While the Supreme Court has ordered the release of many jailed opposition leaders, Maldives government has openly refused to comply.
Contrarily, it has declared a state of emergency for 15 days, and government forces have also taken over the Supreme Court complex.
What were the fallouts?
The recently political storm started by the Supreme Court’s surprise verdict to release some opposition leaders has been spiralling out of control.
The government has been openly refusing to comply and has started repressive action against opposing voices.
Emergency - President Abdulla’s Yameen declared a state of emergency in Maldives, which is the 2nd such declaration since he came to power in 2013.
The 1st was in 2015, when an alleged attempt on Yameen’s life seemed to have warranted such a declaration.
The president has clarified that while certain rights will be restricted, general movements, services and businesses will not be affected.
Gayoom’s Arrest – Former President Moumoon Abdul Gayoom, who reigned for 30 years till democracy was established in 2008, was also arrested.
Notably, 80 year old Gayoom is the half brother of Yameen and of late, he has openly sided with the dissenting opposition for toppling the government.
Also, troops stormed the Supreme Court premises and taken procession.
Parliament Suspended - The President is required to inform the Parliament about the declaration of emergency within two days.
But to circumvent this, Yameen has suspended the parliament indefinitely.
Notably, as the Supreme Court had also restored 12 MPs who had defected from Mr. Yameen's party, the majority is effectively with the opposition.
This thereby increases the vulnerability of the president to be subjected to impeachment in the 85-member parliament.
How has the reactions been?
Restricting fundamental freedoms and suspending of the Supreme Court can only happen during martial law, and is illegal in the current situation.
Hence, opposition leaders have voiced that emergency was a blatant violation and an indication of Mr. Yameen’s desperation to hold on to power.
They’ve appealed to the masses to demonstrate against these actions and the international community has also largely criticised Mr. Yameen’s actions.
What are the options for India?
Histroic Prespective - India has committed itself to the principle of “non-intervention” in the internal affairs of other countires country.
It is also strongly against external strings in its domestic politics and has regularly criticised western powers for interventions in developing countries.
But despite this, India has made multiple interventions in its neighbourhood when pressing concerns have called for such action.
The Bangaladesh liberation of 1971, Sri Lankan intervention in the late 1980s, and more recently, in shaping the Nepali constitution are some examples.
Maldivian Case - When the former president Nasheed was ousted from office in a coup in 2012, India had backed him strongly.
But the subsequent rise of Nasheed’s nemesis and the current president Yameen, India was forced to recalibrate its stands.
This was partly due to Yameen’s strong Islamic diplomacy with the Arab world and his ties with China which is backed by high-profile infrastructure projects.
Current Situation - Yameen is currently looking towards China to secure his position, despite mounting international pressure.
Hence, India has the option to either remain neutral or put its weight delicately behind the opposition to rally for a regime change.
While the former is the safer option, an intervention can be beneficial but would inherently invite the ire of China and holds with it the risk of failure.
India needs to make its move after weighing all the stakes involved.
