Indigenous Peoples and Settler Communities in International Law: The Historical Formation of the Foalhavahi Settler Community and the Legal Consequences for Self-Determination

1. Introduction

Debates concerning Foalhavahi – the island colonially designated Diego Garcia – and the wider archipelago colonially referred to as Chagos increasingly turn upon a fundamental question in international law: whether the population historically associated with the islands should be regarded as an indigenous people or as a settler community formed through colonial plantation systems.

The distinction is not merely descriptive. In international law, the classification of a population carries consequences for how claims relating to self-determination, sovereignty and territorial rights are interpreted. Indigenous peoples are generally understood as communities possessing historical continuity with a territory predating colonization, whereas settler populations often emerge through migration systems created by colonial plantation economies, slavery or indentured labour regimes.¹

Understanding the case of Foalhavahi therefore requires careful reconstruction of the archipelago’s historical geography and demographic transformation. The islands cannot be analysed solely through twentieth-century political developments. Their history extends across centuries of Maldivian maritime navigation, European cartography, colonial plantation economies and imperial administrative reclassification.

Only by situating the emergence of the modern island population within this broader historical context can the legal classification of that population be properly evaluated.

2. Maldivian Naming Conventions and the Geography of Foalhavahi

The historical geography of the southern Maldivian maritime frontier must first be understood through Maldivian naming conventions. In Maldivian geographical usage, island groups and maritime zones are frequently named after the largest or most significant island within the group. Sub-clusters within those groups may themselves follow the same rule.

The southern archipelago historically known as Foalhavahi follows precisely this pattern. The archipelago takes its name from Foalhavahi, the largest and most prominent island within the group. In Maldivian geographical understanding the name therefore refers not merely to a single island but to the wider maritime zone associated with that island.

During the colonial period European authorities introduced alternative terminology. The principal island came to be colonially designated Diego Garcia, while the wider archipelago was administratively labelled Chagos. These colonial names did not represent the discovery of a new geography; rather, they were colonial reclassifications of a maritime region historically known under the Dhivehi name Foalhavahi.

Within this archipelago lies Candu Atoll, which forms a sub-set within the Foalhavahi island group. The atoll itself follows the same Maldivian naming rule. It derives its name from Candu, the most prominent island within that cluster. The Dhivehi word Candu literally means “corner island.”

Colonial cartography reflects the same linguistic meaning. The island later appeared in French charts as Île du Coin, which also translates directly as “corner island.” The atoll containing the island was subsequently designated in colonial charts as Peros Banhos. Despite these colonial exonyms, the Maldivian geographical terminology remained consistent: the atoll continued to be known locally as Candu Atoll, named after the island Candu.

3. Toponymy and Cartographic Continuity (Polvara, Polverera, etc.)

Once Maldivian naming conventions are understood, the early cartographic record reveals a striking pattern of continuity. From the mid-sixteenth century until the end of the eighteenth century, European charts of the Indian Ocean consistently depicted the Maldives as extending considerably further south than the modern administrative boundary.

Portuguese, Dutch, French and early British maps repeatedly represented the southern island groups associated with Foalhavahi as part of the wider Maldivian island chain.

In these maps the archipelago frequently appears under spellings such as Polvara, Polverera, or Pollowois. These variations are widely understood as attempts by European cartographers to reproduce the Dhivehi name Foalhavahi.

For more than two centuries of European cartography – from approximately 1550 until the close of the eighteenth century – the southern islands associated with Foalhavahi appeared within the geographical framework of the Maldives.

4. Historical Formation of the Foalhavahi Settler Community

The population historically associated with the Foalhavahi archipelago did not arise through uninterrupted indigenous settlement in the modern legal sense. Instead, the community that later emerged on the islands developed within the framework of European colonial plantation economies that spread across the western Indian Ocean during the eighteenth century. During this period colonial administrators operating from Île de France (modern Mauritius) and other French-controlled territories began establishing coconut plantations across several islands of the Foalhavahi archipelago. These plantations formed part of a wider imperial network linking the Mascarenes, East Africa, Madagascar, and the Indian subcontinent.²

The labour structure of these plantations reflected the economic practices of the time. Plantation agriculture depended heavily upon enslaved labour and later forms of coerced or semi-coerced labour migration. As a result, the demographic composition of the islands began to change. Communities formed not through continuous habitation tied to a single pre-colonial society, but through the movement and relocation of laborers within colonial plantation systems. Over time these laboring populations and their descendants developed a distinct social identity rooted in the plantation economy and the particular environment of the islands. Such historical processes were not unique to Foalhavahi; similar demographic transformations occurred across many colonial island territories throughout the Indian Ocean.

5. Moosa Maalimee Navigational Evidence

While colonial plantation economies altered the demographic composition of the islands, Maldivian maritime traditions continued to preserve knowledge of the archipelago’s place within the wider geography of the Maldives. One particularly important example is associated with the Maldivian navigator Moosa Maalimee of Hulhudhoo, whose navigational records from the late nineteenth century describe bearings and sailing routes extending from Foalhavahi northwards to the northernmost reefs of Lakshadweep.

These records demonstrate that Maldivian navigators maintained practical knowledge of the southern maritime frontier even during the colonial period. The navigational routes described by Moosa Maalimee indicate that Foalhavahi was not regarded as an isolated or unrelated island group but as part of a broader navigational corridor familiar to Maldivian seafarers. Such evidence is important because it reveals the persistence of regional maritime knowledge that continued to link the southern archipelago with the Maldives long after colonial powers had begun administering the islands under separate colonial jurisdictions.

6. Colonial Slave Raids and Plantation Systems

The development of plantation agriculture in the archipelago must also be understood within the broader context of slave raids and labour extraction that characterised colonial expansion across the Indian Ocean. During the eighteenth century European colonial enterprises frequently relied upon the forced movement of labour across maritime regions. Enslaved persons were transported between plantation territories in order to sustain the production of export commodities such as coconut products, sugar and spices.³

Historical accounts from the region indicate that laborers were drawn from a variety of locations, including East Africa, Madagascar and other parts of the Indian Ocean world. In the Maldivian historical narrative, it is also maintained that raids and forced labour practices affected populations in the southern Maldives, contributing to the displacement of Maldivians who were subsequently compelled into plantation work on the islands. Whether through capture, relocation or labour recruitment, these processes illustrate that the demographic formation of the plantation population was inseparable from the wider coercive labour systems of the colonial era.

7. The 1810 Seizure Records

Evidence of the disruption and displacement of this earlier population appears in archival records preserved in the British National Archives. Prize Court proceedings relating to the British capture of French colonial territories record that 134 persons were removed from Foalhavahi (colonially designated Diego Garcia) in 1810 and transported to Ceylon aboard the British vessel Sir Francis Drake.⁴

Colonial records described some of these individuals as “Africans”, while others were classified simply as “Îlois” or “ilien” – literally “islanders.” This terminology was widely used in French and British colonial administration to describe inhabitants of remote plantation islands without identifying their precise origins.

Within the Maldivian historical interpretation such classifications are regarded as administrative simplifications that obscured the identities of Indian Ocean maritime populations.

Maldivian historians maintain that the population present on the islands included Maldivians settled in Foalhavahi as well as Maldivians captured during earlier plantation expansion and slave raids in the southern Maldives. The removal recorded in 1810 therefore represents a decisive moment in the displacement of this earlier population.

Following the British capture of the archipelago, these inhabitants were removed and relocated, and the plantation economy was reorganized with new labour populations introduced from Africa and the Indian subcontinent.

Correspondence from Governor Sir Thomas Maitland of Ceylon further indicates that obtaining enslaved labour from the Chagos region itself was considered economically preferable to transporting captives across long routes from Africa. Such remarks suggest that the archipelago and its surrounding waters were regarded as potential sources of labour seizure during the plantation era.

8. Cartographic Severance

While the demographic structure of the islands was evolving through plantation labour systems, the geographical representation of the southern Maldives was also undergoing transformation. During the nineteenth century colonial cartography increasingly portrayed the Maldives as terminating at Addu Atoll, while the islands associated with Foalhavahi were depicted as a separate archipelago.

From a Maldivian perspective, this shift represents a process of cartographic severance. Rather than reflecting an entirely new geographical discovery, the new maps gradually detached the southern archipelago from the conceptual geography of the Maldives through repeated administrative and cartographic practice.

Cartographic representations often play a powerful role in shaping perceptions of political geography. Once maps depicting Foalhavahi as separate from the Maldives began to circulate widely in colonial administrative and navigational contexts, the new representation gradually became accepted as an established geographical fact.

9. Centuries of Maps Showing the Southern Extension

Earlier European maps had presented a very different picture. For more than two centuries the cartographic tradition of the Indian Ocean repeatedly depicted the Maldives as extending further south. Portuguese, Dutch and French charts always placed the southern island groups associated with Foalhavahi within the broader chain of Maldivian atolls.

This continuity across numerous maps is significant because it demonstrates that earlier navigational knowledge did not treat the southern archipelago as a distinct entity. Instead, the islands were viewed as forming part of the wider maritime geography associated with the Maldives. The later colonial separation therefore reflects a reinterpretation of geography rather than a sudden discovery of new territory.

10. Robert Moresby Surveys

The transformation of cartographic representation was closely linked to hydrographic surveys conducted during the 1830s by Captain Robert Moresby of the East India Company’s Bombay Marine. These surveys produced highly detailed nautical charts intended to improve maritime navigation through the complex coral atolls of the region.

Moresby’s work significantly advanced the accuracy of Indian Ocean hydrography. However, the resulting charts also contributed to the gradual depiction of the southern islands as separate from the Maldives. Over time these charts became widely used by British maritime authorities and later by colonial administrators, reinforcing the cartographic separation of Foalhavahi from the Maldivian archipelago.

11. Sultan’s Objections and Local Resistance (HCP Bell)

Historical accounts recorded by H. C. P. Bell, the British scholar who conducted extensive research on Maldivian history and archaeology, indicate that the hydrographic surveys were viewed with suspicion by Maldivian authorities. Bell reports that the Maldivian Sultan attempted to limit the activities of the surveyors and that local communities expressed concern about the surveys being carried out in their waters.⁵

According to Bell’s account, these reactions were driven by fears that detailed mapping could eventually facilitate foreign control over parts of the Maldivian archipelago. The concerns expressed by the Sultan and local communities illustrate that Maldivians themselves recognised the potential political consequences of colonial surveying activities.

12. Indigenous Peoples in International Law

In international law the concept of indigenous peoples has developed to describe communities possessing historical continuity with territories that predate colonial expansion. Scholarly analysis and international studies, including the work of José Martínez Cobo, emphasise the importance of ancestral connection to land, cultural distinctiveness and historical continuity in defining indigenous status.⁶

This understanding was later reflected in international instruments such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognizes the rights of indigenous communities to maintain their cultural traditions, institutions and territorial relationships.⁷

13. Settler Communities and Plantation Societies

Alongside indigenous populations, many societies around the world emerged through colonial settlement and plantation labour systems. These societies developed through the movement of enslaved laborers, indentured workers and migrants within colonial economic networks.

Over time such communities often developed strong cultural identities tied to the territories in which they lived. However, their historical formation differs from populations whose presence in a territory predates colonial expansion. The distinction between indigenous populations and plantation settler communities therefore reflects differences in historical origin rather than differences in human dignity or rights.

14. Internal vs External Self-Determination

International law recognizes the principle of self-determination, but the concept has developed in multiple forms. Internal self-determination refers to the right of peoples to participate fully in the political life of the state in which they reside. It encompasses democratic governance, cultural autonomy and political representation.

External self-determination, by contrast, refers to the right of a people to determine its political status independently, including the possibility of forming a new state. Historically this doctrine was applied primarily during the decolonisation process following the adoption of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV).⁸

15. Social, Economic and Political Rights of Each Category

Regardless of classification, both indigenous peoples and settler communities possess fundamental human rights protections under international law. These protections include rights relating to equality before the law, cultural preservation, participation in public life and protection from discrimination.

International instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognise the importance of protecting these rights for all communities.⁹

16. Comparative Cases (Mauritius, Seychelles, Caribbean)

Historical comparisons with other plantation societies illustrate similar patterns of demographic formation. Territories such as Mauritius, Seychelles and numerous Caribbean islands developed societies composed largely of descendants of enslaved or indentured laborers transported during the colonial period.

In these cases the resulting populations developed unique cultural identities and social structures while remaining integrated within broader national or regional political frameworks. These examples demonstrate how plantation societies often evolve into distinctive communities while still reflecting the historical realities of their formation within colonial labour systems.

17. Implications for Foalhavahi

The historical formation of the population associated with Foalhavahi reflects many of the characteristics observed in other plantation societies. The demographic structure of the islands developed through colonial plantation economies and labour migration rather than through continuous settlement predating colonial expansion.

Understanding this formation is essential when evaluating contemporary legal debates concerning the classification of the population and the interpretation of self-determination within international law.

18. Conclusion

The history of Foalhavahi illustrates how colonial expansion reshaped both the geography and the demography of the Indian Ocean.

Maldivian naming conventions, navigational traditions and centuries of cartographic evidence indicate that the southern archipelago historically formed part of the wider Maldivian maritime sphere. European colonial expansion later transformed the islands through plantation economies, labour transfers and administrative reclassification.

Recognising this layered historical context allows contemporary debates concerning indigenous peoples, settler communities and the meaning of self-determination to be approached with greater clarity and historical understanding.

---

Footnotes

1. James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (9th edn, OUP 2019).
2. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Aapravasi Ghat Nomination Dossier.
3. S James Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law (2nd edn, OUP 2004).
4. British National Archives, Prize Court Proceedings relating to Diego Garcia (1810).
5. H C P Bell, The Maldive Islands: Monograph on the History, Archaeology and Epigraphy (Ceylon Government Press 1940).
6. José Martínez Cobo, Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7.
7. UNGA Res 61/295, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007).
8. UNGA Res 1514 (XV), Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960).
9. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948 UNGA Res 217 A(III)); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) art 1.

Bibliography
Books

Anaya SJ, Indigenous Peoples in International Law (2nd edn, OUP 2004).
Bell HCP, The Maldive Islands: Monograph on the History, Archaeology and Epigraphy (Ceylon Government Press 1940).
Crawford J, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (9th edn, OUP 2019).

Cases and arbitral decisions

Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) v Kenya (Endorois Case) (2009) African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v Mali) [1986] ICJ Rep 554.
Island of Clipperton Arbitration (France v Mexico) (1931) 2 RIAA 1105.
Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (Advisory Opinion) [2019] ICJ Rep 95.
Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v Chad) [1994] ICJ Rep 6.
Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion) [1975] ICJ Rep 12.

International instruments

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
UNGA Res 61/295, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007).
UNGA Res 1514 (XV), Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960).
UNGA Res 2625 (XXV), Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States (1970).
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948 UNGA Res 217 A(III)).

UN and other materials

Martínez Cobo J, Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations UN Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Aapravasi Ghat Nomination Dossier.
British National Archives, Prize Court Proceedings relating to Diego Garcia (1810).