Op-ed: The colonial paradox: Britain’s admission and the marginalization of Maldives – a fallen legal trap

The following is an op-ed written by Brigadier General (Retired) Ahmed Nilam.

___

The strategic and colonial puzzle of Chagos

The Indian Ocean has long been a theatre of colonial contestation, strategic rivalry, and regional power struggles, yet few disputes encapsulate these dynamics as starkly as the sovereignty battle over the Chagos Archipelago. Beneath the layers of legal wrangling between Mauritius and the United Kingdom lies a troubling paradox—Britain’s explicit admission of having colonized Mauritius, a land devoid of indigenous inhabitants, while simultaneously clinging to control over the Chagos Islands through contested legal claims and military dominance. This paradox is further complicated by the persistent sidelining of the Maldives, a smaller but historically and geographically connected neighbor whose rightful voice remains unheard. As global powers maneuver for influence in this strategically vital region, the unresolved colonial legacies and exclusion of key stakeholders risk not only perpetuating historical injustices but also destabilizing the security architecture of South Asia and the wider Indian Ocean. The Chagos dispute, therefore, is not merely a territorial issue—it is a litmus test for the region’s ability to reconcile its colonial past with a more just and inclusive future.

A colonial admission wrapped in legal ambiguity

The Chagos Archipelago, a remote but strategically vital group of islands in the Indian Ocean, was never explicitly included in the 1814 Paris Treaty that reshaped colonial possessions after the Napoleonic Wars. Despite this, the UK retained control over the islands through vague legal interpretations and subsequently separated the archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 to form the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Britain’s own admission that it colonized Mauritius—an island without indigenous inhabitants—exposes the fragility of its legal justifications. The continued control over Chagos under these shaky grounds demonstrates how colonial legacies persist under the guise of international law and “strategic necessity.”

Mauritius vs. the UK: A simplified binary that ignores complexity

Mauritius, supported by the 2019 International Court of Justice advisory opinion and a UN General Assembly resolution, claims rightful sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. While Mauritius’s legal position is stronger than Britain’s, the dispute has been narrowly framed as a two-party issue, ignoring the broader historical and geopolitical context. The emphasis on Mauritius and the UK leaves no room for the perspectives of other regional actors—most importantly, the Maldives, whose proximity and maritime interests make it an indispensable stakeholder in any long-term resolution.

The silenced stakeholder: Maldives and its historical claims

Since 1955, the Maldives has consistently advocated for the full decolonization of the Indian Ocean, including territories like Chagos. Historically and geographically tied to the archipelago, the Maldives shares cultural and maritime linkages with the displaced Chagossians and the territory itself. Yet, in major forums such as the UN and ICJ proceedings, Maldives’ position has been marginalized. Recent domestic developments—such as the emergence of corruption allegations and pressure from foreign actors—have only complicated its ability to assert its claims. Still, under international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Maldives has valid overlapping maritime claims that cannot be ignored.

The illusion of decolonization: Strategic interests behind the deal

While the UK-Mauritius agreement has been celebrated by some as a step toward decolonization, it fails to dismantle the underlying power structures that sustain British and American military interests in the region. Diego Garcia, the largest island in the Chagos group, remains host to a significant US military base—one that remains operational under British jurisdiction. This enduring arrangement illustrates how military strategy continues to take precedence over the principles of sovereignty and self-determination. The agreement is thus less about decolonization and more about preserving strategic status quos under a legalistic façade.

The “fallen legal trap”: When law becomes a tool of exclusion

This scenario creates what can be described as a “fallen legal trap”—a situation in which legal tools are used not to ensure justice, but to reinforce power asymmetries. International law, in this case, legitimizes a narrow, bilateral narrative while sidelining regional voices like the Maldives. The result is a growing disconnect between legal outcomes and geopolitical realities, further alienating smaller states and weakening the credibility of global institutions. The absence of a multilateral framework risks deepening mistrust, damaging regional unity, and leaving space for non-regional powers to increase their foothold in the Indian Ocean.

Toward a just and inclusive regional order

The Chagos Archipelago dispute is far more than a legal tug-of-war—it reflects how unfinished colonial histories continue to shape modern geopolitics. Britain’s own admissions, combined with the narrow framing of sovereignty as a UK-Mauritius issue, leave critical regional stakeholders like the Maldives out in the cold. The so-called decolonization process has instead become a means of re-legitimizing military presence and geopolitical control. For South Asia, the path forward must be grounded in inclusive diplomacy that acknowledges the rights of all parties, not just those with louder international platforms. Only then can the region escape this “fallen legal trap” and build a truly stable, just, and sovereign Indian Ocean community.