‘Every person deserves respect’: Former Maldives vice president on Hindu lynching in Bangladesh Special india news

The killing of Dipu Chandra Das and the subsequent unrest in Bangladesh has once again raised concerns over violence against minorities in the region, prompting a warning from India’s Ministry of External Affairs. These events have highlighted the fragile security of vulnerable communities and the urgent need for governments to decisively address extremism.

During an exclusive interview with cnn-news18Faisal Naseem, former Vice President of Maldives and chief guest at the 8th Atal Bihari Vajpayee Memorial Lecture at India Habitat Centre, Delhi, discussed violence against minorities in Bangladesh and how Maldives ensures that religious identity is never used to justify discrimination.

He also talked about the responsibility of Muslim-majority countries to prevent such violence and the India-Maldives bilateral reset, including Delhi’s role in Male’s trade strategy and untapped areas for deeper cooperation.

Edited excerpts below…

We are witnessing disturbing incidents of violence against minorities in parts of South Asia, including recent attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh. As a Muslim-majority nation, what responsibility does the Maldives see in taking a public stand against religious extremism in the region?

Maldivians believe that the welfare of the people should always precede divisions of religion, ethnicity or nationality. After all, we are all human beings, and peace and equal opportunity should be the guiding principles of any responsible government.

As a nation, we emphasize co-existence and social harmony. Our belief is simple: every person deserves respect, safety and equal treatment, no matter what they believe or where they come from.

In that sense, governments – especially in countries with larger populations and greater influence – have a responsibility to actively promote peace and protect all people. If extremism and violence are not confronted clearly and consistently, such incidents risk becoming cyclical.

Prioritizing peace and human welfare cannot be optional. This is the only sustainable option if the region is to progress.

How does the Maldives ensure that religious identity never becomes a justification for discrimination or violence, and what concrete safeguards are in place to protect minority rights within the country?

The Maldives is a small nation, and this proximity plays an important role in the functioning of the society. Institutions, policy-makers and citizens interact closely, allowing concerns to be addressed quickly and collectively rather than deepening divisions.

Our democratic culture is rooted in mutual respect. Policies are made keeping people at the center and stress on social cohesion and shared responsibility. This has helped to ensure that religious identity is never used as a justification for discrimination or violence.

Respect for dignity and equal treatment is not just a principle but a practice. In my view, this is one of the main strengths of Maldivian democracy and the only sustainable way forward.

Extremism, whether religious or ideological, is destabilizing South Asia. Do you believe Muslim-majority countries have a special responsibility to stop violence in the name of Islam, especially when silence, even when politically inconvenient, risks deepening Islamophobia?

Governments have a responsibility to ensure equal opportunities for all and work together with people to address the many challenges facing society. These challenges do not exist on a single front, and people come from different backgrounds and face different problems.

Addressing such issues requires responsible governance and cooperation between governments and citizens. Only through this approach can a permanent solution be found.

Beyond regional responsibilities, India and Maldives have also had to deal with bilateral tensions. After an apparently tense period, the relationship witnessed a revival following Prime Minister Modi’s recent meeting with President Mohammad Muizzu. In your opinion, what exactly changed behind closed doors and how sustainable is this reset?

The people of Maldives have always believed, even during the most heated stages of political campaigning, that Maldives should work together with India for development in all sectors. This relationship has lasted for decades and has consistently benefited the country and its people.

The political tensions that we saw during that period did not fundamentally change the attitude of the people of Maldives towards India or the Indian people. Following the elections, President Mohammed Muizzu’s visit to India and his participation at the leadership level underlined a clear recognition of how important strong relations with India are for the long-term interests of the Maldives.

In many ways, the earlier tensions were part of electoral politics. Different leaders adopt different strategies during campaigns and this is not unique to the Maldives. Such dynamics are seen in democracies around the world.

However, over time, people learn from these episodes. Misinformation eventually loses its influence, and the public begins to question why certain narratives were pushed and for what purpose. Ultimately, the understanding remains that constructive cooperation with India is in the best interests of Maldives.

Was the earlier confrontation with India a failure of communication, ideology or domestic political messaging in the Maldives? And what lessons should both sides learn to ensure that this is not repeated?

I would view this largely as a product of domestic political messaging rather than ideology or fundamental policy change. In many democracies, voters are often attracted to new faces and new leadership, driven by the hope that someone new can deliver better results than before. This is not unique to the Maldives and can be seen around the world.

In this context, certain narratives took hold during the campaign. Misinformation played a role, and perhaps the government at the time did not place enough emphasis on strategic communications or public outreach. There was a perception that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with relations with India, and that issues such as India’s presence were self-evident and did not require further clarification.

Later, that assumption proved costly. The main lesson for both parties is the importance of clear, consistent communication. Even strong relationships can become strained if misinformation is not challenged. To ensure that such misunderstandings do not re-emerge, active engagement with the public and transparency in bilateral cooperation are essential.

As the Maldives looks to diversify its economic partners, where does India realistically fit into its trade strategy, and which areas hold the most untapped potential for deeper cooperation?

India-Maldives cooperation is already playing a role in strengthening several sectors of the Maldivian economy, from fisheries and agriculture to housing, infrastructure and connectivity. These sectors have enabled substantial development and remain at the heart of bilateral engagement.

There is still significant work to be done in building human capital and institutional capacity, he said. For any country to truly prosper, it needs a strong, skilled workforce capable of leading growth and innovation.

This is an area where deeper cooperation with India could be particularly valuable. There remains considerable scope for cooperation in all sectors that support the long-term development and economic diversification of the Maldives.

If Atal Bihari Vajpayee were alive today, what do you think he would advise India and the Maldives to prioritize: strategic alignment, political sensitivity, or people-to-people trust?

I believe he would have prioritized trust between people, as this forms the foundation of any lasting strategic or political alignment.