endhimariyambu-blog - Tumblr blog

[endhimariyambu-blog]

Reflections on 2012

It’s the end of 2012 and what a year it has been. Almost one year ago I remember having a conversation with someone who wrote a daily blog for 365 days in 2011 - he wrote pieces on his wedding day and even during his honeymoon! I was inspired by his commitment and although my blogging ambitions were different to his, I had a lot of fun writing whatever I could manage in what turned out to be a very hectic and eventful year. This piece is a reflection of my experience of blogging and more importantly it is my reflections on the events that occurred in the Maldives in 2012.

For years I have been writing and speaking to friends and family about socio-political problems in the Maldives and the experience of writing a blog has provided me a different platform to engage in such discussions with a wider audience. Interestingly, this blog has also allowed me to test the boundaries of freedom of expression in the Maldives. The experience of writing about the Maldives has taught me a few lessons. One important lesson has been that freedom of expression is still just an idea, albeit a popular one, in the Maldives but is not yet held by all - political parties and their supporters are still far from embracing the norms and behaviour congruent with a genuine democratic society in the Maldives. I have received threats due to some of my writings, which show the mentality of some people in the country and reminds me of the limitations of freedom of expression in the Maldives.

This blog is not a consequence of the events of February 7th 2012, but the events of that day had us all looking for answers. I wrote a tribute to former President Nasheed because I respected him and believed he should have been allowed to complete his term despite his shortcomings. Following the Commission of National Inquiry (CONI) report and a number of other investigations from different sides, it is clear that the legitimacy transfer of power can be argued in different ways. My conclusion now is that the transfer of power ticked all the legal boxes and therefore, can be claimed as a legal transfer of power and not a coup. But, did it tick all the boxes expected of a democratic society? Clearly it didn’t, because otherwise we wouldn’t have so many outraged factions across the country. More importantly, the legality of the transfer of power does not remove agency from the actors who set back the democratisation process of the country and incited lawlessness and violence in the country prior to February 7th. I am guessing that the events of the day will keep us debating for many decades to come.

Unfortunately, President Waheed does not seem to have any set policies or strategies apart from fulfilling the demands of the people that brought him to his position. I don’t know what direction he wants the country to go in - liberal, religious, modern? He is too busy cleaning up the mess that brought him to power and I remain convinced that he is only the ‘crisis president’ and that his presidency will only be remembered for how he came to power, not for what he did for the country.

I appreciate the fact that many Maldivians look up to Mohamed Nasheed as their leader, but over the past 7-8 months he has not helped the situation in the country. He is a public figure who wants to be in power in a deeply divided country, so excuse me for expecting more from him.  I expect his commitment to his country to supersede his political ambitions, but he has failed to meet my expectations many times over the past several months. For example, his warnings to foreign investors about his own country; the recent declaration by him to attempt to overthrow the government from the streets; and asking GMR to stay despite a government ruling, undermines his own country, his party and his political position. Sadly, it just shows the lengths he is willing to go to return to power. He is an activist, not the peace broker and leader the Maldives desperately needs.

The murder of MP Dr. Afrashim Ali in October 2012 had a profound impact on us all. We lost an inspirational religious thinker who was brave enough to challenge extremist religious thinkers and smart enough to explain religious issues to the masses with extensive knowledge about his subject matter. His murder rang alarm bells across the country over the gravity of lawlessness and political violence prevalent in the Maldives, but these alarm bells did not last long. Even last week MP Alhan Fahmy was physically assaulted by an unknown group of individuals at a public gathering, and little has changed on the ground to bring law and order back to the streets.

One thing we have learned from the events of 2012 is that Adhaalath Party must be isolated. No party should align with this hate-preaching, misogynistic and anti-democracy group, regardless of the potential short-term political benefits of doing so. People ask me why I am so critical of Adhaalath Party and the answer is simple. They want to restrict my right to exist as an equal human being; they preach hatred towards anyone with different thoughts, beliefs and ideas; and they misuse Islam to spread venom across the country.  Moreover, they have no policies, no plans and no solutions to our problems but only a determination to manipulate every incident and situation to meet their needs. Religious parties exist in all democracies and have a right to exist, but for anyone aspiring to have a peaceful democratic existence, such parties should never be empowered to dictate to the whole country, particularly in divided societies.

The government take-over of the airport from GMR was the right decision, difficult and controversial as it may be. Economic theory suggests that you should not privatise monopolies, particularly where there are no balances and measures to ensure consumers are protected in society. The longer the airport was under GMR control, the longer the conflict over it would have dragged out. The costs and benefits of the GMR deal can be debated but I won’t undervalue our sovereignty, especially following the Indian governments’ reaction to the take-over.

I still believe MDP might be the way forward in 2013 because if we look around the political spectrum of the Maldives, MDP is more likely to be liberal and perhaps genuinely believe in democratic principles. Their actions can be controversial but at least they aspire to be something I believe in. I’m not so sure about what drives PPM and the rest – religion, power, or a desire for positive change. I guess we have to wait for the manifestoes of 2013 to find out.

Another year has passed and we are still as far away as ever from realising our democratic dreams. 2013 will no doubt be eventful due to the election, and I shall remain optimistic about the future despite the challenges ahead. Politicians continue to fail us through their partisan approach to the problems we face, so the tenacity within us, the people, needs to be reinvigorated with a new determination to change our attitudes towards those who think differently from ourselves and most importantly, to put the country ahead of our individual alliances. 

Happy New Year!

[endhimariyambu-blog]

Enough with the ladheenee talk!

The term ladheenee is by far the most irritating tagline used in Maldivian politics at the moment. Ladheenee, meaning un-Islamic, irreligious or secularist (depending on the context), was popularised during the pre-2008 campaigns to ‘de-throne’ Gayyoom and more recently it has been used to delegitimize Nasheed’s administration in the run up to February 7th 2012. The religious hooligans in the country, led by Adhaalath Party, are the main protagonists in the on-going religious strife in the country, defining ladheenee as it best fits their agenda and interests; and using Islam as a tool to delegitimize its opponents.

Adhaalath Party, ultra-conservative and extreme in their views, surfaced into Maldivian politics in 2005 using the liberties granted by what they call ‘dheenmugura’ or what we call democracy. Back in the Gayyoom days, whilst some people were genuinely fighting for civil liberties, Adhaalath Party hopped on to the democracy bandwagon to spread their ultra-conservative religious agenda into mainstream politics. This agenda was partially based on characterising opponents according to what they perceive as Islamic and un-Islamic. Calling themselves ‘dhanna beykalun’ (meaning: know-it-alls) they began a campaign to rile up a country that was practicing Islam peacefully for 800 years.

 On 22nd September 2008, 44 religious scholars, of whom a large majority were from Adhaalath Party, released a statement against Gayyoom, criticizing him for advocating secular and ladheenee ideas.  Gayyoom’s stance against death penalty, compulsory veiling and attempts to control religious extremism earned him the label ‘ladheenee apostate’ by the religious conservatives. In the run up to the election in 2008, Adhaalath Party leaders were crying on podiums and begging the country to free themselves of Gayyoom.

Three years down the line, how mighty the tides have changed.

Adhaalath Party still exists, but the Gayyoom they judged as a ‘ladheenee apostate’ has become their current political guru. Almost all of the 44 religious scholars that released the statement against Gayyoom in 2008 now belong to Gayyoom’s party, Progressive People’s Party (PPM). And the man they rallied support for in 2008, Mohamed Nasheed is now labelled as the ‘ladheenee apostate’.

For Adhaalath Party, being put in charge of their own ministry to spread their venom did not suffice. School children’s singing competition was ladheenee. Celebrating New Year’s Eve was ladheenee. The tomb of Abul Barakaat Yusuf al-Barbari was ladheenee. The democratic ideals that empowered them to open their big mouths also became ladheenee.  In short, the whole world except the Wahhabi clan in Saudi Arabia became ‘ladheenee’.  However, much to their disappointment their targeted audience was not too receptive to their ridiculous callings.

Nasheed’s administration became the obvious target to direct their religious frustrations and what better way to rile up anti-government support than to use Islam. They had already experienced success with this political tactic in 2008. By making people feel as if their religious identity was under threat, together with the backing of power-hungry politicians, a movement to remove President Nasheed developed.  And this, they did very well - with public statements, tears on podiums, brotherly love developed in the name of Islam, protests and of course who can forget the melodramatic 23rd December Ithihaad! As I have said before, some of the criticism directed towards Nasheed’s administration was well-deserved; but religious fanatics used this as an impetus to create an anti-Islamic conspiracy around President Nasheed. This drama unfolded with President Nasheed being ousted on 7th February 2012 and now, guess who has two seats in the current cabinet?

Clearly their ladheenee gibberish worked its magic because as fools we have begun to characterise politician’s behaviour according to the Adhaalath-endorsed ladheenee scale. The irony is that a lot of people that now use the term ‘ladheenee’ are liberal advocates, only using the term in an attempt to mock the current regime. When President Waheed attended a church service in honour of the Queen’s diamond jubilee, his opponents (including liberal advocates such as Dr. Farahanaz Faisal) criticised his attendance purely for spite. If she was invited I’m sure she would have attended as well but obviously the opportunity to point his ladheenee behaviour was too good. The ‘Bon Aqua incident of hand holding with a strange woman’ by Sheikh Shaheem, a photograph of President Waheed and his wife in front of a temple, the recent video of President Waheed’s daughter speaking at a conference about a ‘Dark Mother God’ and the hiring of a foreign women as a legal consultant by the current regime are examples labelled and popularised on social media by the liberals as ‘ladheenee’. People do this for fun, to mock and scapegoat, to spite and out of anger, but who wins in the end?

The whole basis of me writing this piece is because I wanted to highlight the repercussions of the continuous moral categorisation and judgement of individual behaviour for which ever reason.  

Firstly, by calling people ladheenee and supporting the accusations of our so-called religious scholars we are empowering them. When President Waheed attended the church service many tweets were directed towards Sheikh Shaheem asking his opinion, obviously in sarcasm. My view is that if you make mullahs feel as if their gibberish matters and their opinions count, they will act as if they have a moral authority over people (even if no one is listening!). It makes them feel important.

Secondly, the continuous use of the term ‘ladheenee’ sends the wrong message to young people. If both the religious conservatives and the liberals in the country continuously pick on each other’s behaviour and label each other for mockery or for religious reasons, young people read and dwell in an environment where intolerance is emphasized. How can we create an inclusive culture and teach our children to respect equality and diversity if we continue to morally police each other? The political unrest in the country is not hidden from young people and the language we use will be emulated by them. Furthermore, it may make young people fearful of doing entirely normal things or fearful of questioning anything because they may be deemed ladheenee.

Finally, calling each other ladheenee and pointing fingers will never let us be in peace. Sensationalising each other’s private lives or every action to show whose the worst ladheenee is petty and a waste of time - time we could spend to try and resolve our differences. The current political mess we are in is not some high school drama – remember that every action has a repercussion which shapes the stability of this country.

Enough said, shall we stop with the ladheenee talk!

[endhimariyambu-blog]

Love Palestine, hate racism

The Maldives is probably one of the most faithful supporters of Palestine, and our relationship with the people of Palestine goes beyond diplomacy. Maldivians see Palestinians as their ‘Muslim brothers and sisters’ and as long as I can remember there has always been a prayer for the people of Palestine included in our Friday sermons. We have vowed to ‘stand shoulder to shoulder with Palestine’ in its bid to gain full membership at the UN and it would not be an exaggeration to say that our loyalty to Palestine has become part of our national psyche. Similar to the Anglo-American ‘special relationship’, we seem to believe that there is a ‘special relationship’ between the Maldives and Palestine based on brotherhood, respect and just cause.

A good friend of mine, who is also a prominent Palestinian activist, was pleasantly surprised to hear about the love and prayers Maldivians have been sending to Palestinians for decades, all the way from our tiny islands. But little does she know how our relationship in support of Palestine plays a crucial role in Maldivian politics, or that in our land, the Arab-Israel conflict is used as a tool to rile up emotions by politicians and religious scholars. My worry is that little do we know that our love for Palestine is inadvertently crossing into racism at times.

More recently the term anti-Semitic (hatred of Jews) has been used in association with our country and I find this extremely shameful. This association is mainly due to the folly of our politicians and the actions of religious fundamentalists in the Maldives, in their drive to gain moral authority over each other. But the fact that our name is written in the same sentence as anti-Semitism today is a disgrace and begs the important question, are Maldivians really anti-Semitic? After much thinking, my answer to this question is no. There is recent evidence to counter my answer, but I believe Maldivians are essentially not anti-Semitic. Ignorant and misinformed some of us may be, but we are not as a nation anti-Semitic. When I say this I am not speaking on behalf of the minority of brainwashed religious mullahs in the Maldives, but on behalf of ordinary Maldivians. If I ask my mother what her views of Israel are, she would say that she hates Israel for the suffering of Palestinians. This answer stems from a longstanding loyalty to Palestinians and Muslims and not because of a deep-entrenched hatred of Jews.

Dislike of Israel is not equal to anti-Semitism; people are allowed to scrutinize and dislike the state of Israel for the countless atrocities they have committed against the people of Palestine, and many western organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are critical of Israeli war crimes and discrimination against Palestinians. Since 2003 the UN has passed 232 resolutions with respect to Israel, of which a large majority are very critical of Israel. Their criticism is not considered anti-Semitic. Equally, our continuous support of the Palestinian cause should not be considered anti-Semitic.

Having said that, how do we explain the common use of language such as ‘yahoodhi kaleyge’ when we insult a person, or our tolerance of anti-Jewish slurs by our religious scholars? If the country is being perceived as anti-Semitic because of the actions and words of some Maldivians, it is important that we ask ourselves why this is the case. Has our support for Palestinians unfortunately laid the foundations for hatred towards Israelis and Jews? If Maldivians have any anti-Jewish tendencies, it is because our religious upbringing required us to look at Jews differently using religious justifications, and because our education system limits us to knowledge of Islamic and Maldivian history. I am sure there are many Maldivians who to this day would not have heard of the Holocaust or the fact that not all Israelis are Jewish! I am tired of listening to rhetoric and sermons by political and religious morons who are incapable of understanding the difference between racism and diplomatic support for Palestine. We have tolerated the indoctrination of our children with subjective and wrongful interpretations of Islam by bigoted so-called religious scholars for too long!

After more than 50 years of conflict, today most people recognise that the state of Israel has a right to exist (even Yasser Arafat accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242 in 1988!) as much as Palestine. As a small nation state we need to remember that such conflicts are controlled by forces way beyond our influence and status, and the only thing we can do is support Palestine in spirit and by diplomatic means. But this support should not be on the basis of hating Jews. The Arab-Israeli conflict should not be a cause for us to degrade ourselves and be viewed as anti-Semitic. As importantly, it should not be cause for us to squabble mindlessly amongst ourselves over which party supports Palestine more!

Similar to Western countries that impose sanctions or halt all diplomatic ties where they find injustice and violence, many Muslim countries refuse to establish diplomatic ties with Israel because they find Israel ‘aggressive and oppressive’ in the Arab-Israel conflict. There are also some Muslim countries that maintain diplomatic relations with Israel, such as Egypt, Turkey and Jordan. Historically the Maldives has chosen to reject diplomatic ties with Israel but it does not mean it has to be this way forever. We should be able to discuss this issue in the Parliament or any forum as responsible citizens without resorting to racism. Whatever our government chooses to do, it should represent the views of the people and it certainly should not be a cause for conflict amongst ourselves.

I am a firm supporter of Palestine’s right to self-determination and have actively joined pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the past, whilst some of the most wonderful people I have met abroad are Jewish. Having grown up in the Maldives, the experience of meeting people from various cultures, discussing this very conflict together with Palestinians and Jews and the exposure to a range of literature abroad have made me reassess my own preconceptions. I am sure the new generation of educated Maldivians have had similar experiences to my own and see the world through a different lens to the older generations. We should wholeheartedly support Palestine in every way, but we should do it the right way. If the chosen way of showing solidarity with Palestine is refusal to establish any diplomatic ties with Israel similar to the majority of Muslim countries, so be it. But neither religion nor a deep sense of loyalty to Palestine should be reason for us to preach and teach hatred towards any person of any faith, race and political affiliation. We are better than that.

[endhimariyambu-blog]

Two months on: Where do we go from here?

Two months after the coup we are still at a deadlock and many of us are still coming to terms with the events that proceeded 7th February 2012. Political rivalry continues to be fierce, with protests, party swaps, statement after statement by political groups and a few people who cannot grasp democratic politics resorting to violence.  IMF, MATI and a number of economists are warning of economic collapse. Meanwhile, the current government is busy leasing resorts for 50 years, giving out mass promotions to police officers, changing working hours, visiting Laamu Gaadhoo for the first time in 30 years – all very useful functions in a politically stable environment. Unfortunately none of these actions do anything to reduce public disillusionment with the current political crisis. So where do we go from here?  

Here is a non-exhaustive list of actions that we need to undertake to get us out of our political predicament.

1-      First thing first – Establish the credibility of the Commission of National Inquiry assigned to find facts/truth about the legitimacy of transfer of power on 7th February 2012.

It is integral that this inquiry committee appoints an international observer, or better, an international participant. If a large portion of the general population question the integrity and credibility of this committee there is no point of having an inquiry, regardless of whether or not it is actually credible. Apart from finding facts, the onus of this inquiry should also be to remove public uncertainty and disaffection over the legitimacy of the transfer of power and of those that rule the country at the moment. Clearly the MDP supporters and many others already question the committee’s credibility and one of the primary stakeholders in the transfer of power, MDP, refuse to accept the inquiry committee at all because of a lack of international, impartial presence associated with the committee. In this situation, is it not wise to appoint an international participant in order to appease all actors involved and make their inquiry impartial in the eyes of their targeted audience? Otherwise it is a wasted effort. Furthermore, the mandate of this committee should not only be to lay out facts but also to lay out recommendations and a follow-up plan of activities to promote its findings and to advocate its recommendations.

2-      Laying the groundwork for the next election. The inquiry committee will submit a full report of their findings to the President, Prosecutor General and Attorney General on 31st May 2012.  Whether the transfer of power is found to be legal or illegal, the important question is ‘what happens next?’ Regardless of the conclusions of the inquiry committee, in my opinion (similar to many Maldivians and international bodies) the only way to move forward within the country would be to hold an election in the near future to settle this conflict. Azima Shukoor (Attorney General) and Dhunya Maumoon (Minister of State for Foreign Affairs) state that a free and fair election cannot be held without strengthening the state institutions such as the judiciary, election commission and the human rights commission – makes sense! But they keep saying this over and over again without stating what they plan to do to strengthen these institutions or to overcome these institutional roadblocks to make an election possible. To me it appears that they are just saying this for the sake of it without any ingenuity.  Whilst some may argue that it is under these very same institutions that the local council (2011), parliamentary (2009) and the presidential elections (2008) took place, we have to admit that the circumstances have changed since these elections and the country is at a political juncture which requires rethink and reformation at all levels.

Even if we don’t have an early election, the next impending election, according to the current constitution, is not too far away (October 2013), so should we not get ready for an election now and make it a priority to make the necessary reforms to strengthen these institutions, starting from now? If these state institutions are so weak and unreliable why are they being used for any other state purpose without making the much needed reforms as soon as possible? The current government and parliament should stop making excuses and start making the necessary institutional amendments to ensure that the next election, be it an early one or as scheduled, is possible and fair.

If the constitution needs to be amended, this is only possible through the parliament and all MPs should work within the walls of the parliament to allow the legal changes needed to guarantee the rights and institutional framework required for a free and fair election. The government needs to ensure that members of the election commission are educated and trained in order to ensure their conduct is impartial, neutral and balanced at all times. The political parties and the media should accept and adopt a code of conduct to govern the election campaign and the polling period. The government should ensure that all parties have equal access to state media and the state media should provide non-partisan media coverage.

3-      Reform, reform and reform the Judiciary. The judiciary of our country is a disgrace and none of us rely on the courts to provide justice for any crime. The judiciary is infamous for its corruption; many of our judges in the lower court are under-qualified and their integrity and impartiality is highly questionable; and politicians have their claws all over the judiciary. Worst of all for me is that some judges in the lower court even have previous criminal convictions! I am not a legal expert and I am sure our country has brilliant lawmakers (e.g. Kutti Nasheed) to reform our judiciary. We need a group of non-partisan lawyers to create a public document of various legal reforms that could be undertaken to strengthen our judiciary and promote this wherever possible.  Every time there is a political crisis, talk of judiciary reform alights, but this always slips off the public radar soon afterwards. The public and the country’s legal experts need to keep this pressure loud and ongoing.

4-      Reforms within the security forces. We all know that whichever way the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) concludes their investigations, there is a need to change police conduct. The PIC investigation should find a number of incidents of police brutality (including use of excessive force, violent attacks and intimidation) and so on, but the top tier of the security forces needs to recognise that their misconduct is also very much due to the systematic failure of the authorities of MPS and MNDF to steer off political influence, keep appropriate checks and educate and democratise police officers. PC Riyaz’s Q & A on Minivan News encourages me.

5-      The current leader of our crisis government, President Waheed, is not really helping himself or his government, as he continues to make the same mistakes Nasheed did. Mr. President: listen to your critics and respond to the plight of the people you serve. Even if you can argue that technically your position is legitimate you have to admit that you are not in that position by popular vote. You cannot win the hearts of disaffected people by giving ministerial positions to Gayyoom’s children, especially given our political history, even if they are the most qualified for the job. I have not heard you forcefully condemn police brutality or show any empathy towards the disillusioned portion of the population. Remember when you campaigned to release Nasheed from prison in the ‘black ribbon campaign’ and when you stood against oppressors not so long ago!  Using your many years of experience working in complex post-conflict zones, I hope your conscience allows you to make compromises and make decisions that help to diffuse this conflict, rather than aggravating it.

6-      Nasheed needs to go to the table to negotiate and try to solve the political crisis with Maldivians, not his foreign ‘friends’. Nasheed’s recent interviews in the US showcased his personable character but also his political naivety. If he wishes to continue promoting The Island President, he should do sowithout defaming a country that earns its bread from its image!

7-      Setting the right priorities - Before investigating the arrest of Judge Abdulla Mohamed, we need to take a step back and investigate why he was arrested in the first place. Investigate the allegations against him separately from the wider political investigations and problems.

8-      Don’t put the cart before the horse. As a society we are more politically aware than ever before but not necessarily more responsible. We cannot make any progress by putting the cart before the horse. We shout for democracy without ridding ourselves of old patronage and alliances, and without respecting human rights. We call for snap elections whilst knowing that the current institutional framework needs changes. We demand things without looking at how we are actually going to get them.

We will only be in peace by finding long term solutions to our political problems. We can only be at peace if we develop a framework and a mentality which allows democracy to truly flourish in our country. These are my thoughts and there is more to add here. Please feel free to share your solution based thoughts.

[endhimariyambu-blog]

Breaking the rules of democracy

We are fooling ourselves if we think that democracy is the only game in the Maldives because, given the events of the past three years it is fair to say that we are still a democracy in principle rather than in practice. The existing authoritarian and undemocratic enclaves prevalent within our socio-political system support this argument. By authoritarian enclaves I refer to the prevalent corruption, the lack of respect for the constitution and the rule of law, and the continuous stifling of our civil and political rights by the so-called political fanatics, ‘vanguards’ of democracy and religious scholars in the Maldives.

It is true, old habits die hard. After 30 years of repression and authoritarian rule we still continue to focus on personalities; our institutions are not independent of specific personalities and as a society we continue to limit each other’s political freedoms. We need to liberate ourselves from our traditional, personalised patronage politics. We need to liberate ourselves from the old habits.

To be democratic we need to understand that the rule of law precedes everything; civil liberties such as freedom of expression should be exercised with responsibility and as a society we need to make informed and responsible decisions in selecting and electing those who represent our voice.

President Waheed was right when he said on Hardtalk that ‘we have come to this point because we have not respected our constitution. We have not respected the rule of law. The last thing I want to do is to circumvent our constitution’. So when and where have we circumvented our constitution? Without going into the details of Gayyoom’s 30 year authoritarian regime, if we begin with the dawn of our democracy following the election of Mohamed Nasheed, when and where have the laws of the land been flouted? Where have we failed at democracy?

The rule of law was flouted when the Supreme Court was locked down under the order of Nasheed. The rule of law was flouted when a senior judge was ‘judgenapped’ and arrested. We failed at democracy when projects or investment opportunities were given to political party aides and cronies without declaration of ‘conflict of interest’ or without a fair bidding process. We failed at democracy as the number of family ties increased within the top brass of the state institutions. We failed at democracy as murderers, rapists and child molesters walk free. We failed at democracy when we failed to listen to public protests for 22 consecutive days, regardless of whether they were 200 people, a minority, or 100,000 people.

During Nasheed’s regime, the opposition too failed at democracy because they refused to accept the rules of the game of democracy. Over the past couple of years the opposition have been hell bent on creating parliamentary deadlocks which delayed the enactment of key legislations; used religious fervour to rile up anti-MDP sentiments and backed questionable characters to achieve their political goals. Democracy is not the only game in town if the losers of an election do not accept their defeat. If we see democracy under the axiom of a game, it will only continue to work if the losers in the game want to play/try again within the same institutional framework under which they lost.

Our constitutional sins reached a new level on 7th February 2012. The constitution of our country was punched in the face when our democratically elected leader was ousted in a coup. If Nasheed was such a failure, his removal should have been by the rule of law, by the people and by the ballot. Whether by the fate of circumstances, by Nasheed’s own making or by advanced planning the removal of an elected President by force, has set a very dangerous precedent here and in my opinion this constitutional sin is worse than anything Nasheed ever did.

I am willing to accept that politicians from all sides have failed to uphold the rule of law in the past, move forward and draw lessons from it. So I ask President Waheed, since he holds the reigns now, what is his plan to uphold and maintain the rule of law? The current government’s commitment to democracy will continue to be tested and judged by the disgruntled opposition until the next election. Until then I hope our fragile democracy will continue to withstand the pressures and shocks without abandoning the electoral process ever again.  The lesson for all of us is, never again should the constitution and rule of law be abandoned under the guise of upholding democracy.

I am not really concerned about ‘who’ is in power as long as the person in power is there through legitimate means and is concerned about implementing positive change. We have intellectuals on both sides of the political spectrum. Our infant democracy was born by the work of several people. For every protester there was an intelligent and energetic policymaker creating the rules of the game. For instance, Nasheed is a great orator and a true torch bearer for democracy. While Nasheed carried the torch, there were policy makers behind the table such as Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, Dr. Hassan Saeed, and Dr. Waheed who rigorously used other channels to bring democracy to our country. All of them should be credited for their contributions regardless of which side of the table they are on.

Some of our MP’s display appalling behaviour, ignorance and a lack of professionalism. Some are borderline criminals. When the next election confronts us, we as the electorate have a moral responsibility to select and elect leaders who are competent, crime-free and open-minded.

One of the fundamental components of democracy is freedom of expression, because without it, free elections mean nothing.  We do enjoy ‘freedom of expression’ in the Maldives but without any responsibility. Freedom of expression is an abused freedom in the Maldives because religious extremists use it to spread their religious fatwas, war-mongerers use it to spread their hate, politicians use it create division and the media uses it spread half-truths. Where is our sense of social responsibility when we exercise freedom of expression?

We need to remember that before the 7th of February there were thousands of people that opposed MDP and exercised their fundamental right to criticize. The coup was not undertaken by the opposition supporters, therefore, why should they be labelled as ‘baghees’ (traitors)? The level of cyber bullying evident on social media towards anyone associated with the current government is one example where freedom of opinion is violated. The number of people that tell me that they are afraid to show their support to the parties they supported prior to 7th February due to fear of being labelled as ‘baghee’  is proof enough that freedom of opinion and expression is no longer a given. Without proper freedom of thought, opinion and association we will never be able to safeguard the integrity of our elections.

As a society that aspires to be democratic we all have a social responsibility to respect the rule of law, exercise our freedoms with responsibility and empower politicians for the right reasons. We are the drivers of change and politicians are only the mediators we select to implement the change we want.

Some studies suggest that most newly democratising countries will go through a phase of violence or instability before democracy fully settles in. Some argue that it is a temporary phase. I am hoping this is our temporary phase. I am hoping that we learn from our mistakes. I am praying that this storm passes soon.

[endhimariyambu-blog]

Colourless or colourful, don’t let it blind you!

I am very fortunate to receive varied and often thought provoking comments on many of my blog posts. One comment which I always find interesting is when someone says that my articles are ‘biased’ towards one political party or another. What does it mean to be biased in the current political climate of the Maldives? Biased towards what?

As a society that aspires to be democratic, we need to understand that in democratic politics policies, practices and processes of state institutions are normally heavily scrutinised by the public, opposition groups, the media and social groups. Unfortunately, in the Maldives criticism is taken very negatively and even those who call for freedom of expression and opinion are unable to embrace criticism when it is directed towards them. For anyone writing on the Maldives, one has to be very cautious of naming individuals or groups because such criticism can be perceived as a personal attack or party bias. For instance, if I criticise PPM for their questionable religious agenda I may be seen as being biased towards liberal MDP, whereas if I criticise MDP’s corrupt practices I may be seen as being biased towards Gayyoom.

More often than not people find it hard to appreciate criticism without taking it personally and tend to think that the critic has a personal agenda or is a ‘spy’ of a particular party. This explains why political debate in the Maldives is heavily engulfed in name-calling, slander and allegations, rather than accepting criticism as a means to re-evaluate one’s own position and thinking. Even if a point is sensible and well intentioned, your views are likely to be judged by some as biased towards whatever party your views are in line with.

We embarked on a democratic transition because we wanted to work together as a country despite divided opinions. Most Maldivians are aligned to certain parties and public figures for different reasons. My 83 year old grandmother supports Nasheed (unlike anyone I know) because after 83 gruelling years of poverty and hard work, Nasheed’s basic pension scheme provided her with some state benefit at the age of 80. It had taken her 80 years to reap any benefit from the government – a reminder to us all that the wealth of the country never trickled down to people at the bottom of the social ladder. Everyone who is at all interested in politics has their own political position and will support those most aligned to that position. This can be for a variety of reasons, be it for religion, for power, for wealth, for jobs, or for justice. Having an inclination towards one party or leader is being human. The problem with the likes of my grandmother (and many others!) is that their support for Nasheed, Gayyoom or President Waheed is unconditional and clouds their judgement of what is fundamentally right and wrong.

You can support the call for an election, an end to police brutality and call for a fully fledged independent inquiry into the events of the 7th and 8th February, but it does not necessarily make you biased towards MDP. In a similar vein, you can support negotiation, compromise and peaceful cooperation on national matters, but that does not mean you are biased towards DRP/PPM. You can also condemn indiscriminate attacks on police officers and protests that invoke or perpetrate violence, but that does not make you a ‘Baghee’ or ‘Traitor’.

I have been described as the “high priestess of colourless mentality”, which I embrace as a compliment. The term ‘colourless’ is a recently coined term in the wake of the political crisis in the Maldives. It is essentially a character description for those in the Maldives that want to create a common ground despite divided opinions. I see that many members of the ‘colourless’ group(s) support one party or another, but are able to see beyond their party ‘colours’. However, there are others who see being ‘colourless’ as “moral cowardice” or indifference. I disagree with this view because in every society experiencing a conflict there will always be a group that calls for peace and justice, be it partisan or non-partisan. I can see that there are thousands of Maldivians who are stuck in the middle of this conflict that just want the current conflict to be resolved peacefully.

If being colourless means refusal to follow political speculation blindly; analysing things from various angles and making a stand where you see problems, I would love to be thought of as the ‘high priestess of colourless mentality’!

Being colourless does not mean you are not allowed to have a political view. But, having a political view does not mean you stand idle when you see obvious wrongs either.

At the moment we are too busy throwing arguments at each other trying to justify the actions of the police, MDP or the current government, but unfortunately this does not reduce the immediate problems of lawlessness, violence and state legitimacy issues in our country. The example below shows the nonsensical manner in which a daunting and pressing issue such as ‘police brutality’ is likely to be discussed amongst us right now.

Discussion topic: Stop police brutality!

Participant A: You are only calling for an end to police brutality because you are biased towards Nasheed and you want MDP to be back in power. What about police brutality during Nasheed’s regime? Why should they be any different now?

Participant B: You should have complained if there was police violence during Nasheed’s regime. You shouldn’t have overthrown a democratically elected leader. Where is my vote? They were beating our brothers/fathers/sisters on 8th February. They need to be stopped by all means. Jahaifiyya Jahaanan.

The above discussion is a typical nonsensical discussion over a topic where the call against police brutality should be agreeable to both in an ideal world. Both participants’ moral judgements are clearly clouded by their political allegiances. Participant A refuses to accept that police brutality is a problem, only because the brutality isn’t against his/her side; Participant B brushes off police brutality during Nasheed’s regime as irrelevant and encourages retaliation by all means. You cannot call for non-violence whilst saying you will resort to ‘all means’ to bring an end to non-violence.

If MDP or anyone else wants the rest of the country to join their ‘stop police brutality’ campaign for example, a good way to start would be by reaching out to the ordinary people without any infiltration of party propaganda. Maybe their own marches calling for good things should be less yellow and more Maldivian so that more people will vouch for their good messages. If people believe that police brutality should be stopped they should join any march against police brutality wearing a white t-shirt or red t-shirt with a placard stating I AM PROUD TO BE COLOURLESS BUT I DISAGREE WITH POLICE BRUTALITY or in other instances I SUPPORT DRP BUT I AM AGAINST POLICE BRUTALITY.

Our sense of rational thinking and good nature should not be clouded by our political inclinations. Be proud to have an opinion, but do not let it blind you to all other viewpoints!

[endhimariyambu-blog]

Police or Protester: Still the ordinary man

Even as I write this there is a battle on the streets of Male’ between protesters and policemen – both fighting to be the master of our streets and adamant that they are doing their duty to this country. Whilst the police stand with their riot gear and weapons, protesters stand with their placards and unusual weapons, ranging from verbal abuse to bricks. What they both have in common is strong will (stubbornness!), self-belief that they are doing this for the good of this country and an inability to comprehend their role in the invocation of violence and fear in this country. I ask them, for whose benefit are they doing this?

Democracy, religion, human rights, ‘my vote’ and ‘justice’ – these are some of the justifications used by the protesters for their protests. Duty, ‘protection of civilians’, public order, ‘honour’, ‘self-defence’ are some of the justification used by the security forces for their ruthless tactics. But what are they really fighting each other for? Are they fighting for the ordinary man? Are they fighting for our right to live free from fear, intimidation and violence? Are they serving the best interests of our economy, stability and the social fabric of our country?

I believe it is power which lies at the core of this battle between the protesters and the police. It is really a proxy battle between politicians. The greed for power, the need to have control of power and the need to protect the power of the elite politicians is what the police and protesters are, by proxy, fighting for. Hiding behind police forces and protest groups, it is politicians that are really running this show. If the political leaders of this country, opposition groups or MDP genuinely want to cooperate they need to let go of their stubbornness and self-interest to bring a lasting resolution to the political crisis currently plaguing our country.

I have defended the police on many occasions and tried to look at the current situation from their perspective. Our leaders have politicised the police and have made it impossible for them to remain impartial and apolitical. They are very much the pawns used between our politicians for their political game and they have evolved from a respected police force to a feared and hated group. People no longer know who they can trust for their safety and protection and have turned to their political parties, gangs and other networks for protection.

I find MDP’s hate campaign and indiscriminate attacks on members of the police force despicable, BUT that does not justify their disproportionate use of violence on protesters, MDP or other. Here I am not criticising the police’s standard crowd dispersion tactics; I am criticising about brutal beatings of protesters in broad daylight. Never have the police apologised to the public for brutal attacks on protesters on 8th February. Not a single word of apology. I appreciate that they are still ‘investigating’ the brutal attacks by some members of the police force but the videos of men dressed in police uniforms beating citizens in various locations of Male’ is proof enough for a blind man to see that wrong was done by the police on 8th February. Even a half-hearted apology would have maintained some public respect for them. I am disappointed in the police and the current government for failing to criticize and act where it is needed. I am disappointed that as I write this, police are continuing to clash with protesters and vigilantes in the middle of the night!

The current situation has put the police in a very difficult position. They are asked to serve a crisis government and maintain the status quo of the government, and at the same time defend themselves from public (mainly MDP and other street thug) attacks. We ask the police to remain impartial and apolitical but we are forcing them to choose a side. The more MDP supporters directly and indirectly provoke public animosity towards the police the more it will propel the police to have an ‘us vs. them’ mentality. Which side do you think they will choose for their own protection? Similarly, if the current government continues to hide behind the police and refuse to provide amicable solutions to the current situation, the public animosity towards the police will increase. Both sides are militarising, politicizing and separating the police from the rest of society.

As a solution to this current ‘police dilemma’, perhaps the police could start with an apology to the victims of the violence; make those who are responsible for the individual acts of violent behaviour accountable for their actions; create and make available some detailed guidelines for public assembly so that people are aware of their rights and their boundaries; and most importantly, reform and restart a campaign for better conduct and to gain public trust.

The sight of protests has become a daily part of our lives now and some Maldivian protests can be quite moving and fun spirited. However, there are some who use organised protests to create panic, and incite violence and further animosity in the Maldives. In a similar vein, I ask MDP leaders whether they will apologise to the victims of their supporters’ violence and take some responsibility for the violence perpetrated in the name of their party? If you denounce violence you have to denounce violence wholeheartedly from all sides, regardless of the motive. It is very easy to play the victim when you are overpowered and beaten; and I often find ‘victim’ videos of MDP protesters being hosed, man-handled, beaten or fighting with police officers. But these videos or pictures only capture the moment of their victimisation, without pretext or the protesters’ own role in the provocation of violence. In addition, whenever any video or photos show that violence was perpetrated by someone associated with MDP, MDP followers are very quick to deny and claim that the perpetrator was an unknown civilian, PPM supporter or policeman in disguise. Is this a tactic used to avoid responsibility for any negative consequences of their actions or gain public sympathy?

Violence is violence regardless of who commits it and I believe MDP can play a crucial role in preventing the on-going street violence in the country. I can show a hundred tweets, facebook messages and internet messages of MDP affiliated groups which send out instant, live messages to rile up protesters and create fear and animosity between protesters and the police. I am aware that more often than not, it is MDP vigilantes who are causing this violence and I am certain most protesters are out there for a genuine purpose. But playing the victim card does not always gain public sympathy if MDP members do not take some responsibility for the on-going conflicts in the streets.

MDP leaders should play a bigger role in diffusing this conflict by vehemently calling on the hundreds of people that go out in their name to protest peacefully; and by strongly condemning the destruction of public property and violent acts that have been perpetrated by the their supporters. That is what a good and responsible leadership is supposed to do. That is how you win the peoples’ respect.

I ask MDP leaders if they could be the bigger men (and women) if possible and lead by example? Is it too much to ask if they could return to the table to resolve this crisis which is scarring a generation of our nation? This might in fact tip the scale in their favour and win over the thousands of people who are in the centre of the battle between your protesters and the police.

As a final thought to both the police and the protesters, remember that when you beat that protester you are beating the ordinary man and when you hurl that brick or abuse at a police officer you are hurting the ordinary man. It is the ordinary man that needs to be protected and served. Our nation bleeds today because of both side’s stubbornness and inability to look beyond their differences. If we continue to hurl bricks and charge at each other, soon there will be no democracy to uphold, no civilians to protect and no country to save.

[endhimariyambu-blog]

Lies, Manipulation and Protests: I want my country back!

Democracy has become a facade. The media is a production of our politicians. The members of the security forces are bullied and attacked. Freedom of expression is no longer a given. Peace has become a pipedream. Our paradise has been cursed.

Over the past week I have had mixed emotions over the political unrest in my beloved country and I am certain I am not the only one who is frustrated and tired of the political chaos in the Maldives. It is as if we have learned nothing from 30 years of authoritarian rule.

Let me begin with the lead actor in this political drama - Mohamed Nasheed. He announced his resignation to the national media but the next day he claimed that he resigned at gun-point.

“There were guns all around me and they told me they wouldn't hesitate to use them if I didn't resign." – Mohamed Nasheed

Nasheed’s statement that he was forced to resign at gunpoint stoked the political fires and greatly increased the emotional response to his overthrow, plunging the country into further violence and chaos. It also helped to publicise his ‘undemocratic, unjust overthrow’ around the world through the international media. A few days later he admitted that he was not literally at gunpoint, claiming he had used the term metaphorically. Last week Nasheed stated that the security forces were unable to shoot at the public only because he refused to give them the key to the ‘gun’ storage – an attempt to create further animosity towards the security forces. I honestly don’t believe a single word that comes out of his mouth anymore. Yes, clearly he was forced to resign but my view is that his departure was inevitable.

None of us know the truth of what exactly happened on the day Nasheed resigned, and I suspect we will not know until a full and independent investigation is carried out. Yet we all choose to pick a side of the story. We only hear what Nasheed, President Waheed or other politicians say, and none of them are telling the truth in its entirety, with the exception of Umar Naseer and Reeko Moosa - two political personalities who are incapable of controlling their militant tongues and who are both obsessed with Gayyoom in their own ways.

Over the past three years Nasheed’s popularity has been dwindling and I doubt he would have had a chance in the 2013 elections until a few weeks ago. Fortunately for Nasheed, his forced resignation has actually increased his popularity and he is milking this opportunity to mobilise support for himself. What saddens me is that Nasheed and his party, MDP, are doing this at the expense of public order, public institutions and everything good about our country. They are undermining the very democratic principles that they think they are fighting for by bullying and threatening anyone that opposes them.

I understand MDP supporters and their MP’s are frustrated, but their anger has turned to militancy and a blatant disregard for anyone with a view different to their own. This country belongs to us all and the Parliament is a forum for debate and discussion by members elected by all of us. The blocking of the Parliament by MDP MP’s and the disrespect shown has, in my opinion, damaged our democracy because they have set a precedent here.  The picture below shows the scuffles that took place inside the Parliament building on the on 1st March 2012. MDP MP’s hijacked the Parliament and blocked the President and the Speaker of the Parliament from entering.  

  Pure class shown by MDP MP’s – one has a bin on his head and another is sitting on top of the Speaker’s bench.

      You can call President Waheed ‘Baghee’ or ‘Puppet’, but having read his international profile, namely his humanitarian work around the global and the crucial role he played in our own democratic process, I do believe he is a more capable candidate for the Presidency. Nasheed is a great activist and he can run a rally and organise fantastic protests, but he does not know how to run a country.  I don’t know whether President Waheed was responsible for the orchestration of the overthrow of Nasheed but his international profile speaks volumes. However, I do question his inability to answer many questions raised about the events of the overthrow. As the second in command of the country I expect him to be politically aware, so no doubt he would have known how Nasheed’s overthrow unfolded.   

Currently Nasheed is doing a fantastic job in ensuring the Western media follows his one-sided story. I fail to understand why the Western media continues to glorify Nasheed’s profile and confuses his role and responsibilities as a nation’s leader with that of being an advocate for good causes.  Mark Lynas, Paul Roberts and many of Nasheed’s aides are reporting on the Maldives but their views are biased and fail to give any contextual analysis of the political reality of the Maldives. In one sense their bias is understandable as they work for Nasheed, but what I cannot accept and find disgraceful is that they fail to see or report their own biases; calling themselves reporters or advisors to the Maldives and telling half-truths to the international media.

I wonder how Western countries would react if their elected leader ordered the army to take hold of the Supreme Court, ordered the arrest of several opponents, and then arrested a senior judge and kept him detained for over 2 weeks despite continuous protests. Anywhere else in this world this would be considered outrageous, authoritarian and unconstitutional, and there would be international calls for their immediate resignation. There were calls for Bill Clinton’s resignation over a lie about an extramarital affair!

Let me make two things clear to anyone reading this:

1-      The Maldives is a Muslim country and religion has been used as a tool by both political sides on various occasions. When Nasheed says President Waheed and allies are empowering radical religious groups, do not be fooled. That is just one of the cards played to create polarisation and gain Western media attention, when in reality MDP themselves formed an alliance with the religious groups when they came to power. Yes, we do have a problem with religious extremism, but that is not the issue at the heart of this political unrest.

2-      Not every critic of Nasheed’s leadership and his party is a remnant of the past regime; not every remnant of the past regime is an opponent; and not every opponent is a bad advisor.  

Few good things have come out of this whole political mess, but I was pleased to see the further empowerment of Maldivian women through this process, namely the MDP women’s peaceful protests. Any event or activity that empowers Maldivian women is a step forward and it was nice to see women take part in the democratic process, regardless of what side they were on. Women from all parties are clearly making their voices heard and when and if this political madness calms down I hope this spirit continues among Maldivian women. I was also pleased to see youth groups calling for peace through social media and organised events. Most importantly, I hope Nasheed’s overthrow sends a strong message to everyone that this country belongs to us all and that it will never be ruled by taking the law into one’s own hands. It is time we base our democracy on progressive policies instead of personalities.   

Nascent, our democracy maybe, but I take comfort in the fact that we are all still fighting for democratic ideals. I just hope we don’t destroy our beautiful country in the process.

[endhimariyambu-blog]

Two days of chaos: Soul searching in the Maldives

The political unrest in the Maldives this week is likely to be imprinted on our memories for years to come. A democratically elected President forced to resign, a mutiny, a new government, violence, bloodshed and burning buildings – a lot to take in within two days, with only the downpour of 9th February providing some time to reflect on the events witnessed.

We can argue all day long, but President Mohamed Nasheed was removed by a coup d’état. That is a fact, plain and simple. What is not certain is the extent to which Nasheed’s removal was orchestrated in advance, or who was involved. Perhaps more importantly, the question of whether the overthrow of Nasheed is representative of the views of the general population or not, remains to be answered. Other countries such as Pakistan and Turkey have had bloodless coups a number of times, where democratically elected leaders were overthrown in order to maintain public order and to avoid a potential civil war. More recently, the overthrow of Gaddafi, Mubarak and Ben Ali in the Arab Spring have taken place through popular revolts in the Middle East. Coups can be justified and a necessity in some circumstances. I got a sense that there was an atmosphere of widespread relief, when Nasheed resigned but maybe I am wrong. It must also be remembered that the demonstrations leading up to 7th February had been building for weeks, so this was not just a spur of the moment movement.

There is no right or wrong answer here; what has happened has happened and now is the time for reconciliation and national solidarity.

Instead however, we see our politicians throwing clauses from our Constitution at each other, trying to legitimize and justify their actions. The Constitution was flouted by President Nasheed and the MDP when they kept a senior judge arrested, despite nation-wide criticism, but is now held up as a sacred document by MDP, Nasheed and everyone else to argue that the overthrow was unconstitutional! The truth of the matter is MDP or the opposition parties have no respect for the Constitution and have used the law as a tool to delegitimize each other time and time again.

As my last article suggested, I have great respect for Nasheed and I would welcome his return to politics. However, I, along with many others, was disappointed in the way he turned defeat into a cause for nationwide violence in our country. Violence was incited, invoked and aggravated by MDP supporters and all MDP factions should ask themselves, with honesty and without any political bias, whether they could have done more to stop the violence that occurred across the country on 8th February? It is a democratic and a positive thing to go out and protest in support of your party and beliefs, but NOT at the expense of public order, public buildings and the safety of people. In islands where infrastructure is still limited, what is there to gain by burning public buildings? I strongly condemn people who damage the country’s infrastructure in their political zeal.

I do not believe the security forces (MNDF and state police) are our enemies. Every single one of us probably has a relative or friend working in the Maldives National Defence Force or the Police. They are victims of this political unrest as much as any one of us and have been used as pawns by our politicians. Holding them solely responsible for reacting to the hoards of angry protesters - MDP or the opposition – as per their job role, and for the failures of the law-making bodies, is excessive. I am not saying that they shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions, but I do think the indiscriminate attacks on members of the security forces, their offices and the ongoing hate campaign against them is unnecessary.

Having said that, the security forces in the country have a responsibility to answer to the people for the use of excessive force, violent language and brutal attacks on MDP members (and their head office), wherever and whenever it occurred this week, as seen in the various videos and photographs circulating on the internet. I do appreciate that a country’s security force plays a crucial role in maintaining law and order, but they themselves are not above the law. Anyone who has seen the violent incidents of the last few days would question the motives and compassion of the security forces. On the day of the most gruesome violence it was hard to distinguish who was more of a thug! Security forces now have a responsibility to regain the public’s trust and have some real soul-searching to do.

In fact, maybe we all have some soul-searching to do.

For too long we have been manipulated by politicians for their political agendas. We need to remove our political party hats and think of what is best for the country and not for a particular political party or ideology. The only thing standing between the current situation and our country’s stability is YOU. You have the power to decide the fate of our country, not a few politicians who are squabbling over power. What makes Nasheed’s supporters think that even if Nasheed and MDP are reinstated (through demonstrations or any other means) our problem of disunity will be sorted? Do they think the opposition will just walk away? Similarly, what makes supporters of the opposition think they will achieve anything by sidelining MDP and their supporters from Maldivian politics? Our politicians need to stop squabbling over trivial matters and accept that there are Maldivians who admire Gayyoom and Nasheed. Clearly Nasheed’s regime sold themselves short, because even after 30 years of corruption and repression by Gayyoom’s regime, Nasheed and the MDP failed to gain an outright majority in parliament or within the country’s population. Nasheed was right when he recently stated that “it can take years to stamp out the lingering remnants of past regimes”, and so we need to work with such ‘remnants’. We need to judge, praise and back our politicians based on what they can offer to develop our economy, deliver political stability and solve social problems; not on whether they are remnants of Gayyoom’s regime or Nasheed’s regime. We need to accept that there is no majority in the country at present and learn to live and progress with divided opinions. This, my fellow countrymen, is the essence of democracy.

We will never be in peace if we keep suggesting short term solutions to a long term problem. By having a snap election and by halting all government operations we will achieve nothing. Both parties need to sit down and negotiate a re-election in due course (in 6 months, perhaps), when we have achieved some stability. I fully support Nasheed’s suggestion to have a re-election, but not in two months, as he demands. Elections have a propensity to cause violence and should be undertaken with the proper state apparatus in place and not hastily. The current President needs to ensure that an election takes place in due course to avoid further conflict. Dr. Waheed should remember that what we have at the moment is only a crisis government and not a government of the people. If civil resistance is the opted means of protest by the majority of people, please let it be non-violent. All factions within the political system have gravely disappointed us and have a lot to prove of themselves now. In due time, WE, the citizens of the country, will decide who will govern us by a free and fair election. The power of the ballot will speak for itself.

[endhimariyambu-blog]

He was neither Mandela nor Mugabe: A Tribute to President Mohamed Nasheed

Whilst many Maldivians celebrate the recent forced resignation of President Mohamed Nasheed, at this critical juncture, it is also important to remember the role Nasheed played in transforming the social and political landscape of our country. Nasheed is the country’s first ever democratically elected leader and his rise to power marked the beginning of the democratisation process and most liberating era that the country has experienced in over half a century. Internationally, he is hailed as a crusader for democracy, the environment and his small island-nation, but opinion of him is strongly divided amongst his countrymen. Those who love Nasheed revere him as their Mandela, a man who sacrificed his freedom for a greater cause; but those that passionately wanted him deposed called him the ‘Mugabe of Asia’. One thing is for sure, he will be remembered as the leader who was avidly elected and expelled by the power of mass protest.

It is important to remind ourselves that before 2008, the Maldives was ruled under an authoritarian regime which had lasted for 30 years, and civil liberties such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly meant little to this regime. We should be indebted to Nasheed for setting the momentum for democracy in the Maldives and paving the way for the breakup of an authoritarian regime which had refused to leave, even after countless attempts to overthrow it. The attempts to oust Gayyoom during his 30 year presidency were never successful because there was no conviction, sacrifice or appeal in those movements; therefore it never gathered any momentum or mass support. What Nasheed did for us was to create a movement, a longing for a political change which would allow us to think, speak, write and elect freely. This is the greatest gift Nasheed gave us. It is this gift which ultimately paved the way for his own overthrow on 7th February 2012.

Nasheed’s fight for civil liberties began as early as 1990 – a period in which no Maldivian would dare to utter any criticism against the government, and political participation was a figment of one’s own imagination. Between 1990 and 1999 Nasheed was wrongfully accused of various crimes, arrested a number of times, subjected to solitary confinement and violence, all because of his criticism of the government. One cannot fathom the level of determination and resolve a young Nasheed would have had in the 1990s, to be able to take the risks he took with so little public support or courage.

Though still developing, the democratic provisions available in the Maldives today can be attributed to Nasheed’s efforts. The country’s first political party was established under his auspices and this consequently opened the political arena of the Maldives for participation and competition. The country’s first democratic election took place through the ardent campaigns and pressure fomented by him and many others who were inspired by him. Many civil liberties which we enjoy today were granted to us as a result of his tireless campaigns and advocacy.

True, Nasheed’s presidency was not without its faults, and his forced resignation was imminent for a number of reasons. Unfortunately his charisma and belief in democratic ideals did little to help his political immaturity and the lack of creative thinking within his party. He could have sustained his power and support base had he not made some fundamental political mistakes over the past three years. Firstly, for security he surrounded himself with cronies and relatives, many of whom fell short of political ingenuity, competence and the ability to create progressive policies. As a result, Nasheed’s regime failed to tackle the rising urban violence, corruption, economic problems and religious extremism in the Maldives. Secondly, he played into the hands of the opposition by focusing excessively on bringing down members of the opposition or members from the past regime, even if it meant defying the Constitution. In 2009 he ordered the army to take over the Supreme Court; in 2010 he ordered the arrest of two political opponents, Abdulla Yamin and Gasim Ibrahim; and most recently he ordered the arrest of the senior judge, Abdulla Mohamed. Such decisions caused the public to lose confidence in him as a law-abiding leader and created opportunities to mobilise anti-government support. Thirdly, the failures of his party, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), played a significant role in discrediting his rule. The constant use of dangerous language by his party members such as ‘we will stay in power for the next 500 years at all costs’ or ‘we will arrest anyone where we deem it justifiable’ fomented an iron fist image of his leadership. The parliamentary bribery allegations associated with his party, the use of thugs by his party members and the use of inflammatory and hostile rhetoric by his party members in their public declarations and speeches only created further division within their support base, public mistrust and ample opportunities for Nasheed’s opponents to slam his government.

Forcing a leader we had democratically elected to step down is a failure of our state. There are no winners here. His departure has created a political vacuum which is bound to be exploited by the eagerly awaiting religious extremists and opportunists in our country. I hope Nasheed will take this defeat as a lesson and return to the political arena with stronger policies, better allies and more determination to safeguard the rights which he had fought for.

Whilst we all anxiously await the fate of our next political chapter, I will remember Nasheed for his positive contributions to our country. Despite his shortcomings, he was a true torch bearer for democracy and I will remain indebted to him for the freedoms he helped us attain. He is nowhere close to perfect and he is neither our Mandela nor our Mugabe, but he will be remembered as the man who planted the first seed of change on our country.

[endhimariyambu-blog]

Maldivian Government: It’s a family affair

When President Nasheed won the presidential election in 2008 one of my great expectations from him was to eliminate the high level of corruption in the Maldives. His campaign slogans targeting the rampant nepotism and cronyism in the country engendered by three decades of authoritarian rule gave hope to thousands of people and many thought a new Maldives was on the horizon.

Unfortunately, we were badly fooled. According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index, in 2007 the Maldives ranked 84th in the world, but by 2011 we ranked just 134th, below Thailand and Colombia. It appears that the new government has not learned any lessons from the past and their actions have failed to meet their promises. Nepotism (favouritism shown on the basis of family relations) and cronyism (favouritism shown on the basis of close friendship) are widespread in the top tier of the government.

In 2009, Raajje News Blog produced a list of the links between various Government officials and others in positions of power, highlighting the huge levels of nepotism and cronyism within the top tiers of the Maldives Government. I have updated and revised this list, below, and intend to disseminate it as widely as possible to highlight how widespread corruption in the Maldives is, and the level of indignity with which our politicians continue to practice corruption:

1. Mohamed Aslam, the current Minister of Housing and Environment, is married to Aishath Rameeza, who is the daughter of President Nasheed’s second cousin (Naseema).

2. Ahmed Assad, the younger brother of Mohamed Aslam (the current Housing and Environment Minister), was appointed as Minister for Finance and Treasury and was later appointed as the Financial Controller. Assad resigned from this role in November 2011.

3. Minister of Health and Family, Dr. Aminath Jameel, is married to Sikka Mohamed Ismail Maniku (Kuda Sikka), whose elder brother, Sikka Ahmed Ismail Maniku (Bodu Sikka), is married to President Nasheed’s aunt.

4. President Nasheed’s close friend, DIK Ali Hashim, was appointed as the Finance Minister, but resigned following the ‘en mass cabinet resignation’ in June 2010. His reappointment was rejected by Parliament.

5. Former Finance Minister DIK Ali Hashim’s business partner, Mahmood Razee, is the current Minister of Economic Development.

6. President Nasheed's father is second cousin to ‘Kerafa’ Ahmed Naseem, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs.

7. President Nasheed’s classmate and close friend Dr. Hussain Rasheed Hassan is the current Minister of State for Fisheries and Agriculture.

8. President Nasheed’s classmate and close friend, Uz Abdulla Muizzu, is the current Attorney General. Muizzu is also a member of the Judicial Service Commission of the Maldives.

9. President Nasheed’s classmate and close friend, Husnu Suood, was appointed as an Attorney General in June 2009 (resigned in August 2010) and was also the presidential nominee for Chief Justice in 2010. Suood is also a long time business partner of current Attorney General Abdulla Muizzu.

10. Husnu Suood’s brother-in-law is the Minister of Islamic Affairs Dr. Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari.

11. President Nasheed’s nominee for the vacant position of Speaker of Parliament in 2009 was his cousin Fazna Ahmed’s husband, Ibrahim Mohamed Solih. Solih is the MDP MP for Lhaviyani Hinnavaru and is considered a close friend and classmate of President Nasheed. Fazna’s father is Bodu Sikka (see point 3).

12. Niyaz Solih, Deputy State Minister for Medhu Uthuru Province, is the younger brother of MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih’s (see point 11).

13. Ibrahim Mohamed Solih’s (see points 11 and 12) election campaign manager, Mohamed Mahir, is Counsellor for Lhaviyani Atoll.

14. President Nasheed's cousin, Eva Abdulla (his aunt Zuheyra's daughter), is MDP MP for Galolhu constituency.

15. MPD MP Eva Abdulla’s husband, Ahmed ‘Saabe’ Shahid, was the interim Deputy Chair of the Elections Commission until March 2009. Saabe and Mohamed Aslam (see point 1) are business partners. Saabe is also a senior member of MDP and, as of November 2011, is facing corruption charges from ACC.

16. President Nasheed’s uncle by marriage, Dheyliage Abdulla Mohamed (and MP Eva Abdulla’s father), is the older brother of Rugiyya Mohamed, who is MDP MP for Vaavu Atoll. Dheyliage Abdulla Mohamed is also MDP MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih’s cousin.

17. MDP MP Rugiyya Mohamed’s husband, Thoyyib Mohamed Waheed, is Minister of State for Tourism, Arts and Culture. Thoyyib grew up in President Nasheed’s aunt’s household, Dheeframaage.

18. Dheyliage Abdulla Mohamed’s (see point 16) second wife’s brother, Maizan Adam Maniku, was former State Minister for Housing, Infrastructure and Transport.

19. President Nasheed’s class mate and close friend, Ali Shiyam, is the Economic Advisor to the President.

20. Ali Shiyam’s brother, Ahmed Hamza, was President Nasheed’s nominee for Deputy Speaker of Parliament.

21. Ali Shiyam’s brother, Jihad, was MDP candidate for Faafu Nilandhoo constituency.

22. Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is the former brother-in-law of former MDP chairperson and prominent leader of ruling MDP, Mariya Ahmed Didi. Dr. Ahmed Shaheed was formerly married to Ashiya Ahmed Didi.

23. MDP MP Mariya Ahmed Didi's sister, Haula Ahmed Didi, is the Deputy Foreign Minister.

24. MDP MP Mariya Ahmed Didi's sister, Rugiyya Ahmed Didi, is the Deputy Under Secretary at the President’s Office.

25. Rugiyya Ahmed Didi’s ex-husband, Umaru Jamaal, is the Minister of State for Upper South Province. Umar Jamaal was convicted for his involvement in the November 1988 coup.

26. MDP Mariya Ahmed Didi's brother-in-law, Ahmed Latheef (married to Fazeena Ahmed Didi), is the Maldivian Ambassador to China.

27. MDP MP Mariya Ahmed Didi's nephew (Ahmed Latheef’s and Fazeena’s son) Mifzal Ahmed, is Advisor on Investments for the Ministry of Economic Development. Mifzal is the Managing Director of Mega Maldives Pvt. Ltd. – the international airline of the Maldives opened in 2010, with many routes between China and Maldives. Note: Mifzal’s father is the Maldivian Ambassador in China.

28. MDP MP Mariya Ahmed Didi's sister Fazeena’s brother-in-law, Hassan Latheef, is the Minster of Human Resources, Youth & Sports.

29. MDP MP Mariya Ahmed Didi's sister-in-law, Dr. Farahanaaz Faizal, is the Maldivian High Commissioner to the UK.

30. Dr. Farahanaaz Faizal's brother, Ameen Faisal, is the former Defence Minister (resigned in the ‘en mass cabinet resignation’ in June 2010 and his reappointment was rejected by the Parliament). He is currently the National Security Advisor to the President and has been nominated by the President for the post of Ambassador to India.

31. Dr. Farahanaaz Faizal’s sister, Aishath Shuwaikar, is the Deputy Under Secretary of the President’s Office.

32. Aishath Shuwaikar’s husband, Ahmed Rasheed, is the Chief of Protocol.

I am sure some of these people are qualified for their jobs but the level of power shared amongst a few elite groups is undeniably shameful and disgusting, especially given the fact they their claim to power was on the promise of eradicating corruption within our country. One can argue that this level of connection could be because the Maldives is a small community and ‘everyone is related to everyone else’, but as a Maldivian I can tell you that the familial power sharing I witness today in the Maldives is of a different scale to any ‘family-ties’ that operates amongst ordinary Maldivians, yet we do nothing about it. Power is passed amongst these traditional power blocs as if it is a family heirloom!

Count how many of these people own resorts or have shares in resorts. Remember how many of these people held positions of power in the previous regime. Think how many of these people have won bids for businesses, land or resorts. Many of these very same people ate from Maumoon’s plate not so long ago and reaped all the benefits during his regime (E.g. Mariyam Ahmed Didi and Dr. Shaheed). They have all switched to President Nasheed’s club for the time being, and when the time comes I predict they will switch back to the next popular regime. We can already see this happening because many politicians are already switching back to DRP or PPM for the 2013 elections! The very people that President Nasheed has surrounded himself with will be the downfall of what could have been a truly remarkable presidency.

I don’t have any affiliation with this regime or the former. Entire generations of ordinary Maldivians are the victims of these power-hungry, money-grabbing, opportunistic politicians who have amassed the nation’s wealth for personal gain over countless generations! Let us hope that in the next elections and in the next government there will be more transparency, fairness and less corruption.

Ps: If some of the information on the list are outdated or inaccurate please feel free to correct me!

[endhimariyambu-blog]

Historical view of Maldivian women :)

A British ethnographer, T. W. Hockley, visited Male’ in 1935 and expressed his views on Maldivian women:

“Of the women of the place I saw but few during my sojourn in Male’. Although it is a Moslem country women do not go veiled, but, nevertheless, they seemed very shy and timid as deer, and run inside their houses on the approach of a stranger. The women as a rule are fairer than the men though this may be accounted for, perhaps, because they probably do not expose themselves so much to the sun, their domestic duties keeping them for longer periods indoors. They are possessed of good figures and regular features and some of the young women are distinctly attractive and good-looking.

“In spite of this apparent shyness, however, I was told that chastity is not always a very strong point among them. Many are mutable in their affections and being passionate in their nature are much inclined to sexuality. There is a considerable amount of venereal disease prevalent I believe. This has, however, possibly been imported and is probably due to the men returning after a protracted stay in other ports where they have contracted such diseases and brought them back them with them.

“Pyrard in his ‘Voyages aux Indes’ refers repeatedly to the laxity of morals among Maldivian women and also to the prevalence of venereal diseases even in his time.”

I could not help but laugh when I read his view of us Maldivian women in 1935, so thought of sharing this with you! Misconceived or not?

Source:

Hockley, T. W. (1935) The Two Thousand Isles: A Short Account of the People, History and Customs of the Maldive Archipelago, London: H.F.& G. Witherby.

[endhimariyambu-blog]

Let us not be cultural slaves to anyone

There is a growing obsession with Arab culture amongst some Maldivians. Nothing is more pretentious to me than the sight of a Maldivian man wearing an Arab headscarf on his head and the Arab white long shirt. Other evidence of Maldivian obsession with Arab culture is seen in the way some people have begun to call themselves or name their kids using Arab terms such as ‘bin’ or ‘binte’. Some even resort to listening only to Arabic music (even though they can’t understand a single word!).

One may see this as a sign of religiosity, whereby a person is increasingly abiding to the customs of the land of the Prophet Mohamed and there is nothing wrong with following culture people find appealing. However, my problem is when these very people accuse other people of following Western culture and aggressively promote Arab customs in the name of Islam. Listening to music, wearing colourful clothes and dancing is considered a ‘sin’ according to them. I also finding it disturbing that such people fail to appreciate their own culture and refuse to accept their surroundings.

We Maldivians were not born in the Middle East; we don’t speak Arabic and we don’t dress as Arabs. Most of us have never seen a desert or beyond our islands in our lifetime. And what is wrong with Dhivehi names? Our ancestors wore colourful dresses and spoke Dhivehi, Addu or whichever language that was born out of their islands. Our ancestors danced to the traditional drums. Women wore the buruga (not ‘Hijab’!) but they wore it with pride, by their own choice, and wore colourful burugas.

This current Arabisation of our culture began with the return of many Maldivians following their studies in the Middle East, particularly in Saudi Arabia. It is understandable that people can be influenced and enlightened by their experiences abroad, but that should not be the cause for an aggressive preaching of a foreign culture.  I just feel as if our culture is being threatened by this Arabisation of Maldivians. I have nothing against Arab culture and my concern is with the preservation of the history, indigenous languages and practices of my own culture.

We are surrounded by colour every day. The sun never stops shining in our islands. We are only 315,000 people and we have something unique to preserve. There is nothing like our indigenous languages, customs and way of life. Over hundreds of years we have managed to create a hybrid between our traditions and Islam, so please don’t let it die. Do not become a cultural slave to the Arabs, or the West.

[endhimariyambu-blog]

Racism. Not a myth in the Maldives.

One of the most appalling scenes I have witnessed in Male’ was when I saw a group of ten Bangladeshi men treated as second class human beings at the Hulhumale’ ferry terminal. In the waiting area at the terminal, everyone was waiting for the arrival of the ferry between Male’ and Hulhumale’. Once the ferry arrived, the ferry service officer asked all Maldivians to get on board first and commanded the Bangladeshis, in the rudest possible way, to wait until all Maldivians were on board. Many Maldivians that arrived a lot later were also allowed to board the ferry while the Bangladeshis waited. The ferry became full and left these men waiting for the next ferry. I did not see any sense of shame from the people that boarded this ferry or the staff at the terminal. These ten Bangladeshi men did not show any sign of protest as if they knew their place in our society. I was honestly shocked and saddened by what I had witnessed.

It is estimated that there are around 100,000 foreign workers in the Maldives, with the large majority of workers from South Asian countries such as Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka. Foreign workers from South Asian countries are subjected to daily discrimination through name-calling, harassment and sometimes violence in many islands of the Maldives. It is not an overstatement to say that the state institutions openly encourage discrimination against foreign workers, particularly those from South Asian countries.

There is a hierarchy to this discrimination as well. At the top are the white foreign workers who are often received with admiration, i.e. positive discrimination. Highly skilled, non-white foreign workers from all countries are treated with respect but are still at risk of negative discrimination if they make a mistake. For example, if a student fails or if a doctor makes a mistake, they are threatened and harassed if locals deem it justifiable. At the bottom of this hierarchy are the foreign workers who are mainly involved in low-skilled work such as construction, land reclamation and garbage disposal. The workers at the bottom face the worst sort of discrimination ranging from name-calling and violence to institutional discrimination.

Although we Maldivians claim to be tolerant in general, we somehow accept calling Bangladeshis ‘Bangalhis’ or ‘Bangalhun’ and Sri Lankans ‘Ori’. Whilst one can argue that these are just names given to identify a group of people and are not meant to be derogatory, we cannot deny the context in which these words are used. For instance, the word ‘Paki’ is on its own is just a word but this word has become derogatory because of the context in which it has been used or due to the history attached to the word. We would not dare call the Ambassador of Bangladesh a ‘Bangalhi’ in front of him/her because it is considered demeaning and disrespectful, but why is it then acceptable to refer an ordinary Bangladeshi worker by this term openly. Every Maldivian knows that this term is used in a derogatory context. Politicians, ordinary people and children use these terms when identifying a Bangladeshi national with a problem. This sort of derogatory name calling or classifying people into categories is shameful and should not be tolerated in our country at all.

Discrimination against South Asian workers is openly displayed in the public domain. According to a report published by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (2011), foreign prisoners receive differential treatment in Maafushi Jail. They live in smaller, more overcrowded conditions and are addressed using derogatory language. The media also openly publishes content which is discriminatory in language and encourages intolerance. There are facebook groups set up by Maldivians for the specific purpose of inciting hatred toward South Asian workers in the Maldives! Whilst the state is rigorously policing political or religious content in the media it fails to pay any attention to this. Worst of all was when the City Council of Male’ organised a committee to deal with the ‘issue of the nuisance and bother of ‘Bangalhun’ congregating’ in public squares in the capital. The Council members suggested keeping open spaces out of bounds for foreign workers and to put notice boards in foreign languages informing that it is out of bounds. How are we any different from the Nazi’s in the 1930s when they denied Jews access to public parks?

Consider what they do for our country. They build our houses; they clean our roads; they even look after our children. Simple, traditional tasks we Maldivians were able to do ourselves like making hedhika or fishing are now undertaken by them. Maldivians complain when they use public hospitals, parks, shops and public transport, etc. What do we give them in return? Insults, inadequate housing and poor working conditions. Construction workers work over 14 hours a day and most of them sleep in shifts because construction companies provide extremely poor living conditions and wages.

This begs the question, why do we treat foreign workers with so much contempt? Similar to many other societies, are we feeling threatened by the ever expanding immigrant population? Is our culture threatened? Is it the loss of jobs? Are the unemployed youth in the country ready to take over the jobs undertaken by foreign workers? NO. The truth is Maldivians would not want their jobs and I do not think we are threatened by foreign cultures, certainly not from South Asian countries. Lack of education or awareness is not an excuse, because even people who are educated and cultured use terms such as ‘Bangalhi’ daily. For example, the recently arrested blogger Hilath Rasheed, a man known for his fight for freedom of religion, sexual orientation and expression, etc, also refers to nationals of Bangladesh as ‘Bangalhis’ in his blogs. So could it be that we Maldivians have failed to detect this racism that has been thriving amongst us for many years?

Perhaps we should start a change now. Parents and teachers should teach children to respect and understand equality and diversity. Just teaching about their human rights is not enough. Maldivians do love their own human rights but are still very far from recognising that those that are different from us are also owed their human rights. The government should enact laws that openly denounce those that incite intolerance and contempt against foreign workers. Civil society organisations in the Maldives that fight for the ‘rights of everything on this earth’ should make an active stance against racism in the Maldives. Businesses that bring in foreign workers should be held legally responsible for providing their employees with decent living and working conditions, and should create better awareness amongst foreign workers of cultural norms in our society.

It does not cost us anything to treat foreign workers with respect and dignity. Justifying to yourself that you personally do not discriminate and sleeping peacefully with that is not enough.  Racism is not a myth in our country. Next time you refer to a Bangladeshi, please do not refer to him/her with the term xxxx!

[endhimariyambu-blog]

Community spirit in the Maldives. Beautiful.

[endhimariyambu-blog]

For those who say there is no room for discussion on the issue of public flogging in the Maldives - Here’s one for you

13th July 2011 – Foreign Minister of the Maldives, Ahmed Naseem meets Hillary Clinton in Washington and states “Both the United States and Maldives have the same ideals, and we strive to create democracy in Maldives…. we have been successfully broaching the democratic transition (in the Maldives). I think that was the pivoting of the Islamic awakening … And we are working very closely on the – in the areas of human rights in Geneva”.

(Source: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/07/168473.htm)

27th November 2011 – Following Navi Pillay’s comments about flogging, Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem states to the media in the Maldives “What’s there to discuss about flogging? There is nothing to debate about in a matter clearly stated in the religion of Islam. No one can argue with God”.

This is coming from the supposedly ‘educated, diplomatic, cultured, open-minded’ appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs that represents us, the Maldivian people, abroad and this is his idea of ‘Islamic awakening’. Which human rights is he working on in Geneva? Unfortunately, this is a typical example of Maldivian statesmen who often use human rights language without any action or sincerity. Human rights is the most distorted and misused concept in the country.

Let me open this discussion for those who are afraid of a little debate!

__________

First of all, what is so outrageous about Navi Pillay’s comments about flogging? All she really said was that the practice of public flogging of women as a punishment for extramarital sex should be debated simply because it is a cruel and degrading punishment. This is an issue people discuss behind closed doors all the time in the Maldives and I am baffled by the public reaction to her statements. The demonstrations, the threats to Navi Pillay and the UN in Maldives; and the public statements by every other politician to condemn her and reaffirm their devotion to Islam only showed insecurity, cowardice and hidden agendas of politicians and religious mullahs.

The same way we have stopped chopping hands or stoning people (because we consider it inhumane and outdated, remember!), why can’t we open this issue for discussion? I remember the way hoards of men gather around the Justice Building in Male’ to witness public flogging, of which a large majority are inflicted on women. Men gather around to jeer and watch this public spectacle as if they have never committed a sin deserving a public flogging according to shariah. Just because a man/woman has sex outside marriage do they deserve to be publicly humiliated, bent over in front of a large jeering crowd and struck on their bottoms until their spirit breaks?

Theft, intoxication, violence and murder are considered modern, social problems of society that need to be addressed with modern forms of rehabilitation and humane punishment. BUT lo and behold, public flogging of women is considered the embodiment of Islam in the Maldives. It is simply irreversible and any discussion of this matter is considered heresy! I’ll tell you why religious factions are outraged with Pillay’s comments – it is because public flogging is a punishment predominantly inflicted on women. If the published official statistics are accurate, out of 184 people sentenced to flogging in the Maldives in 2006, 146 were women. In other words it is another tool used to suppress women in our male dominated society. If a man simply denies having extramarital sex he can walk away free but the women is often left pregnant, humiliated, defamed, and her child denied a father. How can this be humane, justifiable and fair?

Any person with local knowledge would know that extramarital sex is commonplace in the country. I am saddened by the fact that so many people remain quiet or indifferent to the pain and humiliation endured by the women who are caught. I am not saying that extramarital sex should not be considered a sin under shariah, because I DO respect cultural values people uphold. I am only arguing that there needs to be a more humane way of punishment if the culture/religion of the country deems it absolutely necessary to punish people for extramarital sex. It is very clear that public flogging in the Maldives is discriminatory, unnecessary and inhumane, and if we are genuinely moving forward in the path of democracy this issue needs to be reassessed. Furthermore, nobody has a right to say that this cannot ever be discussed; particularly if they are simultaneously arguing that we live in a democratising society!

In all matters of life, whether science or religion, there is always room for debate. Without Shura (mutual consultation), debate and discussion, and the use of our god-given brains and ability to adapt we are nothing but mindless animals. Islam is a faith for all those who believe, be it open-minded and close-minded. People like you and me have as much a right to debate and reassess religious issues as any religious scholar. The Quran encourages propagating Islam with wisdom and consideration. So let me end on this verse from the Quran:

Call to the way of your Lord with (great) wisdom and solicitude and argue with them in ways that are most appropriate. (And remember that) your Lord knows best those who have strayed from His path and (also) those, who are rightly guided. (16: 125).

[endhimariyambu-blog]

Maldivians at a crossroads with religion

I was once at a presentation where someone stated that ‘today, Maldivians are at a crossroads with Islam’.  Coming from a country that likes to claim that it is a ‘100 per cent Muslim’ country and continues to believe and enforce the idea of religious homogeneity, at all costs, I thought it was a  very interesting and daring statement to be said in the public domain. Whilst some of us like to deny the reality, these words hit home for me. It is a fact that many Maldivians, particularly the youth, are confused and disillusioned by the variety of religious messages and doctrines thrown at them.  

Should I wear the scarf to avoid hell? If I keep my beard long enough would I go to heaven? I occasionally smoke weed and have sex with my girlfriend, but I do pray 3 times a day – heaven or hell?

For a country that has been practicing a moderate, peaceful version of Islam for 800 years, the current social landscape presents a rather different picture – a country that is divided strongly in its opinion of religion. Similar with many other countries that are experiencing challenges from religious fanatics, we have a section of society that calls for a return to a more radical form of Islam. Another section of society calls for a moderate, more tolerant form of Islam.  But the majority I believe are in the middle, indifferent and/or conform to religious principles in public but deviate behind closed doors.

The louder voice is obviously the religious fanatics’, the radicals’ voice because they bother to shout and preach.  Moderate Maldivian Muslims remain quiet because they are moderate, relaxed and are just trying to get through the daily challenges of living in the Maldives. The problem with this is that the religious fanatics in the Maldives are becoming stronger and louder. Today they are loud enough to drown and threaten the voices of those that oppose or criticize them. Anyone who challenges them is accused of apostasy or treason!

They are threatening the very basic rights we Maldivians have just begun to enjoy after a 30 year authoritarian regime.

The increase in religious fanatics or the so-called religious scholars and their minions in the Maldives worries me because they have already started clamping down on our freedom of thinking and have unleashed moral policing in the country. The hypocrisy of the Adhaalath Party and other religious fanatics is downright shameful and disgusting. Freedom of expression is a right only for them.  Right to a peaceful life is only for them. Right to protest is only for them. Right to heaven is only for them! The rest of us are constantly judged; our faith questioned and our peaceful way of life threatened. The sad fact is that political parties such as PPM join these clowns and help religious groups to use religion as a weapon to drive a wedge in Maldivian society, only because of their desire to delegitimize the current regime.

The events leading up to the mass protest on 23rd December showcased the religious divide like never before. Following Navi Pillay’s (the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights) comments on the issue of public flogging in the Maldives and the consequent outcry by religious factions, to the protest held by group of people calling for freedom of religion in the Maldives and the mass protest, one undeniable truth is uncovered - there is no religious homogeneity in the country and there is no point in pretending to have one.

The truth is we simply cannot live the way Muslims lived 1400 years ago, so the government needs to stop debating as if it is an option and giving hope to these religious fanatics. People should think for themselves and accept the reality around them. We need to live in the context of our time on this earth and respect differences.  

More importantly, if you, yourself cannot honour the basic morals and values subscribed to by all societies, stop preaching your sanctimonious bullshit to other people!