Features

A cry for Gaza, and for our loss of humanity

Published

3 years ago

2023/10/18

Sahan Weerasooriya

War in Gaza

by Amal de Chickera

At the very centre of the catastrophe, are the people of Gaza themselves, caged in, bombed out, starved, parched, killed. Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the Palestinian diaspora, Israeli allies who are anti-occupation, anti-authoritarianism and pro-peace, citizens of the world with a conscience – all of us are shaken to our core. Helpless, we watch genocide play out on our tv screens, cheered on by warmongers, as those calling for peace, freedom, proportionality and respect of international law are attacked, doxed, criminalised.

I am a Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and activist, now living in London. My work is predominantly on the right to nationality and the rights of stateless people. I am writing this piece because my conscience doesn’t allow me to stay silent. I don’t have a big platform but I will use what platform I have to stand in solidarity with victims of senseless violence, terror and criminality. My own lived experience of growing up with Sri Lanka’s civil war, and my work experience on statelessness globally, shapes my perspective on this catastrophe.

Hopefully my reflections will bring some comfort or clarity to those who read this.

Lessons from Sri Lanka

I belong to the ethnic majority Sinhala community of Sri Lanka, though I’m from a Christian religious minority. There’s no denying my privilege which is rooted in language (English speaking), geography (Urban, Colombo), family and ethnicity. My parents are well respected for their work in peace and social justice, and it was this family grounding which shaped who I am. Without attempting to make any comparisons between Sri Lanka and Palestine/Israel, here are some insights from Sri Lanka which I’d like to share:

Navigating the deep polarisation in Sri Lankan society was extremely difficult. As a Sinhalese who rejected and fought against structures of discrimination and violence that predominantly targeted Tamils and Muslims, I felt deep anger and shame towards the ethno-nationalist views that pervaded Sinhala society and the Sri Lankan state. But I also knew that my privilege was rooted in this very reality, which meant that whatever threats my family or Sinhala colleagues and friends endured, they simply paled into insignificance when compared to the risks taken by Tamil and Muslim compatriots and friends.

I empathise and stand with Israeli citizens who reject the occupation, the colonialist expansionist project and who are committed to fighting rising authoritarianism in their country. I understand how difficult a dance this can be, calling out bigotry among family and friends, finding ways to grieve loved ones who are victims of violence – while always being mindful of sinister agendas to weaponise your grief to further the very things you are fighting against.

I learnt that the self-serving logic of violence only enriches the powerful, only justifies the otherwise unjustifiable, and only causes deep pain,s suffering and harm to our communities. The tragedy of seeing my country being reduced to a cheap parody of itself – watching the evening news and comparing the number of casualties in order to claim another day of ‘victory’ – will always stick with me. I am aware that as the language and logic of violence become the norm, the risks of standing with the oppressed or speaking the language of reconciliation, justice and peace only heighten. We then sometimes engage in self-censorship or are pressurised into caveating ourselves – to fit into a discourse framed and policed by those who espouse ethno-nationalism. Sometimes we succumb to the pressure – we don’t say what’s on our minds, or we say it differently.

For anyone feeling this way today, who are self-censoring for fear of being doxed and of reprisal, I say, don’t be hard on yourself. Self-care is a crucially important skill that we need to learn, and re-learn, and re-re-learn. Sometimes, the odds are stacked so heavily against you, that you just cannot risk the fallout. This is ok. The fact that you go through this thought process is important. Preserve yourself, refresh, renew and find another way.

The reduction of discourse into absolute, polarised binary opposites is another huge challenge. As George Bush famously said, ‘you are either with us, or against us’. The ‘terrorist’ label is used by warmongers and supremacists as an argument clincher, a conversation ender, a moral higher ground claimed, completely obtuse to the sewer we’ve thrown ourselves into and are burrowing deeper into still. In Sri Lanka, all Tamils and those fighting for social and political justice, were expected to denounce the terrorism of the LTTE, before they would be allowed to speak. This is a performative, reductionist nonsense, which is both intellectually and morally dishonest. The requirement stemmed from the racist viewpoint that all Tamils were presumed to be terrorists (or terrorist sympathisers), who therefore had to first redeem or distance themselves in order to be viewed as legitimate. This was, of course, both a trap and a deflection. A trap because it disregarded the complex history of state violence and structural discrimination against minorities which had brought us to where we were; a deflection because it then set up the discourse to focus on the terrorism of the LTTE.

Today, commentors are expected to preface any statement with a condemnation of Hamas atrocities. As the Palestinian ambassador to the UK has articulately conveyed in several interviews, the very premise of this question must be rejected. What is particularly galling, is that these types of questions are repeatedly put to people with proven track records of anti-violence and working for peace in extremely challenging circumstances, while those who openly espouse supremacist and genocidal agendas are rarely asked the same.

I’ve also seen the ultimately terrifying force that an unconscionable state can unleash on an impoverished, traumatised and terrified community, trapped and targeted by the very state that claims its mission is humanitarian. Truth and meaning are among the first casualties of war. This was true of Sri Lanka, as it is true of Palestine/Israel. Dehumanising the ‘enemy’ is an essential prerequisite for the barbarity that follows. But dehumanisation isn’t a one-way street. The more violence is justified, tolerated and cheered, the more that suffering is ignored, minimised and gaslit, our collective humanity suffers. The sequence of events and the narrative that the Sri Lankan state built, culminating in the horrific end-stages of the war, was a deeply dishonest one, which mainstream society bought into. It was also ‘allowed’ by an international community that was ultimately complicit through its failure to do everything possible to prevent the committing of atrocities against Sri Lankan citizens.

Look for the voices that speak against the grain. Israelis whose loved ones were killed, who denounce Israel’s vengeance filled indiscriminate retaliation. Palestinians who have endured multi-generational trauma but still see all taking of life as tragedy. The cry for peace and justice, for preserving the sanctity of life, which is all around us, but on a frequency that isn’t being picked up by a media that legitimises violence and war.

Lessons from statelessness

My work on statelessness has also given me a range of perspectives and experiences. It cannot go unsaid that Palestinians are perhaps the largest stateless community in the world. The establishment of Israel in 1948 marked the beginning of the ethnic cleansing, forced displacement, and statelessness of Palestinians. The ongoing Israeli settler-colonialism and occupation of Palestine deny Palestinians their collective national rights and the right to self-determination, leaving millions of Palestinian stateless. Ironically and tragically, Palestinian statelessness was born out of centuries of racism, antisemitism, pogroms and citizenship stripping against Jewish people in Europe, that culminated in the holocaust, one of the lowest points of our humanity.

The crimes of the Israeli state have ratcheted up under its current far-right government. The crime of apartheid, the expansionist and violent settlement project, and the Israeli state’s complete control over all facets of Palestinian lives from the mundane to the extreme are all well documented; even as this government openly attacks democratic institutions in Israel, violently dismantling citizen protests. This administration has openly and unashamedly articulated its genocidal intent, and is now following its words with actions. There is no scenario in which a serious and honest assessment of the situation can overlook this reality.

So, here we have a situation in which a people, made stateless, dispossessed of their lands and ghettoised, are now being indiscriminately attacked in the pursuit of the genocidal ideology of an authoritarian and extremist group that has grabbed power in Israel. The world – led by powerful countries such as the US and the UK – is looking on, cheering, and vilifying anyone who shows the temerity to stand for humanity.

Again, while a direct comparison should be avoided, the genocide of the Rohingya gives us some perspective. All aspects of Rohingya lives were controlled by the illegitimate military Myanmar state, which ghettoised the community, subjected it to extreme forms of cruelty, violence and restrictions that became normalised in the eyes of the world over time. They were stripped of their nationality and made stateless. They were dehumanised to the extent that UN agencies and world leaders even refused to use the name ‘Rohingya’ when speaking of them. The ground was laid and genocide followed. After the fact, there was plenty of handwringing, feigned surprise and faux solidarity by the very actors who had the information and the power to prevent this tragedy.

On Palestine today, it’s more than silence. It’s the shameless endorsement of the narrative of a regime that is not even pretending to hide its genocidal intent. It’s giving them carte blanche to kill. It’s – at best – talking about ‘humanitarian corridors’ and access to relief, as if somehow, it is more humane to tend to the wounded and feed the starving so they can be made ‘fit enough’ to again be indiscriminately attacked and killed. When the only appropriate response is calling for an immediate cessation of violence, the moral contortionism displayed by world leaders is abhorrent.

Statelessness exists because of state violence. And State violence is easier to perpetrate (and justify) against stateless people. This is a self-fulfilling cycle, which can only be broken through intervention by a responsible, principled international community. While the obligation to prevent genocide is unqualified and absolute, there’s an argument to be made that this obligation is even sharper when the victims are stateless.

This is larger than our views

I know where I stand on the Palestinian issue – the right to statehood, the right to self-determination, an end to occupation, and the opportunity for Palestinian people to build lives of dignity, without outside interference or control. I also know there are sensible and good people who have very different views. This is not about reaching consensus on resolutions to this deeply entrenched and polarising multi-generational crisis; certainly not in the heat of this catastrophe.

This is about something much more fundamental. It is about the lives of people, which once lost can never be regained. It is about the irreparable trauma of those who remain. It is about hundreds of thousands of children who cannot make sense of the language defying terror they face. It is about those in high office publicly calling Palestinians animals and pursuing their collective punishment in the most violent and indiscriminate ways, simply for existing and desiring freedom.

This is a struggle to preserve the floor, or even the basement, of our humanity. Whatever our political views, whatever our perspective, whatever lived experience we carry with us, if we cannot do everything in our power to resist this, our humanity too will be lost.

Do what we can

Catastrophes of this nature are so huge, that it is easy to be completely overwhelmed into a state of helplessness, paralysis and depression. I have been navigating these feelings and emotions for the last several days. And so, I try to pick myself up and do what I can. And that raises the question, what can we do?

We all have our spheres of influence – some relatively small, some quite significant. Our families, work-spaces, political representatives, communities etc. We can try our best to push the needle of change through these spheres, by speaking, educating, standing up. My experience is that many such attempts will be shut down, but nonetheless, it is important to persevere.

If you know anyone impacted, either directly or indirectly, reach out to them and show solidarity. It can be incredibly isolating to endure trauma and grief, particularly in societies which are indifferent or hostile to experiences and viewpoints that contest dominant narratives.

We need to educate ourselves on the histories of the conflict and the experiences of those who have fought for justice and peace on all sides. Resist the temptation to reduce intergenerational traumas to polarising slogans. Search for and amplify the voices that simmer just under the surface, that have been suppressed because they counter the logic of violence, colonialism and occupation.

I would like to conclude by sharing the words of two colleagues and friends I am in close touch with:

“They’re all in one room on the 3rd floor of the building so when they bomb, they die first thing all together”

A Palestinian friend with family in Gaza

“I’m really scared, they are gonna wipe out Gaza”

An Israeli friend who works for peace and against the occupation

I want to believe that our collective humanity has the power to save us form ourselves.

But I am shaken to the core.

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:Isreal Palastine war War in Gaza

Up Next

Doing it with Ginger…

Don't Miss

Risk-free bonds, safe assets and convenience yields

Click to comment

Features

Power crept into the Sangha and is now tearing it apart

Published

1 hour ago

2026/06/5

Thilina Walpola

A file photo of Buddhist monks engaged in a protest

For more than a century, Sri Lankan society has lived with a quiet contradiction at the heart of its religious life. On the one hand, the Buddhist monk is revered as the embodiment of moral discipline, selfrestraint, and renunciation. On the other, the modern monk has become a public figure, political actor, administrator, media personality, and in some cases power broker whose influence extends far beyond the temple. This contradiction has been tolerated, even celebrated, for decades. But recent events, most notably a widely publicised case involving a senior monk accused of grave moral misconduct, have forced the country to confront a painful truth: the institutional conditions that make such scandals possible are not new. They are the predictable outcome of a long historical process that H. L. Seneviratne described with remarkable clarity in The Work of Kings. The moral deterioration visible today is not an aberration. It is the culmination of a centurylong transformation in the identity, function, and authority of the Sangha.

To understand how we arrived at this moment, it is necessary to revisit the argument Seneviratne made nearly three decades ago. His thesis was simple but profound: the modern Sri Lankan monkhood has taken on the ‘work of kings.’ By this he meant that monks, instead of confining themselves to the renunciant life prescribed by the Vinaya, have assumed the secular responsibilities once associated with precolonial kingship, such as protecting the religion, organising society, guiding the nation, and enforcing moral order. This shift, he argued, was not a natural evolution of Buddhist tradition but a modern invention shaped by colonialism, nationalism, and the anxieties of a society struggling to redefine itself in the face of foreign domination. The monk became a symbol of national identity, a guardian of cultural authenticity, and a leader in the struggle for political autonomy. In the process, the boundaries that once separated the monastic from the worldly began to dissolve.

Transformation

The consequences of this transformation were not immediately visible. For decades, the activist monk was celebrated as a patriot, a reformer, and a moral guide. His involvement in education, social welfare, and nationalist mobilisation was seen as a necessary response to colonial pressures and missionary competition. But beneath the surface, the foundations of monastic discipline were slowly eroding. The Vinaya, which had served for centuries as a rigorous framework for regulating monastic life, was increasingly overshadowed by the demands of public engagement. The communal structures that once ensured accountability, senior supervision, collective confession, and the daily rhythms of monastic routine, were weakened by the pressures of modernity. Monks who travelled constantly, managed institutions, or lived independently in urban temples found themselves outside the traditional systems of oversight that had long protected the integrity of the Sangha.

Scandal

It is within this historical context that the recent scandal must be understood. The case shocked the nation not only because of the severity of the allegations but because it shattered the public’s assumption that the monkhood remains a bastion of moral purity. Yet the shock itself reveals a collective denial. For years, Sri Lankan society has been aware, sometimes quietly, sometimes openly—of the growing gap between the ideal of the monk and the realities of modern monastic life. Stories of misconduct, financial irregularities, political manipulation, and abuse of authority have circulated with increasing frequency. But each incident has been treated as an isolated failure, a personal weakness, or an unfortunate exception. What has been missing is recognition that these incidents are symptoms of a deeper structural problem.

Seneviratne’s analysis helps illuminate this problem. When monks take on the work of kings, they inevitably enter domains of power that expose them to temptations the Vinaya was designed to avoid. Handling money, managing institutions, cultivating political patrons, and exercising authority over laypeople create opportunities for ego, ambition, and moral compromise. The monk who becomes a public figure is no longer shielded by the anonymity and humility of the renunciant life. Instead, he becomes a celebrity, a leader, and in some cases an object of uncritical devotion. This elevation brings with it a dangerous form of immunity. Laypeople who revere a monk for his public achievements may hesitate to question his behaviour. Politicians who rely on monastic support may protect him from scrutiny. The media, which often treats monks as moral authorities, may be reluctant to investigate allegations that challenge the sanctity of the robe.

The recent scandal illustrates how these dynamics can converge. The monk at the centre of the case was not an obscure figure. He was a respected preacher, charismatic leader, and head of a prominent institution. His public image was built on years of service, teaching, and community engagement. Yet it was precisely this public stature that allowed him to operate without meaningful oversight. The institutional structures around him, administrators, lay supporters, and junior monks, were either unwilling or unable to challenge his authority. The very qualities that made him a respected figure in the eyes of the public also made him untouchable within his own institution. When allegations finally emerged, they revealed not only personal wrongdoing but a systemic failure of accountability.

Failure that is not unique

This failure is not unique to one temple or one monk. It reflects a broader pattern within the modern Sangha. As monastic institutions have grown in size, wealth, and influence, their internal governance has struggled to keep pace. Many temples operate as semiautonomous entities controlled by a single monk or a small group of monks. Financial transparency is limited, administrative oversight is weak, and the mechanisms for addressing misconduct are often informal or ineffective. The traditional structures of monastic discipline, such as the Sangharama procedures for adjudicating offences, are rarely used in modern contexts, partly because they require collective participation and partly because they are illsuited to the complexities of contemporary institutional life. In practice, this means that monks who wield significant authority can act with little fear of internal sanction.

The politicisation of the Sangha has further complicated matters. Since the midtwentieth century, monks have played an increasingly prominent role in electoral politics, nationalist movements, and public policy debates. This involvement has given them access to political networks that can be mobilised to protect their interests. It has also created a culture in which monks are valued not for their adherence to the Vinaya but for their ability to influence public opinion, mobilise voters, or lend moral legitimacy to political causes. In such an environment, the monk who is politically useful may be shielded from criticism, while the monk who adheres strictly to the renunciant ideal may find himself marginalised or ignored.

The result is a profound distortion of monastic identity. The monk who once sought liberation from worldly attachments is now encouraged to cultivate influence, authority, and public recognition. The monk who once lived under the strict supervision of senior elders now operates in a world where independence is celebrated and oversight is minimal. The monk who once relied on laypeople for basic sustenance now controls vast resources, manages institutions, and commands the loyalty of thousands of followers. This inversion of traditional roles has created a fertile ground for moral deterioration.

Yet it would be a mistake to interpret this deterioration as evidence that the Sangha as a whole is corrupt. Many monks continue to live lives of remarkable discipline, humility, and spiritual dedication. In remote forest monasteries, small village temples, and meditation centres across the country, monks quietly uphold the ancient ideals of the renunciant life. They are not the ones who appear on television, lead political rallies, or manage large institutions. Their work is invisible, their influence subtle, and their commitment unwavering. The crisis facing the Sangha today is not a crisis of individual morality but a crisis of institutional identity. It is the product of a centurylong transformation that has blurred the boundaries between the monastic and the secular, the spiritual and the political, the renunciant and the worldly.

If Sri Lanka is to address this crisis, it must begin by acknowledging the structural nature of the problem. The temptation to treat each scandal as an isolated incident must be resisted. Instead, the country must confront the uncomfortable reality that the modern configuration of monastic life is fundamentally at odds with the principles of the Vinaya. The Sangha cannot simultaneously function as a political force, a social service provider, a media institution, and a spiritual community without compromising its integrity. The more monks are drawn into the world, the more vulnerable they become to the moral dangers that the Buddha warned against.

Reform, therefore, must focus not only on punishing individual offenders but on rethinking the institutional structures that enable misconduct. This includes strengthening internal governance, enhancing financial transparency, restoring the authority of senior elders, and reestablishing the communal practices that once ensured accountability. It also requires a broader cultural shift in how laypeople relate to monks. Blind devotion must give way to informed respect. Reverence must be balanced with responsibility. The robe must be honoured, but it must not be used as a shield against scrutiny.

Seneviratne’s work offers a valuable starting point for this rethinking. His analysis reminds us that the crisis facing the Sangha is not the result of moral decline alone but of historical forces that reshaped the identity of the monkhood. By tracing the evolution of the activist monk, he shows how the Sangha became entangled in the political and social structures of the modern nationstate. This entanglement has brought both benefits and dangers. It has allowed monks to play important roles in education, social welfare, and national development. But it has also exposed them to the corrupting influences of power, wealth, and public acclaim.

The challenge now is to disentangle the Sangha from these influences without undermining its ability to serve society. This will not be easy. The activist monk has become deeply embedded in the cultural and political fabric of the country. Many laypeople expect monks to be leaders, reformers, and guardians of national identity. Politicians rely on monastic support to legitimise their agendas. Media institutions depend on monks for content, commentary, and moral authority. Reversing this trend will require a collective effort from monks, laypeople, and political leaders alike.

Ultimately, the future of the Sangha depends on its ability to reclaim the renunciant ideal that lies at the heart of Buddhist monasticism. This does not mean withdrawing from society entirely, but it does mean reestablishing the boundaries that protect the monk from the dangers of worldly involvement. It means recognising that the true strength of the Sangha lies not in its political influence or institutional power but in its moral authority, its spiritual discipline, and its commitment to the path of liberation. The recent scandal, painful as it is, may serve as a catalyst for this reevaluation. It has exposed the vulnerabilities of the modern monastic system and forced the country to confront the consequences of a centurylong transformation.

To understand how the Vihara Devalegam Act relates to the perceived moral deformation of the clergy, it is necessary to examine how property management, state law, and monastic discipline intersect in the modern era. Historically stemming from the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance No. 19 of 1931, this act serves as the primary legal framework governing the ‘temporalities’—meaning the secular wealth, extensive landholdings, and material donations belonging to Buddhist temples and shrines. While ancient kings granted these vast tracts of land to support the monkhood’s spiritual pursuits, the modern codification of this law has inadvertently fostered a system where property rights frequently supersede spiritual accountability.

The core of the crisis lies in the commercialisation of the monastic order that this legal framework enables. By treating temple lands as economic assets and vesting absolute administrative power in individual chief monks or lay trustees, the act has contributed to the rise of what critics term a monastic middle class. Access to vast, unregulated financial resources, rent from lands, and corporate donations has fundamentally shifted the focus of certain segments of the clergy away from the traditional path of worldly renunciation and spiritual guidance. Instead, it has driven a preoccupation with business investments, the accumulation of private capital, and luxury lifestyles, which deeply alienates a public looking to the Sangha for moral leadership.

The institutional flaws embedded in the Vihara Devalegam Act find a stark, real-world manifestation in the recent criminal case involving Venerable Pallegama Hemarathana Thero. As the chief priest of Anuradhapura and the custodian of the Atamasthana—the eight highly venerated Buddhist shrines, including the sacred Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi—Hemarathana Thero occupied one of the most powerful and wealthy positions within the Sri Lankan Sangha. His arrest on charges of sexual abuse of a minor girl perfectly illustrates how the structural defects of the Act facilitate not only moral decay but also the systemic obstruction of justice.

The core of this intersection lies in the vast, unaccountable wealth generated by the temporalities of the Anuradhapura shrines. Under the Vihara Devalegam Act, the chief custodian exercises immense, virtually unchecked control over temple revenues, state-backed land management, and millions of rupees in daily donations from millions of global pilgrims. It is precisely this immense financial liquidity that enabled the alleged deployment of vast sums of money to the victim’s family.

Furthermore, the situation underscores the profound policy failures cited regarding the helplessness of the monastic hierarchy and state enforcement. When child protection authorities initially attempted to act, the National Child Protection Authority noted severe delays and institutional resistance, stating they practically had to force the police to execute the arrest. The monk’s immediate retreat to a private hospital in Colombo upon the advancement of the criminal probe, followed by his release on bail, mirrors the exact loop described where wealthy monastics deploy high-priced legal defence teams funded directly or indirectly by their institutional positions. Because the Vihara Devalegam Act does not provide a mechanism for the immediate, unconditional forfeiture of temporal administrative rights upon a criminal indictment, the accused retains his structural power throughout the legal process. The Pallegama Thero scandal stands as definitive proof that without a fundamental overhaul of how temple wealth is legally governed and disciplined, the material benefits guaranteed by ancient temporalities will continue to shield the worst elements of moral deformation from the rule of law.

If Sri Lanka can learn from this moment and if it can recognise the structural roots of the crisis and commit to meaningful reform, then the Sangha may yet emerge stronger, more disciplined, and more faithful to its ancient ideals. But if the country continues to treat each scandal as an isolated failure and if it continues to ignore the deeper institutional problems that Seneviratne identified, then the moral deterioration we see today will only deepen. The work of kings, when performed by monks, carries a heavy price. It is time to decide whether that price is worth paying.

by Professor Amarasiri de Silva

Features

Kondachchi wind farm and battery storage project to boost energy security, says Power Ministry Secretary

Published

2 hours ago

2026/06/5

Thilina Walpola

The Power and Energy Ministry’s drive towards energy security and renewable energy expansion received a major boost yesterday with the signing of a tripartite cooperation agreement for the development of the 150 MW Kondachchi Wind Power Project and an integrated Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in Mannar.

The agreement was signed at the Ministry of Power auditorium under the patronage of Power Minister Anura Karunatilaka and Deputy Power Minister Arkam Ilyas.

Speaking at the event, Ministry Secretary G. M. R. D. Aponsu described the project as a transformative investment that would strengthen the country’s electricity network while supporting Sri Lanka’s transition towards cleaner energy sources.

“The Kondachchi Wind Power Project represents a significant milestone in Sri Lanka’s renewable energy journey. By combining large-scale wind generation with advanced battery energy storage technology, we are creating a more resilient and reliable power system capable of meeting future energy demands while reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels,” Aponsu said.

The project will be developed at Silavathurai in the Kondachchi area of Mannar on lands owned by the Sri Lanka Cashew Corporation. It is expected to utilise some 31 modern wind turbines with a total installed capacity of at least 150 MW.

Aponsu said the inclusion of an integrated battery storage facility would help address the variability associated with wind power generation and ensure stable electricity supply to the national grid.

“The battery energy storage component is a key feature of this project. It will enable the efficient integration of renewable energy into the grid and enhance overall system stability, which is essential as Sri Lanka increases the share of renewables in its energy mix,” he said.

According to the Ministry, the wind farm is expected to generate nearly 525 gigawatt-hours of electricity annually, significantly reducing the country’s expenditure on imported fuel and strengthening national energy security.

The project is also expected to contribute to Sri Lanka’s climate commitments by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 372,750 tonnes annually.

“This investment delivers both economic and environmental benefits. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support sustainable development objectives and help Sri Lanka move closer to achieving its renewable energy and climate targets,” Aponsu noted.

The project will be implemented under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) arrangement using the Build, Own and Operate (BOO) model. The Asian Development Bank is providing technical and financial advisory support through its Transaction Advisory Services programme.

The signing ceremony was attended by Pradeep Perera, Chairman of the National System Operator (Pvt) Ltd., and Takeyo Koike, Head of Market Development and Public-Private Partnership Division of the ADB, among other distinguished guests.

The Ministry said comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments and avifaunal studies have been undertaken to ensure minimal impacts on bird populations, nearby communities and agricultural lands. A dedicated 220-kilovolt transmission system will also be constructed to connect the project to the national grid.

“The Kondachchi Wind Farm is a strategic national project that will help secure Sri Lanka’s energy future while accelerating the country’s transition towards sustainable and affordable electricity generation,” Aponsu said.

Energy sector experts view the project as one of the most important renewable energy initiatives currently being pursued in Sri Lanka, combining utility-scale wind generation with modern energy storage technology to enhance grid reliability and long-term energy sustainability.

By Ifham Nizam

Features

Saudi Arabia sets new benchmark in Hajj management as 1.7 million pilgrims complete sacred journey

Published

2 hours ago

2026/06/5

Thilina Walpola

Ambassador Al-Kahtani

Interview with Khalid Hamoud Al-Kahtani, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Sri Lanka

Saudi Arabia has once again demonstrated its unparalleled capacity to manage one of the world’s largest annual religious gatherings, with this year’s Hajj pilgrimage concluding successfully despite extreme temperatures and the immense logistical challenge of accommodating more than 1.7 million pilgrims from around the world.

In an exclusive interview with The Island, Khalid Hamoud Al-Kahtani, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to Sri Lanka, described the 2026 Hajj season as a resounding success, crediting the achievement to the visionary leadership of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, His Royal Highness the Crown Prince and Prime Minister, and the coordinated efforts of multiple government agencies working around the clock to serve pilgrims.

The Ambassador noted that nearly 3,500 Sri Lankan pilgrims participated in this year’s Hajj under the quota allocated to Sri Lanka, benefiting from enhanced healthcare services, sophisticated crowd-management systems, expanded shaded areas and cutting-edge digital solutions introduced by the Kingdom.

With Saudi Arabia continuing to invest heavily in infrastructure, technology and pilgrim services under Vision 2030, Ambassador Al-Kahtani said the Kingdom remains committed to ensuring that pilgrims from around the world perform their religious duties in safety, comfort and tranquility.

The Saudi envoy also highlighted the growing partnership between Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka, emphasising expanding cooperation not only in Hajj affairs but also in trade, investment, education, culture and institutional exchanges.

Following are excerpts of the interview:

Q: How do you assess this year’s Hajj season?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: This year’s Hajj season was a resounding success, thanks to the Almighty Allah and the integrated efforts of the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, led by the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and His Royal Highness the Crown Prince and Prime Minister. This success was reflected in the efficiency of crowd management, the quality of services provided to the Hajj pilgrims and the effective coordination among the various relevant authorities, which enabled pilgrims to perform their rituals in an atmosphere of security, tranquility and ease.

Q: How many Sri Lankan pilgrims performed Hajj this year?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The number of Hajj pilgrims from the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka reached approximately 3,500, within the quota allocated to Sri Lanka for this season.

Q: Are there any discussions regarding increasing Sri Lanka’s quota in the future?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani:Hajj quotas are determined according to approved regulatory mechanisms that take into account a range of considerations. The relevant authorities in the Kingdom continue to study various aspects related to developing Hajj services and accommodating the allocated numbers for all countries, in coordination with the concerned parties.

Q: What were the most prominent special arrangements implemented this year?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The operational plans for this season focused on enhancing the safety and comfort of the Hajj pilgrims, especially given the climatic conditions and high temperatures. Measures included expanding shaded areas, increasing water distribution points and enhancing health and ambulance services, in addition to developing the transportation system and traffic management within the holy sites.

Q: What are the most prominent digital systems and smart services that were provided?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani:The Kingdom continues to implement its digital transformation objectives for the Hajj and Umrah system. The scope of electronic services offered through the Nusuk platform and application has been expanded, along with the development of digital systems for issuing permits, managing crowds, guidance and health services. This contributes to increasing the efficiency of services and improving the pilgrim’s experience at all stages of their journey.

Q: How were the challenges of overcrowding and heat addressed?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The relevant authorities adopted an integrated crowd-management system based on modern technologies and real-time data analysis. This was coupled with intensified health-awareness campaigns, expanded organised movement routes and increased deployment of field, medical and emergency teams. These measures support the safety of the Hajj pilgrims and reduce the risks associated with crowd density and climatic conditions.

Q: Were there special services for the elderly and sick?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: Yes. The Kingdom paid special attention to the elderly and people with special health needs by providing specialized medical services, assistive transportation and facilities equipped to meet their needs, in addition to field teams working to provide humanitarian support and necessary healthcare throughout the Hajj period.

Q: How successful was the Kingdom in combating irregular Hajj permits?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The relevant authorities in the Kingdom continued to rigorously implement the regulations and instructions governing Hajj, utilising modern technologies and advanced monitoring procedures to reduce violations related to irregular Hajj. These efforts contributed to enhancing the safety of pilgrims, improving crowd-management efficiency and maintaining the smooth flow of movement within the holy sites.

Q: How would you describe Saudi-Sri Lankan cooperation in organising Hajj?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: Cooperation between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Sri Lanka is characterised by continuous and constructive coordination in all matters related to Hajj. The relevant authorities in both countries work jointly to ensure the provision of the best services for Sri Lankan pilgrims and enable them to perform their rituals with ease and peace of mind.

Q: How many Hajj pilgrims were there globally, and what were the main challenges?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: According to official statistics, the number of Hajj pilgrims this year reached 1,707,301 from various countries around the world. The main challenges included managing large crowds, ensuring public safety and providing health, transportation and accommodation services within a specific geographical and temporal scope. These challenges were addressed through advanced and integrated operational plans, which contributed to the smooth and successful completion of the Hajj season.

Q: Are there any future expansion projects?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: The Kingdom continues to implement strategic development projects within the framework of Vision 2030, including developing the infrastructure in Makkah and the Holy Sites, and enhancing transportation networks and smart services. This contributes to raising the quality of services provided to pilgrims and Umrah performers and improving their long-term experience.

Q: How are Saudi-Sri Lankan relations strengthened outside the context of Hajj?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: Relations between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Sri Lanka are witnessing continuous development in many areas, including political, economic, trade, cultural and educational cooperation, in addition to developing exchanges between institutions and the private sector. This reflects the two countries’ keenness to strengthen the bilateral partnership and achieve common interests.

Q: What message would you like to convey to Sri Lankan Muslims?

Ambassador Al-Kahtani: We extend our sincere congratulations to the Hajj pilgrims who have completed their Hajj rituals, and we ask Almighty Allah to accept their pilgrimage. We also assure Muslims in Sri Lanka that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia places serving the Two Holy Mosques and the guests of Almighty Allah at the forefront of its priorities and continues to develop the Hajj and Umrah system to achieve the highest standards of quality and safety.

By Ifham Nizam