Why Washington Post’s allegation of R&AW plot to overthrow Muizzu is outrageous – Firstpost
In the normal course, any Western media outlet crafting a sensational year-ender on Asia would have chosen India’s strained ties with Bangladesh in recent months if Taiwan’s narrative no longer excited global readers and South Korea’s impeachment votes were still unfolding. Throw in some gunfire on Male’s streets or scandals in its luxury resorts and The Washington Post’s exclusive on India plotting to overthrow Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu in early 2024 might well have fit the fiction category for year-end leisure reading.
Instead, the report speculates by naming two Indians with professional or business interests in the Maldives and linking them to meetings with serving officials of India’s intelligence agency, R&AW—without evidence that these meetings involved any discussion of the alleged plot. Similarly, it remains unclear if journalist-authors Gerry Shih and Siddharthya Roy had provided former R&AW chief Hormis Tharakan with the full context of their emerging story before posing questions to quote him.
Thankfully, the Washington Post report offered only this on their interaction: “Hormis Tharakan, a former RAW chief who worked on Maldives-related issues but said he has no knowledge of current events. ‘Maintaining a secure and stable relationship with its closest neighbours, like the Maldives, is essential for India.’” That a R&AW chief—Tharakan or anyone else—would have “worked on Maldives-related issues” is unsurprising. However, Tharakan’s substantive quote leans toward a more positive outlook on India’s relationship with the Muizzu presidency in early 2024 than anything else.
New low, but…
There is no denying the downturn in bilateral relations since Muizzu was elected president in November 2023 through a two-phase voting process. He led in both rounds with the first serving as an elimination round. Unlike the presidential elections of 2008 and 2013, no significant realignment of forces determined the victor in the second round.
India may have preferred the re-election of incumbent President Mohammed Ibrahim Solih, or Ibu Solih, from the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP). Solih’s continued tenure would have ensured the seamless execution of India-funded development projects across the Maldivian atolls and islands avoiding the potential for review, reshaping or rejection by a new government. Despite campaign-period tensions that led to India recalling three aerial platforms it had gifted for medical evacuation and EEZ surveillance, Muizzu approved ongoing India-funded projects.
At the time, legacy economic issues suggested that neither India nor China’s committed funding would face disruption in the near future. This included the $500-million Thilamale sea-bridge project linking Male with two key islands. Muizzu, holding a PhD in structural engineering from a prestigious British university, personally visited the project site with his ministerial team and Indian High Commissioner Munu Mahawar. His primary request was to expedite the project, which had slowed due to Covid lockdowns.
Diplomatic challenges, however, were inevitable, given the starkly different political backgrounds of Muizzu and his predecessor. One sensitive issue involved India’s withdrawal of soldiers stationed to operate the aerial platforms. This matter was addressed during a meeting between President Muizzu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the sidelines of the COP28 Climate Summit in Dubai. The leaders formed a high-level core group, which promptly began working toward a mutually beneficial resolution, prioritising the Maldivian people who had long benefited from Indian support.
There was no denying that Muizzu leaned heavily toward Turkey and China, often beyond what was warranted. Agreements signed during his Beijing summit visit in mid-January and commitments from Ankara for early delivery of Turkish drones for sea surveillance, as well as a year-round supply of staple foods replacing India, appeared aimed at provoking New Delhi. However, India seemed prepared to handle these provocations with caution.
After early indications of Solih’s likely defeat in the presidential poll, New Delhi reportedly reiterated its position of engaging with democratically elected neighbourhood governments, regardless of leadership changes. India appeared to acknowledge the fluctuating nature of geopolitical and geostrategic diplomacy in smaller nations contrasting with India’s relatively consistent approach to foreign policy despite major political shifts caused by its five-year election cycles.
Relations hit a new low when three junior Maldivian ministers criticised Prime Minister Modi on social media after he praised Indian islands near the Maldives as promising tourism destinations. This coincided with Muizzu’s China visit and he responded by suspending the ministers for their comments. While The Washington Post suggested the ministers might have acted with Muizzu’s tacit approval, such claims were more reflective of street-level suspicions in India and opposition circles in the Maldives than concrete evidence.
The backlash in India sparked the unprecedented “Boycott Maldives” social media campaign, which resonated particularly with centre-right voters aligned with Prime Minister Modi’s BJP in the lead-up to his bid for a third term. Although the campaign dented Maldives’ tourism industry initially, the damage has since been repaired, with Indian tourists returning. However, China has now overtaken India as the top source of tourists to the Maldives, post-Covid lockdown.
Amid these developments, New Delhi recognised that Muizzu faced domestic competition from his estranged mentor, jailed former president Abdulla Yameen, over their platform’s presidential nomination. The Maldivian Supreme Court’s rejection of Yameen’s candidacy, citing his criminal conviction, thwarted his plans to make the “India Out/India Military Out” campaign a centrepiece of his electoral manifesto. Notably, the campaign had failed to gain significant traction among Maldivian voters.
The economy remained the foremost concern for voters, a reality Yameen seemingly recognised too late. Muizzu, on the other hand, grasped the issue more fully after assuming office. His China visit highlighted promises for the future, particularly in geostrategic terms, which seemed more important to Beijing than the Maldivian economy. By contrast, his state visit to India focussed squarely on addressing the economic crisis. India, as always, responded promptly, extending interim assistance without hesitation.
Impeachment talk
In this broader context, The Washington Post story is at best a written account of street-level chatter in Male the authenticity of which cannot be vouched for that suggested that the MDP-led Opposition had considered impeaching President Muizzu under the previous Parliament. While the Opposition held a majority then, it fell short of the two-thirds needed for impeachment. For those familiar with Maldivian politics, talk of impeaching a sitting president often serves as a recurring political pastime, indulged in not only by Opposition members but also by ‘rebel’ factions within ruling parties.
Currently, speculation about Muizzu persists, though his Progressive National Congress (PNC) commands 75 of the 93 parliamentary seats, bolstered by four more from allied parties. Social media interest in the possibility of a split within the ruling coalition occasionally flares up but typically fizzles out after a weekend. Realistically, with such a commanding majority in Parliament, the likelihood of anyone seriously pursuing impeachment remains slim.
The reality is that most PNC members owe their parliamentary seats to the popularity Muizzu has garnered during his tenure as president rather than the other way around. Muizzu’s decisive victory in the presidential election was largely a product of his own political acumen, bolstered by the mounting failures of his predecessors and the unorthodox approach of his former mentor, Yameen. PNC MPs, keen on completing a full term and securing re-election in 2029, are acutely aware of these dynamics, which serve to consolidate Muizzu’s position further.
It is not a crime for diplomats, intelligence officials, journalists and academics to meet as often as they wish and exchange information. This is part of their professional responsibilities. To attribute motives to every such meeting is simply unfounded. In the case of the Maldives, there has been persistent loose talk since the later years of president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s lengthy tenure, during which Opposition factions and lower-level rivals frequently spread rumours of an imminent impeachment or overthrow. They often claimed that such an event required millions of dollars and no Indian friend or acquaintance of the prominent Maldivian figures has been spared from such solicitations or inquiries. Not that their contacts’ access to New Delhi’s decision-making apparatus mattered much to anyone involved.
Invariably, India’s name has been invoked for dramatic effect with some individuals attempting to create the impression that they were in direct communication with high-ranking officials in India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), the Indian High Commission in Male, or the nation’s external intelligence agency, R&AW (Research and Analysis Wing).
In this case, however, former Maldivian president Mohamed Nasheed has publicly stated that he did not believe India would have done anything close to what was being claimed by The Washington Post. While Nasheed has denied it, he is also said to be behind the Twitter (now X) account, Hassan Kurusee, which revealed a July date when the Post journalists had approached him for confirmation. Given that Hassan Kurusee has provided specifics of his phone conversation with the journalists, it is likely that his real identity will emerge sooner rather than later. However, that is beside the point.
Throughout the immature talk of Muizzu’s imminent impeachment, public opinion remained firmly in his favour. Not that every voter loved him, no, but every voter cherished democracy and did not want their mandate to be undermined in any way. Equally important was the mood among voters that Muizzu should be given time — first to settle in and then to address legacy issues and inherited problems. They promised to judge his performance in five years. If anything, the talk of an imminent impeachment during the lead-up to the parliamentary elections contributed significantly to Muizzu’s sweeping victory for the PNC.
Therefore, the argument that India was working on a plot to topple Muizzu was fundamentally flawed. The Constitution clearly states that if the presidency falls vacant, the Vice-President assumes office to complete the remainder of the former president’s term. The new president then has the right to nominate a vice-president, subject to parliamentary approval. Those seeking to impeach the president would need to act decisively, either achieving their goal in one swift move or repeatedly finding new leaders — a situation that was unlikely to be sustainable.
Under the law, if both the presidency and vice-presidency are vacant, the Speaker — the ambitious Abdul Rahim ‘Adhurey’ — would temporarily assume office for 60 days to conduct fresh presidential elections. During this time, he would hold all the powers of a full-time, elected president, including the ability to proclaim a state of emergency in response to growing political instability and constitutional challenges. It would undoubtedly lead to a messy situation after which those who initiated the impeachment proceedings would likely lose their resolve — and their chance of success.
Regime change
Otherwise, the Washington Post editors, with their vast and varied experience, should have known that there are plenty of such documents — and even more serious ones — stored in the vaults of the CIA, documents aimed at ‘regime change’ and ‘colour revolutions,’ particularly in Third World nations that did not align with their interests. The number and severity of these instances have only grown in the post-Cold War era, especially following the lull during the transition from the now-forgotten Cold War period.
Leaving the Maldives aside for a moment, in the neighbouring country of Sri Lanka, there have been numerous instances over the past decade of the US attempting to destabilise the incumbent regime in Colombo or influence a ‘regime change.’ After losing the presidential election in 2015, the war-victorious Mahinda Rajapaksa openly declared that the ‘regime change’ was due to ‘western intelligence agencies.’ No guessing was needed — he had the US, the US Embassy and the CIA in mind.
More recently, in Sri Lanka, responsible political leaders and newspaper analysts openly declared that the US Embassy in Colombo, along with Ambassador Julie Chung, were responsible for the ‘Aragalaya’ mass protests, which led to the forced exit of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa in 2022, well before the end of his five-year elected term. An alleged American role in bringing the once-despised, unproven pro-China JVP and presidential candidate Anura Kumara Dissanayake to power through the 2024 elections was whispered about in the corridors of Colombo. However, that seems to have faded with time, especially following the massive parliamentary victory in November.
More to the point, media outlets not only in India and the rest of Asia, but even in Europe, hinted at an American hand behind the well-known mass protests in Bangladesh, which led to the ouster of three-term prime minister Sheikh Hasina and her replacement by octogenarian NGO activist Mohamed Yunus earlier this year. No section of the American media has conducted any serious investigation to prove or disprove these claims or beliefs, which point an accusing finger at Washington, particularly at the CIA and the so-called ‘American Deep State,’ a term that has gained frequent use in recent weeks and months across the world.
Suffice it to recall how, when the US was nudging the short-lived government of President Mohamed Waheed (2012-13) to sign the sensitive ‘Status of Forces Agreement’ (SOFA) for bilateral defence cooperation, a senior American diplomat told newsmen in Washington that they had taken India into ‘confidence’ on the matter. As it turned out, India had only been ‘informed’ at a low level within the military hierarchy regarding Maldivian relations and that too informally. No serious diplomatic discussions had been held or formally notified then, or since.
It does not stop there. Months earlier, at the height of the anti-Nasheed ‘December 23 Movement’ protest aimed at ousting the incumbent president, a senior American diplomat reportedly told an Indian civilian interlocutor from the past how, at the end of the day, the US would sideline India out of the Maldivian equation in order to take on China more directly. According to him, “India wants to be in the Big Boys Club, but we cannot afford it, hence would not allow it,” even though it was in India’s backyard, within India’s ‘traditional sphere of influence.’
The writer is a Chennai-based Policy Analyst and Political Commentator. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.
Post Comment