Theorising ‘small’ and ‘micro’ state behaviour using the Maldives, Bhutan and Nepal

Geopolitics in the Maldives: Intersection of Foreign Relations and Internal Political Rivalries

“…Latent fears about an Indian takeover and a lack of trust are evident, since these troops had to leave once stability was restored (Chatterjee, 2024). According to Misra (2004b: 139), India played the role of guarantor of security for small states of South Asia (Misra, 2004b: 139), but concerns also arose about neo-colonial ambitions. Gayoom, however, recognised China’s emergence ‘as a global power with significant strategic interests in the Indian Ocean’ (Chatterjee, 2024) and involved China in development projects that were perceived as risky in terms of protecting Maldivian independence.…”

“…The encyclopaedia edited by Esposito (1995) contains no separate Maldives entry but presents details under 'Indian Ocean Societies' (Arnold, 1995). More recently, international relations specialists have theorised the behaviour of small states (Mohamed, 2000), also in terms of authoritarianism and corruption (Misra, 2004b). Small states often need the protection of big neighbours (Misra, 2004b: 139) and have to be robust and circumspect in self-defence.…”

“…It makes sense to highlight that ‘there is often collusion between the ruling authority and the upper levels of the society’ (Misra, 2004b: 137), leading to corruption, but that phenomenon is observable everywhere. Theorising small states and their limited scope for internal opposition, Misra (2004b: 134) envisages a large extended family, with members linked together in multiple ways that bolster authoritarianism, which is certainly observable, historically, in the Maldives. However, while it seems correct to characterise the Maldives as ‘perhaps the most homogeneous’ of all South Asian states, Misra (2004a: 129) overlooks the internal power struggles of the Maldives when he depicts ‘a singular nation where there is no dispute over racial traits, ethnicity, religion and collective memory.…”

A Many-Cornered Thing: The Role of Heritage in Indian Nation-Building

“…Moves towards regional autonomy or secession would have serious consequences for the entire South Asian region, especially as India is currently surrounded by politically unstable and authoritarian states. Any granting of autonomy in India could spark independence movements in neighbouring states as well, such as Bhutan and Nepal, which both have significant minority populations (Misra 2004), and change to the sovereignty of Kashmir would aggravate relations with Pakistan. Internal disorder would also make it difficult for India to respond to international conflict situations, as evidenced by its recent reluctance to aid Sri Lanka in 2000 when its forces were already stretched with dealing with problems in Kashmir and its north-east states (Devotta 2003).…”

Security, profit or shadow of the past? Explaining the security strategies of microstates

“…In their literature review, Iver Neumann and Sieglinde Gstö hl have found that in Europe microstates are sometimes defined by having a population of less than 100,000 inhabitants (Neumann and Gstö hl 2006, 6). Edward Warrington argues that a microstate is characterized by 'a size so diminutive as to invite comment' (Warrington 1998, 102), and Amalendu Misra-while acknowledging that population size is a frequently used indicator-admits that his own use of the concept is somewhat arbitrary (Misra 2004, endnote 1). 9 Arbitrariness logically follows from the power possession definition of microstates.…”