Opinion
To Bury or not to Bury: That is the Question
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)
Author
- News Advertiesment
See Kapruka’s top selling online shopping categories such as Toys, Grocery, Flowers, Birthday Cakes, Fruits, Chocolates, Clothing and Electronics. Also see Kapruka’s unique online services such as Money Remittence,News, Courier/Delivery, Food Delivery and over 700 top brands. Also get products from Amazon & Ebay via Kapruka Gloabal Shop into Sri Lanka.
Author
-
By Dr Laksiri Fernando
The 46th Session of the UN Human Rights Council started on 22 February morning with obvious hiccups. The Office, to mean the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, finally decided to hold all sessions virtually online, only the President of the Council and the assistants in the high table sitting at the UN Assembly Hall in Geneva. The President, Ms. Nazhat Shammen Khan, Ambassador from Fiji in Geneva, wearing a saree, was graceful in the chair with empty seats surrounding.
In the opening session, the UN General Assembly President, UN General Secretary, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Head of Foreign Affairs, Switzerland (as the host country), addressed remotely the session. In fact, there was no need for Switzerland to have a special place, as the UN is independent from any host country. Switzerland is fairly ok, however, if this tradition is followed, the UN General Assembly may have to give a special place to the US in New York.
Initial Addresses
UN General Secretary, Antonio Guterres’ address could have been quite exemplary if he gave a proper balance to the developed and developing countries. He talked about racism and fight against racism but did not mention where racism is overwhelmingly rampant (US and Europe) and what to do about it. Outlining the human rights implications of Covid-19 pandemic, he made quite a good analysis. It was nice for him to say, ‘human rights are our blood line (equality), our lifeline (for peace) and our frontline (to fight against violations).’ However, in the fight against violations, he apparently forgot about the ‘blood line’ or the ‘lifeline’ quite necessary not to aggravate situations through partiality and bias. He never talked about the importance of human rights education or promoting human rights awareness in all countries.
His final assault was on Myanmar. Although he did not call ‘genocide,’ he denounced the treatment of Rohingyas as ethnic cleansing without mentioning any terrorist group/s within. His call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other civilian leaders undoubtedly should be a common call of all. However, he did not leave any opening for a dialogue with the military leaders or bring back a dialogue between Aung San and Min Aung, the military leader. With a proper mediation, it is not impossible. Calling for a complete overhaul as the young demonstrators idealistically claim might not be realistic.
High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s address was brief and uncontroversial this time without mentioning any country or region. It is clear by now perhaps she is not the real author of the Report against Sri Lanka, but someone probably hired by the so-called core-group led by Britain. Her major points were related to the coronavirus pandemic trying to highlight some of the socio-economic disparities and imbalances of policy making that have emerged as a result. The neglect of women, minorities, and the marginalized sections of society were emphasized. But the poor was not mentioned. As a former medical doctor, she also opted to highlight some of the medical issues underpinning the crisis.
Then came the statements from different countries in the first meeting in the following order: Uzbekistan, Colombia, Lithuania, Afghanistan, Poland, Venezuela, Finland, Fiji, Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Equatorial Guinea, Vietnam, Belgium, and Morocco. The obvious purposes of these statements were different. Some countries were apparently canvassing for getting into the Human Rights Council at the next turn perhaps for the purpose of prestige. Some others were playing regional politics against their perceived enemies. This was very clear when Lithuania and Poland started attacking Russia.
But there were very sincere human rights presentations as well. One was the statement by the President of Afghanistan, Mohammad Ashraf Ghani. He outlined the devastating effects that Afghanistan had to undergo during the last 40 years, because of foreign interferences. The initial support to Taliban by big powers was hinted. His kind appeal was to the UN was to go ‘beyond discourse to practice’ giving equal chance to the poor and the developing countries to involve without discrimination.
Controversial Presentations
China’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Wang Yi, made his presentation almost at the end of the first day. This is apparently the first time that China had directly addressed the Human Rights Council. Beginning with outlining the devastating repercussions of the coronavirus pandemic he stressed that the world should face the challenges through ‘solidarity and cooperation.’ He broadened the concept to human rights solidarity and cooperation. His expressed views were quite different to the others, particularly to the Western ones.
He frankly said that what he expresses are the views of China on human rights without claiming those are absolute truths or forcing others to believe or implement them. There were four main concepts that he put forward before the member countries. First, he said, “We should embrace a human rights philosophy that centres on the people. The people’s interests are where the human rights cause starts and ends.” Second, he said, “we should uphold both universality and particularity of human rights. Peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom are common values shared by all humanity and recognized by all countries.” “On the other hand,” he said, “countries must promote and protect human rights in light of their national realities and the needs of their people.”
“Third,” he said, “we should systemically advance all aspects of human rights. Human rights are an all-encompassing concept. They include civil and political rights as well as economic, social, and cultural rights.” He then emphasized, “Among them, the rights to subsistence and development are the basic human rights of paramount importance.” Fourth, “we should continue to promote international dialogue and cooperation on human rights. Global human rights governance should be advanced through consultation among all countries.”
It was on the same first day before China, that the United Kingdom launched its barrage against several countries not sparing Sri Lanka. The Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, delivered the statement from top to bottom attacking alleged violating countries on human rights. But there was no mentioning of Israel for the repression of Palestinians or the systemic racism rampaging in the United States, including the 6 January attacks on the Capitol by extremist/terrorist groups.
His first sermon was on Myanmar without acknowledging the British atrocities or mismanagement of this poor and diverse country during the colonial period. He was quite jubilant over implementing sanctions and other restrictions over the country. Many sanctions, in my opinion, are extortions. Undoubtedly, Aung San Suu Kyi and other leaders should be released, and democracy restored. This is a task of the whole council and when one or two countries try to grab the credit, there can be obvious reservations of others.
His further scathing attacks were against Belarus, Russia, and China. Some appeared factually correct but not necessarily the approach or the motives genuine. The following is the way he came around Sri Lanka. He said,
“Finally, we will continue to lead action in this Council: on Syria, as we do at each session; on South Sudan; and on Sri Lanka, where we will present a new resolution to maintain the focus on reconciliation and on accountability.”
‘Action’ to him basically means repeatedly passing resolutions, of course imposing economic and other sanctions. He said, “as we do at each session”; like bullying poor or weak countries at each session. Can there be a resolution against Russia or China? I doubt it.
What would be the purpose of presenting a resolution against Sri Lanka? As he said, “to maintain the focus on reconciliation and on accountability.” This will satisfy neither the Tamil militants nor the Sinhalese masses. But it might satisfy the crafty Opposition (proxy of the defeated last government). This is not going to be based on any of the actual measures that Sri Lanka has taken or not taken on reconciliation or accountability. But based on the ‘Authoritarian and Hypocritical Report’ that some anti-Sri Lankans have drafted within the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. This what I have discussed in my last article.
In this context, successful or not, the statement made by the Sri Lanka’s Minister of External Affairs, Dinesh Gunawardena, in rejecting any resolution based on the foxy Report of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in my concerned opinion, is absolutely correct.
Author
Dr Tilak Siyambalapitiya
Dr Janaka Rathnasiri laments (The Island 19 Feb 2021) that the Power Ministry has ignored the President’s directive to draw 70% of energy from renewable sources by 2030. I saw the approved costs of electricity production for 2019, published by the Public Utilities Commission (PUCSL).
PUCSL has also approved the prices to sell electricity to customers. Although various customers pay at various “approved” prices, the average income from such “approved” prices in 2019 was Rs 17.02 per unit. It is not only the Ministry, according to Dr Rathnasiri, ignoring the President; PUCSL is also breaking the law, which says prices and approved costs should be equal.
So there is already an illegal gap of Rs 21.59 minus 17.02 = Rs 4.57 per unit of electricity sold. If electricity prices are not to be increased, as stated by many in the government and PUCSL, let us say the following: Distribution costs should decrease by 0.57 Rs per unit. Generation costs should decrease by Rs 4.00 per unit.
PUCSL also published the approved cost of purchasing or producing electricity from various sources for 2019. The actual energy values were different to what was approved, but let us stick to PUCSL approved figures:
I suggest Dr Rathnasiri fills-up the following table, to show how much electricity will cost in 2030 to produce and deliver, if the President’s 70% target is to be achieved and for PUCSL to abide by the law. Let us assume that electricity requirement in 2030 will be double that of 2019.
Since PUCSL has to save Rs 4 from 13.92, the average selling price for energy should be Rs 13.92 minus 4.00 = Rs 9.92. With a target network loss of 7% (in 2019 it was 8.4%), the average cost of production has to be Rs 9.27 per unit. Eight cages have to be filled-up by Dr Rathnasiri.
In 2012, PUCSL approved the energy cost of electricity produced from coal power to be 6.33 Rs per kWh. In 2019, PUCSL approved 9.89 (56% increase). For renewable energy, it was 13.69 in 2012, and 19.24 in 2019 (a 40% increase, but double the price of electricity from coal fired generation). In 2012, rooftop solar was not paid for: only give and take, but now paid Rs 22, against Rs 9.89 from coal. There seems to be something wrong. The price reductions of renewable energy being promised, being insulated from rupee depreciation, are not happening? Either Sri Lanka must be paying too little for coal, or it may be renewable energy is severely over-priced?
On coal we hear only of some corruption every now and then; so Sri Lanka cannot be paying less than it costs, for coal.
Enough money even to donate
vaccines
Another reason for the Ministry of Power to ignore the President’s directive may be the Ministry’s previous experience with similar Presidential directives. In 2015, the President at that time cancelled the Sampur coal-fired power plant, and the Ministry faithfully obliged. That President and that Prime Minister then played ball games with more power plants until they were thrown out of power, leaving a two-billion-dollar deficit (still increasing) in the power sector. Not a single power plant of any description was built.
Where is this deficit? You do not have to look far. In the second table, replace 24.43 with 9.89, to reflect what would have happened if Sampur was allowed to be built. The value 12.79 will go down to 8.55, well below the target of Rs 9.27 per unit to produce. Not only would CEB and LECO report profits, but the government too could have asked for an overdraft from CEB to tide over any cash shortfalls in the treasury. All this with no increase in customer prices. Producers of electricity from renewable energy could enjoy the price of 19.24 Rs per unit. And that blooming thing on your rooftop can continue to enjoy Rs 22 per unit. The Minister of Power, whom Dr Rathnasiri wants to replace with an army officer, would have been the happiest.
In the absence of Sampur (PUCSL’s letter signed by Chairman Saliya Mathew confirmed cancellation and asked CEB not to build it), PUCSL approved electricity to be produced at Rs 21.59 and sold at Rs 17.02 per unit. The annual loss would be Rs (21.59 – 17.02) x 15,093 = Rs 69 billion per year of approved financial loss. Sri Lanka has a Telecom regulator, an Insurance regulator, a Banking regulator, who never approve prices below costs. Sometime ago the telecom regulator asked the operators to raise the prices, when operators were proposing to reduce prices amidst a price war. But the electricity industry regulator is different: he approves costs amounting to 27% more than the price, not just once but, but continuously for ten long years !
That is 370 million dollars per year as of 2019, the economy is spending, and for years to come, to burn oil (and say we have saved the environment). Did the Minister of Health say we are short of 160 million dollars to buy 40 million doses of the vaccine? Well, being a former Minister of Power, she now knows which Presidential “order” of 2015 is bleeding the economy of 370 million dollars per year, adequate to buy all vaccines and donate an equal amount to a needy country.
Prices are the production costs approved by PUCSL for 2019. The selling price approved by the same PUCSL was Rs 9.27 per unit.
Author
If you listen to politicians and journalists here, you will hear of that curious creature rajya novana sanvidane, a Non-State Organization (NSO). Where do you get them? In the uninstructed and dead minds of those who use those terms. In the real world, where politicians and journalists have developed minds, there are Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO). The United Nations is an organization set up by state parties, not by governments. It is true that agents of states, governments, make the United Nations work or fail. Governments may change but not the states, except rarely. When Eritrea broke away from Ethiopia, a new state was formed and was so recognised by the United Nations. However, the LTTE that tried to set up another state was crushed by the established state that it tried to break away from, and the UN had nothing to do with them.
This entirely unnecessary confusion, created out of ignorance, is so destructive that organizations completely loyal to the existing state, are made to be traitorous outfits, for they are ‘non-state organizations’ within the state. There are citizens of each state, but no citizens of any government. Government is but an instrument of the state. In most states there are organizations, neither of the state nor of government: religious organizations including churches. But none of them is beyond the pale of the state.
Those that speak of rajya novana sanvidane give that name partly because they have no idea of the origin of non-governmental organizations. NGOs came into the limelight, as donor agencies, noticed that some governments, in East Africa, in particular, did not have the capacity and the integrity to use the resources that they provided. They construed, about 1970, that NGOs would be a solution to the problem. Little did they realize that some NGOs themselves would become dens of thieves and brigands. I have not seen any evaluation of the performance of NGOs in any country. There was an incomplete essay written by Dr. Susantha Gunatilleka. NGOs are alternatives to the government, not to the state.
Our Constitution emphatically draws a distinction between the government and state, and lays down that the President is both Head of Government and Head of State (Read Article 2 and Article 30 of the Constitution.) It is as head of state that, he/she is the Commander of the Armed Forces, appoints and receives ambassadors and addresses Parliament annually, when a prorogued Parliament, reconvenes. He/she presides over the Cabinet as head of government. The distinction is most clear, in practice, in Britain where Queen Elizabeth is the head of state and Boris Johnson is the Prime Minister and head of government. However, in principle, Johnson is the Queen’s First Minister appointed by the sovereign, and resigns by advising her of his decision to do so.
In the US and in India the term ‘state’ has special significance. In India there is a ‘rajya sabha’ (the Council of States) whose members represent constituent States and Union Territories. Pretty much the same is true of the United States. In the US, executive power is vested in the President and heads the administration, government in our parlance. The Head of State does not come into the Constitution but those functions that one associates with a head of state are in the US performed by the President of the Republic. The US President does not speak of my state (mage rajaya) but of my administration, (mage anduva). Annually, he addresses Congress on the State of the Union. Our present President must be entirely familiar with all this, having lived there as a citizen of the US for over a decade. It is baffling when someone speaks of a past state as a traitor to that same state. It is probable that a government was a traitor to the state. ‘Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their (States’) enemies, giving them aid and comfort’. That a state was a traitor to the same state is gobbledygook.
Apart from probable confusion that we spoke of in the previous paragraph, it is probable that a president and other members of a government, including members of the governing party here, find it grandiloquent to speak of his/her/their state (mage/ape rajaya), rather than my government (mage anduva) or Sirisena anduva’ and not Sirisena state; it was common to talk of ‘ape anduva’ in 1956; politicians in 1956 were far more literate then than they are now.
When translating from another language, make sure that you understand a bit of the history of the concept that you translate. A public school in the US is not the same as a public school in the UK.
MAHADENAMUTTA
