Lord of the Land and Sea: Chagos and the Maritime Sovereignty

Lord of the Land and Sea: Chagos and the Maritime Sovereignty

of the Maldives

By Brigadier General Ahmed Nilam, former MNDF

26 February 2026

The Chagos Archipelago is not a remote chain of atolls to be reduced to technical debate or

strategic convenience. It lies at the heart of the Indian Ocean, astride sea lanes that carry

Middle Eastern energy, Asian trade, African resources, and commerce flowing toward

Europe. What is decided about Chagos will shape not only regional security but the economic

future of nations whose prosperity depends upon open and stable seas. It must not become an

obstruction — political, military, or legal — to the legitimate development and connectivity

of Africa and Southeast Asia.

Amid discussions of bases and power projection, one truth must remain clear: the Maldives is

not a peripheral observer to this history. It is an ancient maritime civilisation whose

sovereignty was forged long before colonial lines were drawn across the ocean.

The earliest known name of our nation, Malā-dvīpa — the Garland of Islands — reflects a

unified archipelagic realm bound together by culture, governance, and the sea. For centuries

before European expansion into the Indian Ocean, Maldivians navigated these waters,

regulated fisheries, and participated in commercial networks linking Africa, Arabia, South

Asia, and Southeast Asia. Historical records from Buddhist chroniclers, Arab geographers,

and early navigators consistently describe a coherent maritime polity. Sovereignty in the

Maldives was never confined to land; it extended across surrounding waters through

navigation, reef protection, fisheries management, and control of marine resources. This

continuity predates colonial administration and affirms the Maldives’ inherent sovereign

rights within its maritime domain.

By contrast, the configuration of the Laccadive and Chagos archipelagos emerged through

external structuring. Island groups were renamed, reorganised, and administered to serve

imperial trade and strategic priorities. Chagos, prior to eighteenth-century European

intervention, was uninhabited or seasonally accessed by regional seafarers. Permanent

settlement developed through plantation systems dependent on imported enslaved labour

under colonial authority. Its later transformation into a strategic military facility was not an

organic extension of indigenous governance, but the outcome of imperial design layered over

geography.

Today, Chagos occupies a commanding position in an evolving security environment. Yet the

character of warfare itself is changing. Modern conflict is increasingly technological,

financially burdensome, and environmentally vulnerable. Critical maritime infrastructure can

be exposed to asymmetric threats, cyber disruption, and hybrid competition. In such

conditions, excessive militarisation does not automatically produce stability; it may generate

new forms of insecurity while imposing heavy economic costs on surrounding regions.

Instability in the central Indian Ocean would not remain contained. It would ripple outward

— disrupting shipping routes, increasing insurance and transportation costs, deterring

investment, and placing disproportionate pressure on developing economies across Africa

and Southeast Asia. Strategic ambiguity could intensify rivalry, weaken trust among regional

states, and create openings for illicit trafficking and unregulated fishing. A vital maritime

corridor must not become a theatre of uncertainty that constrains growth for those who

depend upon it.

Equally critical is the question of environmental and historical responsibility. The coral

ecosystems of the central Indian Ocean are fragile and interconnected. Decisions that

prioritise narrow strategic calculations while neglecting ecological consequences risk long-

term damage to reefs, fisheries, and coastal livelihoods. Ignoring environmental obligations

— particularly in waters long shaped by regional maritime practice — undermines

sustainable governance and disregards historical continuity.

The Maldives’ maritime tradition offers a contrasting model rooted in balance and adaptation.

Traditional line-hook fishing methods were designed to prevent reef destruction and over-

extraction. Maldivian vessel construction evolved specifically for shallow lagoons and atoll

navigation, enabling safe passage while protecting coral structures. These practices were not

incidental; they were deliberate systems developed over generations to integrate security,

livelihood, and environmental protection. Maritime authority, in this tradition, meant

responsibility for search and rescue, ecological management, and the safety of sea lanes

alongside economic use.

Effective management of the central Indian Ocean must therefore extend beyond strategic

positioning. It requires cooperative search and rescue coordination, sustainable fisheries

governance, environmental protection, and inclusive consultation among regional

stakeholders. Stability is not merely the absence of conflict; it is the presence of legitimate,

balanced, and regionally anchored maritime governance.

The Maldives does not seek confrontation. It seeks recognition of its historic maritime

authority and its sovereign responsibility within the Indian Ocean. Decolonisation remains

incomplete if historical maritime realities are dismissed in contemporary deliberations.

Military utility cannot erase civilisational continuity. Administrative boundaries drawn in

colonial eras did not extinguish longstanding patterns of navigation, resource management,

and regional engagement.

As geopolitical competition intensifies and the dynamics of warfare evolve, smaller maritime

nations must not be sidelined in decisions that shape their own oceanic neighbourhood.

Lasting stability cannot be engineered solely through strategic arrangements among distant

powers. It must rest upon legitimacy, environmental responsibility, cooperative security

mechanisms, and respect for enduring maritime rights.

Chagos is more than a strategic installation. It forms part of a broader maritime narrative that

predates colonial structuring and will outlast contemporary rivalries. The Maldives — Malā-

dvīpa, the Garland of Islands — has endured for centuries through navigation, trade, faith,

and guardianship of the sea. Colonial disruption may have redrawn administrative lines, but it

did not erase history.

As discussions over Chagos proceed, one principle must guide them: the future of the Indian

Ocean must strengthen regional stability rather than deepen insecurity. It must promote

development rather than obstruct it. And it must acknowledge those who have long exercised

authority and responsibility within these waters. The Maldives stands not as a spectator, but

as a historic maritime nation asserting its inherent sovereign rights as Lord of the Land and

Sea.