Connect with us

Features

The Parliament bomb: Former Secretary-General remembers

Published

on

(Excerpted from Memories of 33 years in Parliament by Nihal Seneviratne)

On July 29, 1987 President J. R. Jayewardene signed the controversial Indo-Lanka Peace Accord with Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi of India in Colombo. Most observers take the view that Jayewardene, fighting a JVP insurrection in the South and the LTTE insurgency in the North, had little option but to sign an agreement and he was railroaded into accepting India’s terms. The LTTE was determined to win a separate state of Eelam for the Tamil people even at the expense of a ferocious war they waged. The JVP’s second insurgency had created near anarchy in the South. There was no possibility of fighting on two fronts and JRJ signed the agreement which brought the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) to Lankan soil.

It was fairly well known that President Jayewardene had not consulted his own Cabinet Ministers except for one. The belief was that the Accord draft had been drawn up in India with almost no consultation with the Sri Lankan side. They were trying times for the country and the Government in power. Days before the signing of the Accord, the Indian Air Force had airdropped food supplies over Jaffna, a move that came in for heavy criticism from Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa.

He was among a powerful group within the Government opposed to the signing of the Accord. But JRJ went ahead and signed the agreement. The signs were apparent that the move had angered many including those within the armed forces. A naval rating who was part of the guard-of-honour for Rajiv Gandhi assembled opposite President’s House in Colombo struck him a heavy blow on the shoulder with the butt of his gun. Fortunately, Gandhi was not seriously hurt, suffering only bad bruises, and was immediately led to safety by his own and Sri Lankan security. This single incident which captured global headlines illustrated the mood in the country which caused much heartburn and even anger among the Sri Lankan people.

On August 18, President Jayewardene was due in Parliament as he wanted to address the Government Parliamentary Group and explain the reasons why he signed this Accord /Pact with India. This fact was not fully known to many members of his own Cabinet, including possibly Prime Minister Premadasa. President Jayewardene had kept the contents and the substance of the Agreement a close secret and possibly the only Minister who had been taken into his confidence was Gamini Dissanayake.

The President needed the support of two-third majority in Parliament to enact the enabling legislation by way of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution which spelt out the devolution of power to the provinces and the introduction of the Provincial Councils and was seeking to shore up support from those in his Party. While the ruling United National Party (UNP) had the required numbers in Parliament, there were worries that some of them would not support the legislation needed to give effect to the terms of the Accord. President Jayewardene was coming face to face with many of his Party’s lawmakers for the first time since the signing of the Accord and hence the Group meeting was scheduled for the morning on 7 August 1987, ahead of the regular sitting of the House later in the day.

The President arrived in Parliament that morning by around 8.20 a.m. to meet his Parliamentary Group. They were meeting in Committee Room 1, which is the largest Committee Room located on the ground floor which had a seating capacity of almost 150. The meeting was to start around 8.45. before which I got a message that the President wanted to see me. I was initially reluctant to go to the Committee Room .is it was a meeting of only Government MPs and I felt it was incorrect and unwise for me in my position to go there.

But since it was the Head of State who summoned me, I went to the Committee Room. He was sitting at the head table with Prime Minister Premadasa on his right and Minister Vincent Perera, Chief Government Whip, on his left. In front of him sat over a 100 MPs with Ministers seated in the front rows. He inquired from me what business was due to be taken up that day. I had remembered to take the day’s Order Paper with me and together we read through the 25 items of Government business fixed for that day. When this was over, I left the Committee Room and went back to my office upstairs on the second floor.

Not even half an hour later, my office assistant came rushing into my room out of breath and saying excitedly,” Sir, the President and Prime Minister are calling for you.” I was totally unaware of the mayhem that was unfolding in Committee Room One located on the ground floor of the Parliament building but rushed down immediately. At the very entrance to the corridor leading up to the Committee Room I met the Prime Minister with his national dress cloth partly raised excitedly exclaiming “Nihal, a bomb has exploded in the Committee Room. Search and surround the place.” As I rushed to the Committee Room, I saw President Jayewardene, being hurriedly escorted out of the building to his vehicle parked outside the Members’ Entrance.

I then rushed into the Committee Room and found it in shambles, full of heavy smoke, splintered glass, and shrapnel all over the place; and a few MPs lying prostate on the floor. Others were trying to rush out in the melee that prevailed. I saw Minister Lalith Athulathmudali being placed on a stretcher, bleeding heavily, and taken by ambulance, parked outside the Members Entrance, to the Sri Jayewardenepura Hospital through the back entrance to Parliament. We had hardly used that entrance and kept it closed for security reasons but kept it open on sitting days as it was just about a mile to the Sri Jayewardenepura Hospital. Deniyaya MP Kirthi Abeywickrema and Norbert Senadeera, an official with the Parliament staff, sadly died as a result of shrapnel wounds.

While the enormity of what had taken place did not sink in immediately, it was unlike any situation I have had to face in my many years as a parliamentary official. Quickly I steadied myself and began the process of rushing the injured to the hospital and securing the House, in what turned out to be the longest and most unforgettable day in my Parliamentary career. I immediately rang my university mate, Frank De Silva, then IGP, and told him to come immediately and asked him to provide adequate security right around the perimeters of Parliament to prevent anyone from leaving.

I then ordered the Superintendent of Police posted to Parliament to ensure that no one be allowed to leave the building. In the Committee Room, I asked an MP from where the bomb was thrown, and he pointed to a door behind the head table. I ordered all the Parliament staff on duty not to leave the building. Even after the police contingent arrived, no one was sure how exactly the bomb exploded, or whether it was a bomb at all or whether anyone had fired a gun or some other firearm.

I for one was beginning to suspect that somebody of even the President’s staff who accompanied him to the room, or one of my own Parliamentary staff in the room, may have been responsible. Thinking it was a gunshot the IGP asked me to get each and every member of my staff to have both their hands checked for tell-tale traces of gunpowder believing it was the firing of a weapon. No one was allowed to leave the building and it was close to 9 p.m. that night when the meticulous checking was over. I then permitted the staff to leave. It was around midnight that I was able to go home. During this time, I inquired from a few Members how the door through which the attacker was believed to have entered and how it opened and all they said was that some of them saw a hand clothed in a white sleeve throwing something at the polished table at which the President and the others were seated. That was all I was able to gather about who threw the bomb.

The next morning, I checked whether all of my staff had come to office all were present except four one in hospital, two on approved leave; but one person was missing and his house near Kadawatha was closed. Police after questioning neighbors, learnt that the occupant had left his home that night taking his family with him. I found this was Ajith Kumara, who I had employed as a housekeeper a few years previously. The police rightly regarded him as the prime suspect for having attempted to assassinate the President and Prime Minister of the country and an island-wide dragnet was set up.

After a few days, with Police help, we were able to fit the pieces of the puzzle together Ajith Kumara had come that morning with a hand grenade hidden in his shoe. The Police at the entrance had missed it. The President’s security had checked all the rooms and doors leading to the Committee Room, locked them, and then left. Ajith Kumara, after the President’s security personnel had completed their checks, had opened a door using a false key he had made and had hidden behind a large painting standing the ground.

He had then opened the door leading into the Committee Room and aiming at the President flung the hand grenade he carried which fortunately ricocheted off the polished table at which the President, PM and Govt. Whip sat and landed under the chair on which Lalith Athulathmudali was sitting in the front row. The grenade then exploded blasting a large hole in the ground and injuring Lalith Atulathmudali’s entire back. When he was recovering in the Sri Jayewardenepura Hospital, I called on him and chatted for a while.

He was full of praise for Dr. K. Yoheswaran, who operated on him and saved his life. He told me that he had particularly wanted Dr. Yoheswaran to do the complicated surgery having complete trust in him. Later on, after Lalith had recovered he walked into my room and discussed the incident with me. He told me that Ajith Kumara had made the fundamental mistake of hurling the grenade at the President as soon as he pulled off the pin. With Lalith’s knowledge of arms and defense matters, he told me that once the pin is pulled, one had to count, “One Thousand, Two Thousand, Three Thousand” and then throw the grenade. By his not doing so, all three VIPs seated at the table were spared.

Six months had passed after the incident and the Police were still on maximum alert for Ajith Kumara. Apprehending the man who had nearly assassinated the President and Prime Minister was then top priority for the Police. After a lapse of a few more months, the Police in the Kegalle area were searching for local illicit alcohol distillers in a village paddy-field. It so happened that Ajith Kumara was then hiding in a small shed nearby; he panicked when he saw the police searching the paddy-field and ran away.

Police saw the fleeing man, chased, and caught him. He was brought to Police Headquarters in Colombo. When they realized they had made a prize catch. They immediately contacted me, and we confirmed that this was indeed Ajith Kumara, the most wanted man in the country. A week later, the police brought him to Parliament after he had confessed to his crime. He had even told the police how he brought in the grenade, the route he had taken through all the corridors to enter the back room and how he had hidden behind the painting. This was after the Presidential security had left after they had completed making their checks. We discovered later that he had surreptitiously made a copy of the key to enter that room.

Two days later, the Speaker and I were summoned before the Cabinet. Speaker E. L. Senanayake diplomatically refused to go saying it was improper for him to present himself before Cabinet. This left me with no option but to face the music. This was the very first time I had to appear before Cabinet, and I nervously walked in feeling like the Christian being thrown to the lions in Roman times. I knew they were going to ask me as to how I had recruited Ajith Kumara to the Parliament staff.

Fortunately, I had asked for a security clearance from Police Headquarters which I had received before he was signed on. In fact, all recruits to our staff required such security clearance. Armed with that clearance file, I sat down before the entire Cabinet. As 1 took my seat, Minister Montague Jayawickrama pounced on me asking me to explain how and why I had recruited Ajith Kumara and why and where I had stationed him that day and many other follow-up questions. I took time and answered all questions from him and many other Cabinet Ministers.

It later transpired that a few weeks after getting clearance from Police screening and having joined the staff of Parliament, the JVP had secretly recruited him. Since the JVP was then very vociferously against the Indo-Sri Lanka Pact signed by the President, they had found in Ajith Kumara working in Parliament the best possible person to assassinate the President, Prime Minister, and other VIPs of Government. I later had a request from Mrs. J. R. Jayewardene to visit the scene and see the room where her husband was nearly killed. She, accompanied by two grandchildren (sons of Ravi whom I knew quite well), inspected the table where the grenade bounced and the Committee Room where it all happened. I was quite moved by her presence and the gracious lady she was, left without making any comments.

The saga of Ajith Kumara had a strange ending. When he was produced in Court and charged with attempted murder, his counsel was able to get him discharged on the grounds of inadmissibility of the confession he had made to Police. Regrettably, the Attorney General’s Department and Police had mishandled the Prosecution and the judge discharged Ajith Kumara who left Court a free man.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

The Ramadan War

Published

on

Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald Trump and Mojtaba Khamenei

A Strategic Assessment of a Conflict Still Unresolved

The Unites States of America and its ally, Israel attacked Iran on 28 February, or the 10th day of the month of Ramadan. More than a month of intense fighting has passed since, and the Ramadan War has settled into a grinding, attritional struggle that defies early declarations of victory. Despite sustained U.S. and Israeli air and naval bombardment, Iran remains standing, and continues to strike back with a level of resilience that has surprised many observers. The conflict has evolved into a contest of endurance, adaptation, and strategic innovation, with each side attempting to impose costs the other cannot bear.

Iran’s response to the overwhelming airpower of its adversaries has been both simple and devastatingly effective: saturate enemy defences with swarms of inexpensive drones and older ballistic missiles, forcing them to expend costly interceptors and reveal radar positions, and then follow up with salvos of its most advanced precisionguided missiles. This layered approach has inflicted severe physical damage on Israel and has shaken its national morale. The country has endured repeated missile barrages from Iran and rocket fire from Hezbollah, straining its airdefence network and pushing its civilian population to the limits of endurance.

The United States, meanwhile, has been forced to evacuate or reduce operations at several bases in the Gulf region due to persistent Iranian drone and missile attacks. For both the U.S. and Israel, the war has become a test of strategic credibility. For Iran, by contrast, victory is defined not by territorial gains or decisive battlefield outcomes, but by survival, and by continuing to impose costs on its adversaries.

The central strategic objective for the U.S. has now crystallised: reopening the Strait of Hormuz to secure global energy flows. Ironically, the Strait was open before the war began; it is the conflict itself that has rendered it effectively closed. Air and naval power alone cannot achieve this objective. The geography of the Strait, combined with Iran’s layered defences, means that any lasting solution will require ground forces, a reality that carries enormous risks.

U.S. Strategic Options

The United States faces five broad operational options, each with significant drawbacks.

1. Seizing Kharg Island

Kharg Island handles roughly 90% of Iran’s oil exports, making it an attractive target. However, it lies only a short distance from the Iranian mainland, where entrenched Iranian forces maintain dense networks of missile batteries, drones, artillery, and coastal defences. Any attempt to seize Kharg would require first neutralising or capturing the adjacent coastline, a costly amphibious and ground operation.

Even if successful, this would not reopen the Strait of Hormuz. It would merely deprive Iran of export capacity, which is not the primary U.S. objective. At least ostensibly not; there are those who argue that the U.S. simply wants to take over Iran’s petroleum (see below).

2. Forcing the Strait of Hormuz by Naval Power

Sending U.S. naval forces directly through the Strait is theoretically possible but operationally hazardous. Iran has mined all but a narrow channel hugging its own shoreline. That channel is covered by overlapping fields of antiship missiles, drones, artillery, and coastal radar. Clearing the mines would require prolonged operations under fire. Attempting to push through without clearing them would risk catastrophic losses.

3. Capturing Qeshm, Hengam, Larak, and Hormuz Islands

These islands dominate the Iranian side of the Strait and host radar, missile, and drone installations. Capturing them would degrade Iran’s ability to close the Strait, but the islands are heavily fortified, and the surrounding waters are mined. Amphibious assaults against defended islands are among the most difficult military operations. Even success would not guarantee the Strait’s longterm security unless the mainland launch sites were also neutralised.

4. Invading Southern Iraq and Crossing into Khuzestan

This option would involve U.S. forces advancing through southern Iraq, crossing the Shatt alArab waterway, and pushing into Iran’s Khuzestan province — home to most of Iran’s oilfields. The terrain is difficult: marshes, waterways, and narrow approaches. Iranian forces occupy the high ground overlooking the plains.

While this route would allow Saudi armoured forces to participate, it would also expose U.S. and allied logistics to attacks by Iraqi Shia militias, who have already demonstrated their willingness to target U.S. assets. The political and operational risks are immense.

5. Capturing Chabahar and Advancing Along the Coast

The most strategically promising — though still costly — option is seizing the port of Chabahar in southeastern Iran and advancing roughly 660 kilometres along the coast toward Bandar Abbas. This approach offers several advantages:

· Distance from Iran’s core population centres complicates Iranian logistics.

· Chabahar’s deepwater port (16m draught)

would provide a valuable logistics hub.

· U.S. carriers could remain at safer standoff distances

, supporting operations without entering the Strait.

· The coastal route allows naval gunfire and missile support

to assist advancing ground forces.

· Local Baluchi insurgents

could provide intelligence and limited support.

· Capturing Bandar Abbas would

outflank Iran’s island defences and effectively reopen the Strait.

This option is likely to form the backbone of any U.S. ground campaign, potentially supplemented by diversionary attacks by regional partners to stretch Iranian defences.

The Limits of U.S. Superiority

The United States retains overwhelming superiority in naval power and manned airpower. But whether this advantage translates into dominance in unmanned systems or ground combat is far from certain.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq is often cited as a model of U.S. military prowess, but the comparison is misleading. Iraq in 2003 had been crippled by a decade of sanctions. Its forces lacked modern mines, antitank missiles, and effective air defences. Tank crews had little training; some could not hit targets at pointblank range. RPG teams were similarly unprepared. The U.S. enjoyed numerical superiority in the theatre and total control of the air, allowing it to isolate Iraqi units and prevent reinforcement.

Even under those favourable conditions, Iraqi forces managed to delay the U.S. advance. At one point, forward U.S. units nearly ran out of ammunition and supplies, forcing the diversion of forces intended for the assault on Baghdad to secure the lines of communication.

Iran is not Iraq in 2003. Its armed forces and industrial base have adapted to nearly half a century of sanctions. It produces its own drones, missiles, artillery, and armoured vehicles. It has built extensive underground facilities, hardened command posts, and redundant communication networks.

Moreover, the battlefield itself has changed. The RussoUkrainian war demonstrated that deep armoured penetrations – once the hallmark of U.S. doctrine – are now extremely vulnerable to drones, loitering munitions, and precision artillery. The result has been a return to attritional warfare reminiscent of the First World War, with front lines stabilising into trench networks.

Yet, as in the First World War, stalemate has been broken not by massed assaults but by small, highly trained teams infiltrating thinly held lines, identifying targets, and guiding drones and artillery onto enemy positions deep in the rear. Iran has studied these lessons closely.

Mosaic Defence and Transformational Warfare

Iran’s military doctrine has evolved significantly over the past two decades. Its “mosaic defence” decentralises command and control, ensuring that even if senior leadership is targeted, local units can continue operating autonomously. This structure proved resilient during the initial waves of U.S. and Israeli strikes.

Iran has also absorbed lessons from U.S. “shock and awe” operations. The botched U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983 exposed weaknesses in joint operations, prompting the development of “effectsbased operations,” “rapid dominance” and the broader concept of “transformational warfare.” These doctrines (better known colloquially as “Shock and Awe”), influenced by Liddell Hart and Sun Tzu, emphasised simultaneous strikes on strategic targets to paralyse the enemy’s decisionmaking.

While the U.S. struggled to apply these concepts effectively in Iraq and Iran, Tehran has adapted them for asymmetric use. Its drone and missile campaigns have targeted not only military assets but also economic infrastructure and psychological resilience. Israel’s economy and morale have been severely tested, and the United States finds itself entangled in a conflict that offers no easy exit.

Iran has also pursued a broader strategic objective: undermining the petrodollar system that underpins U.S. financial dominance. By disrupting energy flows and encouraging alternative trading mechanisms, Iran seeks to weaken the economic foundations of U.S. power.

Will the USA Achieve Its War Aims?

The United States’ core objective appears to be securing control over global energy flows by reopening the Strait of Hormuz and limiting China’s access to Middle Eastern oil before it can transition to alternative energy sources. Whether this objective is achievable remains uncertain.

A ground campaign would be long, costly, and politically fraught. Iran’s defences are deep, layered, and adaptive. Its drone and missile capabilities have already demonstrated their ability to impose significant costs on technologically superior adversaries. Regional allies are cautious, and global support for a prolonged conflict is limited.

The United States retains overwhelming military power, but power alone does not guarantee strategic success. Iran’s strategy is simple: survive, adapt, and continue imposing costs. In asymmetric conflicts, survival itself can constitute victory.

In Frank Herbert’s Dune, the protagonist, Paul Muad’dib says “he who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.” This is the essence of Iranian strategy – they have a stranglehold on petroleum supply, and can destroy the world economy. Trump has had to loosen sanctions on both Iran’s and Russia’s oil, simply to prevent economic collapse.

The Ramadan War has already reshaped regional dynamics. Whether it reshapes global power structures will depend on how the next phase unfolds, and whether the United States is willing to pay the price required to achieve its aims.

by Vinod Moonesinghe

Continue Reading

Features

Nayanandaya:A literary autopsy of Sri Lanka’s Middle Class

Published

on

“Nayanandaya,” meaning the enchantment of indebtedness, is Surath de Mel’s latest novel. True to his reputation as a maximalist writer, de Mel traverses the labyrinth of middle-class struggles; poverty, unemployment, the quest for education, through a father’s fragile dreams. The novel unfolds around Mahela, his son, his friendships, and the fragile relationships that keep him tethered to life.

“Happiness is not a destination; it is a journey. There are no shortcuts to it. At some point, the path you thought was right will be wrong. You have to make sacrifices for it.”

These words, uttered by the protagonist Mahela to his ten-year-old son, is the silent mantra of every middle-class parent. A common urban middle-class father’s yearning for his child to climb the ladder he himself could not ascend.

A Socio-Political Mirror

Sri Lanka’s middle class remains trapped in paradox. They are educated but underemployed, salaried but indebted, socially respected yet politically invisible. Structural inequalities, economic volatility and populist politics inclusively contribute to keep them “forever middle”.

Through protagonist Mahela, who is sometimes a graphic designer, sometimes a vendor and always a failure Surath de Mel sketches the deficiencies of an education system that does not nurture skills of the students. Sri Lanka boasts about high literacy rates, yet the economy cannot absorb the thousands of graduates produced into meaningful work. Underemployment becomes the inheritance of the middle class. With political connections often the stories can be transformed. De Mel pens it in dark humour to expose these truths:

“Some notorious writer once sneered in a newspaper, ‘Give your ass to the minister, and you’ll earn the right to keep it on a bigger chair.’ Countless people waiting in ministers’ offices, pressing

their backsides to seats, carrying the weight of their own lives.”

Childhood Trauma and Its Echoes

Surath de Mel frequently weaves psychoanalysis into his fiction. In Nayanandaya, he captures the lingering shadows of childhood trauma. Mahela, scarred by a loveless and fractured youth, suffers phobic anxiety and depression, apparently with a personality disorder as an adult. His confession at the psychologist reveals it out:

“Childhood? I didn’t have one. I was fifteen when I was born.”

Here, Mahela marks his true birth not at infancy, but at the death of his parents. This statement itself reveals the childhood trauma the protagonist had gone through and the reader can attribute his subsequent psychological struggles as the cause of it.

Surath de Mel

From a Lacanian perspective, trauma is not just something that happens to a child; it is a deep break in how the child understands the world, themselves, and others. Some experiences are too painful to be put into words. Lacan calls this the Real — what cannot be fully spoken or explained. This pain does not disappear but returns later in life as anxiety, fear, or obsessive compulsive disorder.

This trauma disturbs the child’s sense of self and their place in society. When language fails to make sense of loss, the mind creates fantasies to survive. These fantasies quietly shape adult desires, relationships, and choices.

In Nayanandaya, childhood trauma of the protagonist does not stay buried — it lives on, shaping the adulthood in unseen ways. In the narrative, Mahela’s struggles are not just personal failures but the result of a past that was never given words.

Tears of Fathers – Forgotten in Sri Lankan Literature

Sri Lankan literature has long been attentive to suffering — especially rural poverty, social injustice, and the silent endurance of women and single mothers. Countless novels, poems, and songs have given voice to maternal sacrifice, female resilience, and women’s oppression.

Yet, within this rich narratives, the quiet grief of the urban middle-class father remains mostly unseen. Rarely does fiction pause to examine the emotional lives of men who shoulder responsibility without language for their pain. These masculine tears are private, swallowed by routinely and masked by humour or silence. Definitely never granted literary space.

In Nayanandaya, Surath de Mel breaks this silence. Through Mahela, he lends voice to these overlooked men — fathers whose love is expressed through sacrifice rather than speech. However, de Mel does not romanticise the tears. Rather he humanises them. He allows their vulnerabilities, anxieties, and quiet despair to surface with honesty and compassion. In doing so, Nayanandaya fills a striking gap in Sri Lankan literature, reminding us that fathers, too, carry invisible wounds.

Literary value

With Nayanandaya, Surath de Mel reaches a new pinnacle in his literary craft. His language is dense yet lyrical, enriched with similes, metaphors, irony, and a full range of literary tools deployed with confidence and control.

One of the novel’s most touching narrative choices is the personification of Mahela’s son’s soft toy, Wonie. Through personified Wonie, de Mel captures the two most touching incidents in the entire novel . This simply reveals the author’s artistic maturity, transforming a simple object into a powerful emotional conduit that anchors the novel’s tenderness amidst its despair.

At a deeper symbolic level, Mahela himself can be read as more than an individual character, but a metaphor for Sri Lanka — a nation struggling under economic hardship, clinging to impractical dreams, witnessing the migration of its people, and drifting towards a slow, painful exhaustion. His personal failures could mirror the broader decay of social and economic structures. This symbolic reading lends Nayanandaya a haunting national resonance.

Today, many write and many publish, but only a few transform language into literature that lingers in the reader’s mind long after the final page. Surath de Mel belongs to that rare few. In a literary landscape crowded with voices, he remains devoted to art rather than popularity or trend. As a scholar of Sinhala language and literature, de Mel writes with intellectual depth, dark humour, and deep human empathy.

In conclusion, Nayanandaya is not merely a story; it is social commentary, psychoanalytic reflection, and tragic poetry woven into richly textured prose. With this novel — a masterful interlacing of love, debt, and fragile dreams — Surath de Mel engraves a distinctly Dostoevskian signature into Sinhala literature.

Reviewed by Dr. Charuni Kohombange

Continue Reading

Features

Domestic Energy Saving

Published

on

Around 40 percent of the annual energy we use is consumed in domestic activities. Energy is costly, and supply is not unlimited. Unfortunately, we realize the importance of energy – saving only during the time of a crisis.

If you adopt readily affordable energy-saving strategies, you will cut down your living expenditure substantially, relieving the energy burden of the nation. Here are some tips.

Cooking:

Cooking consumes a good portion of domestic energy demand and common practices, and negligence leads to 30 – 40 percent wastage. A simple experiment revealed that the energy expenditure in boiling an egg with the usual unnecessary excess water in an open pan is nearly 50 percent higher than boiling in a closed lid pan with the minimal amount of water. In an open pan, a large quantity of heat is lost via convection currents and expulsion of water vapor, carrying excessive amounts of heat energy (latent heat of vaporisation). Still, most of us boil potatoes for prolonged intervals of time in open receptacles, failing to realise that it is faster and more efficient to boil potatoes or any other food material in a closed pan. About 30 – 40 percent of domestic cooking energy requirements can be cut down by cooking in closed-lid pans. Furthermore, food cooked in closed pans is healthier because of less mixing with air that causes food oxidation. Fat oxidation generates toxic substances. In a closed- lid utensil (not tightly closed), food is covered with a blanket of water vapor at a positive pressure, preventing entry of air and therefore food oxidation.

Overcooking is another bad habit that not only wastes energy but also degrades the nutritional value of food.

Electric kettle:

For making morning or evening tea or preparing tea to serve a visitor. Do not pour an unnecessarily large quantity of water into the electric kettle. Note that the energy needed to make 10 cups of tea is ten times that of one cup.

Electric Ovens:

Avoid the use of electric ovens as far as possible. Remember that foods cooked at higher temperatures are generally unhealthy, and even carcinogens are formed when food is fried at higher temperatures in an oven. If ever you need to bake something in an oven, limit the number of times you open the door. Use smaller ovens adequate for the purpose and not larger ones just for fashion.

Refrigerators:

Refrigerators consume lots of energy. Do not use over-capacity refrigerators just for fashion. Every time you open the fridge, more electricity is used to reset the cooling temperature. Plan your access to the appliance accordingly. Check whether the doors are properly secured and there are no leakages. Keep the fridge in a cooler location, not hit by direct sunlight and away from warmer places in the kitchen. Remember that turning off the fridge frequently will not save energy, instead it draws more energy.

Use of gas burners:

Do not use oversized utensils. Keep the lid closed as far as possible to prevent the escape of heat. Remember that excessive amounts of heat energy are carried away by a large surface-area conducting utensil. Do not open the gas vent to allow the flame to flash outside the vessel. A flame not impinging on the pan would not heat it, and gas is wasted. Ensure that the flame is blue. Frequently check whether gas vents are clogged with rust and carbon. Frequently, cooking material in the pan drops into the gas vents, and salt there corrodes the gas vents. Cleaning and washing would be necessary. Do not prolong cooking, taking time to prepare ingredients and adding them to the pan intermittently. Add ingredients at once and before switching the burner. If the preparation of a dish is prolonged to slow the cooking, use earthenware pots rather than metallic ones. An earthenware pot, being thermally less conducting retain heat.

Firewood for cooking:

Do not attempt to eliminate the use of firewood in cooking. If you are living in a village area, the exclusive use of LPG gas is an unnecessary expenditure. Large smoke-free, efficient oven designs are now available. If you are compelled to use gas, keep the option of firewood ovens, especially for prolonged cooking. Admittedly, there are locations, especially in cities, where the use of firewood is unsuited.

Hot water showers:

Before installing hot water showers, reconsider whether they are really necessary in a hot tropical climate. Go for solar water heaters, although the installation cost is high. Instant water heaters consume much less electricity compared to geysers with water tanks. Now, cheap and safe instant water heaters are available.

Lighting:

Arrange and design your residence to optimise daytime illumination until late evening. If you are constructing a new house, take this issue into account. Use LED lamps, which provide the same illumination for 85 percent less energy. In study rooms and areas that require prolonged illumination, paint the walls white. Angle – poised LED lamps with very low voltage are available. Use them for reading and studies. Routinely clean the surfaces of all lamps. Dust deposition cuts off light.

Air conditioning and ventilation:

Air conditioning consumes prohibitively large quantities of electrical energy. You can avoid air conditioning by optimising ventilation. The principle is to have air entry points (windows) in the house near the ground level and exit points (vents or windows) near the roof. Ground level is cooler, and the region near the roof is warmer. Thus, a cool air current enters the house near the ground level and hot air is drawn by the vents near the roof. The region near the ground can be rendered cooler by planting trees. Architectural designs are available to optimise this effect. You can sense the direction of air motion by holding a thin strip of paper near the windows at the ground and near the roof level. In addition to ceiling fan, install exhaust fans in the upper points of the house to remove hot air and draw cooler air through windows near the ground. Reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the roof by shading with trees. There are techniques for increasing the reflectance of the roof with paints and other designs.

Transportation:

A good portion of your budget is drained by transportation. Irrespective of who you are, use public transport if convenient and available. As much as possible, use the telephone and email to get your things done. If the officers do not comply for no valid reason, complain. Plan your trips to the town to do several things at the same time. Whenever possible, plan to share transport. Buy energy – efficient small vehicles. Routinely examine your vehicle for energy efficiency, i.e. correct tire pressure etc.

Charge electric vehicles off peak hours. Slow charging reduces heat generation in the circuit, reducing energy loss.

Energy is costly and limited in supply. Everything you do consumes energy. Be energy conscious in all your deeds. That attitude will reduce your expenditure, lessen the environmental degradation and financial burden of the nation in importing fuel.

Educating the general public is the most effective way of implementing energy-saving strategies.

By Prof. Kirthi Tennakone
(kenna@yahoo.co.uk)

Continue Reading

Trending