Opinion

To Bury or not to Bury: That is the Question

Published

5 years ago

2020/12/21

By M.C.M. Iqbal PhD

The decision to make cremation the mandatory form of disposing the COVID-19 dead in Sri Lanka was based on the premise that there was (i) insufficient evidence on the possibility of the virus leaking out of the buried bodies from the cemeteries, (ii) the possibility of the virus entering the water table, and (iii) as a consequent to (ii), transmission of the virus among the population. The cremation decision was based on precautionary principles, as the SARS-CoV-2 is a new virus with many unknowns.

During the last few months, considerable scientific evidence has been published in international peer reviewed journals on many aspects of the novel coronavirus and its environmental impact. It is now time to lift the veil of ‘unknowns’ and move towards making informed decisions.

Viruses and virology is the domain of microbiologists, more specifically virologists. However, some basic knowledge in biology can help us understand the present pandemic and the various precautionary measures.

The virus

Let us begin with the virus. The official name of the virus is SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it causes is called COVID-19. A single virus particle (called a virion) consists of an outer shell made of protein, enclosing and protecting the RNA, the genome or in layman terms the software that runs the virus. It is very tiny (20 to 400 nanometres) and cannot be seen through a microscope (see Figure). The genome is like an instruction manual for our cells and the entire body to function. Once the virus enters our living cells (called infection), it stops the normal function of a cell and hijacks the cell machinery to produce more copies of itself, causing the cell to eventually burst open, infecting new cells with virus particles and initiating a chain reaction. Thus, living cells are necessary for the virus to survive and make copies. The only mission of the virus is to make more copies of itself.

Viruses are broadly divided into Enveloped and Non-Enveloped viruses. The envelope is an outer covering on the virus composed of a fatty substance (lipids) and proteins (see Figure). The SARS-CoV-2 virus is an enveloped virus.

The Coronavirus that you see illustrated has knob-like spikes on the surface embedded in the lipid envelope. These spikes are vital for the virus to gain entry into our cells in the throat and lungs (respiratory tract): imagine this as the key (spikes) to open the door (cells in the throat and lungs). Fortunately, this envelope provides a soft target and is easily broken down by soap, detergents and other disinfectants such as alcohol. Without this envelope the virus cannot infect us – it has no key to enter our cells. Hence the emphasis on washing our hands with soap and disinfecting the environment with alcohol and detergents – this is sufficient to destroy the virus.

The Non-Enveloped viruses do not have this lipid layer. They have a hard protein coat resistant to common disinfectants, enabling the virus to survive in the outside environment. Examples are the Poliovirus and the viruses causing dysentery.

Stability of the virus in the environment

In the past few months, scientists all over the world have looked at the potential risks of the SARS-CoV-2 virus entering wastewater and serving as a source of infection. Untreated waste (particularly from hospitals) and surface waters are a potential source of disease transmission and research done in these areas are at the initial stages. The virus is shed from patients who are under treatment in hospitals or quarantined at home, through their daily ablutions, sputum, and vomit, which can enter wastewater. Besides, faeces and urine from infected patients are also sources for the virus to enter sewage channels and seep into the water table. How stable are they in the outside environment?

A study on the stability of the virus on different surfaces under different environmental conditions simulated in a laboratory was done by the School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Hong Kong and published in a leading medical journal, the Lancet Microbe (Chin et al. 2020). The major outcomes of this study were:

Temperature:

The virus is highly stable at 4 °C (e.g. in the fridge) but sensitive to heat. When the incubation temperature is increased to 70 °C, the virus is inactivated in five minutes. At 22 °C virus is not detected after 14 days and at 37 °C it is not detected after two days. The last two are feasible temperatures in Sri Lanka.

Stability on surfaces:

Infectious virus could not be recovered from printing or tissue paper after three hours, from wood or cloth after two days. The virus is more stable on smooth surfaces. Infectious virus could not be recovered from day four from glass and banknotes, and from steel after seven days.

Disinfectants:

The virus did not survive common disinfectants such as household bleach, ethanol, etc. It survived soap for five minutes. It also tolerates a pH range of 3 to 10. i.e., it cannot tolerate very low (acidic) or high (very basic) pH. The RNA of the coronaviruses, in general, is extremely fragile and can be rapidly degraded by enzymes (called RNAses) abundant in the natural environment (Brisebois et al. 2018).

Can the virus leak into

the environment?

Theoretically virus particles can enter the soil environment after burial of a COVID-19 victim if the corpse is not isolated in the grave by a ‘leak proof’ plastic body bag, as decay and decomposition sets in gradually. However, what enters the soil environment is not an intact virus capable of causing an infection. Once the patient dies, the virus in the body cells cannot multiply and they begin to disintegrate. Viruses need living cells within which they can multiply.

We should remember that the virus is not an active living organism capable of defending itself and transferring to a new host. The decomposing body releases a range of chemicals and enzymes that would breakdown the virus. Other micro-organisms, either from the decomposing body or living in the soil environment, would consume these virus particles. Thus, they have a short survival time in the outside environment where detergents and other chemicals in the wastewater and enzymes produced by bacteria can damage the virus envelope (WHO 2020).

Many people have died in the past due to very infectious bacterial (Pneumonia, Tuberculosis, Typhoid, Cholera) and viral (Polio, HIV, Ebola) diseases. Cremation was never mandatory for those patients and there has never been any outbreak of epidemics attributed to cemeteries where these patients were buried. Disease causing pathogens are very specialized micro-organisms that can survive only in their living hosts. Once they leave their host and enter the natural environment, they cannot compete with the free-living microorganisms.

The question of the water table

The water table is a huge body of water below the surface of the soil. You can find this out by looking into the nearest well. In low lying areas, such as in Colombo, the water table is close to the soil surface particularly during the rainy season. In the up-country regions or the dry regions, the water would be several metres deep in the well.

What is the risk of the virus entering the water table and infecting us? First, chances of finding a complete virus particle capable of causing infection are very small, due to reasons given above. Second, those living in urban areas do not consume ground water directly. The water we consume is disinfected at the Water Treatment plants of the Water Board and we also boil the water at home. The WHO has indicated that the virus survives only two days in dechlorinated tap water and in hospital wastewater at 20 ºC, and that there is no evidence that coronaviruses have caused infections through drinking water (WHO 2020).

Thirdly, drinking water is not a source of infection: the virus has to enter through our mouth, nose or eyes to enter the cells in our throat and lungs (respiratory tract), which is the main point of entry. Thus, infection of humans by the corona virus found in the water table is very unlikely. To quote Prof. Malik Peiris ‘COVID-19 is not a waterborne disease’. Full stop.

Corpse handling during COVID-19

Few peer reviewed papers have been published on handling and disposal of corpses of people who died from COVID-19. A publication by Nanayakkara et al in October 2020 reviews practices worldwide and also the risk of infection after burial from bacterial and viral diseases.

They conclude that due to inadequate knowledge available of COVID-19, it would be prudent to follow the safe corpse handling guidelines recommended by the WHO. They also state that because virus multiplication ceases as there is no living host, the virus can only spread to other humans by touching the corpse as COVID-19 is a respiratory virus spread mostly by respiratory secretions. The publication refers to WHO guidelines (WHO 2020), which states that graveyards of those who died from highly infectious diseases should be at least 30 metres from groundwater sources used for drinking water, and grave floors must be at least 1.5 metres above the water table, with 0.7 metre unsaturated zone and that surface waters from graveyards must not enter inhabited zones. Similar guidelines are also available from the Centres for Disease Prevention and Control of the USA (CDC 2020).

Rajanikanta et al. 2020, in an Indian perspective on handling the dead, emphasize the importance of handling the dead with dignity for the deceased and the surviving family. They also underline that more precautions need to be taken to prevent spread of the virus during handling the bodies, as SARS-CoV-19 is a new virus whose virulence and period of survival in the dead body is not yet entirely known. They suggest prevention of infection can be done by disinfection of the dead body with chlorine-based solution, enclosing it in a puncture proof body bag, minimal contact with the body and using airtight boxes for cremation or burial.

A recent article in the British Medical Journal, Global Health, where the authors reviewed the available literature to scope and assess the effects of specific strategies for the management of bodies of COVID-19 victims, stated, “There is scarce evidence on the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other coronaviruses from the dead bodies of confirmed or suspected cases” (Yaacoub et al. 2020).

Finally, internationally renowned Sri Lankan virologist, Prof. Malik Peiris has unequivocally stated, in an interview with the BBC Sinhala (https://www.bbc.com/sinhala/sri-lanka-55348348) that COVID-19 is not a water borne disease and the negligible chances of this virus entering the water table. In fact, in a three-minute video he provides a simple explanation to a layman on the period of infection of the virus, and transmission of the virus from a dead body. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8ZYxZ-QajI&t=13s).

So, what does science tell us?

= The SARS-CoV-2 virus is fragile in the external environment and has a very limited period of survival (Firquet et al. 2015).

= Detection of the virus in the environment by PCR is an indication that the viral RNA is present; to determine if this is viable and able to cause infection, the suspected sample should undergo a cell culture test.

= The virus is not water borne: The present evidence is that the infection route into the respiratory tract is through the mouth, nose and eyes. The global pandemic in almost all the nations and millions of infected people, has not shown evidence of other routes of infection, such as by consuming food or water.

= The virus does not survive common disinfectants such as household bleach, ethanol, and hand soap solution (Chin et al. 2020).

The current pandemic, unlike other localised occurrence of diseases, is being played out on the global stage: almost all the countries are involved, under all conceivable climatic conditions. One cannot imagine a better scenario to draw conclusions. Science is a process, that makes deductions from rigorous sifting of evidence. Science would immediately jettison an inference if evidence is presented to the contrary. Since the outbreak of the pandemic this year, literally hundreds of peer reviewed publications have been published – that is available on the web for anybody to access.

How can we offer safe burials?

By taking the above into account, a safe burial protocol is suggested to prevent the virus from entering the environment.

Immediately after death, the body is surface disinfected and then place in a puncture proof, body bag with a disinfectant. This can be enclosed further in another body bag.

The body bags are transported from the morgue to the burial site in a plastic or aluminium box.

Burial sites should be located at least one km away from human settlements, and in a region where the water table is very deep (e.g., in the dry zone). A large block of land is available in Oddamavadi in the EP.

Finally, the grave could be lined with lime (calcium oxide- CaO), which would form calcium hydroxide in contact with moisture. This would provide an extreme basic pH, in which the virus would be destroyed.

Further guidelines stipulated by the WHO and the Health Authorities in Sri Lanka should be followed.

The stigma associated with Covid-19 and the fear of being cremated are now forcing some sectors of the community to avoid PCR/antigen testing. This could lead to uncontrolled eruption of new clusters. The cremation of Muslims dying of COVID-19 has polarized and created resentment within the community. As this article shows, the science is out there as is the evidence, to show that safe burial can be accommodated for this epidemic.

Legal, social, cultural and emotional views have been expressed in these columns and elsewhere. Except for a few courageous voices from others, the aggrieved community has been left without assistance. To quote Rev. Martin Luther King Jr, “The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people, but the silence over that by the good people.”

One of our greatest attributes as humans is to empathise with fellow humans. Let us practise this!

(The writer does research in the Plant and Environmental Sciences. He can be contacted at mcmif2003@yahoo.com)

All News Advertisement

Opinion

Hidden truth of Sri Lanka’s debt story: The untold narrative behind the report

Published

8 hours ago

2026/04/3

Thilina Walpola

This article presents a quantitative and critical analysis of the volume, composition, and utilization of public debt in Sri Lanka during the period 2024–2026. In general discourse, attention is primarily focused on the size of debt alone. However, this article reveals a broader economic reality by examining the interconnections among debt sources, patterns of utilisation, and repayment capacity.

In particular, when factors such as high debt-to-national-income ratios, limited revenue-generating capacity, and a heavy reliance on recurrent expenditure are considered together, Sri Lanka’s debt problem appears not merely as a numerical issue, but as the outcome of a systemic imbalance. Furthermore, the article highlights that external factors—such as geopolitical instability in the Middle East—are likely to further intensify these challenges.

1. Introduction

During the period from September 2024 to March 2026, a multi-layered discourse has emerged regarding the volume of debt obtained by the Government of Sri Lanka and the manner in which it has been utilised. Within these discussions, particular attention has been given to the increase in debt levels. While this is a valid and necessary concern, it is essential not to accept the issue at face value, but rather to analyze it critically within a broader economic context.

The primary focus should not be limited to the narrow question of “how much debt has the government borrowed?” but should instead extend to a broader set of questions: “from where has this debt been obtained, for what purposes has it been used, and what is the country’s capacity to repay it?” In other words, a complete and accurate understanding of the economic picture can only be achieved by analysing the interconnections among debt volume, utilization, and revenue-generating capacity.

Within this context, it is estimated that by the end of 2023, Sri Lanka’s total public debt stood between LKR 27–30 trillion (Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 2023; IMF, 2024). At the same time, the debt-to-GDP ratio is observed to be in the range of 110%–128%, while the burden of debt servicing relative to government revenue remains at a high level of approximately 60%–70%. In addition, the revenue-to-GDP ratio stands at only around 8%–10%, which is considered a structural fiscal weakness (World Bank, 2023).

Against this backdrop, it becomes evident that during the period 2024–2026, Sri Lanka is not on a path of deleveraging, but rather in a transitional phase centered on debt restructuring and economic stabilisation. Therefore, this article seeks to provide a deeper and more comprehensive understanding by analyzing not only the size of debt, but also its utilisation, structure, and policy implications.

2. Total Public Debt as at End-2023

As at the end of 2023, Sri Lanka’s total public debt is estimated to be between LKR 27–30 trillion. The debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds the commonly accepted safe threshold of 70% and remains within the range of 110%–128% (CBSL, 2023; IMF, 2024). In addition, the burden of debt servicing relative to government revenue is at a very high level, in some instances reaching approximately 60%–70% of revenue. At the same time, government revenue as a percentage of GDP stands at only around 8%–10%, which is below the required level for emerging economies.

When these indicators are considered together, a clear imbalance emerges between the rising debt burden and the country’s limited revenue-generating capacity.

Furthermore, the composition of debt and external economic linkages intensify this vulnerability. It is estimated that approximately 40%–45% of total debt is external, making the country highly sensitive to exchange rate fluctuations. Moreover, imports account for around 25%–35% of GDP, while exports remain at only about 20%–22%, resulting in a trade deficit and increasing the demand for foreign exchange (World Bank, 2023).

Consequently, external debt repayments depend heavily on export earnings and foreign employment income. Under these conditions, new borrowing often appears to be used for servicing existing debt, thereby creating a debt cycle that does not contribute to long-term economic growth.

Therefore, Sri Lanka’s debt problem should not be understood merely as a numerical issue, but rather as a manifestation of a deep structural imbalance among revenue capacity, economic structure, and patterns of debt utilisation.

3. Debt Situation During the 2024–2026 Period

An analysis of Sri Lanka’s debt utilisation patterns during the period 2024–2026 clearly indicates that new borrowing has been used primarily not to generate economic growth, but to manage existing debt and support short-term stabilisation.

Under the International Monetary Fund program, a significant portion of the funds obtained has been directed toward debt servicing, interest payments, and requirements related to debt restructuring (IMF, 2024). In addition, based on the composition of government expenditure, a high proportion is allocated to recurrent expenditure, while capital expenditure remains relatively limited. Typically, nearly 70% of total government expenditure is directed toward recurrent expenditure, while capital expenditure accounts for around 20%–30% (CBSL, 2023).

This pattern of utilisation demonstrates that borrowing is being used to sustain existing fiscal pressures rather than to enhance revenue-generating capacity. In particular, the use of new borrowing to repay existing debt (debt rollover) further reinforces a debt cycle, thereby constraining long-term economic growth. Moreover, the import-dependent economic structure and shortages in foreign exchange further reduce the efficiency of debt utilisation.

Accordingly, during the period 2024–2026, Sri Lanka’s borrowing can be characterized not as growth-oriented borrowing, but rather as survival-oriented borrowing. This clearly represents a significant challenge to long-term economic stability.

4. Future Challenges

An analysis of Sri Lanka’s current economic condition clearly indicates that the country has not yet fully emerged from the crisis. It is not in a phase of debt reduction, but rather has entered a stage of debt restructuring and stabilisation. Total public debt remains at a high level, and a debt-to-GDP ratio exceeding 100% raises serious concerns regarding debt sustainability.

Although debt restructuring has been implemented under the International Monetary Fund program, it primarily serves as a short-term relief measure, and a comprehensive long-term solution has yet to be achieved. Furthermore, the fact that new borrowing is largely used for debt rollovers and short-term economic stabilization indicates that the country remains in a debt stabilisation stage.

Moreover, the current pattern of debt utilization and the overall economic structure further deepen future challenges. A significant portion of borrowed funds is directed toward servicing existing debt, financing recurrent government expenditure, and maintaining short-term stability, thereby limiting productive investment. At the same time, despite efforts to increase government revenue, the high burden of debt servicing and expenditure levels constrain fiscal space.

In terms of foreign exchange, reliance on export earnings and foreign employment income, combined with an import-dependent economic structure, continues to expose the country to external economic risks.

Within this context, ongoing geopolitical instability in the Middle East represents an additional source of pressure for an import-dependent economy such as Sri Lanka. In particular, volatility in fuel prices, security risks along key maritime routes, and potential impacts on foreign employment income could weaken the country’s foreign exchange position and overall economic stabilisation process.

In effect, the interaction between internal economic imbalances and external instability creates a condition of double vulnerability for Sri Lanka.

Despite positive signals such as declining inflation, exchange rate stabilization, and support from the International Monetary Fund, economic growth remains weak, private investment is low, and cost-of-living pressures persist. These conditions confirm that significant and complex policy challenges lie ahead.

The interaction of internal imbalances and external instability creates a condition of double vulnerability for Sri Lanka.

5. Conclusion Remarks

This analysis demonstrates that Sri Lanka’s current debt situation is not merely a numerical issue, but the outcome of a deep systemic imbalance among economic structure, public financial management, and policy decisions. During the period 2024–2026, the country is not on a path of debt reduction, but rather in a stabilisation phase based on debt management and restructuring.

New borrowing is largely used not to generate economic growth, but to manage existing fiscal pressures. This further intensifies the imbalance between the quality of debt utilisation and the country’s revenue-generating capacity.

However, when one reads between the lines of these figures and reports, many unspoken realities become evident. Decisions related to borrowing and its utilisation are closely linked to policy priorities, political objectives, and the quality of governance. Therefore, analysing numbers alone is insufficient; it is essential to critically examine the decisions, priorities, and responsibilities that lie behind them.

Accordingly, moving forward requires not only controlling the volume of debt, but also transforming the manner in which it is utilised and the policy decision-making framework that underpins it. Only through productive investment, revenue growth, and strong public financial management can Sri Lanka transition from a debt-dependent economy to one characterised by stable and sustainable long-term growth.

In conclusion, Sri Lanka’s debt narrative is not merely a story of numbers—it is a comprehensive reflection of the country’s economic decisions, patterns of utilisation, and often unspoken priorities.

References

Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) (2023) Annual Report 2023. Colombo: Central Bank of Sri Lanka.

International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2024) Sri Lanka: Debt Sustainability Analysis and Program Review. Washington, DC: IMF.

Ministry of Finance (2026) Sri Lanka Government Debt Report: September 2024 – March 2026. Colombo: Ministry of Finance, Sri Lanka.

World Bank (2023) Sri Lanka Development Update: Restoring Stability and Growth. Washington, DC: World Bank.

International Energy Agency (IEA) (2023) Sri Lanka Energy Profile. Paris: IEA.

by Professor Ranjith Bandara

Opinion

Eulogy to a supremely gifted son of Lanka

Published

1 day ago

2026/04/2

Sahan Weerasooriya

Professor Rezvi Sheriff

Vidya Jyothi Professor Rezvi Sheriff

We do mourn the passing away of Vidya Jothi Emeritus Professor Rezvi Sheriff on the 30th of March 2026. He was a man who was one of the finest doctors who served the health service of our beloved country and several other nations as well.

I was most fortunate to be selected to formulate and present the citation for Professor Rezvi Sheriff just last year, for the award of the coveted Fellowship of the Sri Lanka Medical Association during the Inauguration Ceremony of the Annual Congress of the Sri Lanka Medical Association on the 23rd of July 2025.

That narrative is reproduced here as the final tribute to a superlative medical scientist, a humane carer, teacher par excellence, an academic of profound scholastic stature and a very close friend.

Our Chief Guest tonight, Guest of Honour, Special Guests, the President, Council, Fellows, and Members of the Sri Lanka Medical Association, and Distinguished Invitees…….

I am delighted to present to you, Vidyajyothi Professor Rezvi Sheriff, MBBS Ceylon), MD(Ceylon), MRCP(UK), FRCP(London), FRCP(Edinburgh), FRACP, FCCP, Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences of Sri Lanka, and Emeritus Professor of Medicine for the superlative award of the Fellowship of the Sri Lanka Medical Association.

In fact, the man is so very well-known, and formulating a citation for him was a veritable Herculean task, similar only to one trying to sell ice to Eskimos. In such a context, I will attempt only to portray some strategic vantage points of a career that clearly defies an adequate description in the time allotted to me. One could write reams about the man and still leave quite a lot unsaid.

Following a spectacular school career, Rezvi entered the Faculty of Medicine, Colombo, in 1966, just one year after me, and we have been close friends ever since. The man went through his undergraduate career, securing many distinctions and gold medals, and qualified in 1971 as the first in class valedictorian, topmost performer of the batch, and the first in the combined order of merit of the two Medical Schools of Colombo and Peradeniya.

From then onwards, there was no looking back. It was a steady, persistent, and exponential climb in the academic ladder to finally reach the pinnacle of the Chair Professorship of the Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Colombo. He is a great researcher and has a monumental plethora of scientific papers published in peer-reviewed, indexed, high-impact medical journals. He has delivered several orations, many plenary lectures, guest lectures, and taken part in numerous academic symposia as a resource person. He has been internationally recognised through fellowships and memberships from prestigious colleges and academic institutions. He has lectured in many centres worldwide, inclusive of a considerable number of universities in the United States of America, Great Britain, Australia, Norway, Japan and Pakistan.

As an Educator, he has mentored thousands of undergraduate and postgraduate students and allied health professionals. He is acclaimed for his quality clinical teaching, integrity, kindness and compassion. His medical journey, culminating in the Chair Professorship of Medicine, has inspired many a generation. He retired from the University of Colombo in 2014 and then worked at the Kotelawala Defence University for another 10 years. Altogether, he has had 60 years of university service and been a professor for 41 years. He was awarded Emeritus status by the University of Colombo, following his retirement.

He is known as the Pioneer Godfather of Nephrology and Transplant Medicine in Sri Lanka. He initiated the country’s first Dialysis Unit and Kidney Transplant Programme, a vision that forever transformed renal care and paved the way for other organ transplantations in Sri Lanka as well.

He has served for six years as the only Sri Lankan Council Member in the International Society of Nephrology. Incidentally, he and I were in the UK around the same time during our postgraduate training. He was in nephrology in the South of England, and I was doing nephrology in Nottingham in the Midlands. He continued in nephrology while I changed track and went in a different direction.

Professor Sheriff’s influence extended beyond the lecture rooms, wards and clinics. He was a member of the First National Health Policy Formulation Team, the University Reforms Committee, the National Education Commission and the Sri Lanka Medical Council. He was the Director of the Postgraduate Institute of Medicine from 2006 to 2011. All these assignments were conferred directly by the Executive President of Sri Lanka.

Professor Sheriff founded major nationally important bodies such as the Sri Lanka Society of Nephrology, the Health Informatics Society of Sri Lanka and the Hypertension Society of Sri Lanka. He was also instrumental in building critical medical infrastructure, such as the CLINMARC building at NHSL, the National Institute of Nephrology Dialysis and Transplantation Centre in Maligawatta, the Ceylon College of Physicians Building in Rajagiriya, and the first Kidney Transplant Unit at NHSL. He also set up the most advanced Dialysis Unit in Sri Lanka at the General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University Hospital.

In a kind of nostalgic rumination, Rezvi and I used to be on the opposing teams in the Annual Physicians Versus the Paediatricians Cricket Match. If I remember right, and in a lighter vein, that is perhaps the only time anyone has been able to beat this great man.

Ladies and Gentlemen, legends are found not only in the movies. They are there in real life, too. Role models are remembered, not just for what they achieve, but for the lives they inspire, the opportunities they create, and the kindness they perpetually exhibit. Despite his vast achievements, Professor Rezvi Sheriff remains an extremely humble, deeply religious, superlatively kind, service-oriented person. Today, as we honour him, we celebrate not just a brilliant academic and a superb clinician, but a man who has lived a life of purpose and integrity: a life devoted to service to the community. Some years ago, in recognition of his services to our Motherland, the Government of Sri Lanka conferred on him the National Titular Award Vidya Jyothi, the highest national honour that can be bestowed on a scientist.

Mr President, I am ever so pleased to present Professor Rezvi Sheriff, a superlative clinician and a healer, a fine researcher, a brilliant teacher, a visionary, and a true servant of humanity, for the award of the legendary Fellowship of the Sri Lanka Medical Association.

Ladies and Gentlemen, please be kind enough to rise and applaud this great son of Mother Lanka.

***

With the demise of Professor Rezvi Sheriff, we have lost a superlative son of our hallowed Motherland, and I have lost a very dear friend.

Goodbye, our friend…, May the turf of our Motherland rest ever so gently on you.

May he rest in eternal bliss as we acknowledge the words in the Holy Qaran 𝗜 i𝗜𝗹𝗮i𝗵 𝗻!

(Verily to Allāh we belong, and verily to Him, we shall return)

By Dr B. J. C. Perera
Specialist Consultant Paediatrician

Opinion

Is there hope for Palestine?

Published

1 day ago

2026/04/2

Sahan Weerasooriya

Map courtesy BBC

Since the creation of Israel, in 1948, Palestine has lost so much that it is a wonder that it is still a part of the world map. Since 1948, Palestinians have lost approximately 85% of the land that made up historic British Mandate Palestine. This loss occurred in several major stages, beginning with the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and continuing through the 1967 Six-Day War and ongoing settlement expansion.

It is necessary to outline the relevant historical facts about the state of Palestine. Palestine was among former Ottoman territories, placed under UK administration, by the League of Nations, in 1922. All of these territories eventually became fully independent States, except Palestine, where, in addition to “the rendering of administrative assistance and advice,” the British Mandate incorporated the “Balfour Declaration” of 1917, expressing support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”. During the Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration, mainly from Eastern Europe, took place, with the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the Nazi persecution. Arab demands for independence and resistance to immigration led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides. The UK considered various formulas to bring independence to a land ravaged by violence. In 1947, the UK turned the Palestine problem over to the UN.

After looking at alternatives, the UN proposed terminating the Mandate and partitioning Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalised (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). Records indicate that Jewish individuals, or organisations, only owned between 5.8% and 7% of the land in Palestine, prior to the 1947 Partition Plan. The remainder was either privately owned by Palestinians (94.2% according to some fiscal records) or classified as state/public land by the British authorities. The vast majority (90%) of the population was Palestinians. The Partition Plan did not take these demographic facts into consideration and this led to the war in 1948 with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia joining forces against Israel. The war was a major loss for the Arab countries as Israel was backed by the west and, following the war, Israel established control over 77% to 78% of the land. The remaining 22%—consisting of the West Bank and Gaza Strip—came under Jordanian and Egyptian administration, respectively.

The Arab countries were very much concerned about this situation and were very sympathetic towards the Palestinians. In a desperate attempt, in 1967, Egypt, Jordan and Syria attacked Israel, which by now, with huge western support, was militarily far superior to the collective strength of these countries and could capture Sinai Peninsula, Gaza strip, West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights. Again, in 1973, Egypt attacked Israel in a surprise move and inflicted much damage, though finally losing the war. This led to a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel and the return of Sinai. The outcome of all these wars was that today the Palestinians have lost administrative and sovereign control over approximately 85% of historic Palestine, since 1948, with current autonomous Palestinian areas (Gaza and parts of the West Bank) making up less than 15% of the total original territory.

Palestine gradually lost its major military allies; Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Libya, due mainly to the machinations and direct invasions by western forces and Israel. There were internal disputes and betrayals, as well, with Hamas falling out with Fatah and Palestinian Authority colluding with Israel to undermine Palestinians. All this shows the pathetic tragedy that has befallen the historical inheritors of the land of Palestine. Today, they are subjected to the most inhuman harassment and genocide, with daily killings, and their land is being grabbed by Israel. And there is, apparently, no one to help them; the UN can only pay lip service and if this continues Palestine will soon be obliterated from the world map.

However, there may be a glimmer of hope for this beleaguered country if the war between Iran and Israel ends in the way people like Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, Prof. John Mearsheimer, Col. Douglas Macgregor, Prof. Richard Wolf, Miko Peled, etc., predict. These people have made comments like “Iran has the upper hand”, “The US has already lost the war”, “Iran will be the graveyard of American hegemony”, “This will be the end of Israel”.

It was Miko Peled, a Jew by birth, and a Palestinian activist by conviction, who said “This will be the end of Israel” in a recent podcast interview, and he was hoping that it would eventually solve the Palestine problem. Peled’s grandfather, Avraham Katznelson, was one of the founders of Israel who signed Israel’s Declaration of Independence. Peled’s father, Mattityahu Peled, had fought in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and served as a general in the Six-Day War of 1967.

In 1997, Peled’s 13-year-old niece Smadar, daughter of his sister Nurit Peled-Elhanan, was murdered in a Palestinian suicide terror attack in Jerusalem. After her funeral Peled had said, “Why not tell the truth… That this, and similar tragedies, are taking place because we are occupying another nation and that, in order to save lives, the right thing to do is to end the occupation and negotiate a just peace with our Palestinian partners?” Today Miko Peled is fighting for the liberation of Palestine. He asserted that the raid by Hamas into Israel, in October, 2023, was not terrorism but a heroic act.

Col. Douglas Macgregor, a retired US Army officer, who had faught in the Iraq war, and who was nominated by President Trump as the Ambassador to Germany, and also appointed to the board of the US Military Academy, has said “Iran holds the upper hand”. He has several reasons to support his claim; Iranian missiles outnumber the interceptors of Israel and Gulf states, and already Israel is running out of weapons, the economic fallout in the US, Gulf countries and Europe would be catastrophic if the war drags on, ground forces option would be disastrous as landing them would be a suicidal process given the advance surveillance methods that Iran possess, courtesy China and Russia. Further, he says, several such US campaigns in the past have failed, pointing out that Iraq, which was ‘conqured,’ is now asking the US to leave. The Syrian leader – another country ‘conqured’ – is visiting Russia. A Minister, in Qatar, has told the US to leave her country alone.

Prof John Mearsheimer is Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. In his 2007 book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Mearsheimer argues that the Israel lobby wields disproportionate influence over US foreign policy in the Middle East. Mearsheimer asserts that Benjamin Netanyahu is driving the push for conflict, rather than US interests. He describes Israel as an “albatross around our neck” regarding this war. He claims the U.S. and Israel initiated this war against Iran, which he does not believe the US can win.

Mearsheimer has argued that “Iran holds all the cards” in the war of attrition, suggesting that Iran is not losing and that the US is facing a strategic defeat. He argues that Iran does not represent a threat massive enough to justify American involvement in the conflict and that the US is fighting ‘somebody else’s war’.

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs is a professor at Columbia University, where he was formerly Director of The Earth Institute, and is Director of the Centre for Sustainable Development at the University. He had been a tenured professor of Economics at Harvard. From 2002 to 2018, Sachs was special adviser to the UN Secretary-General. Regarding the war, he has said that the US and Israel had underestimated Iran and that Iran would be the Graveyard of American hegemony. Further Sachs has called Israel ” a reckless country” and a joint military campaign with it is not in the US interests. He has made a special appeal to the leaders of China, Russia and India to pressure Donald Trump to stop the war, which he says would be very effective.

Prof Richard Wolf, leading economist, says the US is at present heavily in debt and the defence budget for 2026/27 has been increased from 900 bn to 1.5 tr which could affect health, education and welfare programmes. People in the US are on the streets protesting against the war.

What could be gleaned from all these opinions and views of people, who know what they speak of, is that, whatever the outcome of the war, the world will not be the same for all of us. Beginning from Trump and the people of the US, European leaders, China, Russia and India, Iran and the Middle East, particularly the Gulf States, the Global South and finally Israel, would learn that war cannot solve problems, that hegemony is hated, imperialism has to end and, last but not least, if the world wants peace the Palestine problem must be solved.

(Some of the information in this article was derived from Wikipedia)

By N. A. de S. Amaratunga