Features

Oddity of the National List – Twins in a Single Body: A Commentary

Published

1 year ago

2024/10/28

by Lokubanda Tillakaratne

Fforthcoming General Election allows us to revisit the state of the 29 individuals commonly known as the National List—apportion members under Article 99 of the Constitution—to join the 196 elected members in parliament as stipulated in Article 98(1). This List is akin to a shadow bicameral legislature with a moiety of members who have no accountability to the voting electors, the people, because they never had to promise anything to the voters and never received a vote explicitly intended for them.

After the September 21st awakening, citizens are yearning to vote again in the General Election to do something to repeal these unpopular, confusing, and least helpful parts in the Constitution that had soured the meaning of governing and supremacy of consent of the governed.

As stipulated in Article 93, voting for Members of Parliament (MPs) is a ‘free’ and ‘equal’ process with secret ballots of the people. In practice, that only applies to the 196 members of the 225-member body in parliament. The voters do not have any direct means to express their preference on the balance of 29 members. That preference is the unfettered prerogative of the party hierarchy, which proposes the names to be considered as potential MPs! The qualification to be nominated into the parliament under this List category is allegiance to and friendship with the party leaders. The Constitution had sidelined the consent of the people in this instance.

After the vote counts at the forthcoming General Election for the 196 representatives, the Commissioner of Elections will announce the 29 representatives selected as per Article 99A to complete the 225-members.

For the upcoming election, the Commissioner of Elections has already proposed and published nominees for this list from each party. However, the Constitution has not offered a mechanism for the electors to vote for the List members. Instead, it allows votes cast by the electors earlier in the day for the 196 to be dusted off and recycled by way of a calculation to apportion 29 names that will become the National List.

On the election night, meanwhile, potential members of this List will revel with the party leaders and bigwigs in Colombo watching the vote count, not for them but for electors who will earn the Just Powers from the masses for governing. They are partying and waiting for the cast votes to be re-used to make the List. The List hopefuls mingle in the cream of the party spending political equity hoping for a place in the 29 group. These individuals probably never left the boundary of their cozy homes to put up a poster on a street corner or hang a string of bunting across main street begging for votes for them. Such low-rung jobs are the burden of the commoners, the 196, not the ones chosen in party headquarters.

An elector can call this a second-tier group of names that gets the same powers as the 196 to govern. But the List members have diffused responsibilities, and some even get ministerial portfolios soon after taking the oath of office. So, without ever having promised anything to the people, this group gets a free ride to the Diyavanna Oya people’s house to benefit from the heavenly perks for five years without ever declaring their position on any issue affecting the lives of the electors. Sweet pensions await them at the end of the term.

Some members of this List have been MPs in parliament through this process since 1994, a full generation and more, without ever receiving a single vote, and some names have been nominated for consecutive terms by diverse parties. Some are past 90 years of age and still seek to gain entrance through the current list published a few weeks ago. This makes this hardly democracy, but a List for a form of old-fashioned gerontocracy.

The recent thundering response from the electorate yearning for youth opens the gates to look seriously at this unusual system of supposed ‘representation’ of people by a motley group of individuals.

Article 99A of the Constitution defining this 29-member List as ‘elected’ is a misnomer. This is only a group primarily known to the party leadership which does the nomination. From the composition and past and present conduct of the List members, it appears those who do the nomination lack discernment and concern for the people and the electoral process.

Recently concluded parliamentary nomination shows what’s wrong with this process. Apportion of 29 individuals as representatives cannot be considered even a Referendum as it is silent in Articles relating to the process of election of President and Representatives. Few individuals who failed badly in the recently held presidential election now appear in the proposed National List for the honour of governing as an MP. A group of men and women, some unknown to many, shall be rammed upon us through a different list as per the Constitution. This List receives legitimacy as MPs only after using votes we cast to elect the other group, the 196 MPs. The well-known secret is that the 29-member group, which could not convince electors to vote for it or would not be likely to win an election, gets the privilege now to govern the electors, We the People.

Article 99 is a vehicle for favouritism and nepotism. The List seems to carry strands of DNA showing connectivity to diverse lines of political ancestry going back to early 1900s. Some have failed or are tired of their other interests or think inclusion in the List might enhance their opportunities for new pursuits. The consensus among the electors is that this List has become a landing spot for spouses, sons, and daughters of sitting or former politicians, retirees, and financial backers of the party to govern without an electoral consent. Others are close followers of the political echelon, and some are in occupations with nothing to do with governing.

After every election cycle, the new List is headed for perks like free housing in Colombo, V8-class behemoths, or luxury sedans with windows with tinted glass, all at the expense of the people. While holding office, when they get out of the car, they walk with the ostentation of a peacock. When they lose, they hide the car in a friend’s garage and disappear like Hippos out of water. To evict them from the government issued house in Colombo, the only way is to smoke them out like we do with a bee-hive.

These perks are only dreams for a teacher with 20 years of service in the Wellaragama school of 180 students in Galenbindunuwewa Education Zone. He must beg for a loan to build his home. With the first installment cheque, before starting on the foundation, he must erect the electrified elephant fence around the house plot.

Giving the powers and privileges of 196 to the 29 moiety of membership too in the parliament is a half-cooked process. Only one group goes through the rigours of the competitive electoral process while the other group, the chosen ones, gets its pass to parliament on a silver platter without shedding a drop of sweat. They come to represent people as an all-Island team without any mandate, consent of the people, or electoral district boundary which is mandated for the 196. Theirs is a shore-to-shore boundary. Although the National List is constitutional, this manifestly odd practice on the fringes and below surface democracy has been a source of dissatisfaction and discussion among the people. It is a broken moment in Sri Lanka’s democratic process we hold dear.

While the elected 196 representatives have earned the honour by going from door to door in the district, the List members have never come before the people asking for votes. They never get off stage. After failing in previous elections, some had a minimal chance of succeeding at another election to be elevated to the real ranks of the elected. The electors will not get an opportunity to hear from the List collectively or individually to know what their policy proposals for a particular electoral district are. The List members sit in the august chamber anyway, with the blessings of genealogical magic and the know-how of the party hierarchy.

The right to govern is a privilege earned by the representatives through votes of the governed. While the 196 passes this test, from the way the 29 group was nominated, it shows it is exempted from that test. The former earns the honour after campaigning at a granular level, while the latter, the handpicked colleagues of the party stratosphere, are handed the keys to the parliament at the party office in Colombo.

Political leadership has learned ways to circumvent the original intent of Article 99A. The process of the 29 is sullied, often wiled, and wandered off from the universal democratic maxim best described in the classic document of democracy, the American Declaration of Independence – governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. For the 99A, consent of the party hierarchy is what matters.

With the mandate of this Article, acutely contrary to the Just Powers maxim, the framers of the Constitution have left us with a problem. The National List supposedly was intended to safeguard the underrepresented groups and to augment the experience and expertise capital in the legislative chamber of the elected members. It was an attempt to uphold fairness to the people and encourage pluralistic themes society needs. With a formula prescribed for the tumultuous times we experienced in the early 1980s behind us, I believe time has come to open the conversation about the pros and cons of the National List model.

The past 15 years have shown Sri Lanka has moved past those treacherous times of the 80s. The country enjoys a precious state of ethnic harmony, understanding, and respect for each other, a marked distinction from the encumbrances that plagued us in the past.

Although the intent of the drafters of the Constitution had been sincere and timely, every class of previous Lists sitting in the parliament consisted of few individuals with questionable competency or potential for ability to govern. What part of national and public interest they represent is muddied, to say the least.

Furthermore, the List took its own evolutionary path, not envisioned or expected by the framers, and now appears outdated and unnecessary.

Thus, the twin or binary confusion of the moieties in the parliament chamber begs the question: If experience and expertise were prerequisites for the job of being an MP in the National List category, why not seek the same from the elected, the 196, as well? Or, since such a prerequisite is not required from the elected 196, why not ask the 29 group to enter the electoral process as well, representing assigned districts, and join as conventional MPs?

On the other hand, if the National List of 29 is so indispensable for the interests of the country as much as 196, why bother to mortgage the country to hold the elections to bring in the latter? Instead, why not commission the party leadership to nominate all 225? A few typed sheets of names will do the job. Money saved by this change will allow the Treasury to buy the basic needs of the people. Remember the Panadol days?

In a peculiar way, this governing model reminds me of the allegory in the story of the extraordinary twins in Mark Twain’s Pudd’nhead Wilson (1894). The twins, Italian counts Angelo and Luigi, immigrated to Dawson’s Landing, a frontier town on the banks of Mississippi River. They are conjoined at neck down, have two talking heads, four arms, one body, and two legs. The two heads can think differently and talk things simultaneously; four arms can move whichever way a head prefers, but two legs make the twins walk as one. The two heads have mutually agreed that every Sunday at 12 midnight ownership of the legs changed from one twin to the other. When one gets sick, even if the other’s head is healthy, the whole system breaks down and both heads feel the pain. Then the citizens in Dawson’s Landing call the only practicing physician in town, Dr. Claypool, who is yet to pass the licensing exam.

It is reassuring that since our electoral process has 70 years of experience, voters in Sri Lanka will do without Dr. Claypool’s medical Rx consisting of ingredients like a grain of gold, a bone of the stag’s heart, shavings of ivory, dates, roses, and scores of other items prescribed to ailing twins to correct the conjoined twin syndrome the Constitution has overwhelmed us with. Instead, voters will get the opportunity to heal the 29-class disorder at this forthcoming election. They can vote to stop the backdoor culture of governing and do something to remove the National List misnomer from the Constitution.

This time around, voters must think of our shadow bicameral system of governing while waiting in line to vote. They are at the doorstep of correcting this oddity by voting in a two-thirds majority for a political party of their choice.

Twins’ Story Update

: After Luigi was elected for Dawson’s Landing City Council, he was not allowed to attend 6-member executive council meetings open only to elected members. Council member Luigi was not allowed to sit in the Council chamber because Angelo was not eligible to sit as he was not an elected member. Without Luigi in the council meetings, there was no quorum, law making came to a standstill, and the town was paralyzed. It tried every loophole to make it possible for the twins to sit at the table but found no legal way to do it.

So, they hanged Luigi.

All News Advertisement

Features

Retirement age for judges: Innovation and policy

Published

14 hours ago

2026/04/6

Thilina Walpola

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.

Features

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

Published

14 hours ago

2026/04/6

Thilina Walpola

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

Features

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

Published

14 hours ago

2026/04/6

Thilina Walpola

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