The Maldives’ Independence and the Establishment of the British Indian Ocean Territory: A Tale of Sovereignty and Strategic Interests
- Ibrahim Rasheed
- Jul 5
- 4 min read
Updated: Jul 5

On July 26, 1965, the Maldives achieved a significant milestone in its history by gaining independence from British colonial rule, marking the end of nearly eight decades as a British protectorate. Just three months later, on November 8, 1965, the British government established the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) through a royal decree, an act that included the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago, the Foalhavahi atolls, from the pre-colonial territory of the Maldives. This sequence of events not only reshaped the geopolitical landscape of the Indian Ocean but also highlighted the complex interplay of sovereignty, colonial legacy, and global strategic interests. This examines the historical context of the Maldives’ independence, the establishment of the BIOT, and the enduring consequences of these developments, particularly regarding the Chagos Archipelago.
The Road to Maldivian Independence
The Maldives, an archipelago of coral islands in the Indian Ocean, had a long history of self-governance under a sultanate system before becoming a British protectorate in 1887. The British, seeking to secure their maritime routes and influence in the region, established a protectorate agreement that allowed the Maldives to maintain internal autonomy while ceding control over foreign affairs and defense to the British Crown. This arrangement ensured British dominance in the Indian Ocean, a critical region for trade and military strategy.
By the mid-20th century, the global wave of decolonization began to influence the Maldives. Nationalist sentiments grew, fueled by a desire for full sovereignty and the end of foreign oversight. Negotiations between Maldivian leaders and the British government culminated in the signing of an independence agreement on July 26, 1965. On this historic day, the Maldives became a sovereign nation, free to govern its internal and external affairs. The transition was relatively peaceful, with the Maldives retaining its monarchical system under Sultan Muhammad Fareed Didi before eventually transitioning to a republic in 1968.
However, the joy of independence was tempered by a significant territorial loss. The British, while granting independence, had strategic plans for the Indian Ocean that would directly impact the Maldives’ pre-colonial territory, particularly the Foalhavahi atolls and the broader Chagos Archipelago.
The Establishment of the British Indian Ocean Territory
On November 8, 1965, just three months after the Maldives’ independence, the British government issued an Order in Council under the Royal Prerogative, formally establishing the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). This new territory comprised the
Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, as well as other islands previously administered as part of the Maldives and Île de France. The island was eventually renamed "Mauritius" in 1814 after being ceded to Great Britain by France. another British colony.
The creation of the BIOT was driven by Cold War-era strategic imperatives, particularly the need for a secure military base in the Indian Ocean to counter Soviet influence and maintain Western dominance in the region.The Foalhavahi atolls, part of the Maldives’ pre-colonial territory, were among the areas incorporated into the BIOT. This detachment was not a mere administrative decision but a calculated move to secure British and American military interests.
The Creation of the British Indian Ocean Territory.
On November 8, 1965, the British established the BIOT via an Order in Council under the Royal Prerogative. The territory included the Chagos Archipelago, notably Diego Garcia, and other islands previously administered by the Maldives and Mauritius. The BIOT’s creation was driven by Cold War imperatives, particularly the U.S.-British need for a military base in the Indian Ocean to counter Soviet influence. Diego Garcia’s strategic location made it ideal for a naval and air base, formalized through a 1966 agreement leasing the island to the United States.The detachment of the Chagos Archipelago, including Foalhavahi, from the Maldives was controversial. Historical records suggest the Maldives had limited bargaining power during independence negotiations, and the transfer was presented as a fait accompli.

Lasting Implications
The Maldives’ independence marked a triumph of sovereignty, but the loss of the Chagos Archipelago left a complex legacy. The BIOT’s establishment prioritized Western military interests over local rights, sparking decades of legal and diplomatic disputes. For the Maldives, the loss of territory underscored the challenges of post-colonial statehood. The nation focused on building its economy, particularly through tourism, but the BIOT issue remains a point of historical grievance. The strategic importance of Diego Garcia continues to shape regional dynamics, with the U.S. and UK maintaining its military significance.
Concluding Remarks
The Maldives’ independence on July 26, 1965, and the establishment of the BIOT on November 8, 1965, represent pivotal moments in Indian Ocean history. While independence restored Maldivian sovereignty, the BIOT’s creation highlighted the enduring influence of colonial powers in shaping post-colonial borders. The detachment of the Chagos Archipelago, ( Foalhavahi), remain unresolved issues, reflecting the complex legacy of decolonization and global power dynamics. These events serve as a reminder of the delicate balance between sovereignty and strategic interests in the post-colonial world.
Diego Garcia—known in Maldivian tradition as Foalhavahi—is historically linked to the Maldives, with evidence suggesting it was once under the rule of Maldivian kings and appeared in early regional maps. Although the Maldives gained independence in 1965, Diego Garcia remained a British territory, retained to serve military interests in the region. Its cultural and geographic ties to the Maldives remain part of ongoing historical discourse.