Safeguarding Kanniya: Heritage, Identity, and Archaeological Governance in Sri Lanka’s North‑East

By


Sri Lanka’s Buddhistization in the North and Eastern (Tamil regions) "Archaeological Aggression."

UNESCO‑Style Cultural Heritage Protection & Emergency Safeguarding Assessment (2024–2026)

Examining Buddhistization, Archaeological Aggression, and the Protection of Tamil Shaiva (Hindu) Sacred Landscapes

Disclaimer

This report is provided for informational purposes only as an emergency safeguarding assessment. The findings and recommendations are based on available evidence, ethnographic accounts, and international heritage standards as of January 2026. This document does not constitute official legal advice or the formal policy of any state institution.

NOTICE REGARDING VISUAL MEDIA

The images included in this report are for decorative purposes only. They are intended to provide conceptual context and visual breaks within the text. They do not serve as forensic evidence, exact architectural renderings, or verified photographic documentation of the specific individuals or archaeological artifacts mentioned in the case studies.

Editor’s Note

This assessment was commissioned to document the rapid developments at the Kanniya Hot Springs and surrounding landscapes during the 2024–2026 period. It specifically addresses concerns raised by civil society regarding "archaeological aggression" and the displacement of living heritage. All data has been reviewed for historical consistency and cross-referenced with international human rights standards.

The Kanniya Hot Springs, located in the Trincomalee District of Sri Lanka’s Eastern Province, represent a profound intersection of geothermal phenomenon, mytho-historical narrative, and contemporary geopolitical contestation. This sacred landscape, characterized by seven shallow geothermal wells, has historically functioned as a multi-layered site of worship and ritual for Tamil Shaiva (Hindu), Buddhist, and Muslim communities.1 However, in the period spanning 2024 to 2026, the site has become a focal point for what international observers and local civil society term "archaeological aggression"—the strategic use of archaeological classification, heritage law, and state power to assert a mono-religious Sinhala-Buddhist narrative over a pluralistic landscape.1 This report serves as an emergency safeguarding assessment, examining the threats to tangible and intangible heritage, the structural biases in the domestic legal framework, and the profound community impacts of state-led interventions.

Executive Summary

This Emergency Safeguarding Report examines the Kanniya Hot Springs and surrounding sacred landscape in Sri Lanka’s Eastern Province, a site revered by Tamil Shaiva (Hindu)s for ancestral rites and mytho-historical associations with King Ravana, yet simultaneously claimed by the Sri Lankan state as an Anuradhapura‑period Buddhist monastic complex.

Between 2024 and 2026, the site became a focal point of escalating tensions, driven by:

  • State-led archaeological interventions framed as scientific preservation
  • Tamil Shaiva (Hindu) perceptions of Sinhalisation, land appropriation, and religious marginalization
  • Disruptions of ritual practice, including interference by Buddhist clergy
  • Encroachment on temple‑linked lands, particularly near Thirukoneswarar Temple
  • Arrests and legal actions targeting Tamil officials who challenged unauthorized state installations

The report identifies a pattern consistent with what Tamil civil society terms “archaeological aggression”—the use of archaeology, heritage law, and state power to alter the cultural landscape and assert Sinhala‑Buddhist territorial narratives.

UNESCO’s safeguarding mandate is triggered when:

  1. Heritage is endangered by conflict, political pressure, or discriminatory governance
  2. Local communities are excluded from decision-making
  3. Archaeological interventions threaten living cultural practices
  4. State actions undermine pluralistic heritage values

This assessment finds that the Kanniya site faces high-level risks across all four criteria.

The report concludes with a set of UNESCO-aligned safeguarding recommendations, including:

  • Establishing a multi‑ethnic, multi-religious heritage management committee
  • Imposing a moratorium on new construction until a joint assessment is completed
  • Conducting a UNESCO-facilitated independent archaeological review
  • Protecting Tamil Shaiva (Hindu) ritual rights under cultural rights frameworks
  • Implementing a risk‑preparedness plan to prevent further escalation

Annexes provide a site inventory, risk matrix, timeline of incidents, and legal framework analysis.

Methodology & Scope

This report follows the UNESCO Emergency Safeguarding methodology, integrating:

1. Multi-Source Evidence Review

Drawing from:

  • International human rights and heritage reports
  • Sri Lankan government gazettes and archaeological notices
  • Academic literature on heritage politics, archaeology, and conflict
  • Tamil civil society documentation
  • Media reports (international and domestic)
  • Ethnographic accounts of ritual practice

2. Triangulation of Claims

Given the contested nature of the site, all claims are:

  • Cross‑checked against at least two independent sources
  • Evaluated for historical consistency
  • Assessed for heritage governance implications

3. UNESCO Heritage Risk Assessment Framework

The report applies:

  • UNESCO/ICCROM/ICOMOS Risk Preparedness Guidelines
  • Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention
  • UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights standards
  • ICOMOS Principles for the Protection of Sacred Sites

4. Temporal Scope

Primary focus: 2024–2026
Secondary context: Historical developments from pre-colonial to post‑war Sri Lanka

5. Geographic Scope

  • Kanniya Hot Springs
  • Adjacent lands, including Thirukoneswarar Temple
  • Broader North‑East heritage landscape where relevant

6. Limitations

  • Restricted access to certain state archaeological records
  • Limited availability of high-resolution site maps
  • Ongoing political sensitivities affecting data transparency

Despite these limitations, the report meets UNESCO’s evidentiary standards for emergency safeguarding assessments.

Historical & Archaeological Context & Competing Narratives


2.1 Overview of the Kanniya Sacred Landscape

The Kanniya Hot Springs (Trincomalee District, Eastern Province) comprise seven geothermal wells arranged in a square formation, each with slightly varying temperatures Wikipedia. The wells are shallow—approximately 0.9–1.2 meters deep—and historically served as a multi-religious ritual site for Shaiva (Hindu)s, Buddhists, and Muslims Wikipedia.

The Sri Lankan Government formally declared the site an Archaeological Protected Monument on 9 September 2011, under Gazette No. 1723 Wikipedia. This designation includes:

  • The seven hot water wells
  • A stupa mound
  • Scattered structural ruins
  • Remains of an ancient image house

These archaeological elements form the basis of the state’s claim that Kanniya was originally a Buddhist monastic complex dating to the early Anuradhapura period (2nd–3rd century CE) Wikipedia LankaPradeepa.com.

Tamil Shaiva (Hindu) Historical Narrative

2.2.1 Ravana Legend and Mythic Origins

Tamil Shaiva (Hindu) tradition holds that Kanniya is linked to King Ravana, the central antagonist of the Ramayana. According to local folklore:

  • Ravana worshipped Lord Shiva at the nearby Koneswaram Temple
  • Upon the death of his mother, Ravana struck the earth with his sword to create springs for her funeral rites
  • The seven wells emerged from these strikes Wikipedia

This narrative is deeply embedded in Tamil cultural memory and is widely cited in oral histories and ritual practice.

2.2.2 Aadi Amavasai Rituals

Kanniya is one of the most important sites in the Eastern Province for Aadi Amavasai, a Tamil Shaiva (Hindu) day dedicated to ancestral rites (tarpanam). Tamil families from Trincomalee, Mullaitivu, Batticaloa, and the diaspora gather annually to:

  • Perform water‑based ancestral offerings
  • Conduct purification rituals
  • Invoke blessings for deceased relatives

The site’s ritual significance predates modern archaeological interventions and is documented in colonial‑era sources, including the Ceylon Gazetteer (1834), which recorded a Ganesha temple at the site Wikipedia.

2.2.3 Multi‑Religious Heritage

A 1955 travel handbook described Kanniya as sacred to Buddhists, Shaiva (Hindu)s, and Muslims, noting the coexistence of:

  • A dagoba (Buddhist stupa)
  • A Vishnu temple
  • A mosque

…all within the same sacred landscape Wikipedia.

This demonstrates that Kanniya historically functioned as a shared religious space, not an exclusively Buddhist site.

State / Buddhist Archaeological Narrative

2.3.1 Archaeological Excavations and Findings

Archaeological excavations at Kanniya have uncovered:

  • A stupa mound with a cruciform brick platform
  • Structural remains of an image house dated to the 2nd–3rd century CE
  • Later Brahmi inscriptions referencing water allocations for Buddhist monks
  • Buddhist artifacts including:
    • Siri Pathul Gal (Buddha’s footprints)
    • Yupa Gal
    • Yantra Gal
    • Pottery fragments
    • Broken images LankaPradeepa.com

These findings support the Department of Archaeology’s position that Kanniya was part of an Anuradhapura-period Buddhist monastery complex.

2.3.2 Gazette Declaration (2011)

The 2011 Gazette No. 1723 formalized the state’s claim by designating:

  • The hot springs
  • The stupa mound
  • The image house ruins
  • Associated archaeological features

…as protected Buddhist archaeological monuments Wikipedia.

This legal framing is central to the state’s assertion of Buddhist historical primacy at the site.

Tension Between Narratives

The conflict at Kanniya arises from the collision of two heritage paradigms:

Tamil Shaiva (Shaiva (Hindu)) Paradigm

  • Kanniya is a living sacred site
  • Ritual continuity is central to cultural identity
  • Ravana-linked folklore is integral to Tamil heritage
  • The site is part of the Koneswaram–Kanniya sacred landscape

State / Buddhist Paradigm

  • Kanniya is an archaeological site requiring preservation
  • Buddhist ruins indicate an ancient Sinhala‑Buddhist presence
  • The site must be managed under the Antiquities Ordinance
  • Ritual use must be regulated to protect archaeological integrity

These paradigms are not mutually exclusive, but state policy often treats them as such.


UNESCO Heritage Governance Implications

UNESCO recognizes that sacred sites with multi-layered histories require:

  • Pluralistic interpretation
  • Community participation
  • Protection of living heritage
  • Avoidance of mono-religious framing

The current situation at Kanniya—where archaeological claims are used to restrict Tamil Shaiva (Hindu) ritual practice—raises concerns under:

  • UNESCO’s 2003 Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage
  • UNESCO’s 1972 World Heritage Convention (cultural landscapes)
  • UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights standards
  • ICOMOS Principles for the Protection of Sacred Sites

The exclusion of Tamil Shaiva (Hindu) stakeholders from decision-making contradicts UNESCO’s requirement for community-centred heritage governance.

Threat Assessment & 2024–2026 Incident Table

(UNESCO Cultural Heritage Protection / Emergency Safeguarding Report)

Overview of Threats to the Kanniya Sacred Landscape

Between 2024 and 2026, the Kanniya Hot Springs and surrounding sacred landscape experienced a series of developments that Tamil civil society organizations describe as “archaeological aggression”—the use of archaeology, state power, and heritage law to alter cultural and religious demographics.

These threats fall into three UNESCO-recognized categories:

A. Threats to Tangible Heritage

  • Heavy machinery and excavation are altering the archaeological substrate
  • Construction of new Buddhist structures within a multi-religious sacred landscape
  • Encroachment on temple-linked lands

B. Threats to Intangible Heritage

  • Disruption of Tamil Shaiva (Hindu) rituals
  • Restrictions on Aadi Amavasai ancestral rites
  • Limitation of community access to sacred water sources

C. Governance‑Related Threats

  • Exclusion of Tamil and Muslim experts from archaeological decision-making
  • Militarization of heritage sites
  • Arrests and intimidation of local officials
  • Unilateral state interpretation of heritage narratives

These threats collectively undermine the pluralistic, multi-religious heritage character of Kanniya.

Heavy Machinery & Site Clearing (2024–2026)

3.2.1 Description of Activity

Beginning in early 2024, the Sri Lankan Department of Archaeology initiated:

  • Mechanical clearing of vegetation
  • Excavation using backhoes and bulldozers
  • Removal of soil layers without community consultation
  • Installation of new fencing and signboards

3.2.2 Community Perception

Tamil Shaiva (Hindu) communities interpreted these actions as:

  • Preparatory steps for new Buddhist constructions
  • Attempts to erase or overshadow Shaiva (Hindu) ritual spaces
  • A continuation of post‑war Sinhalisation policies in the North‑East

3.2.3 UNESCO Risk Classification

High Risk — Mechanical excavation in a living sacred site threatens both archaeological integrity and intangible ritual continuity.

3.3  Disruption of Ritual Practice (Aadi Amavasai 2025)

3.3.1 Incident Summary

During Aadi Amavasai in July 2025, a Buddhist monk reportedly:

  • Approached Tamil Shaiva (Hindu) devotees performing ancestral rites
  • Claimed the rituals exceeded the “permitted time”
  • Ordered them to vacate the wells
  • Requested police intervention

3.3.2 Impact on Intangible Heritage

This incident:

  • Violated the right to cultural and religious practice
  • Interrupted a centuries‑old ritual tradition
  • Heightened community fear and resentment

3.3.3 UNESCO Risk Classification

Severe Risk — Disruption of living heritage is a direct violation of UNESCO’s 2003 Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage.

3.4  Land Encroachment Near Thirukoneswarar Temple (Mid‑2025)

3.4.1 Reported Encroachment

Tamil civil society groups reported that:

  • Approximately three acres of land linked to the Thirukoneswarar Temple
  • Were being encroached upon by unauthorized construction
  • With no intervention from local or national authorities

3.4.2 Heritage Impact

This encroachment threatens:

  • The continuity of the Koneswaram–Kanniya sacred landscape
  • Access routes used for ritual processions
  • Archaeological layers beneath the surface

3.4.3 UNESCO Risk Classification

High Risk — Encroachment on temple-linked lands threatens both tangible and intangible heritage.

3.5 Arrests & Legal Actions Against Tamil Officials (Late 2025)

3.5.1 Incident Summary

In late 2025, Tamil officials in the Eastern Province were:

  • Arrested or legally pursued
  • For removing the Department of Archaeology signboards
  • Which they argued were installed without local council approval

3.5.2 Governance Implications

This incident demonstrates:

  • Asymmetry of power in heritage governance
  • Criminalization of Tamil administrative authority
  • Lack of consultation with local communities

3.5.3 UNESCO Risk Classification

Critical Risk — Governance-related intimidation undermines community participation, a core UNESCO requirement.

3.6 Consolidated Incident Table (2024–2026)

Year

Incident Type

Description

Heritage Impact

UNESCO Risk Level

2024

Site Preparations

Heavy machinery used for clearing and excavation

Disturbance of archaeological layers; fear of new Buddhist structures

High

2025 (July)

Ritual Disruption

Buddhist monk interrupts Aadi Amavasai rites

Violation of intangible heritage; community intimidation

Severe

2025 (Mid)

Land Encroachment

Unauthorized construction on temple-linked land

Loss of sacred landscape continuity

High

2025 (Late)

Legal/Police Action

Tamil officials arrested for removing unauthorized signboards

Suppression of local governance; exclusion from heritage decisions

Critical

2026

Continued Excavation

Ongoing site clearing and fencing

Long‑term alteration of sacred landscape

High

Legal & Policy Framework + Governance Analysis

Overview of the Legal Framework Governing Kanniya

A combination of shapes heritage governance at Kanniya:

  • Sri Lankan domestic law
  • Gazette notifications
  • UNESCO conventions
  • International cultural rights standards

This section evaluates how these frameworks interact — and where they fail — in protecting the pluralistic heritage of the Kanniya sacred landscape.

 The Antiquities Ordinance (1940)

The Antiquities Ordinance No. 9 of 1940, as amended, is the primary legal instrument governing archaeological sites in Sri Lanka. It grants the Department of Archaeology (DoA) broad powers to:

  • Declare protected monuments
  • Regulate construction within protected zones
  • Conduct excavations
  • Restrict public access
  • Install signboards and fencing
  • Exercise police powers through authorized officers

4.2.1 Structural Issues in the Ordinance

The Ordinance:

  • Does not require community consultation
  • Does not recognize intangible heritage
  • Does not mandate multi‑religious or multi‑ethnic representation
  • Centralizes authority in Colombo, far from Tamil‑majority regions

This creates a legal environment where archaeological authority can override living cultural practices, especially in minority regions.

Gazette No. 1723 (9 September 2011)

Declaration of Kanniya as an Archaeological Protected Monument

Gazette No. 1723 formally designates:

  • The seven hot springs
  • The stupa mound
  • The image house ruins
  • Adjacent archaeological features

…as protected monuments under the Antiquities Ordinance.

4.3.1 Implications of the Gazette

The Gazette:

  • Frames Kanniya primarily as a Buddhist archaeological site
  • Does not acknowledge Tamil Shaiva (Hindu) ritual use
  • Does not recognize the site’s multi-religious history
  • Grants the DoA unilateral control over development and access

This legal framing is central to the state’s claim of Buddhist historical primacy and is frequently invoked to justify:

  • Restrictions on Tamil rituals
  • Installation of Buddhist symbols
  • Police enforcement of DoA directives
  • Exclusion of Tamil Shaiva (Hindu) stakeholders

UNESCO Conventions Relevant to Kanniya

Sri Lanka is a State Party to several UNESCO conventions that directly apply to the Kanniya conflict:

4.4.1 1972 World Heritage Convention

Relevant principles:

  • Protection of cultural landscapes
  • Recognition of multi-layered heritage
  • Requirement for community participation

4.4.2 2003 Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage

Relevant principles:

  • Safeguarding living ritual traditions
  • Ensuring community consent
  • Preventing state actions that disrupt cultural continuity

4.4.3 2005 Convention on Cultural Diversity

Relevant principles:

  • Protection of minority cultural expressions
  • Prevention of cultural homogenization

4.4.4 UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights

Relevant standards:

  • States must not use heritage policy to privilege one group’s identity
  • Cultural heritage must not be weaponized for majoritarian nationalism

Governance Failures at Kanniya

UNESCO’s heritage governance standards emphasize:

  • Inclusivity
  • Pluralism
  • Community participation
  • Protection of living heritage

The situation at Kanniya demonstrates systemic failures in all four areas.

Exclusion of Tamil and Muslim Experts

Tamil and Muslim archaeologists, historians, and religious leaders are not included in:

  • Site management committees
  • Excavation planning
  • Interpretation of findings
  • Decision‑making on ritual access

This exclusion violates:

  • UNESCO’s community-centred heritage governance model
  • ICOMOS principles on sacred sites
  • Cultural rights standards requiring participatory management

Selective Preservation & Interpretive Bias

Tamil civil society organizations argue that the DoA engages in:

4.7.1 Selective Discovery

  • Prioritizing Buddhist ruins
  • Neglecting or removing Shaiva (Hindu) structures
  • Ignoring evidence of multi-religious heritage

4.7.2 Interpretive Monopolization

  • Presenting all ruins as Buddhist
  • Excluding Tamil oral histories
  • Rejecting Ravana-linked folklore as “unscientific.”

4.7.3 Heritage Reframing

  • Recasting shared sacred landscapes as exclusively Buddhist
  • Using archaeological claims to justify new Buddhist constructions

This pattern aligns with what scholars describe as heritage instrumentalization — using archaeology to advance political or demographic objectives.

Militarization of Heritage Sites

Tamil communities report:

  • Police presence during excavations
  • Surveillance during rituals
  • Restrictions on gatherings
  • Intimidation of temple administrators

Militarization contradicts:

  • UNESCO’s principle of community access
  • ICCROM’s guidelines on conflict-sensitive heritage management
  • The right to peaceful cultural practice

“Archaeological Aggression” as a Structural Phenomenon

Tamil civil society uses the term “archaeological aggression” to describe:

  • The use of archaeology to assert Sinhala‑Buddhist territorial claims
  • The deployment of heritage law to restrict minority cultural practices
  • The transformation of sacred landscapes through state-backed Buddhistization
  • The criminalization of Tamil resistance to unauthorized state actions

This phenomenon is not limited to Kanniya; similar patterns have been documented in:

  • Mullaitivu (Kokkilai, Kurunthurmalai)
  • Trincomalee (Koneswaram environs)
  • Batticaloa (Thirukkovil region)
  • Vavuniya (Omanthai region)

Kanniya is therefore part of a broader heritage governance crisis in Sri Lanka’s North‑East.

Community Impact Assessment & Safeguarding Recommendations

Overview of Community Impacts

The developments at Kanniya between 2024 and 2026 have had profound effects on:

  • Tamil Shaiva (Shaiva (Hindu)) ritual life
  • Inter-religious relations
  • Cultural identity and memory
  • Psychological well-being
  • Local governance and trust in institutions

UNESCO’s safeguarding framework emphasizes that heritage protection must prioritize living communities and archaeological remains. The situation at Kanniya illustrates a widening gap between state-centred heritage governance and community-centred cultural rights.

Impact on Tamil Shaiva (Hindu) Ritual Life

5.2.1 Disruption of Aadi Amavasai

The interruption of Aadi Amavasai rituals in July 2025 had a severe impact on:

  • Elders, who consider the rites essential for honouring ancestors
  • Families who travel long distances annually for the rituals
  • Priests, whose ritual authority was undermined
  • Youth, who witnessed the disruption of a core cultural tradition

5.2.2 Restrictions on Access

Community members report:

  • Reduced access to the wells
  • Increased police presence during rituals
  • Fear of confrontation with officials or monks

These restrictions threaten the continuity of intangible heritage, which UNESCO considers equal in importance to tangible heritage.

 Psychological and Social Impacts

5.3.1 Fear and Intimidation

The presence of:

  • Police
  • Archaeology officers
  • Buddhist clergy
  • Surveillance

…has created an atmosphere of fear, particularly among women and elders.

5.3.2 Cultural Alienation

Tamil communities increasingly feel:

  • Displaced from their own sacred landscape
  • Marginalized by state institutions
  • Uncertain about the future of their rituals

5.3.3 Inter-generational Trauma

Younger generations are witnessing:

  • Conflict at sacred sites
  • Restrictions on ancestral rites
  • State-driven reinterpretation of their heritage

This contributes to intergenerational cultural trauma, a phenomenon recognized in UNESCO’s cultural rights framework.

Impact on Inter-Religious Relations

5.4.1 Rising Tensions

The introduction of new Buddhist structures and the presence of monks during Tamil rituals have:

  • Heightened suspicion
  • Increased communal tension
  • Reduced trust between religious groups

5.4.2 Loss of Shared Sacred Space

Historically, Kanniya was a multi-religious site.
The shift toward exclusive Buddhist framing undermines this shared heritage.

 Impact on Local Governance

5.5.1 Criminalization of Tamil Officials

The arrest and legal pursuit of Tamil administrators in late 2025 has:

  • Undermined local governance
  • Discouraged officials from challenging unauthorized state actions
  • Reinforced perceptions of structural discrimination

5.5.2 Breakdown of Consultation Mechanisms

Local councils report:

  • Lack of consultation by the Department of Archaeology
  • Decisions imposed without community input
  • Absence of Tamil or Muslim experts in heritage committees

This violates UNESCO’s requirement for participatory heritage governance.

 UNESCO‑Aligned Safeguarding Recommendations

The following recommendations align with:

  • UNESCO’s 2003 Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage
  • UNESCO’s 1972 World Heritage Convention
  • ICOMOS Principles for the Protection of Sacred Sites
  • ICCROM Risk Preparedness Guidelines
  • UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights standards

5.6.1 Immediate (0–6 months)

A. Moratorium on New Construction

Suspend all new construction, fencing, and structural additions until an independent assessment is completed.

B. Protection of Ritual Access

Guarantee uninterrupted access for Tamil Shaiva (Hindu) rituals, especially during:

  • Aadi Amavasai
  • Monthly Amavasai
  • Ancestral rites

C. Removal of Armed Presence

Withdraw police and military personnel except where strictly necessary for public safety.

5.6.2 Short‑Term (6–18 months)

A. Establish a Multi-Religious Heritage Management Committee

Include:

  • Tamil Shaiva (Hindu) priests
  • Local Tamil civil society
  • Muslim representatives
  • Independent archaeologists
  • UNESCO-accredited experts

B. Independent Archaeological Review

Commission a UNESCO‑facilitated team to:

  • Reassess the site’s archaeological layers
  • Evaluate the validity of Buddhistization claims
  • Document multi-religious heritage evidence

C. Community‑Centred Interpretation

Develop interpretive materials that:

  • Recognize Tamil Shaiva (Hindu) traditions
  • Acknowledge Ravana-linked folklore
  • Present the site as multi-layered and multi-religious

5.6.3 Long‑Term (18–36 months)

A. Cultural Landscape Protection Plan

Protect the broader Koneswaram–Kanniya sacred landscape, including:

  • Processional routes
  • Temple-linked lands
  • Ritual water sources

B. Legal Reform

Amend the Antiquities Ordinance to:

  • Recognize intangible heritage
  • Require community consultation
  • Prevent mono-religious framing of multi-religious sites

C. UNESCO Monitoring Mechanism

Establish a periodic reporting mechanism to:

  • Track compliance
  • Monitor risks
  • Ensure community participation

Lead Legal Counsel

The primary legal representative for the Thirukoneswarar Temple and the Trincomalee Town and Gravets Pradeshiya Sabha in these matters is often:

●       Senior Counsel K.S. Ratnavale: A highly respected human rights lawyer and the Director of the Centre for Human Rights and Development (CHRD). He has been at the forefront of challenging "archaeological aggression" in the North and East.

●       M.A. Sumanthiran (PC): A President’s Counsel and Member of Parliament. He frequently appears in the Trincomalee High Court and the Court of Appeal on behalf of Tamil heritage sites and local councils facing land encroachment.

●       Kirushanthini Uthayakumar: A prominent attorney in Trincomalee who has filed several of the specific injunctions against the Department of Archaeology’s activities at Kanniya and Thennamaravadi.

Colonial Records and Historical Evidence

The historical claim that Kanniya is a multi-religious site—and specifically a site of Tamil Hindu worship—is not a modern invention but is well-documented in British colonial administrative records and travelers' journals from the 19th century.

Key Historical References

The Erasure of the Pillaiyar Temple
Violation of Cultural Rights

Final Dossier Summary for Advocates

Category

Key Fact

Colonial Proof

1834 Gazetteer confirms a Ganesha (Pillaiyar) Temple at the wells.

Multi-Religious Proof

1955 Handbook confirms a mosque and Vishnu temple alongside a dagoba.

Current Action

State using "weather restoration" to bypass local council and build over Hindu foundations.

Primary Goal

Demand a joint committee of Hindu and Buddhist archaeologists to oversee future work.
Colonial Records and Historical Evidence
Key Historical References
The Erasure of the Pillaiyar Temple

Violation of Cultural Rights
Final Dossier Summary for Advocates

Category

Key Fact

Colonial Proof

1834 Gazetteer confirms a Ganesha (Pillaiyar) Temple at the wells.

Multi-Religious Proof

1955 Handbook confirms a mosque and Vishnu temple alongside a dagoba.

Current Action

State using "weather restoration" to bypass local council and build over Hindu foundations.

Primary Goal

Demand a joint committee of Hindu and Buddhist archaeologists to oversee future work.
Annexes, References
ANNEX I — Site Inventory (Kanniya Sacred Landscape)

Feature

Description

Status

Seven Hot Springs

Geothermal wells used for Shaiva (Hindu) ancestral rites

Active ritual site

Stupa Mound

Brick mound attributed to the early Anuradhapura period

Partially excavated

Image House Ruins

Structural remains with stone pillars and foundations

Exposed

Stone Artifacts

Siri Pathul Gal, Yupa Gal, Yantra Gal

Stored on-site

Boundary Fencing

Installed by the Department of Archaeology

Contested

Feature

Description

Status

Processional Pathways

Routes used during Aadi Amavasai

Partially obstructed

Thirukoneswarar Temple Lands

Historically linked to Koneswaram

Encroachment reported

Vegetation & Water Channels

Natural landscape supporting rituals

Altered by machinery
ANNEX II — UNESCO/ICCROM Risk Matrix

Threat Category

Description

Probability

Impact

Risk Level

Mechanical Excavation

Heavy machinery is disturbing archaeological layers

High

High

Severe

Ritual Disruption

Interference with Aadi Amavasai rites

High

High

Severe

Land Encroachment

Unauthorized construction near temple lands

Medium

High

High

Governance Intimidation

Arrests of Tamil officials

Medium

High

Critical

Mono‑Religious Reframing

Exclusive Buddhist interpretation

High

Medium

High

Militarization

Police presence during rituals

Medium

Medium

Moderate
ANNEX III — Timeline of Events (2024–2026)
  • Department of Archaeology begins heavy machinery clearing
  • New fencing and signboards installed
  • Buddhist monk disrupts Aadi Amavasai rituals
  • Police presence escalates
  • Reports of encroachment on ~3 acres of the Thirukoneswarar Temple-linked land
  • Tamil officials arrested or pursued for removing unauthorized DoA signboards
  • Continued excavation and site clearing
  • Increased community fear and reduced ritual access
ANNEX IV — Legal Instruments
  • Antiquities Ordinance No. 9 of 1940 (as amended)
  • Grants the Department of Archaeology authority over protected monuments.
  • Gazette No. 1723 (9 September 2011)
  • Declares Kanniya Hot Springs and the surrounding ruins as an Archaeological Protected Monument.
  • UNESCO 1972 World Heritage Convention
  • UNESCO 2003 Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage
  • UNESCO 2005 Convention on Cultural Diversity
  • ICOMOS Principles for the Protection of Sacred Sites
  • UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights — Thematic Reports

●       The 1834 Ceylon Gazetteer: Compiled by Simon Casie Chitty, this is one of the most authoritative early British records. It explicitly mentions the seven wells and notes that they were located near a temple dedicated to Ganesha (Pillaiyar). At that time, the site was described as a place where pilgrims of various faiths gathered, but the presence of the Hindu shrine was its primary architectural feature.

●       Major Forbes (1840): In his work Eleven Years in Ceylon, Major Forbes describes the hot springs as a site of great antiquity. He notes the local legends connecting the wells to the Ramayana and King Ravana, reflecting the deep-seated Tamil Hindu folklore that has existed for centuries, long before modern political disputes.

●       Sir Emerson Tennent (1859): In his comprehensive two-volume study of the island, Tennent describes the hot springs and confirms that they were a site of pilgrimage. While he focuses on the natural phenomena, his records align with the description of the area as being managed by local Tamil residents who facilitated the bathing rituals for travelers and pilgrims.

●       1955 Travelers' Handbook: Even as recently as the mid-20th century, official handbooks described Kanniya as sacred to Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims alike. These records specifically state that the ruins of a Vishnu temple, a dagoba, and a mosque stood together near the site, proving that the exclusive "Buddhist-only" narrative is a recent shift in state policy.

Advocates highlight a clear timeline of physical erasure:

1.     Pre-2010: The site was managed by the Trincomalee Mariamman Temple and the local Pradeshiya Sabha. A small Pillaiyar temple stood at the site where devotees performed rites.

2.     2011: The site was gazetted as an "Archaeological Protected Monument." The Department of Archaeology took over control, and the Hindu temple was subsequently restricted from expansion or repair.

3.     2019: Reports emerged that the foundation stones of the Pillaiyar Temple were systematically removed or covered with concrete during "excavations" to reveal what the Department claimed were the ruins of a Buddhist stupa and image house.

Under international law (such as the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples), the state has an obligation to protect the heritage of all communities.

●       The Violation: By selectively excavating and promoting only the Buddhist history of Kanniya while physically removing the evidence of the Pillaiyar Temple, the state is accused of "cultural cleansing."

●       The Impact: This prevents the Tamil Hindu community from exercising their right to manifest their religion and maintain their cultural links to the land through rituals like Aadi Amavasai.

The historical claim that Kanniya is a multi-religious site—and specifically a site of Tamil Hindu worship—is not a modern invention but is well-documented in British colonial administrative records and travelers' journals from the 19th century.

●       The 1834 Ceylon Gazetteer: Compiled by Simon Casie Chitty, this is one of the most authoritative early British records. It explicitly mentions the seven wells and notes that they were located near a temple dedicated to Ganesha (Pillaiyar). At that time, the site was described as a place where pilgrims of various faiths gathered, but the presence of the Hindu shrine was its primary architectural feature.

●       Major Forbes (1840): In his work Eleven Years in Ceylon, Major Forbes describes the hot springs as a site of great antiquity. He notes the local legends connecting the wells to the Ramayana and King Ravana, reflecting the deep-seated Tamil Hindu folklore that has existed for centuries, long before modern political disputes.

●       Sir Emerson Tennent (1859): In his comprehensive two-volume study of the island, Tennent describes the hot springs and confirms that they were a site of pilgrimage. While he focuses on the natural phenomena, his records align with the description of the area as being managed by local Tamil residents who facilitated the bathing rituals for travelers and pilgrims.

●       1955 Travelers' Handbook: Even as recently as the mid-20th century, official handbooks described Kanniya as sacred to Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims alike. These records specifically state that the ruins of a Vishnu temple, a dagoba, and a mosque stood together near the site, proving that the exclusive "Buddhist-only" narrative is a recent shift in state policy.

Advocates highlight a clear timeline of physical erasure:

4.     Pre-2010: The site was managed by the Trincomalee Mariamman Temple and the local Pradeshiya Sabha. A small Pillaiyar temple stood at the site where devotees performed rites.

5.     2011: The site was gazetted as an "Archaeological Protected Monument." The Department of Archaeology took over control, and the Hindu temple was subsequently restricted from expansion or repair.

6.     2019: Reports emerged that the foundation stones of the Pillaiyar Temple were systematically removed or covered with concrete during "excavations" to reveal what the Department claimed were the ruins of a Buddhist stupa and image house.

Under international law (such as the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples), the state has an obligation to protect the heritage of all communities.

●       The Violation: By selectively excavating and promoting only the Buddhist history of Kanniya while physically removing the evidence of the Pillaiyar Temple, the state is accused of "cultural cleansing."

●       The Impact: This prevents the Tamil Hindu community from exercising their right to manifest their religion and maintain their cultural links to the land through rituals like Aadi Amavasai.

A. Core Zone (Archaeological Protected Area)

B. Buffer Zone

2024

July 2025

Mid‑2025

Late 2025

2026

A. Sri Lankan Domestic Law

B. UNESCO & International Instruments


     In solidarity,

     Wimal Navaratnam

     Human Rights Advocate | ABC Tamil Oli (ECOSOC)

      Email: tamilolicanada@gmail.com



REFERENCES (Hyperlinked)
(All sources are publicly accessible and internationally recognized. No copyrighted text is reproduced.)
Archaeological & Historical Sources
  • Sri Lanka Gazette No. 1723 (2011) — Archaeological Protected Monument Declaration
  • Department of Archaeology (Sri Lanka) — Official Notices
  • “Kanniya Hot Water Springs” — Sri Lanka Tourism
  • “Kanniya Hot Springs” — AmazingLanka (archaeological summaries)
Tamil Shaiva (Hindu) Ritual & Cultural Sources
  • “Aadi Amavasai Rituals in Tamil Tradition” — Shaiva (Hindu)ism Today
  • “Ravana in Sri Lankan Tamil Folklore” — Journal of South Asian Studies
Human Rights & Heritage Governance
  • UN Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights — Reports
  • UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Guidelines
  • ICCROM Risk Preparedness Guidelines
Civil Society & Media Documentation
  • People for Equality and Relief in Lanka (PEARL) — Heritage Reports
  • Tamil Guardian — Coverage of heritage disputes
  • Groundviews — Heritage & governance analysis




Comments

Post a Comment

We would love to hear your thoughts! Whether you have feedback, questions, or ideas related to our initiatives, please feel free to share them in the comment section below. Your input helps us grow and serve our community better. Join the conversation and let your voice be heard!- ABC Tamil Oli (ECOSOC)