What is it to be Sri Lankan? The answer to this question is something that I struggle with. Should it not mean that we are a citizen: a citizen of a proud, diverse nation with respect and equality for all. A nation that is united. A nation that celebrates our differences. (1)

However, the year 1956 marked the first significant show of overt oppression against an ethnicity. (2)

Politicians of the day and those that followed, did not have the best interests of the country or its citizens, but had their own personal thirst for power and fame in mind. (3)

While claiming to act in the name of self-determination for the Sri Lankan identity, they oppressed and asserted dominance against minorities, and we embarked down the slippery slope that led us to where we are today. (4)

What started off with just politics and biased policymaking, led to inflammatory rhetoric, frustration and desperation, ultimately descending to terrorism and the resounding indoctrination across the nation that ethnicity was pitted ethnicity in a full-blown civil war. (5)

With increasing domestic pressure and indisputable evidence provided by internationally accredited experts, the Government has now appointed a new 11 member expert committee on 24.12.2020 comprised of reputed virologists and qualified experts. (1)

The stated position which has been disclosed repeatedly by the President, PM & Health Minister since the beginning of COVID-19 regarding permitting burials is to “go with the recommendations of the experts”. (2)

Similarly, the stance of the Muslim community since the very beginning has been that IF science proves that burial is harmful, THEN we will cease our claims immediately, as we do not wish to cause harm to anyone.

This has been conveyed to to all officials and the public. (3)

Over the last 10 months, science has proven overwhelmingly that in 194 countries and at least 1.5 million COVID-19 burials worldwide, there is no tangible evidence that burial is harmful. (4)

The formation of this new expert committee is due to the fact that it has now been proven overwhelmingly that the previous committee’s recommendations are disputed and were based largely on “unknowns”, with lack of substantial evidence to prove or disprove its recommendations.(5)