The Hon. (Dr.) Hiniduma Sunil Senevi - Minister of Buddhasasana, Religious and Cultural Affairs

¶ 01 Hon. Speaker, I am prepared to respond.

¶ 02 The Hon. Member highlights issues from his area. However, the way these are framed and the language used convey, to a large extent, an allegation about the Department of Archaeology’s interventions. Therefore, I must respond precisely.

¶ 03 First, the Department of Archaeology is not a “Buddhist-only” institution. While many archaeological sites in Sri Lanka have a Buddhist backdrop due to historical evolution, archaeology and history are scholarly disciplines, not instruments of any religion. There are Hindu, Islamic, Christian sites and associated places of worship; religious observances take place at such sites without hindrance, including major observances like Maha Shivaratri.

¶ 04 On the six specific locations:

¶ 05 1) Koneswaram/ Fort Frederick, Trincomalee: The Temple stands within the Fort Frederick archaeological reserve. The Temple precinct is not separately declared as an archaeological site apart from the reserve. Work within the reserve, including conservation and maintenance, is carried out by the Central Cultural Fund (CCF) with Department approval. Entry fees are not charged for worshippers at the Temple as is done at places like Dambulla or Sigiriya; only curated museum/exhibit areas managed by the CCF issue tickets. No change has been effected to its status as a place of worship. Allegations need careful handling because different legal instruments govern the Department and the CCF.

¶ 06 2) Thanthamalai Murugan Temple: Where archaeological evidence exists, wide-ranging interventions require caution. However, if a proper investigation confirms no archaeological impediment, practical necessities—such as replacing a burnt CEB meter—can proceed under the law. I have consulted the Director-General; subject to a negative impact assessment, this can be allowed. We cannot intervene outside statutory procedure; once reports are complete, I will facilitate.

¶ 07 3) Nelkalmalai (Kiran): About 1,213 acres in the area have archaeological evidence and are maintained as a declared archaeological zone. No new constructions other than conservation work have been permitted. At times, to a layperson, conservation elements or partial works may appear as new construction; therefore, comments should follow verification to avoid misunderstanding.

¶ 08 4) Kuchchaveli coastal belt: Several archaeological sites exist. The Department has given no approvals for new viharas; long-standing temples may carry out limited repairs subject to law. “Archaeological site” should not be equated only to a vihara; Sri Lanka has numerous purely archaeological localities with Buddhist historical layers owing to the island’s past. We will verify the specific instances cited by the Hon. Member.

¶ 09 In general, unauthorized structures at archaeological reserves are a longstanding issue across the country, including at Anuradhapura and Kandy. Such matters must be handled with care and in compliance with national and international standards, including UNESCO guidelines. We will act to prevent social tension and ensure lawful, even-handed administration.

¶ 10 Regarding language and administration in Batticaloa, I take note of the concerns on engagement with local authorities and the use of Tamil in official communications. I will instruct the Department to: - engage formally with Divisional Secretariats and local authorities; - ensure circulars and notices are issued in Tamil for Tamil-speaking areas; and - deploy and retain adequate Tamil-speaking staff in relevant districts.

¶ 11 We will address specific cases through proper assessments and consultations with local communities to ensure equal religious rights while safeguarding archaeological heritage under the law.