Op-Ed: Learning from neighbour: How to empower govt to build without silencing local voice

Strong bilateral relationships are not built only on trade deals and infrastructure projects. They are also built on knowledge — on one country looking at how another has solved a problem and choosing to learn.

As Maldives debates a proposed amendment to the Decentralisation Act that would allow the Cabinet to take land from island councils for government development projects, there is a valuable lesson sitting just across the water in India.

The debate here at home is legitimate on both sides. A national government must be able to build hospitals, schools, harbours and essential infrastructure without an island council, potentially run by an opposition party, blocking it indefinitely. That is a real problem. But if the central government can simply take council land whenever it decides to, then what does local governance actually mean? That is also a problem.

India faced this exact tension and built a legal framework around it. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act requires that, before the government takes land, it must answer some basic questions: Why is this project necessary? Why this particular plot? Were other locations considered? What will be affected in the community? And what compensation or replacement land will be provided?

Importantly, India does not give local government a veto. The national government can still proceed with a public project. But it has to justify why, and communities have to be genuinely consulted, not simply informed after the decision has already been made.

That distinction — between consultation and notification — is exactly what Maldives should be thinking about right now.

The recently approved amendment does include a compensation clause, which is a positive step. If a council or anyone else has already invested in a piece of land that the government later takes, fair compensation is required. That is the right principle. But compensation for land is only part of the picture. The other part is respecting the role of the council itself — the plans it has made, the community it represents and the trust that local people placed in it when they voted.

The Maldives does not need to copy India’s complicated system. Our islands are small. Our communities are close. We could create something much simpler — a short, clear process that requires the government to state its case, allows the council to propose alternatives and provides a fair outcome either way.

Give the government the power to build. Give councils the power to participate meaningfully. Give neither side the power to abuse the system.

This is where the India-Maldives relationship offers something beyond bridges and payments. It offers a model of governance thinking — hard-earned through experience — that a smaller nation can adapt, simplify and apply to its own context.