The Most/Recent Articles

Ill-timed, after all



“From Thimpu to Geneva, whenever the LTTE joined the negotiations process, as Prabhakaran pointed out, it had always called for interim measures to facilitate the talks rather than addressing the larger issues. The latter, it used to be pointed out, could lead to a political settlement, as a top-down approach to ending the war and violence.”

by N Sathiya Moorthy

(December 01, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) LTTE supremo Velupillai Prabhakaran, his supporters and sympathisers could not have asked for worse. The 'Mumbai Mayhem' crowded out Prabhakaran's annual "Heroes Day" speech as nothing had done in the past. The television imagery of the worst ever case of recorded urban guerrilla warfare, as different from serial blasts and suicide-bombings, will remain etched in every mind for a long time. Plain and simple, the world will be in no mood to hear Prabhakaran's call for lifting the ban on the LTTE – and will remain so for a relatively long time to come than the LTTE can afford.

The less said about India the better. The Indian mood assumes significance for the simple reason Prabhakaran's speech mentioned only India by name – barring of course the 'Sinhala nation', on which poured scorn, as was only to be expected. "At no stage did we ever consider India as an enemy force. Our people always consider India as our friend. They have great expectations that the Indian super-power will take a positive stand on our national question," Prabhakaran said.

"It was because we were firmly committed to our conviction and freedom for our people, that friction erupted between our movement and India," Prabhakaran said. In the same vein, he expressed my "love and gratitude to the people and leaders of Tamil Nadu and the leaders of India for the voice of support and love they have extended." He wanted them to do more and "take appropriate and positive measures to remove the ban which remains an impediment to an amicable relationship between India and our movement."

There was no reference in the speech to the 'Rajiv Gandhi assassination', which caused the ban, the LTTE's war on the IPKF, which made the relationship less than amicable, and definitely no indication of the LTTE wanting India to facilitate a negotiated settlement with the Sri Lankan State. It only sought re-legitimisation of the LTTE in India, and in the rest of the world.

Taken as a whole, Prabhakaran's speech this year was both a reversal of his speech last year and a continuation thereof, at the same time. Last year, he had asked the Tamil community in India and the world over to argue the LTTE's case for a 'Tamil Eelam'. He had made less than positive references to India at the time.

Having succeeded, if only to a limited extent in motivating the Tamils of India to do the LTTE's bidding, however indirectly, he finds the Indian State unmoving, as yet. It remains to be seen how Tamil Nadu would react to Prabhakaran's call after the 'Mumbai Mayhem' remains to be seen.

In a way, Prabhakaran's speech was an appeal to the international community to intervene, and on LTTE's behalf and on LTTE's terms. Clearly, the LTTE is feeling the pinch of international isolation, and the direct and indirect support accruing to the war effort of the Sri Lankan State. Prabhakaran indicated that the LTTE was not ready for direct talks with the Sri Lankan Government without external facilitators, but added that it was "unacceptable and insulting" for the LTTE to lay down arms, ahead of talks, as sought by President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Clearly, the message was for the international community, 'neighbouring India' included. The LTTE had never stood in the way of the national, geopolitical, or economic welfare of any other country, Prabhakaran said. They were not the enemies of the LTTE he said adding that the outfit had never planned to act against any country. If this reads like a concession to those countries that is it. Deceptive words these, based on the theory that "enemy's friend's enemy could be my friend"?

From Thimpu to Geneva, whenever the LTTE joined the negotiations process, as Prabhakaran pointed out, it had always called for interim measures to facilitate the talks rather than addressing the larger issues. The latter, it used to be pointed out, could lead to a political settlement, as a top-down approach to ending the war and violence.

Today, the military advantage lies with the Sri Lankan State, and it is saying that the LTTE laying down arms alone would create the climate and conviction for proceeding with political negotiations. It was one step ahead of the LTTE's very own condition for restoration of humanitarian aid and human rights for the Tamil civilians as a pre-condition for reviving talks.

The LTTE can take lesson from the way the friends-turned-foes in the Eastern Province were mainstreamed and democratised. In the past, no Tamil militant group, the LTTE included, was known to have used their guns and weapons to defend the innocent Tamils when targeted either by the Sri Lankan armed forces or some Sinhala goons. Since the Seventies, theirs had always been retaliatory attacks much after the provocative incidents.

The LTTE can still give fire-cover for the larger Tamil community until a negotiated, political settlement is in place. It cannot retain 'human shields' under its control in the name of protecting them. It has to re-create the missing trust in the Sri Lankan State and the international community, that it needs to keep the weapons for self-defence, that too in the cause of the larger Tamil community, and not otherwise.

Yes, the LTTE too would require guarantees that the Sri Lankan armed forces would not resort to unprovoked attacks. The Sri Lankan State, which as a State actor would have the inherent, institutional advantage of continuing to deny international supplies to the LTTE, would have to guarantee that – and make it stick, too.

The article was an originally published on the Daily Mirror, daily news paper based in Colombo.
-The writer is Director, Chennai Chapter of the Observer Research Foundation, the Indian policy think-tank, headquartered in New Delhi. email: sathiyam54@hotmail.
com
- Sri Lanka Guardian

Right of self determination and ‘All Parties Adhoc Committee’



by Dr Shabir Choudhry for Sri Lanka Guardian

(December 01, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) What a change? What a U turn? Those who were until recently selling General Musharaf’s four point agenda on Kashmir leading to division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir have made another somersault and have brought out a new ‘commodity’ wrapped skilfully in cover of right of self determination.

Right of self determination is a fundamental human right and is highly respected in all societies, especially in the West. Many countries and agencies use this noble concept of self determination to further their national and personal interests. Some business minded people have transformed the Kashmiri struggle in to a lucrative business, and they have ability to sell anything.

They have mastered the art of salesmanship, and have successfully sold Kashmir issue for generations. When it suited them they advocated the status quo, when militancy was popular, it was sold as a ‘Jihad’. When popularity of militancy declined they became advocates of peace and human rights. When General Musharaf, as a President of Pakistan proposed a division of Kashmir in a form of ‘self rule’, they advocated that ‘self rule’ was more ‘advanced’ and ‘forward looking’ concept than right of self determination.

Now that General Musharaf is no longer calling shots and his four point agenda is abandoned, policy makers in Islamabad thought of promoting right of accession under disguise of self determination. They approached their tried and tested ally based in Chandni Chowk of Rawalpindi, who successfully accomplished many missions for them in the past.

As a result of that understanding a declaration was made with regard to ‘right of self determination’. This so called nationalist leader who is not regarded as such by any nationalist party of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan, and is out of step with all parties who promote united and independent Jammu and Kashmir is still ‘blue eye boy’ of Pakistani agencies.

He seems to be more at home with pro Pakistan parties and that is why he never felt need to consult or talk to any of the nationalist parties. He under directions of his mentors had meetings with pro Pakistan parties and declared right of self determination day on 14th October.

Their foot soldiers and employees in Europe were also issued directions to hold some function to promote their brand of ‘right of self determination’ that it ‘coincide with the right of self-determination day called by their mentors in Islamabad, hence some people in a close room meting set up an ‘All Parties Adhoc Committee’ in name of Kashmiri Diaspora.

Interestingly these promoters of right of self determination felt no need to take in to confidence anyone from Jammu, Ladakh, All Parties Nationalist Alliance - alliance of nationalist parties of Azad Kashmir of Gilgit and Baltistan, or GABNA alliance of parties in Gilgit and Baltistan, Kashmiri alliances among Kashmiri Diaspora and popular parties in the Valley; and yet they have nerve to claim that they are representing the majority view. It clearly looked that their aim was to promote a Muslim interest – a right of self determination for Muslims to divide people of Jammu and Kashmir on religious lines.

Dr Nazir Gilani, a prominent human rights activist and Secretary General of JKCHR- only Kashmiri party with a special consultative status with the UN, was also among those who were not invited to this so called meeting in which this so called ‘All Parties Adhoc Committee’ was set up. A Kashmiri channel – KBC is sincerely trying to educate people and doing its best to help Kashmiri Diaspora to forge some kind of unity; and Shams Rehman is playing a leading role in this regard.

Shams Rehman had a special TV programme for this purpose, and when he pressed these promoters of new right of ‘self determination’, why they did not take other Kashmiris on board to promote unity and right of self determination, one man who receives a salary from a centre set up by Pakistani agencies said: We have called all people who believe in right of self determination, but we will not invite those who are ‘hashia bardaar of India’ and that he ‘will expose these people’. The term ‘Hashia bardaar of India’ is abusive and derogative, and is not used by self respecting people – one can translate it as a ‘member of an Indian lobby or agent of India’.

This man was a school teacher before the start of militancy and since that time has changed many platforms which helped him to run his kitchen. His mentors could not promote him adequately with a title of school teacher so they gave him a new title of a ‘Professor’; and exported him from Islamabad to London with hefty salary. Perhaps this guy does not know that his language was divisive and full of hatred; and he could be clearly in violation of British laws. The British authorities don’t look kindly at those who spread communalism and hatred, and advocate such policies which can shatter peace and harmony of the British society.

After pressure from the KBC team and other political parties they hurriedly issued some invitations. On Saturday 11th October I checked with some active nationalist parties in UK and I was astonished to find out that they did not receive any invitation, and this so called seminar is taking place on 14th October. Active participant in this campaign is Amanulalh Khan’s JKLF which is not regarded as a nationalist party by nationalists of Jammu and Kashmir, and like Muslim Conference their role is to protect and promote interest of Islamabad from their respective platforms.

According to the rational expressed by this employee of Islamabad all those who were not invited in the so called original meeting or there after are ‘Hashia bardaar of India’ – agents of India?

It would be pertinent to ask some questions from these champions of ‘right of self determination’:

Who called this meeting of representatives of Kashmiri Diaspora to set up an ‘All Parties Adhoc Committee’?

What criteria, if any, were used to extend invitations?

When and where this meeting was held and who were present?


Names associated with this enterprise also belong to political parties; and those parties also have a policy on Kashmir, does it mean that they are disappointed with the policy or stand of their parent parties that they felt obliged to set up a new platform?

Apart from that these people are also associated with pro Pakistan alliance known as Rabta Committee or Coordination Committee, does it mean that this platform is no longer capable to advance the cause of self determination?


I am sure one could add more questions to this list. It is becoming evidently clear that this new campaign is a new trade mark for those with commercial interest in the Kashmiri struggle. It is not their imitative, just like militancy was not their initiative. Previously they were agents of a ‘proxy war’ and sold it as a ‘jihad’; and it looks that in place of that now they will be part of this ‘proxy politics’, controlled and directed from Islamabad.

My humble request is to find another business or another job, and do not sell right of accession to Pakistan wrapped up in a beautiful cover of right of self determination. And please do not use name of Kashmiri Diaspora to further your political and commercial interests.

The Writer is a Spokesman of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.
- Sri Lanka Guardian

International Community should Unite to eradicate to Terrorism.



Canadian Democratic Tamil Cultural Association condemns the recent terrorist attack in Mumbai, India.

(December 01, Toronto, Sri Lanka Guardian) We request at least now the International Community should unite to eradicate terrorism, from whatever quarters, home grown or from external forces wherever it comes from, said the CDTCA in a press statement.

"There are no good terrorists or bad terrorists, as Terrorists are terrorists. Today terrorism has become an international scourge, as they kill innocent civilians."

"We strongly agree with the statement of the UN Security Council that “All acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation”.

"We earnestly hope that the International Community will begin to take concrete measures in keeping with this realization."

"Canadian Democratic Tamil Cultural Association expresses its condolences to the families of the victims and to the people and the Government of India. We also condemn the brutal killings of two Canadians in the cowardly Terrorist attack and share our Sorrows for the loss of two Canadians and to their grieving families, who lost their lives."
- Sri Lanka Guardian

The Attack on Mumbai: The Tragedy of Moral Bankruptcy in Politics



by S. Hewage

(December 01, Cololmbo, Sri Lanka Guardian) In one of his most brilliant analyses of the seemingly complex relationship between politics and morality, Immanuel Kant argued that if the art of politics is to be perfected it should be laced with morality. If morality and politics are incompatible in a single command, then these two are really in conflict. “But if these two qualities ought always to be united, the thought of contrariety is absurd, and the question as to how the conflict between morals and politics is to be resolved cannot even be posed as a problem.” (Kant, “On the Opposition between Morality and Politics with Respect to Perpetual Peace,” para.370).

The problems of “politics” around the world today are essentially the problems of moral bankruptcy on the part of all political leaders. Today, politics have deteriorated to the point that morality is treated as the opposite of politics, and to talk about morality in politics is to lose political power big time. It is in this context that I wish to ask the following questions: Are there lessons to be learned from the carnage that took place in Mumbai, India on November 25-27, 2008? Or, should it be treated as just another terror strike in an already volatile India? Specifically, should this attack on Mumbai by jihadis be taken as an important reminder to all democracies that we are all in this struggle together against terrorism in a globalized world.

First, let it be clear that there are no good terrorists or bad terrorists, and terrorism anywhere is terrorism everywhere. To classify terrorists as good or bad is already a sign of a moral weakness on the part of any government, and it sends a profoundly wrong signal to all present and future terrorists. It is the violent act that we abhor as terrorism not the individuals or groups, per se. It should be noted, that in this context, many Indian citizens feel that their government has been too soft on terrorists, and that their government leaders have unwittingly contributed to the boosting of morale among terrorists in the region.

Terrorism has become one of the main challenges to democracies around the world. As the 21st century nation-states are predominately multi-cultural and multi-ethnic, this challenge of terrorism has been further exacerbated by the process of globalization. The ethnic and religious groups are increasingly bonding with similar ethnic and religious groups beyond the borders of nation-states. Common ideologies of ethnicity and religion have contributed to weakening loyalties to a nation-state. These groups, wanting to create a pan-ethnic and/or religious state, have used violent campaigns to attain their political objectives. For example, extremist Islamic ideology of Al-Qaeda extends to all Muslims to be united against the perceived threat of western European and North American political and economic domination. The call to unite against the west transcends all borders where there are substantial Muslim populations. Likewise, the LTTE (the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) promote the ideology of a pan-Asian Tamil state incorporating the southern state of Tamil Nadu and the northeastern part of Sri Lanka. Terrorists groups with similar ideologies operate in other parts of the world, as well.
Just as radical Marxism challenged the democratic state during the cold war period, ethnic and religious nationalism has become the greatest threat to global security. In the same way that Marxists wanted to create communist states in the 20th century, radical ethnic nationalism is fueling political conflicts aimed at carving out mono-ethnic states out of multi-ethnic societies in the 21st century.

Terrorists carefully monitor each other’s techniques, and share technology—the modus operandi — they help one another in fundraising, money laundering, and procuring weapons, as the LTTE helped the Columbian terrorist group FARC to transport drugs for weapons. Also, it was the LTTE that perfected the suicide bombing technique that was adopted by Al-Qaeda, Hamas and other Middle East terrorist groups. By mimicking the LTTE techniques, Al-Qaeda carried out a suicide bombing attack on the American navy destroyer the USS Cole on October 12, 2000 while it was harbored in the Yemeni port of Aden. Furthermore, the terrorists glorify each other’s successful attacks on military and civilian installations as motivational techniques during training exercises of their own combatants. For example, the LTTE praised Timothy McVeigh, the American homegrown terrorist, who attacked the Federal Building in Okalahoma City on April 19, 1995 killing 169 people.


McVeigh effectively used easily available material such as chemical fertilizer with devastating effect. Because all terrorists portray themselves as underdogs, any successful operations against state infrastructures and security forces by one terrorist group is a major psychological boost to all terrorists.

It is against this background that we need to examine the lessons to be learned from the devastating attacks in Mumbai. What are those lessons?

Lesson # 1: Never provide sanctuary to any group suspected of conducting a violent campaign against another state, no matter how much you dislike that particular country or its government’s policies. Remember, when it comes to politics, there are no permanent friends, or permanent enemies. However, if you provide sanctuary to terrorists to weaken the government of your neighbor, you are only inviting trouble in your own country sooner or later.

Lesson # 2: Never provide material, psychological, or logistical support to a terrorist group operating against another nation, no matter how unjust the political system or the leadership of that country may be. Bring the issues or concerns that you feel unjust to the attention of a regional or global forum such as the United Nations, so that you are not doing an illegal act. By helping terrorists you will not contribute to democratic principles, but degrade all human values. Take the moral high ground.

Lesson # 3: Never recruit, train or arm citizens of any country to carry out terrorist activities against legitimate armed forces of another country. If you do not like the conduct of the armed forces of that country, bring the issue to the attention of an international body, such as the UN, and through persistent dialogue the issue can be resolved. History provides ample evidence to prove that clandestine operations have often backed fired in the long run because terrorists are not loyal to any one nation, but to their cause. Remember, the United States and Pakistan recruited Osama Bin Laden and other young Muslims, trained, and armed them to fight against the Soviet Army in Afghanistan. After the Soviet withdrawal, Osama and other terrorists showed no gratitude to any of their creators, and the rest is history. Likewise, India trained, armed and provided logistics to the LTTE terrorists against the Sri Lankan state for short term political rivalries, which brought as much disaster for India as for Sri Lanka. The simple fact is that terrorists show no gratitude to anyone, except to achieve their own goals.

Lesson # 4: Never to negotiate with terrorists is one of the cardinal principles for freeing this world from the scourge of terrorism. To suggest or to encourage a legitimate nation-state to negotiate with terrorists means to legitimize terrorism, and it convinces every terrorist group around the world that violence pays dividends. The ultimate goal of every terrorist group is to weaken the legitimate state and for it to kneel down to the demands of the terrorists. Those who suggest a legitimate nation-state should negotiate with terrorists are only strengthening the hand of the terrorist.

Lesson # 5: Take every possible legal measure to prevent citizens and civil society organizations in your country in supporting terrorist organizations directly or indirectly. It is a well known fact that terrorists use bogus charitable organizations to raise money, and to launder money around the world. For example, the LTTE is one of most successful terrorist organizations that collect money through various front-organizations, such as the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization (TRO), the World Tamil Movement, the Tamil Children’s Aid, to mention but a few in many Western countries. They organize various social and cultural events with the patronage of local politicians who knowingly or unknowingly end up supporting terrorist groups. These politicians in Western countries are essentially contributing to the mass murders and destruction of properties in other countries.

Lesson # 6: Remember, terrorists are not concerned about human rights, or freedom of expression. Rather, they exploit these democratic principles and values for their own advantage, and to promote terrorist propaganda. While legitimate governments have to ensure the security and safety of all citizens, they are also compelled to uphold democratic values such as human rights, which can prevent law enforcement authorities to carry out their work effectively. It is imperative to understand that in times of fighting terrorism, there will be some limitations to democratic practices for the greater good in the long-run. In this context, organizations dedicated to protecting human rights should not become the guardians of terrorists by unduly forcing nation-states to uphold human rights laws at the expense of national security measures.

In the 21st century globalized world, terrorism is the biggest threat to democracy. As the terrorist groups world over share their technology, know-how, and resources, the democratic states cannot be divided over petty political advantages that give opportunity for terrorists to raise money, procure weapons, and carryout devastating attacks on innocent civilians and state property to consolidate their positions. Remember, terrorism anywhere is terrorism everywhere. Terrorists have no loyalty to any individual except to their own cause. Those who lend support to terrorists today may become a victim of terrorist violence tomorrow.
- Sri Lanka Guardian

Hitler and Prabhakaran - supernatural similarities



by Linda van Schagen

(December 01, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) In describing the Fuhrer, Rauschning wrote as follows: "One cannot help thinking of him as a medium. For most of the time mediums are ordinary, insignificant people. Suddenly they are endowed with what seems to be supernatural powers which set them apart from the rest of humanity. These powers are something that is outside their true personality - visitors, as it were, from another planet. The medium is possessed. Once the crisis is past, they fall back again into mediocrity. It was in this way, beyond any doubt, that Hitler was possessed by forces outside himself - almost demoniacal forces of which the individual named Hitler was only the temporary vehicle. It was like looking at a bizarre face whose expression seems to reflect an unbalanced state of mind coupled with a disquieting impression of hidden power."

Bouchez said: "I looked into his eyes the eyes of a medium in a trance. Sometimes there seemed to be a sort of ectoplasm; the speaker’s body seemed to be inhabited by something .... fluid. Afterwards he shrank again to insignificance, looking small and even vulgar. He seemed exhausted, his batteries run down."

Little known is how in 1914, Hitler came under the influence of the youthful General Karl Haushofer, born 1869. He had paid several visits to India and the Far East, and was sent to Japan where he learned the language. He believed that the German people originated in Central Asia, and that it was the Indo-Germanic race which guaranteed the permanence, nobility and greatness of the world. This is how the Swastika was introduced as a Nazi symbol. He declared that he would commit suicide if he failed in his "mission". On 14th March 1946, Karl Haushofer killed his wife Martha and committed suicide. Japanese fashion. He was believed to be the Grandmaster of a Secret Society, a dark society.

The dark menace of supernatural forces continue to ravage the world. Anita Pratap, in her book "Island of Blood" gives a first-hand account of Prabhakaran’s metamorphosis upon hearing some bad news. "I have never seen anyone’s face change so dramatically. When he began listening to Puliendran, Prabhakaran’s face was calm and relaxed. But as Puliendran continued with details of his bad news, Prabhakaran’s face started changing... Prabhakaran’s face had become dark and ominous. His eyebrows furrowed and bristled and were raised at sixty degrees angels. His eyes slanted, his mouth pursed and his even, clear features seemed to dissipate. He is dark complexioned, but like a chameleon, he turned colour before my astounded eyes. His face swelled and turned even darker, becoming almost the colour of his hair. I felt the hair on my arms rise. I was scared and yet mesmerized by the metamorphosis."

It was a nondescript looking, unattractive man, Hitler, who drove his army to commit horrendous acts. On his orders, 200,000 "imperfect" Germans were put to death (even though he himself was imperfect in that he only had one testicle after WWI). His secret pact with Japan drew them into the war in a bid for Japanese Imperialism. Millions died as a result of his demoniac powers to influence others to violence.

According to prophecies, the devil would be brought out from the bowels of the earth to create havoc (the Bible) towards the end of time and this was prophesied in the Mahabaratha 5,000 years ago when the last 100 years of the 5,000 year Hindu cycle would be the worst in the history of mankind.

As was prophesied 5.000 years ago, the last 100 years have been extremely violent. We have completed the Age of Iron (Kali Yuga) and are moving into the Golden Age of 1,250 years.

Certainly the era of Mammon worship seems to have come to an end. Sri Lanka will also conquer the evil forces in the very near future and we can all move on to more peaceful times.
- Sri Lanka Guardian

Mohamed Nasheed as President of Maldives



by Dr. Abdul Ruff

(December 01, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) Of course, one of the world's longest-serving rulers has just lost his job. Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, born in Male in 1937, educated in Sri Lanka and Egypt and served as transport minister under President Ibrahim Nasir, has been President of the Maldives, a South Asian Muslim country comprsing a group of islands in the Indian Ocean, for 30 years. He was re-elected six times, but has been declared defeated the seventh time, though unexpectedly, by Mohamed Nasheed from the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Mohamed Nasheed, who beat Gayoom to win the country's first democratic polls, has been sworn in as new president of the Maldives at a ceremony televised live from a convention centre in the capital Male. If no candidate gets more than 50% of the votes, a second round of polling will be held. In the first multi-party elections held in the Maldives, President Gayoom won the first round last month, but failed to secure the 50% needed for outright victory. A run-off was held on 28 October which was won by Nasheed, after falling short of an absolute majority in the first round; Nasheed united opposition support in the run-off winning 54% of the vote to Gayoom's 46%, although how he has managed to win power still remains almost a puzzle, even with opposition unity.

Nasheed said his victory over Gayoom - Asia's longest-serving leader - showed the people of the Maldives were embracing the future. The defeat of Gayoom has been ascribed to the new Constitutional changes and the reforms. The new constitution ratified in August 2008 contained provisions for separating the country's executive and legislature and enshrined a bill of rights. It also provided for the country's first multi-party presidential elections to take place. Parliament voted to introduce a multi-party democracy in 2005. Previously, political parties had been banned, although there had been no official ban on political activity. In 2006 President Gayoom presented a "roadmap" for the democratic reforms, which he said were meant to enhance human rights, independence of the judiciary and multi-party politics. He had come under growing pressure, with human rights groups accusing him of running an autocratic state and unprecedented anti-government violence flaring in the streets.

The poll in the sleepy Maldives, best known as a tropical luxury hideaway for Hollywood stars, is the culmination of years of agitation for democratic reforms. The election follows reforms introduced after Gayoom was accused of crushing pro-democracy protests in 2004.

Nasheed accused Gayoom of keeping several of his family members in top government posts. Until his poll defeat in 2008, Gayoom was

Asia's longest-serving leader. He was re-elected for a record sixth five-year term in 2003, having first taken office in 1978. The Maldives has been relatively stable under his rule, despite attempted coups in the 1980s. President Gayoom was saved from a would-be assassin wielding a kitchen knife in January 2008.

Maldives

Republic of Maldives is the smallest Asian country in terms of population. It is also the smallest predominantly Muslim nation in the world. The Maldives, is an island nation consisting of a group of atolls stretching south of India's Lakshadweep islands between the Minicoy and the Chargos archipelagoes, and about seven hundred kilometres (435 mi) south-west of Sri Lanka in the Laccadive Sea of Indian Ocean. Adherence to Islam is required for citizenship by a revision of the constitution in 2008. Today Tourism, Maldives' largest industry, accounts for 28% of GDP and more than 60% of the Maldives' foreign exchange receipts. Over 90% of government tax revenue comes from import duties and tourism-related taxes. Fishing is the second leading sector. Agriculture and manufacturing continue to play a lesser role in the economy, constrained by the limited availability of cultivable land and the shortage of domestic labor. Most staple foods must be imported.

Future

The election was considered the culmination of reforms in the Indian Ocean islands that followed pro-democracy street protests and international pressure. Gayoom, 71, had ruled the Maldives uncontested since 1978, elected back into office six times by referendums. Gayoom's supporters had credited him with overseeing an economic expansion fuelled by tourism. But Gayoom's critics accused him of being dictatorial.

Many Maldivians consider the 71-year-old Gayoom a hero who has transformed a fishing culture into a tourist nation whose white sandy beaches lure well-heeled Western tourists. Gayoom is Asia's longest-serving leader, having held power in the coral-fringed atolls since 1978. Under him, tourism has made the Maldives the most prosperous country in South Asia but his political opponents have described him as a dictator who has ruled like the Sultans of old. He has built South Asia's richest nation, per capita, thanks to dozens of resorts on white sand beaches and crystal clear waters -- where hotels charge up to 15,000 dollars a night. There have been advances in education, health and life expectancy on the Muslim archipelago of 300,000 mostly Sunni Muslims.

The Maldives is made up of a chain of nearly 1,200 islands, most of them uninhabited, which lie off the Indian sub-continent. None of the coral islands measures more than 1.8 metres (six feet) above sea level, making the country vulnerable to a rise in sea levels associated with global warming. The Maldives is the lowest nation in the world. Its highest land is little more than two metres above sea level. Nasheed made no mention of his idea of saving the people of the Indian Ocean archipelago from rising sea levels by buying them a new homeland. The United Nations estimates that sea levels may rise globally by nearly 60 centimetres this century. Earlier, Nasheed had said the gradual rise in sea levels caused by global warming meant the islanders may eventually be forced to resettle elsewhere.

There is a fear that as sea levels rise, island countries such as the Maldives, and some Pacific territories, will simply be swamped and disappear. A U.N. climate change panel is predicting seas are likely to rise up to 59 cm (2 ft) by 2100, and most of the Maldives' islands are no higher than 1.5 m (4 feet) above sea level. The Maldives are suffering from increasing drug use, worsening crime and a chronic housing shortage in the cramped island capital Male.

New Leader: a Bold Dissident

Born in 1967, Nasheed was educated in Sri Lanka and Britain, and has a degree in maritime engineering. The man who has won the election to become the next president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, is arguably the country's most famous political activist. He has now also earned a place in the history books as the person who brought an end to the 30-year rule of Gayoom - Asia's longest serving leader.

Nasheed was one of the earliest and boldest dissidents in the islands, pursuing an early career as a journalist until he was persecuted for his writing. In the early 1990s he established a reputation for his political commentaries in the Sangu magazine at a time when vocal criticism of the government was almost non-existent. Sangu was later banned, and he was put under house arrest and imprisoned after giving an interview to the international press about his ill-treatment in detention. Nasheed spent 18 months in solitary confinement, alleging torture at the hands of the then National Security Services (NSS), which has since been split into the police and armed forces. Punishments included severe sleep and water deprivation, being fed food with crushed glass and being chained to a chair outside for 12 days.

After spending some time abroad upon his release, Nasheed was later jailed again for political writing, becoming an Amnesty Prisoner of Conscience in 1997. During periods spent in jail, he studied and later wrote three books on Maldivian history both in English and the local Dhivehi script. Elected as an MP in 1999, he was later forced from his seat following a theft charge which was widely condemned at the time as politically motivated. He was prosecuted for taking files from outside the former residence of ex-President Ibrahim Nasir, an action classed by the state as theft. In 2001 he unsuccessfully tried - along with other dissident politicians - to register the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP). In September 2003, he intervened when 19-year-old Hassan Evan Naseem died in the country's largest prison, asking a doctor to see the body before the death certificate was signed. It was later found he was tortured to death in by eight NSS officers. The event marked a turning point in the country's history, sparking mass street and jail riots which resulted in the shooting of three prisoners.

In his inaugural speech, Nasheed promised to strengthen democracy and to combat poverty and drug abuse. Nasheed argues that his party seeks to offer a vision of a new Maldives, with campaign materials showing petals of white flowers representing pledges, including better transport, education and housing.

Reform

Mohamed Nasheed had long been at the forefront of efforts to push Gayoom towards democratization, organizing the Maldives' main opposition party while exile in Britain. Before seeking refuge abroad, he was repeatedly jailed for his political activities, and says he was tortured twice while in prison. He returned from the UK to the Maldives in 2005, after parliament voted to lift a ban on political parties. After the election, the new president promised a "smooth transition to democracy" and more freedom, as well as action to combat corruption, widely seen to have flourished in decades of authoritarian rule.

Along with other reformists, Nasheed finally managed to register the MDP on 26 June 2005. But two months later he was arrested again after staging a sit-in in Male's Republican Square in protest over police handling of "Black Friday" demonstrations a year earlier. In frustration at the slow pace of reforms, the MDP was close to calling for a revolution in November 2006. That resulted in the defection of some of its senior members who argued that that the party should be pursuing a path of diplomacy and negotiation instead. But grassroots activists remained loyal, and the MDP continued to lobby for freedom of speech and assembly. Between then and now, Nasheed oversaw the evolution of his party from an anti-Gayoom group into a government-in-waiting, successfully rebranding its identity. In July, he and other party leaders visited Delhi to foster relations with the Indian government, which has previously had a close relationship to Gayoom.

Nasheed had been imprisoned more than 20 times by Gayoom. He has insisted he will not bring corruption charges against his predecessor, saying the way Gayoom is treated will be a "test of our democracy". To his supporters Nasheed is a latter day Nelson Mandela, overcoming the hardships of prison to secure an inspirational election win against the odds. Nasheed - a former Amnesty International prisoner of conscience - is. He has been a constant critic of the regime of Gayoom over the years and has spent long periods in jail for his political activities.

Post-script

The 41-year-old now finds himself on the verge of leading a tiny nation - made up of about of 1,192 islands off the tip of India - whose very existence is under threat from global warming. A former political prisoner, Mohamed Nasheed known locally as 'Anni' was elected in the Maldives' first multi-party presidential elections in October 2008, ending President Abdul Gayoom's 30-year rule that did add many opportunites and created fortunes in Maldives. The change he represents is expected to bring about colossal opportunities for majority of people there.

The challenges facing the new president Nasheed also include threats to the largely tourism-based economy posed by the global credit crisis, a widespread drugs problem and growing radical Islamist activity. Many Maldivians live in poverty, in spite of the fact that the country has developed its infrastructure and industries, including the fisheries sector, and has boosted health care, education and literacy. Added to their owes, the Maldives was hit by the December 2004 Asian tsunami. Homes and resorts were devastated by the waves, precipitating a major rebuilding program.

Mohamed Nasheed, who now lives in the capital island of Male with his wife, who works for the UN, and two daughters, argued throughout the presidential campaign that the Maldives faced other grave challenges: maintaining its lucrative tourist trade, ensuring a fairer distribution of wealth and tackling the drugs culture among bored youths. Depicting himself as a harbinger of change throughout the campaign, Nasheed has pledged economic prosperity through privatization once he was in power. His critics say that he has little policy-making experience beyond his direct action campaigns against the government. His more strident detractors during the campaign accused him of trying to spread Christianity to the Islamic nation and hence he had the indirect support of the some of the western powers and their media. It is argued that Nasheed - a Sunni Muslim - enjoyed close links to foreign organizations such as Britain's Conservative Party which undermined the country's faith. He has strenuously denied the allegations. Nasheed, the new leader, should put his policies and nation building related thoughts in order before embarking upon any worthwhile economic or political reform.
- Sri Lanka Guardian