.

At a press conference in the Maldivian capital after Yameen’s return, a senior Maldivian minister claimed that India had conveyed that “in a democratic country, institutional say carried more weight than one particular individual’s welfare”. This seems to say that the Indian and Maldivian government were emphatically on the same page over the treatment of former President Mohamed Nasheed. However, the discussions, from India’s views, had been more nuanced.

Sources here said India was not going to push the Yameen government too far, lest it rolls into China’s lap. But at same time, New Delhi has not been happy with Malé’s seemingly arbitrary actions, especially the jailing of opposition figures – and this was conveyed quietly, behind closed doors, say Indian officials. A senior official noted that while India was ready to have Maldives’ back, the Maldivian government has to also “help us to help you”.

Malé’s repeated change in stance on the extension of Nasheed’s medical leave, just on the eve of the CMAG meeting in London, was widely noted.

Maldives foreign ministry, just as after the February meeting, was the first to announce the conclusion of the CMAG – but in a selective manner, belaboring that the country was not placed on the formal agenda.

This was disingenuous, as the CMAG statement clearly mentions that Maldives remains under the microscope – with a period of five months till September to show “clear, measurable progress” on six fronts as delineated at the meeting in February.

The main opposition party, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), welcomed the CMAG’s message. “CMAG’s continued review of the Maldives’ political situation is a clear sign that it is taking action against the Maldives for failure to commit to reforms as outlined in their concluding statement in February,” said MDP spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor.

The Wire has highlighted the main points from the CMAG statement, as well as, provided a context to the concerns raised by the Commonwealth body.

Political dialogue

Progress on political dialogue, initially by representatives of political parties, appears unfortunately to have been limited to date. Ministers therefore hoped that the very recent attempt at proximity talks facilitated by the United Nations would bring the Government and opposition representatives closer to purposeful and forward-looking dialogue in the coming months. Ministers reaffirmed the importance which they attached to all political parties participating constructively in the formation of a clear roadmap and specified timeframe for progress, and to seeing evidence of concrete steps taken and progress achieved by all to address specific issues on a political dialogue agenda.

In February, the Maldivian government had offered to restart talks with the opposition – six months after the previous efforts collapsed when Nasheed was asked to return to jail from house arrest. The new initiative was a non-starter, with the opposition, MDP and the Adhalaath party, insisting that the government release their imprisoned leaders first. The latest offer for talks had come a few hours before the CMAG meeting, with the addition that the government was ready for the imprisoned opposition leaders to sit at the negotiating table.

To revive talks, Tamrat Samuel, senior advisor in the UN’s department of political affairs, arrived on April 15 and held detailed discussions with all stakeholders. Still, with no indication that the government would free the jailed leaders, success of a UN-brokered roundtable between political parties who don’t trust each other, seems like a long shot.

Release of political prisoners

CMAG underscored the continued importance of the Government facilitating the prompt release from detention of political leaders in order to help restore confidence in the overall political environment in Maldives, including in the fundamental freedoms of association, assembly and speech. In this context, Ministers noted with disappointment that the Government had, in recent days, revoked the medical leave granted to some senior political figures.

For the Maldivian opposition, this is the linchpin. After Nasheed was convicted, the jails began to fill up quickly with other leaders who had once been on Yameen’s side – former defence minister, Colonel Mohamed Nazim; former alliance partner Adhaalath party leader, Sheikh Abdulla Imran, and Yameen’s former vice president, Ahmed Adeeb.

On April 18, the government announced the extension of Nasheed’s medical leave, but then immediately cancelled it the same day – before a review of the u-turn was ordered ahead of this week’s CMAG meeting.

Currently, Nasheed is in London, while Nazim and Imran were transferred to house arrest earlier this month. Given the past history of abrupt decision-making by the government, the trust-deficit is substantial and the opposition is not in a mood to demand less than a full reversal of the convictions.

Promotion of space for civil society and dissent

Recalling their recommendation for practical confidence-building measures to promote freedom and space for civil society, Ministers expressed their concern that there was little or no evidence of substantive progress achieved in the areas of concern raised. In this context, Ministers noted the recent introduction in the People’s Majlis (Parliament) of a broad-ranging Defamation Bill seeking to recriminalise defamation and statements against national security. Ministers highlighted the importance of Government leadership in advancing a legislative framework reflecting the commitment of Maldives to the Commonwealth Charter and to the required inclusive political dialogue, in particular by the Government addressing legislation concerning free and open public debate as well as antiterrorism.

Last month, Maldives’ ruling party introduced a defamation bill in parliament, which would impose heavy penalties, jail terms and even revoke licenses of news organisations if they published “defamatory content”. There had been an immediate outcry from the Maldivian media, with concerns raised that it could ring the death knell for the industry. A sit-in protest outside president’s office on April 4 was dispersed with the use of pepper spray and the overnight arrest of 16 journalists. Not surprisingly, the arrests garnered international attention, with foreign envoys meeting the arrested journalists to send a message to the regime. Just two days later, the parliamentary majority leader proposed a modification to the draft defamation bill  – but there was no talk of its withdrawal.

Misuse of anti-terror laws

In this regard, Ministers expressed serious concern that anti-terrorism legislation continued to be misused in a politicised manner, including against public officials. They urged the Government to take urgent steps to address this and the ongoing concerns regarding due process in judicial cases.

There are fears that Maldives is the weak link in the security architecture in South Asia, with at least 100 Maldivians said to be active in the Syrian civil war – a disproportionately high number for a country with a population of just 350,000. Despite these concerns, the most visible use of the 1990 anti-terror law has been against political leaders. Last year, Nasheed was convicted to 13 years under the anti-terror law for arresting the chief criminal court judge, while Imran got 12 years under the same legislation for addressing an anti-government rally. Recently, charges were filed under the anti-terror law against a magistrate judge and a former prosecutor general for allegedly forging an arrest warrant for Yameen.

The tougher, new anti-terror legislation approved in October 2015 further fueled worries among the opposition and media that it will be used to suppress criticism of the government.

Independence of judiciary

CMAG reiterated the importance of timely action by the Government to strengthen the separation of powers and independence of the judiciary, in accordance with previous Commonwealth recommendations. They noted that some progress had been made with the passage in the People’s Majlis of the Criminal Procedure Bill – and the assurance given by the Government that this represented some progress – and urged that other substantive measures be undertaken.

In 2013, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) special rapporteur on the independence of judiciary and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, visited Maldives and produced a scathing report. She raised questions, among others, about the selection of judges and the “misinterpretation about concepts of independence of judiciary and accountability”. Two years later, Knaul continued to find large gaps in the legal system. On June 16, 2015, the Maldives Supreme Court ruled that the submission of the Maldivian Human Rights Commission before the UNHRC during the Universal Periodic Review was “unlawful”, earning a sharp rebuke from Knaul.

On the same lines, members of a fact-finding delegation of International Commission of Jurists to Nasheed’s trial last year did not find any improvement, but also feared that there was further “erosion in the independence, impartiality and integrity of judiciary”.

Incidentally, India had offered to train Maldivian judges and law officers as far back as 2013, but it did not really take off. During the recent visit, Yameen mentioned that discussions were held on the training of “magistrates and justices”.

This section in the concluding statement did have a small amount of praise for Maldives government, with CMAG acknowledging that the Maldivian parliament passed the long-pending Criminal Procedures Bill. It was approved on April 20, the same day that nine Commonwealth ministers met for second time this year to talk about Maldives.

Capacity building by Commonwealth

Ministers welcomed recent discussions between the Government of Maldives and the Commonwealth Secretariat on technical assistance. They encouraged the Government and the Secretariat to commence speedy implementation of agreed plans. Ministers underlined the Commonwealth’s commitment to the closest possible consultation and cooperation with all other international partners working with Maldives.

This was probably, the least contentious area, with Maldives again garnering a rare positive phrase and Yameen also talking about the need to learn about governance from India, Singapore and international organisations.
Maldives has threatened to leave the Commonwealth on multiple occasions, with the rhetoric usually becoming shriller ahead of a scheduled meeting of CMAG to discuss the Indian Ocean island nation. But, the government then changed tack from a confrontation mode to conciliation after the pressure from the international community did not relent.
The Commonwealth, of course, had been a major international actor in Maldives’ political development. But, there are mixed feelings in Maldives about its effectiveness. It was a Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry which had legitimised the transfer of power after ‘resignation’ of Nasheed as president – leaving behind a trail of bitterness among the opposition, which still lingers on.

Appointment of special envoy

CMAG welcomed the commitment of the Secretary-General to appoint a high-level Special Envoy to Maldives to support a sustainable political dialogue process leading to a stronger climate of pluralism and inclusive elections in 2018, and to encourage the strengthening of democratic institutions and culture in Maldives.

While the Maldives government had invited the Commonwealth to appoint a special envoy, the framing of the scope of the role of the officer shows that the international community’s long term plan is to have a free, fair presidential elections in 2018. The insertion of the word ‘inclusive’ is a throwback to the last presidential elections when this term featured in nearly all statements from foreign countries as an euphemism for Nasheed to take part as the opposition candidate.

In the run-up to the controversial 2013 presidential elections, the international community, including India, put sustained pressure on the interim Mohamed Waheed government to ensure Nasheed’s participation in the polls.

According to the Constitution, Nasheed will not be able contest in 2018 presidential elections since he was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment. A candidate cannot have been convicted and sentenced to a jail term of more than 12 months, “unless a period of three years has elapsed since his release, or pardon for the offence for which he was sentenced”.