Wednesday Nov 27, 2024
Wednesday Nov 27, 2024
Friday, 5 April 2024 00:34 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
Minister for Water Supply and Estate Infrastructure Development Jeevan Thondaman
Minister for Water Supply and Estate Infrastructure Development Jeevan Thondaman yesterday apologised to the Muslim community in Sri Lanka over the mandatory cremation policy enforced during the COVID-19 pandemic under the previous Government of Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
The apology comes after a study led by experts from the University of Sri Jayewardenepura and an update to it by the Joint Research and Demonstration Centre for Water Technology (JRDC) at the University of Peradeniya found there was no risk of groundwater pollution from properly conducted burials during the pandemic.
The first study had investigated the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in surface and wastewater across various locations in Sri Lanka between August and December 2021 to assess the risk of viral transmission through water, a concern that originally motivated the cremation mandate.
Meanwhile, a comprehensive review study by the JRDC analysed the effects of COVID-19-infected bodies’ burial on groundwater contamination. Published this year (2024), this review concluded there was no risk to groundwater pollution from properly conducted burials during the pandemic. The study emphasised that proper burial procedures, including deep burial in sealed body bags, effectively mitigated any risk of environmental contamination.
Accordingly, the Minister apologised and acknowledged the distress the policy had caused among the Muslim community. Thondaman said that he will soon be submitting a cabinet paper together with the findings of the study to seek a formal apology from the Government for the harm and hurt caused to especially the Muslim community by the forced cremation policy.
The forced cremation policy under President Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the time was driven by concerns that the burial of COVID-19 victims could contaminate water supplies. This was despite several scientific opinions, including that of the World Health Organisation, refuting that claim.
