Connect with us

Features

Indian Ocean zone of peace torpedoed!

Published

on

The US Navy’s torpedo attack on the Iranian frigate, IRIS Dena, on 4th March 2026, just outside Sri Lanka’s territorial waters, killed over 80 Iranian sailors. The Sri Lanka Navy rescued over 30 sailors and provided medical assistance for them in Galle while also recovering the floating corpses of the victims. Thereafter, a second Iranian naval vessel, the IRIS Bushehr, which also requested permission to dock, was permitted into Trincomalee by the Sri Lanka Navy, after separating its crew from the ship and bringing them to Colombo. A third ship, the IRIS Lavan, an amphibious landing vessel, requested to dock in the Southern Indian port of Cochin, with 183 crew, on the same day the Dena was attacked, and has been there since.

There are many aspects of these three incidents that have not been dealt with by the mainstream media, with any degree of seriousness, and warrants deeper analysis.

While the US and Iran are at war, the destruction of the frigate happened within Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone, but outside its territorial waters within which other countries, too, have rights of navigation. That is, this was far away from the main theatre of war in West Asia. But with this unprovoked attack in the Indian Ocean, the war and its consequences have come to Sri Lanka and India’s home-turf. The Dena was taking part in the MILAN 2026 naval exercise, organised by the Indian Navy, from 15th – 25th February, 2026, in which the US was also scheduled to take part, but, interestingly, withdrew from at the eleventh hour. One of the requirements of this exercise was for participating vessels to not carry ammunition. The Dena would have ordinarily been armed with various missiles and guns, including anti-ship missiles. Since the US was also supposed to take part in the exercise, this crucial information would also have been part of the US’s knowledge.

In this sense, it was an unprovoked attack against a ship that the US Navy knew well could not have defended itself. In real terms, this is no different from the US-Israeli alliance’s bombing of the girls’ school, ‘Shajareh Tayyebeh,’ in the town of Minab, in southern Iran, on 28th February, killing 165 people who were mostly children. Again, unprovoked and even worse, defenseless. In more recent times, President Trump has blamed this attack on the Iranians themselves, and as usual, without evidence.

The US attack changes the rules of the game. This establishes that any unarmed ship – military or otherwise – is fair game to any state which has the wherewithal to attack and get away with it. The US’s usual bravado, hero-centric narratives and talk of being fair in military contexts has been typified by countless Hollywood war movies, from Rambo to Sniper. However, US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth has clearly indicated the present reality and precedent when he noted the US would now ignore “stupid rules of engagement” and “[punch] them while they’re down.” Hegseth and the US war machine have now given Iran and anybody else who wishes to engage with the US, the same set of rules of engagement governed under the Law of the Jungle.

The sinking of the Iranian frigate, Colombo’s rescue of the victims and providing protection to the Bushehr and its crew, and India offering refuge to the IRIS Lavan and its crew but remaining silent about it until after the news on the Sri Lankan action broke out, open many questions for reflection.

All three ships had been invited by the Indian Navy to take part in an international exercise involving over 70 countries. The crew of the Dena had even paraded in the presence of the Indian President not too long before their untimely end. Having invited them to the exercise and given the hostile environment the unarmed Iranian vessels would have to face in the prevailing conditions of war, why did the Indian Navy or the country’s government not invite the Iranian ships to anchor in the relative safety of one of its harbors or even in Visakhapatnam itself where the exercise took place? This would have been a matter of political courtesy. On the other hand, did the Iranians even request such help from India except for the Lavan in the same way they asked the Sri Lankans? At the time of writing, we do not have clear answers to these crucial questions which have not been, by and large, raided in any serious way.

It is ironic that the attacks took place in a ‘zone of peace’. The resolution declaring the ‘Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace’ was initially proposed by then Prime Minister of Ceylon Sirimavo Bandaranaike at the 1964 Non-Aligned Conference and was later adopted by the UN General Assembly as Resolution 2832 (XXVI) on 16th December 1971. Although the declaration was never taken seriously by the usual bandwagon of chronically belligerent states, particularly the US and the likes of China, France, Russia, UK, etc., violence as significant as the sinking of the Dena with its death toll and environmental consequences to the countries in the region, particularly to Sri Lanka, has not happened since the declaration.

The incident also took place within an area recent Indian foreign policy regards as its ‘neighbourhood’ under its ‘Neighbourhood First’ strategy, officially introduced in 2014. It is aimed at strengthening India’s ties with Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, the Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka guided by five basic principles which include Respect, Dialogue, Peace, Prosperity and Culture. Is it not surprising that India, with its unquestionable leadership in the region, could not prevent something this destructive in its own neighbourhood, or even offer help or protection after the naval exercise, to the beleaguered Iranians with whose country India has traditionally had a strong and long association? It is in this context that one can understand former Indian Foreign Minister Kanwal Sibal’s observation on X that “the US has ignored India’s sensitivities as the ship was in these waters because of India’s invitation.” It is disrespectful towards India, to say the least, when the country’s government has, in recent times, made herculean efforts to be included in the country club to which the US, Israel and other such nations belong.

Things look much worse against the backdrop of India’s deafening silence. For all its rhetoric, India comes off as small, insignificant and afraid in this situation which does not help if it still wishes to be taken seriously as an undisputed leader in the Global South. On the other hand, if the Indian government has completed its move in the direction of the Global North (obviously not geographically but politically) and wishes to be included within the rich, the powerful and the belligerent in the prevailing world order, then this positioning is correct. Perhaps, taken in India’s national interest, this is fair enough.

Unfortunately, however, the big boys in the ‘west’ do not still seem to consider India as an equal despite all it has to offer economically and all its efforts to be included in the big boys’ club. After all, Trump’s demand that India stop buying petroleum products from Russia, despite its cost-effectiveness, and only from US-declared sources, was accepted by India, without much resistance. Now, the US has declared that India has a window of 30 days to buy Russian oil, given the developing situation in the Strait of Hormuz because of the US-Israeli war. Unfortunately, this is not the way equals treat each other.

In this context, the following observation in the 8th March editorial of The Morning becomes pertinent and throws light on the instability and opaqueness of the region and its taken-for-granted positions of leadership in the global scheme of things: “India has, in the past, demonstrated a willingness to intervene diplomatically when foreign naval vessels, particularly those belonging to China, attempted to enter Sri Lankan ports. On several occasions, New Delhi has openly objected to Chinese research ships docking in Sri Lanka, arguing that such visits could have security implications for India.” This is not simply a reality but now standard diplomatic practice for India when dealing with Sri Lanka. As The Morning editorial further pointed out, “given that precedent, many observers are now asking a different question: why was there such silence when an American submarine was operating in close proximity to Sri Lanka and ultimately launched an attack that has transformed the region into a perceived conflict zone?

If India possesses the strategic awareness and diplomatic leverage to monitor the movements of Chinese vessels near Sri Lanka, surely it must also have been aware of the growing tensions involving the Iranian ship.”

It is into this situation that Sri Lanka has been reluctantly drawn in. Before the destruction of the Dena, the Sri Lankan government had been in contact with the frigate and Iranian officials in Colombo for 11 hours to work out how the Iranian ship could be given refuge in the country’s waters. Sri Lanka’s political Opposition in Parliament has blamed the government for the seemingly inordinate time taken to make this decision. It is during this time that the Dena was destroyed, causing mass casualties. While it would have been good if Sri Lanka acted earlier and saved more lives, things are not that simple. Sri Lanka found itself in a very difficult situation and without much local experience, or precedence, on how to deal with such conditions. After all, with a Navy, that is the smallest in the region, next to the Maldives, the country’s political leaders might have been rightly concerned that a country as belligerent as the US, with its naval assets in the ocean nearby, including the facilities in Diego Garcia merely 1776 km away might bomb Sri Lankan facilities, too.

After all, it is the belligerent and the powerful that call the shots in the existing world order, as they have done for centuries. If so, there is no way the country’s combined military could defend itself. And as has been made painfully apparent in recent years, there are no friends when push comes to shove. So, the time taken is understandable as a matter of caution, particularly when considering that Sri Lanka does not have standard operational procedures to deal with maritime emergencies of this kind. Besides, the Iranians were not invited to the area by the Sri Lankans but by Indians. The hosts by then had gone completely silent.

Dealing with the situation of the second ship, the Bushehr has also not been easy. As the Sri Lankan President noted in his press conference on 5th March, the docking request for the Bushehr was “described as a visit to enhance cooperation.” Further as he noted, “as everyone knows, a cooperation visit does not take place in such a manner; it requires extensive formal procedures. Therefore, we were studying those procedures.” Obviously, the Iranians were attempting to minimise the military nature of their ships and gain access to Sri Lankan ports on a pretext such as technical difficulties rather than directly making it clear that they needed protection in a situation of war. But this pretext is to fulfill a technical legal requirement. It is very likely that the Iranians were trying to use the practices of customary international law and 1907 Hague Convention (XIII) based upon the principle of force majeure (unavoidable accident or superior force), providing for humanitarian exceptions to the strict prohibition against using the waters of neutral countries.

It is to the credit of the Sri Lankan government that it acted decisively, soon after the Dena was destroyed, by rapidly dispatching its Navy to conduct rescue and recovery operations and also by separating the crew of 208 from the Bushehr and dispatching them to two different harbours. By doing so, Sri Lanka, perhaps unknowingly, has come up with operational procedures that can be used in situations like this in the future. That is, ensuring that the crew and the ship were no longer militarily engaged and under direct Sri Lankan control rather than the Iranians and, therefore, hopefully not a target of yet another US attack. While the Dena rescue was ongoing, the Indian Navy had issued a list of actions it had taken, including naming the types of vessels and aircraft it had dispatched to aid in the search but never mentioning the US attack. If the intention was to show that they were not sitting idly by, this was too little and too late. The Lankan Navy, despite its size, is perfectly capable of running a rescue operation of this kind in its own backyard after years of experience throughout the civil war. Besides, there is no indication that the Sri Lankan Navy had asked for outside help.

Intriguingly, all this while there was no news from the Indian Navy or its government of the Lavan requesting to dock in Cochin as early as 28th February or that it had in fact reached that harbour on 5th March and its crew accommodated in Indian naval facilities which was the right thing to do. All this information literally trickled out only after the destruction of the Dena, the rescue of its survivors and safeguarding of the Bushehr and its crew by the Sri Lankans had hit international headlines with considerable positivity. It almost seems as if the Indian Navy and its government were waiting to see the potential consequences of the Sri Lankan action, prior to making their own action known, despite already having done what was right.

The Sri Lankan President was also at pains to reiterate the neutrality of the country for obvious reasons. After all, if the current war situation is to be considered even superficially, the clearest point it makes is that the world’s most powerful countries are led by mad men with no sense of ethics or empathy. As he noted, “our position has been to safeguard our neutrality while demonstrating our humanitarian values.” He further noted, “amidst all this, as a government, we have intervened in a manner that safeguards the reputation and dignity of our country, protects human lives and demonstrates our commitment to international conventions. That intervention is currently ongoing … We do not act in a biased manner towards any state, nor do we submit to any state … we firmly believe that this is the most courageous and humanitarian course of action that a state can take.” The government also has been cautious to be guided by customary international law, the 1907 Hague Convention (XIII) as well as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as subsequent declarations have indicated. After a long time, Sri Lankan action with global consequences sounds both statesmanlike and very Buddhist.

Here, I agree with the President without reservation. This is the only way Sri Lanka could have acted in this situation in a world of relative inaction and a regional context marked by uncomfortable silence.

This is a good illustration of independence and statesmanship by a small state even under very difficult conditions. Hopefully, the government will continue on this path in other instances, too, that is, not to “submit to any state” despite pressure and provocation. It must become a necessary part of Sri Lanka’s international and national policy framework governing all actions.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Mannar’s silent skies: Migratory Flamingos fall victim to power lines amid Wind Farm dispute

Published

on

Victims: Flamingos / Birds found dead in Mannar

By Ifham Nizam

A fresh wave of concern has gripped conservationists following the reported deaths of migratory flamingos within the Vankalai Sanctuary—a globally recognised bird habitat—raising urgent questions about the ecological cost of large-scale renewable energy projects in the region.

The incident comes at a time when a fundamental rights petition, challenging the proposed wind power project, linked to India’s Adani Group, remains under examination before the Supreme Court, with environmental groups warning that the very risks they highlighted are now materialising.

At least two flamingos—believed to be part of the iconic migratory flocks that travel thousands of kilometres to reach Sri Lanka—were found dead after entanglement with high-tension transmission lines running across the sanctuary. Another bird was reportedly struggling for survival.

Professor Sampath Seneviratne, a leading ornithologist, expressed deep concern over the development, noting that such incidents are not isolated but indicative of a broader and predictable threat.

“These migratory birds depend on specific flyways that have remained unchanged for centuries. When high-risk infrastructure, like poorly planned power lines, intersect these routes, collisions become inevitable,” he said. “What we are witnessing now could be just the beginning if proper mitigation measures are not urgently implemented.”

Environmentalists argue that the Mannar region—particularly the Vankalai wetland complex—is one of the most critical stopover sites in South Asia for migratory waterbirds, including flamingos, pelicans, and various species of waders. The sanctuary’s ecological value has also supported a niche with growing eco-tourism sector, drawing birdwatchers from around the world.

Executive Director of the Centre for Environmental Justice, Dilena Pathragoda, said the incident underscores the urgency of judicial intervention and stricter environmental oversight.

“This tragedy is a direct consequence of ignoring scientifically established environmental safeguards. We have already raised these concerns before court, particularly regarding the location of transmission infrastructure within sensitive bird habitats,” Pathragoda said.

“Renewable energy cannot be pursued in isolation from ecological responsibility. If due process and proper environmental impact assessments are bypassed or diluted, then such losses are inevitable.”

Conservation groups have long cautioned that the installation of wind turbines and associated grid infrastructure—especially overhead transmission lines—within or near sensitive habitats could transform these landscapes into lethal zones for avifauna.

An environmental activist involved in the ongoing legal challenge said the latest deaths validate earlier warnings.

“This is exactly what we feared. Development is necessary, but not at the cost of biodiversity. When projects of this scale proceed without adequate ecological assessments and safeguards, the consequences are irreversible,” the activist stressed.

The debate has once again brought into focus the delicate balance between renewable energy expansion and biodiversity conservation. While wind energy is widely promoted as a clean alternative to fossil fuels, experts caution that “green” does not automatically mean “harmless.”

Professor Seneviratne emphasised that solutions do exist, including rerouting transmission lines, installing bird diverters, and conducting comprehensive migratory pathway studies prior to project approval.

“Globally, there are well-established mitigation strategies. The issue here is not the absence of knowledge, but the failure to apply it effectively,” he noted.

The timing of the incident is particularly worrying. Migratory flamingos typically remain in Sri Lanka until late April or May before embarking on their return journeys. Conservationists warn that if hazards remain unaddressed, larger flocks could face similar risks in the coming weeks.

Beyond ecological implications, experts also highlight potential economic fallout. Wildlife tourism—especially birdwatching—contributes significantly to local livelihoods in Mannar.

 Repeated reports of bird deaths could deter eco-conscious travellers and damage the region’s reputation as a safe haven for migratory species.

Environmentalists are now calling for immediate intervention by authorities, including a temporary halt to high-risk operations in sensitive zones, pending a thorough environmental review.

They stress that protecting animal movement corridors—whether elephant migration routes or avian flyways—is a fundamental pillar of modern conservation.

As the controversy unfolds, one question looms large: can Sri Lanka pursue sustainable energy without sacrificing the very natural heritage that defines it?

Pathragoda added that for now, the sight of fallen flamingos in Mannar stands as a stark reminder that development, if not carefully planned, can carry a heavy and irreversible cost.

Continue Reading

Features

‘Weaponizing’ religion in the pursuit of power

Published

on

President Donald Trump; miscalculating in M-E / Ayatollah Khomeini; Architect of Iranian Revolution

A picture of US President Donald Trump apparently being prayed for by supporters, appearing in sections of the international media, said it all loud and clear. That is, religion is being flagrantly leveraged or prostituted by politicians single-mindedly bent on furthering their power aspirations.

Although in the case of the US President the trend took on may be an exceptionally graphic or dramatic form, the ‘weaponizing’ of religion is nothing particularly new, nor is it confined to only religiously conservative sections of the West. For example, in South Asia it is an integral part of politics. The ‘South Asian Eight’ are notorious for it and it could be unreservedly stated that in Sri Lanka, the latter’s ethnic conflict would be more amenable to resolution if religion was not made a potent weapon by ambitious politicians of particularly the country’s South.

The more enlightened sections of Christian believers in the US may not have been able to contain their consternation at the sight of the US President apparently being ‘blessed’ by pastors claiming adherence to Christianity. Any human is entitled to be blessed but not if he is leading his country to war without exhausting all the options at his disposal to end the relevant conflict by peaceful means.

More compounded would be his problem if his directives lead to the death of civilians in the hundreds. In the latter case he is stringently accountable for the spilling of civilian blood, that is, the committing of war crimes.

However, the US along with Israel did just that in the recent bombings of Iran, for instance. The majority of the lives lost were those of civilians. If the US President is endowed with a Christian conscience he would have paused to consider that he is guilty of ordering the taking of the life of another human which is forbidden in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Moreover, the ‘pastors’ praying over the US President should have thought on the above lines as well. May be they were in an effort to curry the President’s favour which is as blame-worthy as legitimizing in some form the taking of civilian lives. Apparently, the realisation is not dawning on all Christian conservatives of the US that some of these ‘pastors’ could very well be the proverbial false prophets and the latter are almost everywhere, even in far distant Sri Lanka.

However, the political reality ‘on the ground’ is that the Christian Right is a stable support base of the Republican Right in the US. Considering this it should not come as a surprise to the seasoned political watcher if the Christian Right, read Christian fundamentalists, are hand-in-glove, so to speak, with President Trump. But it is a scathing indictment on these rightist sections that they are all for perpetrating war and destruction and not for the fostering of peace and reconciliation. Ideally, they should have impressed on their President the dire need to make peace.

That said, political commentators should consider it incumbent on themselves to point out that religion is being ‘weaponized’ in Iran as well. Theocratic rule in Iran has been essentially all about perpetuating the power of the clerical class. The reasons that led to the Islamic Revolution in Iran are complex and the indiscreet Westernization of Iran under the Shah dynasty is one of these but one would have expected Iran to develop from then on into a multi-party, pluralistic democratic state where people would be enjoying their fundamental rights, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example.

Moreover, Iran should have taken it upon itself to be a champion of world peace, in keeping with its Islamic credentials. But some past regimes in Iran had vowed to virtually bomb Israel out of existence and such regional policy trajectories could only bring perpetual conflict and war. Considering the current state of the Middle East it could be said that the unfettered playing out of these animosities is leading the region and the world to ‘reap the whirlwind’, having recklessly ‘sowed the wind’.

However, religious fundamentalism-inspired conflict and war has spread well beyond the Middle East into almost every region since 1979, the year of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. So much so, knowledgeable opinion now points out that religious identity has come to replace nationalism as a principal shaper of international politics or “geopolitics”, as quite a few sections misleadingly and incorrectly term it.

Elaborating on the decisive influence of religious identity, the well known and far traveled Western journalist Patrick Cockburn says in his authoritative and comprehensive book titled, ‘The Age of Jihad – Islamic State and the Great War for the Middle East’ at page 428 in connection with the war in Chechnya ; ‘If nationalism was not entirely dead, it no longer provided the ideological glue necessary to hold together and motivate people who were fighting a war. Unlike the Islamic faith, it was no longer a belief or a badge of identity for which people would fight very hard.’ (The book in reference was published by VERSO, London and New York).

In his wide coverage of Jihadist Wars the world over Cockburn goes on to state that today a call from a cleric could motivate his followers to lay down no less than their lives for a cause championed by the former. The 9/11 catastrophe alone should convince the observer that this is indeed true.

However, as often pointed out in this column, there is no alternative but to foster peace and reconciliation if a world free of bloodshed and strife is what is being sought. Fortunately we are not short of illustrious persons from the East and West who have shone a light on how best to get to a degree of peace. Besides Mahatma Gandhi of India, who was the subject of this column last week, we have former President of Iran Mohammad Khatami, who made a case for a ‘Dialogue of Civilizations’ rather than a ‘Clash of Civilizations’.

The time is more than ripe to take a leaf from these illustrious personalities, for, the current state of war in the Middle East has raised the possibility of a war that could transcend regional boundaries. The antagonists are obliged to exhaust all the peaceful options with the assistance of the UN system. Besides, war cannot ever have the blessings of the sane.

Continue Reading

Features

Venerable Rahula Thera’s 35-year green mission and national Namal Uyana

Published

on

Venerable Rahula Thera

It was 35 years ago, on March 28, 1991, that Venerable Rahula Thera, then a young monk, embarked on a journey to the Na forest in Ulpathagama, Palagama, in the Anuradhapura District. Today, three and a half decades later, this mission stands as living proof of the enduring bond between Buddhist philosophy and the natural world.

Marking the 35th year of this green mission, Rahula Thera’s relentless dedication has transformed the National Namal Uyana into an environmental landmark admired not only across Sri Lanka but around the globe, as well.

When studying the life of Venerable Rahula Thera, one cannot ignore the profound connection between Buddhism and the environment. Buddhism is a philosophy deeply attuned to nature. The historical use of the sacred “Na Ruka” by all four Buddhas: Mangala Buddha, Sumana Buddha, Revata Buddha, and Sobhita Buddha — for enlightenment —demonstrates that from time immemorial, Buddhism has maintained a sacred bond with the Na tree. From the birth of Siddhartha to his enlightenment, the propagation of the Dharma, and even the great Parinirvana, all of these milestones unfolded in verdant, living landscapes.

Venerable Rahula Thera did not embark on the Namal Uyana mission seeking government support or personal gain. His commitment sprang from a deep devotion to the Buddha’s teachings on grove cultivation. A grove cultivator is one who spreads compassion for nature. As the Vanaropa Sutta teaches:

Venerable Rahula Thera reclaimed Namal Uyana which was then under the control of timber smugglers and treasure hunters. The term “Wanawasi” does not merely mean living in a forest; it signifies finding rest and enlightenment through nature, free from the destructive roots of greed, sin, and delusion.

Another defining aspect of Venerable Rahula Thera’s 35-year mission is the purification of the human mind. He has consistently taught the thousands who visit Namal Uyana that a person who loves a tree will never harm another human being. As the Dhamma proclaims:

It is important to remember that Venerable Rahula Thera devoted his life, without fear, speaking the truth and taking necessary action, tirelessly advancing the national mission he began. From 1991 to the present, he has worked with every government elected by the people, maintaining impartiality and independence from political ideology. Yet, he never hesitated to raise his voice fearlessly against any individual, of any rank or party, who committed wrongdoing.

Religious and Social Mission

The National Namal Uyana is not merely a forest; it is a magnificent heritage site, dating back to ancient times. Scattered across the landscape are boundary walls, the remains of ancient monastery complexes, and stone carvings believed to date back to the reign of King Devanampiyatissa. In earlier centuries, this sacred land had served as a meditation sanctuary for hundreds of monks. The name “National Namal Uyana,” by which this ecological and archaeological treasure is known today, was introduced by Venerable Rahula Thera in 1991. The government’s later recognition of the site as the National Namal Uyana stands as a significant achievement for both religion and national heritage.

Venerable Rahula Thera is a monk who has lived a life of renunciation. A striking example of this is his decision not to assume the position of Chief Incumbent of the National Namal Uyana Viharaya, instead entrusting the temple to the Ramanna Nikaya and its trustees. In doing so, he set a precedent for the contemporary Sangha. The Thera himself stated that he was merely the trustee of Namal Uyana, not its owner.

Legacy and Continuing Inspiration

The 35th anniversary of Venerable Wanawasi Rahula Thera’s arrival at Namal Uyana is not merely the commemoration of a period of time; it is a message of nature to future generations. Through his work, the Thera revived the ancient Hela tradition of loving trees and venerating the environment as something sacred. This religious and environmental mission remains unforgettable.

The revival experienced by Namal Uyana, after the arrival of Venerable Wanawasi Rahula Thera, is beyond simple description. Some of the major accomplishments achieved under his leadership include:

* Securing and protecting the largest Rose Quartz (Rosa Thirivana) reserve in South Asia.

* Restoring the Na forest spread across hundreds of acres, providing shelter to numerous rare plants and animal species.

* Transforming the area into a living centre for environmental education, offering practical learning experiences for thousands of schoolchildren and university students.

* Drawing the attention of world leaders and international environmentalists to Sri Lanka’s unique environmental heritage.

In recognition of his immense contribution to environmental conservation, Venerable Rahula Thera was honoured with the Presidential Environment Award and the Green Award in 2004—a significant moment in his life. Yet the Thera himself has always remained devoted to the work rather than the recognition it brings, making such appreciation even more meaningful.

Continue Reading

Trending