Connect with us

Features

Exercising sovereign rights of a coastal state

Published

on

Indian trawlers in Sri Lankan waters

By Neville Ladduwahetty

Coastal states, such as Sri Lanka, could claim up to 200 nm as its Exclusive Economic Zone, according to the General Principles of the Law of the Sea.    Consequently, Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is nearly eight times its land area. According to Article 56 (1) of the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS):

“1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has: (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting conserving and managing the natural resources» whether living or non-living» of the waters superjacent to the sea-bed and of the sea-bed and its subsoil» and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone such as the production of energy from the water currents and winds”.

In fact, recognition given to the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) was underscored by India’s External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar when, he, as the Vice Chair of the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA), at its 23rd Secession of the Council of Ministers, stated: “India’s priorities are clear.

It is our effort to develop an Indian Ocean community that is stable and prosperous, strong and resilient and which is able to cooperate within and to respond to happenings beyond the ocean.    It is thus important to maintain the Indian Ocean as a free, open and inclusive space based on the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) as the Constitution of Seas.

 “India’s commitment to the well-being and progress of nations of the Indian Ocean is based on our Neighbourhood First policy, the SAGAR outlook, our approach to the extended neighbourhood … A multilateral rules-based international order along with SINCERE RESPECT for SOVEREIGNTY and TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY (emphasis added) remains the Foundation for reviving the Indian Ocean as a strong community”.

MARINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Although UNCLOS recognises Sri Lanka as a “Coastal State” enjoying sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploitation, conserving and managing the living and non-living natural resources, as well as jurisdiction over resource-related off-shore installations and structures, MARINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (MSR) (emphasis added) and the protection and preservation of the marine environment”, the National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency (NARA) of Sri Lanka is not equipped to carry out marine scientific research in such a way as to make a meaningful contribution to Sri Lanka’s national interests.

For instance, NARA has the capability to stay only five days out at sea, whereas Shi Yan 6 has the capability to operate 80 days out at sea. Therefore, by necessity, NARA is compelled to collaborate with another country that is suitably equipped if the quality of its research is such that it furthers Sri Lanka’s interests; a policy it is reported to have resorted to in the past when Sri Lanka collaborated with countries such as the US and Norway.

Not to exercise the sovereign right to engage in “maritime scientific research” as per Article 56 (1) (ii) of UNCLOS because of spurious “concerns” of India and the US sets a precedent to deny other rights.     Furthermore, by limiting the research only to two days as reported, Sri Lanka has been denied the opportunity to gather information that could serve its national interests. This denial is a violation of a sovereign right of a sovereign State.

EXPLOITATION of RESOURCES in SRI LANKA’S EEC

The exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing living and non-living natural resources of a coastal state within its EEC is a sovereign right. Despite this, it is a well recorded and reported fact that thousands of trawlers from India enter Sri Lanka’s EEC and not only exploit its resources but also destroy marine resources by resorting to bottom trawling.

In a United Nations-Nippon Foundation of Japan Fellowship Programme of 2016, Aruna Maheepala claims: “There are over 5,000 mechanised trawlers in Tamil Nadu and nearly 2,500 of them enter Sri Lankan waters on Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays and often coming at 500 m of the shoreline (emphasis added) …. More than 50,000 marine fishers live in the northern fisheries districts (Jaffna, Kilinochchi, Mannar, Mulative), and they account for about one-fourth of the marine fishers of the country.

Before the commencement of the war (1982) around 40% of the fish production of the country came from Northern fishery districts (except Kilinochchi).  However, contribution of the fish production in the northern fishery district drastically dropped to 5% in the peak period of the war (2008) and gradually increased after 2009. Livelihoods of Sri Lankan fishers’ have been drastically affected as a result of the Indian poaching”.

Judging from the map of Sri Lanka’s EEC and its proximity to India’s coastline, to claim that Indian trawlers “drift” into Sri Lankan waters is unacceptable. On the contrary, the India trawlers “drift” into Sri Lankan waters because they have exhausted the resources within India’s EEC.

In the context of the ground situation cited above, for Dr. Jaishankar’s claim that ‘India is committed to the well being and progress of nations of the Indian Ocean is based on our Neighbourhood First’ is far from the truth. Instead, it sounds more like India First in the neighbourhood.  To expect India to address this issue despite Dr. Jaishankar’s commitment to “a multilateral rules-based international order along with sincere respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity” is only a pipe dream because it is alleged that the majority of Indian fishing boats entering Sri Lanka waters are connected to Indian politicians who are Members of the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu.

Furthermore, since Sri Lanka’s legal provisions are limited only to violations relating to the illegal plunder of its resources by individuals and their fishing crafts, no action can be taken against those who sponsor and finance such acts. Therefore, there is an urgent need to review existing legal provisions and revise and update them in order to meet current challenges.

PRROPOSAL to SET UP an ANTI-NARCOTIC COMMAND

The need to establish an Anti-Narcotic Command was reportedly realised after detecting the 200 kg of heroin valued at Rs. 4.5 billion, which was intercepted in the high seas. While this is a long overdue measure, it must be accepted that this “interception” is one of many that went undetected; this is inevitable when about 2500 mechanised trawlers brazenly enter Sri Lankan waters three times a week with absolutely no regard to Sri Lanka’s sovereign rights.

In such a context, Dr. Jaishankar’s sincerity and respect for Sri Lanka’s sovereignty will have no significance unless and until India is held accountable for deliberately overlooking the vandalism caused not only to Sri Lanka’s marine resources but also to security related issues such as crimes relating to drugs, human trafficking, arms smuggling and money laundering.

Even if India and Sri Lanka work out an arrangement to compensate Sri Lanka materially for the lost revenue to the Sri Lankan fishing community and for the damage done to its marine resources, the very fact that Indian fishing craft continue to enter Sri Lanka’s EEC means that the threats to security from drugs and other crimes would continue unabated despite the establishment of an Anti-Narcotic Command because no Command, however effective, would be able to identify which of the 2,500 Indian trawlers that come three times a week become the means by which to support other crimes that are a threat to Sri Lanka’s security. The collective cost to the Sri Lankan State and its citizens pales in significance compared to the loans and lines of credit given by India.

The irony is that Sri Lanka is prepared to address security concerns of India but India is totally impervious to those of Sri Lanka, not to mention the loss of livelihood to its citizens and to deny their opportunity to develop its fishing sector.

DRAFT OF FISHERIES AND ACQUATIC ACT

A draft of an Act to repeal and replace the existing Act of 1996 is presented below:

“AN ACT TO REPEAL AND REPLACE THE FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ACT No. 2 of 1996. AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION, LONG TERM CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF MARINE FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES, AND MARINE ECOSYSTEMS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE OF SRI LANKA; TO GIVE EFFECT TO SRI LANKAS’ OBLIGATIONS UNDER REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS; AND TO REPEAL AND REPLACE THE FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ACT, No. 2 of 1996 AND TO PROVIDE FOR MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH WITH OR INCIDENTAL THERETO”.

“PART VII – SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DATA COLLECTION”

“Section 92 – Scientific research by fishing vessels Section 93 – Scientific research by a foreign research organization or another State Section 94 – Fisheries Data Collection Programs Section 95 – Collection, transmission and validation of data”.

“PART XI – MEDIATION, ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS”

“Section 147; Cost Incurred by the State

The owner or charterer of a foreign fishing vessel, upon conviction, shall bear any cost or expenditure incurred by the State, as determined by Court where an application is made on that behalf by the State in all or any of the following instances: a) the seizure of the foreign vessel for an offence under this Act, including any relevant costs of pursuit of a vessel; b) the prosecution for an offence in accordance with this Act; and c) the repatriation of the master or crew of any vessel seized under this Act. 2. The amount of any cost and/or expenditure awarded by Court under subsection (1) may be recovered as a fine and shall be imposed in addition to any other fine or penalty that has already been determined by Court. 3. Nothing in subsection (1) shall be deemed to permit the recovery of any cost and/or expenditure that has already been recovered pursuant to any other Order made under this Act. 4. If it intends to apply for pursuit costs in accordance with subsection (1) (a), the State shall, fourteen (14) days prior to a trial of the offence, serve the accused with written details of such costs”.

While Part VII addresses issues relating to scientific research and data collection by foreign organization or a State, Part XI that deals with costs incurred by Sri Lanka is totally inadequate because it is based on individual penal responsibility of violators, when the violations to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and resources are committed collectively by 2500 plus trawlers that invade Sri Lanka’s EEC.    Therefore, this aspect requires serious revisions to the Draft Act.    Another serious omission in the draft is the non-inclusion of any relevant provisions of UNCLOS and the need to specifically refer to UNCLOS in the preamble to the draft Act instead of the vague reference to “OBLIGATIONS UNDER REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS”.

HARD REALITIES   

Prior to exploring strategies to deal with the challenges cited above, Sri Lanka has to recognise certain hard and irrefutable realities.

The first hard reality is that threats to Sri Lanka’s security, the economic wellbeing of its citizens, in particular those in the North and East of Sri Lanka and the plunder and damage of its natural resources are committed by Indian citizens against the interests of Sri Lanka and its citizens. Therefore, all issues relating to the illegal entry of fishing trawlers from the territory of India should be addressed at the bilateral level, between the governments of India and Sri Lanka and not with the state of Tamil Nadu; a serious mistake that has failed Sri Lanka for decades.

The second hard reality is that threats in whatever form come from the unlawful encroachment of thousands of fishing trawlers into Sri Lanka’s EEC in total violation of its sovereignty; a fact recognized as a right by all Coastal States.

The third hard reality is that no Acts of Parliament or security related arrangements such as Anti-Narcotic Commands, however effective, would be able to make a dent in the aggression because of the scale of the ongoing operations; a fact evident from the report that Sri Lanka’s Navy has arrested nearly 180 fishers and taken 27 trawlers into the custody this year. (The island, October 30, 2023).

The fourth hard reality is that if the livelihoods of those in the North and East of Sri Lanka associated with the fishing sector are to be restored and Sri Lanka wishes to develop its fishing sector as part of its economic development, the illegal entry of thousands of mechanised trawlers from India has to stop. If nothing is done it amounts to an international crime of annexing part of Sri Lanka’s EEC by India.

CONCLUSION

The facts presented above show the gross violations committed by the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. The Central Government of India is fully aware of these violations but does nothing for reasons of internal political compulsions, although this kind of aggression amounts to a complete disregard of the sovereign rights of a Coastal State embodied in the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas. India has made a mockery of the much-touted policy of Neighbourhood First.

Therefore, if India is not to lose its credibility and make disingenuous statements about its “sincere respect for sovereignty and its commitment to the well-being and progress of nations”, it should finance the development of the fishing sector of Tamil Nadu to engage in deep sea fishing as an alternative to violating the sovereign rights of its neighbour’s EEC.

In the meantime, Sri Lanka should call for Expressions of Interest to invest in a Joint Venture in order to develop its fishing sector in the North and East of Sri Lanka which was 40% of the total production (Maheepala cited above) as a significant component towards Sri Lanka’s food security.  Until then, the potential loss in revenue incurred by Sri Lanka due to the violations committed by a state of India should be factored in the settlement of financial commitments to India.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Quandary of Dengue: Some roving perspectives

Published

on

Sri Lanka is currently well and truly trapped in the strangling grip of a devastating and severely enhanced dengue outbreak. The numbers alone are staggering; over 44,000 cases have been recorded across the island so far this year, with the highest concentration systematically suffocating the Western, Southern, and Central provinces. Hospitals and healthcare providers are under extreme pressure, but the cold metrics of morbidity do not capture the true implications and dismay of this current wave. What has profoundly shaken the public consciousness and even sent a shudder through the medical community is a grim shift in the implications for the populace.

Dengue has always been quite a threat, looming over our Motherland from time to time. Yet for all that, historically, child deaths due to the virus were relatively rare in Sri Lanka, thanks to scrupulously adhering to robust clinical guidelines, as well as exceptional paediatric monitoring and management. This year, that safety net seems to be straining quite a bit at the edges and among the reported fatalities are a tragic number of children. The virus is moving faster, hitting harder, and exposing a terrifying reality, even stressing that our existing defence mechanisms are perhaps no longer totally sufficient to deal with the problem.

In response, public health authorities have deployed their traditional arsenal. Teams are busy with intensive surveillance, conducting house-to-house inspections, enforcing strict penalties for standing and stagnant water, and sending fogging machinery through the streets to blanket neighbourhoods in chemical mists. Yet, as case counts climb by nearly 50% week over week, an uncomfortable question must be asked: Are these traditional measures sufficient, or are they bordering on an exercise in futility?

The Illusion of the Fog: Why Our Current Strategy May Be Failing?

To understand why Sri Lanka might be in a tight corner, one must look closely at the enemy. Dengue is transmitted primarily by the Aedes aegypti mosquito, a highly adapted, urbanised insect. While Aedes aegypti is widely considered the primary culprit, Aedes albopictus (commonly known as the Asian tiger mosquito) plays a massive, highly dangerous role in Sri Lanka’s dengue transmission as well. In fact, the interplay between these two species is one of the biggest reasons why controlling dengue on the island is so incredibly difficult. These two vectors behave differently, breed in different places, and require distinct strategies to combat their well-recognised roles in the propagation of the disease that is dengue. Understanding how these two mosquito species split the territory could explain why a single controlling method might not always work across the board.

Aedes aegypti mosquitoes are strictly urban and indoor creatures. They live alongside humans inside houses, apartments, and in heavily built-up commercial areas. They rest on dark clothes in closets, under furniture, and behind curtains. They breed in artificial containers, clear, stagnant water in flower vases, plastic cups, concrete sumps, and overhead tanks. They prefer human blood almost exclusively and bite multiple people to get one full meal, thereby spreading the dengue virus rapidly within even a single household.

In contrast, Aedes albopictus is semi-urban and rural, thrives in vegetations, gardens, rubber plantations, and peri-urban areas where green spaces meet houses. The creature rests in shaded bushes, high grass, and low canopy foliage, as well as holes in trees, leaf axils, coconut shells, discarded tyres and trash. The biting behaviour of these mosquitoes is opportunistic. They bite humans but also feed on birds and domestic mammals, indicating that they can survive easily even when human density is low.

The traditional responses we rely on, most notably thermal fogging, are largely cosmetic public relations exercises rather than a totally effective vector control mechanism. Such fogging misses indoor resting sites, drives resistance, and stagnant water elimination fails against cryptic, microscopic breeding sites.

Fogging utilises “adulticides“, chemical sprays meant to kill flying mosquitoes. However, Aedes aegypti is a domestic creature; it rests indoors, hidden in the dark recesses of closets, under beds, and behind curtains. A fogging process achieves very little penetration into these indoor sanctuaries. Furthermore, over-reliance on these pyrethroid-based chemical sprays has accelerated insecticide resistance, effectively rendering the chemicals useless over time.

Similarly, while the National Dengue Control Unit (NDCU), to their eternal credit, aggressively pursues the elimination of visible standing water, the sheer adaptability of the mosquito outpaces manual human labour in trying to eliminate the breeding places of the vectors. Aedes eggs can remain dormant in dry containers for months, hatching the moment a drop of water touches them. In dense, urbanised areas like Colombo and Gampaha, microscopic breeding sites, from the rim of a discarded plastic bottle cap to the base of an indoor potted plant, are impossible to completely police.

If we continue to rely solely on manual cleaning and chemical fogging, we are fighting a twenty-first-century climate-driven crisis with mid-twentieth-century tools. We must look beyond our borders to see how global science is shifting the paradigm of mosquito control.

The Biological Frontier: Insects fighting Mosquitoes

When searching for international alternatives, many look towards the United States, where vector control districts manage complex mosquito populations across diverse ecosystems. A common point of curiosity is the historical use of “mosquito-eating insects.”

In the US, biological control has long featured predatory species. While some point to insects like dragonfly nymphs or giant non-biting mosquito larvae (Toxorhynchites, which actively prey on other mosquito larvae), the most widely used traditional biological agent in American municipal water systems is actually the Gambusia affinis, commonly known as the “mosquitofish.” A single one of these surface-feeding fish can devour hundreds of mosquito larvae a day.

However, American vector management has largely evolved past simply dumping predatory fish into ponds. The true modern frontier in global mosquito control relies on advanced biological and genetic interventions that turn the mosquitoes against themselves.

1. The Wolbachia Revolution

Perhaps the most successful international intervention against dengue is the introduction of Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes. Wolbachia is a naturally occurring bacterium found in up to sixty per cent of all insect species, but crucially, not naturally present in Aedes aegypti.

When scientists introduce Wolbachia into Aedes mosquitoes in a laboratory and release them into the wild, two extraordinary things happen: –

· Viral Suppression: The bacterium competes with viruses like dengue, Zika, and chikungunya inside the mosquito’s body, making it incredibly difficult for the virus to replicate. If the virus cannot replicate, the mosquito cannot transmit it to a human.

· Population Replacement:

Through a mechanism called cytoplasmic incompatibility, when a Wolbachia-carrying male mates with a wild female that does not carry the bacteria, her eggs do not hatch. If a Wolbachia female mates with a wild male, her offspring will carry the bacteria. Over time, the local mosquito population is entirely replaced by harmless, non-transmission-capable mosquitoes.

In comprehensive global trials, such as those conducted by the World Mosquito Programme in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, the introduction of Wolbachia mosquitoes led to a staggering 77% reduction in dengue incidence and an 86% reduction in dengue-related hospitalisations.

2. Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) and Genetic Modifications

Other countries, including parts of the US (such as the Florida Keys) and Brazil, have turned to genetic engineering. Using the Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) or advanced genetic variants (like those developed by Oxitec), millions of bio-engineered male mosquitoes are released into the wild. Because male mosquitoes do not bite humans, and they feed exclusively on nectar, thereby posing zero risk to the public. These males mate with wild females, but pass on a self-limiting gene that causes the female offspring to die in the larval stage before they can ever mature, bite, or transmit disease. This results in a drastic collapse of the localised vector population without the use of even a single drop of toxic chemical pesticide.

Moving beyond the Status Quo: A Blueprint for Sri Lanka

The current dilemma in Sri Lanka is a classical gridlock: we are deploying immense physical effort and economic capital into vector control measures that yield diminishing returns, while our clinical wards fill with critically ill patients. If we are to break this cycle, our public health policy must undergo a rapid structural evolution

We cannot instantly replicate the multimillion-dollar genetic laboratories of the West, but we can modernise our strategy immediately by adopting a highly targeted, multi-tiered approach.

Comprehensive Vector Management Strategy

The following are some thoughts that need to be carefully evaluated in a venture towards getting things under control.

· Shift from Adulticides to Target Microbial Larvicides Immediate Phase

Cease the reliance on sweeping chemical thermal fogging. Instead, deploy specialised microbial larvicides such as Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti). Bti is a naturally occurring soil bacterium that, when ingested by mosquito larvae, destroys their digestive tracts. It is completely non-toxic to humans, pets, and other aquatic life, and can be distributed via localised backpack sprayers or drones into inaccessible urban sumps.

· Scale Up Localised Wolbachia Trials Intermediate Phase

Sri Lanka has previously initiated small-scale, localised pilot releases of Wolbachia mosquitoes in select urban pockets. Given the severity of the 2026 outbreak, these programmes must be aggressively scaled up into an industrial-level national initiative. Public-private partnerships must be leveraged to establish sustainable, high-capacity mosquito-rearing facilities locally.

· Implement Digital Ovitrap Surveillance Continuous Integration

Replace manual, retroactive searching with predictive digital mapping. Deploy networks of smart “ovitraps” (oviposition traps) across high-burden provinces. These traps monitor egg-laying rates in real-time, allowing automated data systems to predict a spike in the adult mosquito population weeks before an actual clinical outbreak occurs, enabling preventative targeting.

The Cost of Inaction

Maintaining our current trajectory is not a neutral choice; it is an endorsement of escalating mortality. The 2026 outbreak has proven that the ecological dynamics of dengue have changed, fuelled by changing weather patterns and urban density. Our public health response must change with it.

The heart-breaking loss of young lives in this current surge must serve as a stark wake-up call. We must look at the international landscape, embrace the biological innovations that have saved lives across the globe, and transition from a policy of panic-driven reaction to one of scientific eradication. It is no longer just a matter of cleaning our drains; it is a matter of upgrading our science.

Why Aedes albopictus Makes the Sri Lankan Crisis Harder

In Sri Lanka, the geographic landscape transitions quickly from dense concrete cities to lush, tropical vegetation. This creates the perfect environment for both species to thrive simultaneously.

· The Surveillance Blindspot: When health authorities focus heavily on checking indoor water storage and concrete drains in cities, they can completely miss the massive Aedes albopictus populations breeding in the surrounding vegetation, suburban gardens, and rural homesteads of the Southern and Central provinces.

· The Failure of Indoor Fogging:

While indoor residual spraying or targeted indoor fogging might hit Aedes aegypti, it has virtually no effect on Aedes albopictus, which spends its life cycle outdoors in the bushes.

· Climate Resilience:

Aedes albopictus eggs are remarkably tolerant of colder temperatures and varied environments. This allows the vector to push higher into the mountainous terrains of the Central Province, bringing dengue to areas that historically saw very few cases.

To truly bring down the case numbers in a severely enhanced outbreak, public health interventions must be dual-targeted: addressing the indoor, urban threat of Aedes aegypti while simultaneously tackling the outdoor, ecological stronghold of Aedes albopictus. We cannot sit back on our laurels of the past. We need to move forward resolutely.

Continue Reading

Features

ANURADHAPURA ANTHEM c.1893

Published

on

Anuradhapura. Image courtesy Central Cultural Fund

R. W. Ievers, who wrote this poem, was the Government Agent of the North Central Province during 1884, 1886, and 1890. He is the author of the Manual of the North Central Province (1899) and a half dozen published reports on the life and practices in the Province. Before his death, he shared it with his good friend H.C.P. Bell, the Archaeological Commissioner of Ceylon at the time. In 1917, Bell had it published in the Times of Ceylon – Christmas Number. Since then, it remained unknown for 109 years, until Ievers’s great-grandson, Turtle Bunbury, historian and author of Living in Sri Lanka (2006) with James Fennell, tipped me off about its source – H.C.P. Bell: Archaeologist of Ceylon and the Maldives (1993), written by Bell’s granddaughters Bethia N. Bell and Heather M. Bell.

THE ANTHEM

Anuradhapura! City grand and vast,

Lanka’s famous Capital, in ages of the past:

In the Mahawansa the story has been told

Of thy palaces, and temples, and pinnacles of gold.

Hail! then hail! to the worth of a bygone day,

Hail! all hail! to the relics of kingly sway

Hail to thee, Fair City, glorious in decay,

Hail! thrice hail! Forever and for aye!

Si monumentum quaeris

– cast your gaze around

Ruined fanes and dagobas everywhere abound

Alas! for glory faded, for erstwhile beauty sped

For hierarchs and heroes, long numbered with the dead

Hail! then hail!…

Great Ruwanaveli Seya, once fairest of the fair,

The splendour of thy palmy days has melted into air;

And like Imperial Caesar now ‘dead and turned into clay’,

Thy sacred bricks ‘may stop a hole to keep the wind away.’

Note by Tillakaratne:

Since 1873, Bhikku Naranvita Sumanasara has been doing conservation work on this stupa. In 1876, Governor William Gregory, after visiting the work site, wrote that its conservation was not just a religious work but a great National Monument.

See ‘Bayagiri’ massive – ‘Fearless Mount’ forsooth – Centre once of schism rank, from ‘Great Vihara’ truth.

Patched up by prison labour, anew it flaunts on high

A ‘hideous excrescence’ athwart a tranquil sky.

Note by H. C. P. Bell

: T. N. Christie, Planting Member at the time protested in the Legislative Council against the abortive “restoration” by prison labour of the Abhayagiri Dagaba, dubbing its truncated pinnacle, half restored, a “hideous excrescence”.

Jetawanarama, Great Sena’s priestly boon

Comely shape and giddy height will crumble all too soon;

Where forest trees and chequered shade a peaceful picture lend,

From cruel axe and ruthless spade, may gracious Heaven defend.

Note by H. C. P. Bell:

Two decades after these poems were written, the surrounding area of the Jetawanarama was still covered in forest, and the Atamasthana Committee conditionally allowed a monk to clear a limited number of trees. But not a tree remained unfelled, contrary to what the monk was authorized to do.

Thuparama graceful, in outline clear and bold,

Begirt with column chaste and slim, a gem in the ring of gold

To thee pertains high honour a pious people gave – The tomb of Sanghamitta, and Prince Mahinda’s grave.

Note by

H. C. P. Bell: The ruins are pointed out, wrongly, as the tradional tombs of Arahat Mahinda and Sanghamitta Theranee.

With bricks and mortar bolstered up, behold the Sacred Bo;

To some – misguided mortals – ‘tis but a ‘bo-gas’ show.

Where humble Mirisveti a monarch’s fad recalls,

Lo! Royal Siam’s silver now builds its futile walls.

Note by H. C. P. Bell:

According to Mahawansa, Mirisavetiya was so named after King Dutugemunu’s compunction at forgetting chillies (miris) in his alms giving to monks on one occasion. The restoration work on the Mirisavetiya began under the Ceylon Government, with funds provided by the King of Siam. When the money flow began to cease, work also ceased, and bats began to frequent the holed structure.

What need to tell of sculptures, of ‘pokunas’ galore,

Of balustrades and Yogi stones and half a hundred more,

Of Brazen Palace spacious, with gilt-roofed storeys dight –

A modern race more ‘brazen’ would desecrate each site.

For midst these sacred ruins of shrines and cloistered hall,

A reckless generation disports with little balls,

Whilst ‘Parliamentary language’ and imprecations deep

Disturb the peaceful solitude where saintly Rahats sleep.

Note by H. C. P. Bell:

After European residents, old city Anuradhapura in the late 19th century, the area still being cleared between Ruwanveli Seya and Thuparama, was used a ‘golf links’. Ievers did not like the area used as a playground:

Iconoclasts and vandals have had their little day;

No more shall ancient pillars to culverts find their way.

No more a watchful Government such sacrilege condones –

One may not meddle with the gods, nor tamper with the stones.

Anuradhapura! Thy glory shall revive;

Yhu [sic] sons shall swarm within thee like bees about a hive.

The effort of the present for past neglect atones;

New breath of life resuscitates this vale of driest bones.

Composed by R. W. Ievers
(1850-1905)
Introduced by Lokubanda Tillakaratne

Continue Reading

Features

Meththa Rehabilitation Foundation: Restoring Mobility, Dignity and Hope Across Sri Lanka

Published

on

Mahawa Factory

For thousands of Sri Lankans living with limb loss and physical disabilities, access to quality rehabilitation services remains a significant challenge. Yet, for more than three decades, our organisation has quietly transformed lives through innovation, compassion and community-based care. The Meththa Rehabilitation Foundation Guarantee Limited (MRFGL), supported by the Meththa Foundation-UK and in partnership with the Manitha Neyam Trust, the LEBARA Foundation and the Oblates of Mary Immaculate in Jaffna, emerged as one of Sri Lanka’s most effective voluntary rehabilitation service providers, restoring mobility, independence and dignity to some of the country’s most vulnerable citizens.

The Foundation’s roots stretch back to 1994, when a group of expatriate Sri Lankan professionals in the United Kingdom recognised the severe shortage of rehabilitation services available to disabled persons in Sri Lanka. Drawing upon their expertise in rehabilitation medicine and allied healthcare professions, they established the Meththa Foundation-UK with a simple but powerful vision: to provide affordable, high-quality prosthetic and rehabilitation services to those who needed them most.

Below knee artificial limb Designed and made at Mahawa

What began as an effort to recycle and repurpose high-quality prosthetic components donated by the UK’s National Health Service has evolved into a comprehensive rehabilitation network serving communities across the island.

Clinical services commenced in Sri Lanka in 1995 through a mobile outreach programme that initially supported injured soldiers and later expanded to civilians affected by conflict and disability. The majority of them were victims of land mines. In 2010, the Sri Lankan arm of the organisation was formally registered as the Meththa Rehabilitation Foundation Guarantee Limited, strengthening its ability to deliver sustainable services nationwide.

Today, the Foundation operates four modern rehabilitation centres located in Mahawa, Mankulam, Balapitiya and Kilinochchi. These centres provide prosthetic and orthotic services, posture and mobility support, limb repairs, and rehabilitation assistance to patients from diverse social and economic backgrounds.

Recognising that many disabled individuals live in remote areas with limited access to healthcare, Meththa Foundation also established a mobile outreach service in 2011. Through a successful “Hub and Spoke” model, rehabilitation teams travel regularly to underserved communities, ensuring that patients are not denied care simply because of distance or financial hardship.

The scale of the Foundation’s work is impressive. During 2025 alone, the organisation recorded approximately 2,000 patient contacts, including the provision of 350 new artificial limbs, 850 limb repairs and around 800 other rehabilitation devices. For many beneficiaries, these interventions represent far more than medical treatment; they offer a pathway back to employment, education and social participation.

Innovation has become a hallmark of the Foundation’s approach. Through an active research and development programme, MRFGL has developed affordable prosthetic technologies specifically suited to Sri Lankan conditions. Among its achievements is the development of a modular below-knee artificial limb system manufactured largely from locally sourced materials. The Foundation has also designed low-cost prosthetic knee components that significantly reduce the financial burden on patients while maintaining quality and functionality. These developments are funded by generous International Grants facilitated by affluent members of the Meththa Foundation-UK. Service users are encouraged to donate whatever they can but for those who cannot, which is a majority the services are entirely free.

These innovations not only make rehabilitation more affordable but also strengthen local manufacturing capabilities and reduce dependence on imported components.

Equally important is the Foundation’s commitment for building local expertise. Recognising the shortage of trained rehabilitation professionals in Sri Lanka, Meththa Foundation

established an apprentice-based vocational training programme that recruits and trains young people as prosthetists, orthotists and rehabilitation technicians. Several locally trained staff members are now employed across the Foundation’s centres, helping to create a sustainable workforce for the future.

The organisation’s work has attracted growing recognition within the healthcare sector. Discussions have already taken place with health authorities regarding the potential use of Meththa-designed prosthetic components within Government hospitals. Such collaboration could significantly expand access to affordable rehabilitation services throughout the country.

Beyond its clinical achievements, the Foundation’s impact is measured in restored confidence and renewed independence. Surveys conducted among beneficiaries indicate that many educated amputees successfully return to productive lives after receiving rehabilitation support. However, the findings also highlight an ongoing challenge among poorer and less educated amputees, many of whom struggle to access follow-up care due to transportation difficulties and financial constraints.

To address this issue, the organisation hopes to -expand its mobile services and community outreach programmes. Additional funding would allow rehabilitation teams to reach isolated communities more frequently, ensuring that vulnerable patients continue to receive the support they need.

Operating on an annual expenditure of approximately Rs. 30 million in Sri Lanka, supplemented by overseas fundraising and donations, the Foundation remains heavily reliant on the partnership of charitable trusts such as the Manitha Neyam Trust and LEBARA Foundation and generosity of individual well-wishers. Every contribution directly supports the provision of artificial limbs, mobility devices, training programmes and outreach services for those who might otherwise be left behind.

As Sri Lanka continues to strengthen its healthcare and social welfare systems, organisations such as the Meththa Foundation demonstrate how innovation, volunteerism and dedication can create lasting social

By helping individuals regain mobility and independence, the Foundation is not merely providing artificial limbs—it is rebuilding lives and restoring hope.

For many “beneficiaries, every step they take is a testament to the life-changing work of the Meththa foundation

www.meththafoundation-sl-uk.org

Chairman’s WhatsApp contact number +94 77 788 6119

Prof S P Lamabadusurira, Chairman and Dr B Panagamuwa, ✍️
First Trustee

Continue Reading

Trending