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

Power crept into the Sangha and is now tearing it apart

Published

on

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

Continue Reading

Features

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

Published

on

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

Continue Reading

Features

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

Published

on

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

Continue Reading

Trending