Connect with us

Features

Response to UNHRC Resolutions 46/1 and 51/1

Published

on

Himalee Subhashini Arunatilaka speaking at UNHRC, Geneva

by Neville ladduwahetty

Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Himalee Subhashini Arunatilaka, in her statement to the HR Council stated that Sri Lanka has “consistently rejected Resolutions 46/1 and 51/1”, because Sri Lanka is “in fundamental disagreement with its unacceptable content in particular the so-called evidence gathering mechanism, the establishment of which is unprecedented”. Furthermore, Sri Lanka added that it “goes beyond” the Mandate conferred by the General Assembly on the Human Rights Council by UNGA Resolution 60/251 in 2006.

The UNGA Resolution 60/251 that set up the Human Rights Council in 2006, to replace the Commission that had existed until then, has no mandate to collect evidence relating to the Human Rights situation in any Member State. All it has in para. 5 (e) is: “Undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment” (emphasis added). It is therefore clearly evident that the HRC has taken a unilateral decision to graduate from “objective and reliable information” stated in 5 (e) of its Mandate to an “accountability project” that involves collecting, consolidating, analyzing and preserving information and evidence.

The decision to unilaterally “extend and reinforce the capacity of OHCHR in this manner is not only “unprecedented” as stated by Sri Lanka, but also underscores the fact that no prior precedent had existed in respect of any other country prior to this decision by HRC to single out Sri Lanka in complete violation of the principle of “universality of coverage and equal treatment” of all States as stated in the HRC Mandate. Since equal treatment of all States is one of the key pillars of the Charter and the entire edifice of the UN system, it is unlikely that the UN General Assembly would have been a party to extending and reinforcing the capacity of the OHCHR without formally revising the mandate of the HRC

If the UNGA had given its blessings informally, its own accountability is in serious doubt. On the other hand, IF the HRC’s decision was unilateral the legitimacy of Resolution 46/1 is questionable, thus making the entire exercise of strengthening HRC capacities and the exercise of evidence gathering unlawful, for which the Council has to be held accountable. Furthermore, the States that sponsored Resolutions 46/1 and 51/1 and those that voted in support, are complicit in participating in an exercise that unilaterally amends Mandates conferred by the General Assembly; an act that undermines its own credibility as for its capacity for due process. Therefore, while Sri Lanka’s Representative should be commended for raising the issue that the HRC has gone beyond its Mandate, the opportunity should have been seized to bring to the attention of all the Members of the HR Council the legitimate grounds why Sri Lanka consistently rejected Resolution 46/1 and 51/1 is because these Resolutions have been authenticated without seeking the authority of the UN General Assembly thus violating established practices that are identified with Institutions of the UN.

RESOLUTION 46/1

According to an explanatory note by the OHCHR “the Human Rights Council Mandate, under which the team will operate, is not limited to violations and abuses by a particular party to the conflict or to particular victims, a particular period in time, or any one geographic area of Sri Lanka. It will collect, consolidate, preserve and analyze information and evidence on violations and abuses of international law regardless of which parties or individuals are alleged to have committed them ….”

“In exercising its mandate, it will be possible to provide information to parties in criminal or civil proceedings in national, regional or international courts of competent jurisdiction ….”

Accordingly, the OHCHR appointed “team” would be collecting so-called evidence without limiting it to a period of time or area of Sri Lanka and regardless of who was responsible for them. It is this evidence that would be analyzed and made available to parties engaged in civil or criminal proceedings by courts with competent jurisdictions.

Sri Lanka has serious doubts as to the authenticity of the evidence gathered given the complexities involved. For instance, during the period February 2002 to May 2009 the conflict in Sri Lanka was categorized as an armed conflict by none other than the OHCHR in their report of 2015. Thus, as for an armed conflict, the report states that the applicable law is Common Article 3 to the four Geneva Conventions, which means any violations or abuses committed during the armed conflict must be judged under provisions of International Humanitarian Law and derogated Human Rights Law during a declared emergency as provided by ICCPR that operated from May 2000 to June 2010. On the other hand, since the state of emergency applied to all of Sri Lanka, the derogated Human Rights apply throughout Sri Lanka from May 2000 to June 2010. These complexities, not to mention the lapse of over 15 years makes the authenticity of the evidence gathered highly questionable.

DEROGATED HUMAN RIGHTS

The derogated Human Rights under emergency rules as permitted by ICCPR provisions are:

Articles 9 (2); 9 (3); 12 (1); 12 (2); 14 (3); 17 (1); 19 (2); 21 and 22 of the ICCPR.

Article 9 (2): “Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest the reason for the arrest…”.

Article 9 (3): “Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought before a judge ….”

Article 12 (1): “Everyone lawfully within the territory of State shall have the right to liberty of movement…”.

Article 12 (2): “Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own”.

14 (3): “In the determination of any charge, everyone will shall be entitled to: informed promptly; time to prepare defence; tried without delay; tried in his presence; to examine witnesses against him; access to an interpreter; not to testify against him”.

Article 17 (1): “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to unlawfully attack his honour….”

Article 19 (2): “Right to freedom of

expression ….”

Article 21: “…right to peaceful

assembly ….”

Article 22: “…right to freedom of

association ….”

The OISL report concludes the list of derogated human rights during the period of the armed conflict by stating: “Measures taken pursuant to derogation are lawful to the extant they comply with the conditions set out in international human rights law as provided in Article 4 of ICCPR. This Article states: “In times of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the State Parties to the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law ….”

In keeping with this provision successive Sri Lankan Governments have derogated over a period of 10 years, 9 Articles out of a total of 19 Articles in Part III of the ICCPR that the OISL has declared as being lawful. Despite the adoption of such lawful measures it is only by making Members of the HR Council aware of the extent to which Sri Lanka has gone, that its image could be made to be seen in a more favourable light.

IMPLICATION of

NON-COORPORATION

In her highly commendable statement made by Sri Lanka’s Representative in Geneva said: “Many countries have already serious concerns on the budgetary implications of this Resolution given its dubious mandate. Sri Lanka has repeatedly pointed out that this is an unproductive and unhelpful drain on the resources of the Council and its Members. For all the reasons stated above, Sri Lanka will not cooperate with it.”

The stand of non-corporation taken by Sri Lanka, if it means having to gather evidence without visiting Sri Lanka, would present not only logistical issues but also impact on the quality and acceptability of the evidence in a Court of Law, particularly after the lapse of 15 plus years. Furthermore, whatever evidence that is gathered has to be undertaken not only while being outside Sri Lanka, but also from sources outside Sri Lanka. How authentic would such evidence be without the ability to verify it on the ground?

The intention of the accountability project is to “provide information to parties in criminal or civil proceedings in national, regional or international courts ….” A fact that has to be borne in mind is that since the overwhelming majority of violations and abuses occurred within the territory of Sri Lanka, the primary applicable Law is the Penal Code of Sri Lanka backed by International Customary Law with other Laws acting in their complementary capacities. Whether such courts have the required competency to function effectively is in serious doubt.

CONCLUSION

While it must be acknowledged that the stand taken by Sri Lanka and forcefully articulated by Sri Lanka’s Representative in Geneva was highly commendable, the question that needs to be asked is this: What has caused the issue of accountability to reach such “unprecedented” proportions? Is it the refusal by successive governments to accept that the conflict was a non-International armed conflict as in Common Article 3 of all Geneva Conventions advocated by OHCHR and the applicable framework to address accountability is International Humanitarian law along with derogated Human Rights Law, or was it the misguided notion that accountability should be addressed from a Human Rights perspective e. g. LLRC, because the focus was on reconciliation? The Foreign Ministry has consistently adopted the latter approach and couched the two approaches as Political vs. Legal. Is it this divergence of approaches to address accountability that is the cause for the current state of affairs?

While one can argue for and against either approach, the legal approach resonates with the OHCHR, while the political does not. However, one fact that stands out as a sore thumb is the failure to harness an effective team to articulate Sri Lanka’s position consistently among individual Members of the Council. Instead, the approach has been an individual effort by committed members of the Foreign Ministry. For instance, how many in the Council or the Ministry would know the difference between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law. How many in the Ministry or in the Council would know the extent to which Sri Lanka derogated Human Rights during the armed conflict in keeping with ICCPR provisions. The common opinion in the Ministry is that since Sri Lanka has not ratified Additional Protocol II, its provisions are not applicable to Sri Lanka. They are unaware that the ICJ downward accept Protocol II as part of Customary Law.

Therefore, there is an urgent need to revisit the road Sri Lanka has taken thus far and organise a team that could consistently present to the members of the UNHRC an accurate narrative as to how Sri Lanka conducted itself during and after the armed conflict and also bring to their attention the fact that Resolutions 46/1 and 51/1 are products of a mandate conceived beyond the Mandate conferred by the General Assembly, the consequences for which the HRC has to be held accountable.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Retirement age for judges: Innovation and policy

Published

on

I. The Constitutional Context

Independence of the judiciary is, without question, an essential element of a functioning democracy. In recognition of this, ample provision is made in the highest law of our country, the Constitution, to engender an environment in which the courts are able to fulfil their public responsibility with total acceptance.

As part of this protective apparatus, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are assured of security of tenure by the provision that “they shall not be removed except by an order of the President made after an address of Parliament supported by a majority of the total number of members of Parliament, (including those not present), has been presented to the President for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”[Article 107(2)]. Since this assurance holds good for the entirety of tenure, it follows that the age of retirement should be defined with certainty. This is done by the Constitution itself by the provision that “the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court shall be 65 years and of judges of the Court of Appeal shall be 63 years”[Article 107(5)].

II. A Proposal for Reform

This provision has been in force ever since the commencement of the Constitution. Significant public interest, therefore, has been aroused by the lead story in a newspaper, Anidda of 13 March, that the government is proposing to extend the term of office of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal by a period of two years.

This proposal, if indeed it reflects the thinking of the government, is deeply disturbing from the standpoint of policy, and gives rise to grave consequences. The courts operating at the apex of the judicial structure are called upon to do justice between citizens and also between the state and members of the public. It is an indispensable principle governing the administration of justice that not the slightest shadow of doubt should arise in the public mind regarding the absolute objectivity and impartiality with which the courts approach this task.

What is proposed, if the newspaper report is authentic, is to confer on judges of two particular courts, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, a substantial benefit or advantage in the form of extension of their years of service. The question is whether the implications of this initiative are healthy for the administration of justice.

III. Governing Considerations of Policy

What is at stake is a principle intuitively identified as a pillar of justice.

Reflecting firm convictions, the legal antecedents reiterate the established position with remarkable emphasis. The classical exposition of the seminal standard is, of course, the pronouncement by Lord Hewart: “It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. (Rex v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy). The underlying principle is that perception is no less important than reality. The mere appearance of partiality has been held to vitiate proceedings: Dissanayake v. Kaleel. In particular, reasonableness of apprehension in the mind of the parties to litigation is critical: Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, a reasonable likelihood of bias being necessarily fatal (Manak Lal v. Prem Chaud Singhvi).

The overriding factor is unshaken public confidence in the judiciary: State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak. The decision must be “demonstrably” (Saleem Marsoof J.) fair. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has rightly declared: “The authority of the judiciary ultimately depends on the trust reposed in it by the people, which is sustained only when justice is administered in a visibly fair manner”.

Credibility is paramount in this regard. “Justice has to be seen to be believed” (J.B. Morton). Legality of the outcome is not decisive; process is of equal consequence. Judicial decisions, then, must withstand public scrutiny, not merely legal technicality: Mark Fernando J. in the Jana Ghosha case. Conceived as continuing vitality of natural justice principles, these are integral to justice itself: Samarawickrema J. in Fernando v. Attorney General. Institutional integrity depends on eliminating even the appearance of partiality (Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant), and “open justice is the cornerstone of our judicial system”: (Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI).

IV. Practical Constraints

Apart from these compelling considerations of policy, there are practical aspects which call for serious consideration. The effect of the proposal is that, among all judges operating at different levels in the judicature of Sri Lanka, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal only, to the exclusion of all other judges, are singled out as the beneficiaries of the proposal. An inevitable result is that High Court and District Judges and Magistrates will find their avenues of promotion seriously impeded by the unexpected lengthening of the periods of service of currently serving judges in the two apex courts. Consequently, they will be required to retire at a point of time appreciably earlier than they had anticipated to relinquish judicial office because the prospect of promotion to higher courts, entailing higher age limits for retirement, is precipitately withdrawn. Some degree of demotivation, arising from denial of legitimate expectation, is therefore to be expected.

A possible response to this obvious problem is a decision to make the two-year extension applicable to all judicial officers, rather than confining it to judges of the two highest courts. This would solve the problem of disillusionment at lower levels of the judiciary, but other issues, clearly serious in their impact, will naturally arise.

Public service structures, to be equitable and effective, must be founded on principles of non-discrimination in respect of service conditions and related matters. Arbitrary or invidious treatment is destructive of this purpose. In determining the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, some attention has been properly paid to balance and consistency. The age of retirement of a Supreme Court judge is on par with that applicable to university professors and academic staff in the higher education system. They all retire at 65 years. Members of the public service, generally, retire at 60. Medical specialists retire at 63, with the possibility of extension in special circumstances to 65. The age of retirement for High Court Judges is 61, and for Magistrates and District Judges 60. It may be noted that the policy change in 2022 aimed at specifically addressing the issue of uniformity and compatibility.

If, then, an attempt is made to carve out an ad hoc principle strictly limited to judicial officers, not admitting of a self-evident rationale, the question would inevitably arise whether this is fair by other categories of the public service and whether the latter would not entertain a justifiable sense of grievance.

This is not merely a moral or ethical issue relating to motivation and fulfillment within the public service, but it could potentially give rise to critical legal issues. It is certainly arguable that the proposed course of action represents an infringement of the postulate of equality of treatment, and non-discrimination, enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

There would, as well, be the awkward situation that this issue, almost certain to be raised, would then have to be adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court, itself the direct and exclusive beneficiary of the impugned measure.

V. Piecemeal Amendment or an Overall Approach?

If innovation on these lines is contemplated, would it not be desirable to take up the issue as part of the new Constitution, which the government has pledged to formulate and enact, rather than as a piecemeal amendment at this moment to the existing Constitution? After all, Chapter XV, dealing with the Judiciary, contains provisions interlinked with other salient features of the Constitution, and an integrated approach would seem preferable.

VI. Conclusion

In sum, then, it is submitted that the proposed change is injurious to the institutional integrity of the judiciary and to the prestige and stature of judges, and that it should not be implemented without full consideration of all the issues involved.

By Professor G. L. Peiris
D. Phil. (Oxford), Ph. D. (Sri Lanka);
Former Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs and National Integration;
Quondam Visiting Fellow of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London;
Former Vice-Chancellor and Emeritus Professor of Law of the University of Colombo.

Continue Reading

Features

Ranked 134th in Happiness: Rethinking Sri Lanka’s development through happiness, youth wellbeing and resilience

Published

on

In recent years, Sri Lanka has experienced a succession of overlapping challenges that have tested its resilience. Cyclone Ditwah struck Sri Lanka in November last year, significantly disrupting the normal lives of its citizens. The infrastructure damage is much more serious than the tsunami. According to World Bank reports and preliminary estimates, the losses amounted to approximately US$ 4.1 billion, nearly 4 per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. Before taking a break from that, the emerging crisis in the Middle East has once again raised concerns about potential economic repercussions. In particular, those already affected by disasters such as Cyclone Ditwah risk falling “from the frying pan into the fire,” facing multiple hardships simultaneously. Currently, we see fuel prices rising, four-day workweeks, a higher cost of living, increased pressure on household incomes, and a reduction in the overall standard of living for ordinary citizens. It would certainly affect people’s happiness. As human beings, we naturally aspire to live happy and fulfilling lives. At a time when the world is increasingly talking about happiness and wellbeing, the World Happiness Report provides a useful way of looking at how countries are doing. The World Happiness Report discusses global well-being and offers strategies to improve it. The report is produced annually with contributions from the University of Oxford’s Wellbeing Research Centre, Gallup, the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and other stakeholders. There are many variables taken into consideration for the index, including the core measure (Cantril Ladder) and six explanatory variables (GDP per Capita ,Social Support,Healthy Life Expectancy,Freedom to Make Life Choices,Generosity,Perceptions of Corruption), with a final comparison.

According to the recently published World Happiness Report 2026, Sri Lanka ranks 134th out of 147 nations. As per the report, this is the first time that Sri Lanka has suffered such a decline. Sri Lanka currently trails behind most of its South Asian neighbours in the happiness index. The World Happiness Report 2026 attributes Sri Lanka’s low ranking (134th) to a combination of persistent economic struggles, social challenges, and modern pressures on younger generations. The 2026 report specifically noted that excessive social media use is a growing factor contributing to declining life satisfaction among young people globally, including in Sri Lanka. This calls for greater vigilance and careful reflection. These concerns should be examined alongside key observations, particularly in the context of education reforms in Sri Lanka, which must look beyond their immediate scope and engage more meaningfully with the country’s future.

In recent years, a series of events has triggered political upheaval in countries such as Nepal, characterised by widespread protests, government collapse, and the emergence of interim administration. Most reports and news outlets described this as “Gen Z protests.” First, we need to understand what Generation Z is and its key attributes. Born between 1997 and 2012, Generation Z represents the first truly “digital native” generation—raised not just with the internet, but immersed in it. Their lives revolve around digital ecosystems: TikTok sets cultural trends, Instagram fuels discovery, YouTube delivers learning, and WhatsApp sustains peer communities. This constant, feed-driven engagement shapes not only how they consume content but how they think, act, and spend. Tech-savvy and socially aware, Gen Z holds brands to a higher standard. For them, authenticity, transparency, and accountability—especially on environmental and ethical issues—aren’t marketing tools; they’re baseline expectations. We can also observe instances of them becoming unnecessarily arrogant in making quick decisions and becoming tools of some harmful anti-social ideological groups. However, we must understand that any generation should have proper education about certain aspects of the normal world, such as respecting others, listening to others, and living well. More interestingly, a global survey by the McKinsey Health Institute, covering 42,083 people across 26 countries, finds that Gen Z reports poorer mental health than older cohorts and is more likely to perceive social media as harmful.

Youth health behaviour in Sri Lanka reveals growing concerns in mental health and wellbeing. Around 18% of youth (here, school-going adolescents aged 13-17) experience depression, 22.4% feel lonely, and 11.9% struggle with sleep due to worry, with issues rising alongside digital exposure. Suicide-related risks are significant, with notable proportions reporting thoughts, plans, and attempts, particularly among females. Bullying remains a significant concern, particularly among males, with cyberbullying emerging as a notable issue. At the same time, substance use is increasing, including tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes. These trends highlight the urgent need for targeted interventions to support youth mental health, resilience, and healthier behavioural outcomes in Sri Lanka. We need to create a forum in Sri Lanka to keep young people informed about this. Sri Lanka can designate a date (like April 25th) as a National Youth Empowerment Day to strengthen youth mental health and suicide prevention efforts. This should be supported by a comprehensive, multi-sectoral strategy aligned with basic global guidelines. Key priorities include school-based emotional learning, counselling services, and mental health training for teachers and parents. Strengthening data systems, reducing access to harmful means, and promoting responsible media reporting are essential. Empowering families and communities through awareness and digital tools will ensure this day becomes a meaningful national call to action.

As discussed earlier, Sri Lanka must carefully understand and respond to the challenges arising from its ongoing changes. Sri Lanka should establish an immediate task force comprising responsible stakeholders to engage in discussions on ongoing concerns. Recognising that it is not a comprehensive solution, the World Happiness Index can nevertheless act as an important indicator in guiding a paradigm shift in how we approach education and economic development. For a country seeking to reposition itself globally, Sri Lanka must adopt stronger, more effective strategies across multiple sectors. Building a resilient and prosperous future requires sound policymaking and clear strategic direction.

(The writer is a Professor in Management Studies at the Open University of Sri Lanka. You can reach Professor Abeysekera via nabey@ou.ac.lk)

by Prof. Nalin Abeysekera

Continue Reading

Features

Hidden diversity in Sri Lanka’s killifish revealed: New study reshapes understanding of island’s freshwater biodiversity

Published

on

Aplocheilus parvus

A groundbreaking new study led by an international team of scientists, including Sri Lankan researcher Tharindu Ranasinghe, has uncovered striking genetic distinctions in two closely related killifish species—reshaping long-standing assumptions about freshwater biodiversity shared between Sri Lanka and India.

Published recently in Zootaxa, the research brings together leading ichthyologists such as Hiranya Sudasinghe, Madhava Meegaskumbura, Neelesh Dahanukar and Rajeev Raghavan, alongside other regional experts, highlighting a growing South Asian collaboration in biodiversity science.

For decades, scientists debated whether Aplocheilus blockii and Aplocheilus parvus were in fact the same species. But the new genetic analysis confirms they are “distinct, reciprocally monophyletic sister species,” providing long-awaited clarity to their taxonomic identity.

Speaking to The Island, Ranasinghe said the findings underscore the hidden complexity of Sri Lanka’s freshwater ecosystems.

“What appears superficially similar can be genetically very different,” he noted. “Our study shows that even widespread, common-looking species can hold deep evolutionary histories that we are only now beginning to understand.”

A tale of two fishes

The study reveals that Aplocheilus blockii is restricted to peninsular India, while Aplocheilus parvus occurs both in southern India and across Sri Lanka’s lowland wetlands.

Despite their close relationship, the two species show clear genetic separation, with a measurable “genetic gap” distinguishing them. Subtle physical differences—such as the pattern of iridescent scales—also help scientists tell them apart.

Co-author Sudasinghe, who has led several landmark studies on Sri Lankan freshwater fishes, noted that such integrative approaches combining genetics and morphology are redefining taxonomy in the region.

Echoes of ancient land bridges

The findings also shed light on the ancient biogeographic links between Sri Lanka and India.

Scientists believe that during periods of low sea levels in the past, the two landmasses were connected by the now-submerged Palk Isthmus, allowing freshwater species to move between them.

Later, rising seas severed this connection, isolating populations and driving genetic divergence.

“These fishes likely dispersed between India and Sri Lanka when the land bridge existed,” Ranasinghe said. “Subsequent isolation has resulted in the patterns of genetic structure we see today.”

Meegaskumbura emphasised that such patterns are increasingly being observed across multiple freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka, pointing to a shared evolutionary history shaped by geography and climate.

A deeper genetic divide

One of the study’s most striking findings is that Sri Lankan populations of A. parvus are genetically distinct from those in India, with no shared haplotypes between the two regions.

Dahanukar explained that this level of differentiation, despite relatively recent geological separation, highlights how quickly freshwater species can diverge when isolated.

Meanwhile, Raghavan pointed out that these findings reinforce the importance of conserving habitats across both countries, as each region harbours unique genetic diversity.

Implications for conservation

The study carries important implications for conservation, particularly in a country like Sri Lanka where freshwater ecosystems are under increasing pressure from development, pollution, and climate change.

Ranasinghe stressed that understanding genetic diversity is key to protecting species effectively.

“If we treat all populations as identical, we risk losing unique genetic lineages,” he warned. “Conservation planning must recognise these hidden differences.”

Sri Lanka is already recognised as a global biodiversity hotspot, but studies like this suggest that its biological richness may be even greater than previously thought.

A broader scientific shift

The research also contributes to a growing body of work by scientists such as Sudasinghe and Meegaskumbura, challenging traditional assumptions about species distributions in the region.

Earlier studies often assumed that many freshwater fish species were shared uniformly between India and Sri Lanka. However, modern genetic tools are revealing a far more complex picture—one shaped by ancient geography, climatic shifts, and evolutionary processes.

“We are moving from a simplistic view of biodiversity to a much more nuanced understanding,” Ranasinghe said. “And Sri Lanka is proving to be a fascinating natural laboratory for this kind of research.”

Looking ahead

The researchers emphasise that much remains to be explored, with several freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka still poorly understood at the genetic level.

For Sri Lanka, the message is clear: beneath its rivers, tanks, and wetlands lies a largely untapped reservoir of evolutionary history.

As Ranasinghe puts it:

“Every stream could hold a story of millions of years in the making. We are only just beginning to read them.”

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Trending