After a Decade, Is Maldives Revisiting the GMR Airport Debate?

The Maldivian government’s position on foreign involvement in managing strategic infrastructure is once again under scrutiny, following reports that the Airports Authority of India (AAI) is studying a request from the Maldives to assist in airport management, even as ministers insist that Maldivian airports will remain under local control.

According to a report by The Hindu, AAI has agreed to conduct a feasibility study at the request of the Maldivian government to examine how India could assist in managing one of the country’s international airports, widely understood to be the recently upgraded Hanimaadhoo International Airport. The report notes that the study comes nearly a decade after the acrimonious exit of Indian firm GMR from Velana International Airport.

In response to growing public debate, Tourism Minister Mohamed Ameen said on X today, that Maldivian airports will be managed by Maldivian authorities, seeking to dispel speculation that operational control would be handed to a foreign entity. However, the minister did not deny that discussions or studies involving India were taking place.

This has raised a central question: if airports are to remain under Maldivian management, why has an Indian statutory authority been asked to conduct a study on airport operations in the first place?

A Familiar Debate Returns

The issue has revived memories of the 2010 concession agreement with India’s GMR Group, which was awarded the right to modernise and operate what was then known as Malé International Airport. At the time, leaders of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), including current President Mohamed Muizzu were among the most vocal critics of the deal.

Opposition figures then argued that leasing the country’s main international airport to a foreign company amounted to “selling the sovereignty of the nation”, a phrase repeatedly used in protests, speeches, and media commentary. The agreement became one of the most polarising political issues of the decade.

After a change of government in 2012, the GMR contract was abruptly terminated and the company was ordered to leave the airport. GMR later won international arbitration, with the Maldives ordered to pay around US$270 million in compensation, a cost that ultimately fell on the state.

Today, public are asking whether the principles invoked during the GMR episode still apply  or whether they were political tools of convenience.

Study, Support, or Something More?

The government has not released details of the scope of AAI’s study, nor clarified whether it is limited to technical advice, capacity-building, or operational support. While officials insist there will be no transfer of ownership or control, the involvement of a foreign airport authority in studying management arrangements has inevitably raised questions.

This is particularly sensitive given that Hanimaadhoo International Airport itself was developed using Indian financing under a line of credit, deepening perceptions of reliance on external partners at a time when the government frequently invokes sovereignty and nationalism in its political messaging.

Analysts note that there is a clear contradiction between past rhetoric and present actions, even if the current request stops short of handing over management. If foreign involvement was unacceptable then, they ask, what has changed now, the principle, or the politics?

Questions Without Clear Answers

The administration maintains that Maldivian authorities will remain in charge of airports. Yet the confirmation of an AAI study by a major Indian newspaper, combined with the government’s reluctance to disclose details, has left the public with unanswered questions.

Is the AAI study merely technical assistance or the first step toward deeper operational involvement? If foreign management once endangered sovereignty, why is foreign expertise being sought again? And if nothing has changed in principle, why does this moment feel so familiar?

As the Maldives continues to expand its aviation infrastructure, the debate over who controls the country’s gateways and on what terms has clearly returned. Whether the government can convincingly reconcile its past positions with present actions may determine how this issue resonates politically in the months ahead.