Features
The Prime Minister’s visits to Geneva and Mexico City and balancing Indo-Lanka ties
(Excerpted from the autobiography of MDD Peiris, Secretary to the Prime Minister)
In June 1975, the Prime Minister was honoured by the international community with two important assgnments. The first was by the International Labour Organization (ILO), where she was invited to make the keynote address to the new ILO sessions opening in Geneva. The second was by the United Nations where she was invited to make the keynote address at the First UN International Conference on Women to be held in Mexico City, Mexico. She was also due to address The Group of 77 in Geneva.
Manel Abeysekera of the Foreign Ministry and I, accompanied the Prime Minister. We had three major speeches to work on. We already had drafts ready, which were the result of much work and many refinements. But we had decided to finalize them in Geneva after two of our ablest diplomats, Susantha de Alwis and Karen Breckenridge perused them. Gamani Corea was to go through the Group of 77 speech in particular.
Geneva
We left for Geneva on June 8, 1975 by Swissair. En route we landed at Karachi at 1 a.m. and were met at the airport by the Minister of Education and Planning of the Province of Sindh and Mr. Aga Shahi, Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary, who had been specially dispatched from Islamabad for the occasion. After an interesting conversation, we re-boarded and took-off. I worked through the Prime Minister’s Group of 77 speech on the plane. We couldn’t land in Geneva due to fog and were diverted to Zurich. That didn’t work either. Zurich was also fog bound. Finally, we landed at Basle.
This of course meant hassle and delay. For me, this was a worry because we didn’t have much time to finalize the speeches. Susantha and his charming wife, Achala, put us all up in their official residence. Thanks to them, we were relaxed and comfortable. Breckenridge joined us later to work on the speeches. With so many important speeches, coming up so rapidly, work was hectic. Finally, by the time we finished working on the Group of 77 speech, It was 2.15 in the morning.
On June10, at 10 a.m. the Prime Minister addressed the ILO and that afternoon at 3.45 p.m. the Group of 77. To our relief and satisfaction, both addresses were well received. There were several other appointments over the next couple of days, including meetings with the Director General of ILO and senior officials, as well as with various persons knowledgeable on issues of development. We had also to put the finishing touches on the Prime Minister’s address to the conference on Women. Manel and I worked on that.
Mexico City
We next left for Mexico. The journey took us through Houston where there was a refueling stop. Shirley Amerasinghe, our Permanent Representative at the UN was at the airport when we landed. I took the opportunity to show him the speech and inquired whether he had any views. Shirley thought the speech “excellent.” We were pleased that an experienced internationalist like Shirley had this opinion. At the airport at Mexico City, the Prime Minister and party were met by the Foreign Minister; Minister of the Interior; and the Minister for the Presidency and their wives. We were lodged at the Hotel Camino Real, which was both spacious and comfortable.
On June 18 at 10.30 a.m. the Prime Minister called on President Ecchevaria. Talks between the two sides went on till I p.m. and encompassed both bilateral affairs and trade, as well as international affairs. The discussions were friendly and open. There was some delay due to translations. At 1.30 p.m. the President hosted the Prime Minister and delegation to lunch. The Mexican Cabinet; the Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court; other local dignitaries and the diplomatic corps were present.
After coming back to the hotel I telephoned Jayantha Dhanapala of the Foreign Service, at our Embassy in Washington and read out the text of a long statement, which I had drafted for the Sri Lanka newspapers. Since we didn’t have an embassy in Mexico, communications were a problem.
The Prime Minister’s address itself to the conference went off very well and we believe that she received somewhat more than the customary compliments paid to speakers on such occasions.
Our stay in Mexico, though brief was a crowded one with lunches, cultural shows and some sightseeing thrown in which included a visit to the excellent national museum. At one of these lunches hosted by Princess Ashraf, the sister of the Shah of Iran, and which included Ms. Imelda Marcos, I was one of the very few males present. The conversation was wide ranging and interesting with an emphasis on art, culture and social issues.
Just before we left for home, Mr. Olof Palme, Prime Minister of Sweden called on the Prime Minister in her hotel. The youthful looking Mr. Palme had a reputation for being a radical. He had participated in marches and demonstrations in Sweden against the American intervention in the Vietnam War. At the discussions, he displayed a quiet, soft-spoken style. The Mexican Minister of Trade called on the Prime Minister before her departure. At this discussion Mexico agreed to issue licenses for a larger quantity of Sri Lankan cinnamon. At the airport, Valentina Teresckova, the Soviet woman cosmonaut came to meet the Prime Minister. It was a meeting between the first woman in space and the first woman Prime Minister.
Katchativu and the settlement of issues with India
From, about 1973, the Prime Minister was turning her attention to solving the only two outstanding issues with India, that of the ownership of the Island of Katchativu off the Northern coast of Sri Lanka; and that of the remaining 150,000 settlers of Indian origin in the country, which had not been covered by the Sirima-Shastri Pact. Katchativu was a tiny barren island in a part of the sea between Sri Lanka and India where fishermen of both countries engaged in fishing. At certain times of the year, Indian fishermen used to dry their nets on this rocky island. There was also a Catholic festival held there annually by the Sri Lanka Church, attended mostly by fishermen and their families.
Katchativu was therefore being used for different purposes by the fishermen of both countries. Traditionally, however, Sri Lanka always considered the tiny island hers. The difference of views with India lay in the fact that there was no legal resolution of ownership. The issue was most important to a small country like Sri Lanka. India was one of the largest countries in the World. To Sri Lanka, it was considered vital to demarcate her maritime boundary in the North, and for this too the status of Katchativu was important.
This was furthermore an area, which due to fishing by people of both countries, it was very necessary to properly demarcate the maritime boundary in order to minimize disputes. The law of the Sea Conference and the proposed 200 mile limit of sea which was to come within the sovereignty of countries was a factor which added to the importance of the resolution of this issue.
Official contacts were therefore made with India, and a process of discussions begun. To complicate matters for us, it was discovered that some vitally important papers on the subject were missing from the Foreign Ministry files. One would not however like to speculate on a matter such as this. However, papers available in the National Archives helped. The Prime Minister in her meetings and contacts with Mrs. Gandhi had broached the necessity of resolving the outstanding issues with India. The two Prime Ministers got on well together and had established considerable rapport, a relationship going back the good relations between the Bandaranaike and Nehru families.
Mrs. Bandaranaike was therefore keen that the existing favourable political configuration in the two countries should be used without delay to resolve our common problems. The Indian Prime Minister agreed. She had enormous problems on her hands including political turmoil, separatist tendencies and guerilla action in several parts of the country. The problems with Sri Lanka were not intractable ones, and she herself obviously thought that the time had come to get them out of the way and have some degree of stability and peace on her Southern border. A friendly Sri Lanka was in India’s interest.
The virulent anti-Indian rhetoric by the JVP during 1969-71 which included the holding of clandestine classes for its cadres where an important lesson was on “Indian domination”, was a recent demonstration of the potential to inspire fear and hatred. This was another factor taken into account by Mrs. Bandaranaike in developing a policy on the quick resolution of problems with India. The two sides therefore, engaged in a process of discussions. These discussions were ongoing in a quiet manner when in mid-1974 India exploded a nuclear device in the Rajasthan desert.
A cacophony of condemnation arose all over the world. The shrill condemnation that followed could not be dignified with the word “chorus.” India was depicted in the world’s press, and particularly in the Western press as some kind of sanctimonious humbug which preached non-violence, Ahimsa and arms control on the one hand, but practiced something else on the other. It was at the height of this situation that one day I dropped in at Temple Trees in the morning to get some urgent letters signed by the Prime Minister. When I reached there, I found the Prime Minister seated at the large dining table attending to work with W T Jayasinghe.
I was about to take a seat in the verandah, when she saw me and invited me in. I found that WT was also finishing his work. He asked me whether I could give him a lift back to the Ministry, since he had sent his car somewhere else. I said that it wouldn’t be a problem. Both of us finished soon thereafter and WT loaded a large number of files into my car. We set off soon thereafter for the five-minute run to Republic Square. During the trip, WT told me that the Prime minister was sending a tiff note about the testing of the nuclear device and that she had signed the letter. I was quite appalled.
I told WT, that I did not know the content and tone of the letter, since I had not seen it, but that I hoped that the close relationship between the two Prime Ministers and the on-going discussions on Katchativu and other matters had been taken into account in drafting the letter. I ended by saying that I hoped that our overall national interest had been properly assessed in sending this communication at this time. W T became somewhat agitated by what I said. He had the objectivity to say, “No I don’t think we had thought about matters to that extent.” I shrugged.
He then pulled out the file and showed me the letter. I took one look and said that we might as well abandon our on-going discussions with India. The letter was a typical foreign Ministry sectoral, one-dimensional draft, which had only a thought of the issues of non-proliferation and non-alignment. It was clear that no thought had been given to the course of bilateral relations, strategic considerations, or an assessment of Sri Lanka’s overall national interest. WT by now was considerably alarmed. We had now reached the end of our short journey. He said, he wanted to come to my room to discuss matters further. Indeed, by now, he was convinced that the letter was a mistake.
He wanted me to do an alternate draft. I said that I would do so only if he would place both drafts before the Prime Minister, not telling her who drafted the alternative, until she had decided which one to send. This was too important a matter for any bias to creep in. I thereupon changed the whole tenor of the letter from one of protestations and criticism to what I thought was a more balanced approach. India was congratulated on her achievements in Science and Technology and our satisfaction at this record mentioned. But the Prime Minister urged caution on going the nuclear route and she said that she was encouraged by the Indian Prime Minister’s statement that India would not develop a nuclear arsenal. (The various reasons why India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons later would be a matter for study, debate and even controversy. But this was 1974, and we had to react at that time.)
Suitable reference was also made to the issue of the Non-Aligned stance on nuclear proliferation. The whole tenor or the letter was an expression or admiration and recognition of India’s achievements in science and technology, but at the same time a friendly expression of concern about the prospect of nuclear proliferation. WT’ thought that my draft was much better. I soon forgot about it amidst other work. A few days later WT walked into my room. He had done what I had suggested and the two drafts had been placed before the Prime Minister. She had immediately reacted, and had angrily asked, who had done the first draft. She had stated that the second draft was the one that really reflected her views, and that she was misled into signing the first. It was only at this point that WT had mentioned who the author of the second draft was.
This whole episode brings up some interesting points. In the first instance, it was by sheer accident that there was ever a second draft. The earlier letter would have been disastrous. This surmise indeed was subsequently proved by the Indian Prime Minister’s warm and lengthy response to the Prime Minister’s letter. This was a time, when Mrs. Gandhi was having serious internal problems in India too. The reply was an outpouring from the heart of a beleaguered leader to one whom she could trust. Amongst many candid and personal matters contained in the reply, there was gratitude expressed for Mrs. Bandaranaike’s understanding and vision. The relationship could have ended up being quite different.
Features
Addressing human rights needs multi-pronged approach
by Jehan Perera
The ongoing 63rd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which runs from September 7 to October 7, 2026, in Geneva is important to Sri Lanka. Its outcome will send a signal to other international actors, including the European Union, as to whether Sri Lanka’s reform policy is on track. The written update on Sri Lanka, prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights under High Commissioner Volker Türk and presented by Deputy High Commissioner Nada Al-Nashif, has taken a more holistic approach to the government’s performance over the past year. It acknowledged the progress Sri Lanka has made under the NPP government in relation to accountability for financial fraud and other economic crimes. At the same time, the High Commissioner’s update made clear that progress in relation to economic crime cannot be equated with progress in relation to accountability for grave human rights violations committed during the armed conflict and in other periods of political violence.
The government may have felt sufficiently confident that its response to the High Commissioner’s update could be handled by its representative in Geneva and did not require the attendance of Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath. Sri Lanka’s representative Sumith Dassanayake called for a fundamental review of country-specific mandates within the UN Human Rights Council. Sri Lanka has been facing repeated scrutiny in the form of successive UNHRC resolutions from 2012 onwards. Ambassador Dassanayake argued that such mandates should not continue indefinitely and must be regularly assessed against measurable objectives and tangible outcomes. This may reflect confidence that its record of reform is beginning to receive recognition internationally. The reports and statements at the Human Rights Council acknowledged progress in the government’s efforts to address corruption and economic crime.
The government’s anti-corruption drive has included investigations into allegations involving individuals who held the highest political offices in the country. The arrest of former President Ranil Wickremesinghe in connection with alleged misuse of public funds, and the investigation into the controversial SriLankan Airlines Airbus transaction involving former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s son, are examples of the reach of these investigations. The arrest of SLPP National Organiser and Member of Parliament Namal Rajapaksa in connection with allegations relating to the Airbus purchase scandal has also demonstrated that the government is willing to pursue cases involving politically powerful figures.
Wide Range
The ongoing investigations appear to encompass a wide range of parliamentarians and government members, both past and present. They suggest that accountability for corruption is not being confined to lower-level officials or to individuals who lack political influence. This is precisely the kind of accountability that the public has long demanded and that previous governments have too often failed to deliver. The government is also reaching into the upper levels of the military hierarchies of the past. The case in which 11 young men, most of them Tamil, disappeared after being abducted in Colombo between 2008 and 2009 involved allegations that some families were asked to pay ransoms. The investigation into this case has reached senior military figures. The willingness to pursue such cases is important because it challenges the assumption that those who exercised power during the war are beyond the reach of the law. Such cases would provide a practical test of whether the government’s commitment to accountability for economic crimes is part of a broader commitment to the rule of law.
Success in prosecuting corruption cannot substitute for justice for those who were unlawfully killed, disappeared, tortured or otherwise victimised. The UN report noted that there had been no recognition or accountability for crimes under international law, gross human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by all parties during the war. The government has yet to establish a credible and effective process to address the many cases of enforced disappearance, extrajudicial killing, torture and other serious violations. The government needs to take the international commitments it has inherited on human rights issues seriously. It needs to adopt a multi-pronged approach and go beyond focusing primarily on financial and corruption-related accountability.
Need Action
As a member of the international community, Sri Lanka has a responsibility to abide by the commitments it has made. It cannot selectively uphold international obligations postponing those that are politically difficult. Also, as a small country, Sri Lanka has a self-interest in ensuring the survival of international law, which is all that it has to protect it from the depredations of the bigger international actors. The erosion of international law by powerful states makes it all the more important that smaller states uphold the principles on which the international system is based. Sri Lanka cannot credibly appeal to international law when it is threatened from outside while disregarding its own obligations within. Sri Lanka also needs to win the confidence of its own population that it is committed to justice and equality for all. Public opinion polls and community-level research have disclosed that ethnic and religious minorities are appreciative of the sense of greater security they enjoy under the present government from ethnic or religious extremists.
But a sense of security is not the same as the fulfilment of rights. As far as the Tamil people are concerned, the government has yet to deliver on several of its specific promises. These include the long-standing problems of missing persons, the release of political prisoners who have been members of Tamil militant organisations, and the return of land taken over for military purposes during the war. The issue of Buddhist statues and archaeological sites found on their properties which are then taken from their control continue to trouble them especially as they see no signs of resolution of those disputes. The issue of pastureland in the east of the country in Mylathamadu is particularly concerning to them as they see orders by successive presidents, both President Ranil Wickremesinghe and President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, being disregarded on the ground. The Mylathamadu pastureland dispute is where traditional Tamil dairy farmers have engaged in multi-year protests against the ongoing encroachment of their ancestral grazing lands by Sinhalese crop cultivators relocated under government development schemes.
The government’s failure to hold Provincial Council elections is particularly troubling. The provincial council system is the only one that can provide the Tamil people and other ethnic minorities the opportunity to wield political power and exercise a measure of self-determination in the areas in which they are the numerical majority. The continued postponement of Provincial Council elections therefore has consequences that go beyond an ordinary electoral delay. It deprives communities of an important constitutional avenue for democratic participation and power-sharing. The ethnic and religious minorities appreciate what the government is doing in the larger national interest, but they must not be made to feel that their special concerns are being ignored. The government cannot resolve Sri Lanka’s entire legacy of rights violations overnight. But it does need to demonstrate that it is willing to move forward on multiple fronts, not only on a few.
Features
The emptying university: why are academics leaving?
by Hasini Lecamwasam
Brain drain in Sri Lanka is at an all-time high. The latest Human Flight and Brain Drain Index for 2024 shows that we are 16th of 175 countries on this count, and first in South Asia. That this is a crisis goes without saying. Brain drain affects all sectors, and is a huge strain on the resources of a developing country. Particularly in Sri Lanka, where considerable public investment is made in the moulding of professionals through the system of free education, this amounts to transferring the resources of poorer countries to richer ones with top migration destinations. It is, therefore, important to consider the push and pull factors behind skilled outmigration, specifically from the public university system of Sri Lanka, a key focus of the Kuppi column.
From frustration to exit
Several bitter realities in our crumbling public university system act as push factors in the migration decisions of academics. Many essays on this column have, over several years, attempted to highlight numerous aspects of this erosion. Perhaps, primary among them is the lack of adequate funding, which has debilitating ramifications for the system: very little investment is made in the up-keep of infrastructure (and even less in its expansion), resulting in serious constraints in accommodating growing batches of students and the wellbeing of the staff (particularly in regional universities); research funding is negligible, severely curtailing academics’ ability to effectively discharge their primary duty of teaching which should ideally be informed by their research (and the research of others, access to which is also, unfortunately, mediated by funding); a funding crunch also means a slash in (or greater constraints on) recruitments, increasing the workloads of academics, currently in service, and eating into the quality of their teaching and research.
What recruitments are done frustrate those with any faith in merit. As many of our interventions in this column have shown, recruitment processes are characterised by archaic selection criteria that place very little weight on a candidate’s postgraduate growth and the advantages of interdisciplinary training. Added to this is the general preference for ‘culturally compliant’ candidates who would not rock the boat too much. The combined effect is that those with the capacity and spirit to try out innovations in education are discouraged from joining or staying on in the public university system. Some, or many, of them may instead seek appointments abroad.
A thread that binds all of these problems together is pervasive hierarchy which, again, many interventions on this column have sought to highlight. It is the interest in preserving hierarchy that leads to the preference for alumni in recruitment processes. Hierarchy within universities can be particularly frustrating for younger faculty and women, who typically have to bear the brunt of the workload of their senior, often male, colleagues. In a context of funding, and, therefore, recruitment, restrictions, this translates into a disproportionate burden being placed on junior (usually female) faculty, seriously hindering their prospects of growing into successful academics due to the time constraints within which they have to operate. Junior academics, therefore, are more likely to look to educational institutions abroad for what they hope would be a different work culture that respects them more.
Ideological ruses
On top of these structural frustrations are also the workings of neoliberal ideology. For one, the nature of relations between the global metropole and peripheral countries like Sri Lanka largely dictates what is desirable and what is not. The apparent lifestyles of Western countries – from food to clothing, housing, appliances, and so on – have continued to lure people from the periphery with the promise of a ‘better’ life, alongside better career advancement opportunities. This, of course, masks much of the struggle that goes on behind the scenes to survive in Western societies. For instance, in most cases highly attractive public infrastructure such as roads, public transport, clean air, quality control of food, and so on belie the astronomical privatised costs of healthcare and education. Health insurance is usually mandatory and steep in most high-income settings, while even subsidised education (for which eligibility criteria are strict) creates a serious dent in household earnings. Of course, the happy images of glossy trams and gleeful international travellers don’t convey this.
A second ideological ruse is the myth of greater opportunities and recognition abroad. While there is no denying that local skilled sectors – be it higher education, health, civil service, or private white-collar positions – are replete with issues that inhibit merit-based professional advancement, the notion that things are fundamentally different in Western countries stems from an uninformed optimism. As is now increasingly known and discussed, Western labour markets are notoriously racialised, and equivalent skills are rarely treated as such. Instead, it is usually demanded that skilled migrants clear certain formal examinations in their host countries. In fields like medicine, this is followed by an interview that may also be racially prejudiced. Once these initial steps are cleared, remuneration reverts to square one irrespective of experience accumulated abroad, not to mention the many subtle aggressions, rejections, and trials one has to go through in the negotiation of everyday life. In the many cases where professional qualifications are used as leverage for a move abroad, sights are set on a better future for one’s children, which again is informed by the misplaced faith in greater opportunities and a lack of awareness of the factors outlined above. Needless to say, in the global swing to the Right, things have become even more challenging. In such a context, considering the few rare cases where skilled migrants live extremely comfortable lives as the norm becomes a dangerous misconception.
The two ideological pull factors mentioned above are complemented by a push factor, which has to do with a highly classed understanding of what a white-collar professional is due in their society. Many of these aspirations are clearly articulated in academic trade union action demanding separate quotas for school entry, increased fuel allowances, winning back the presently stalled vehicle permit scheme, salary hikes, and so on. While working people have every right to agitate for better material conditions, insofar as it remains unconnected to a broader movement for improving the conditions of the lot of the working class, it remains self-serving and very much within the class logic of capitalist society. Since these demands are articulated as a means of maintaining distinction, it is clear that they are not envisaged as part of a class movement. The frustration of not having these needs for distinction satisfied may push some to seek greener pastures abroad, at least financially, (perhaps as a means of social mobility based on it), only to be disappointed on most occasions.
What is to be done?
Addressing the systemic push factors listed above requires, first and foremost, greater allocations for free public higher education. This would immediately translate into more recruitments and less work per academic, and better research and teaching in the long haul. An increase in funding would also ideally lead to greater infrastructural investments, especially including improving the living conditions of those who work in regional universities amid untold hardships. Next, fairer, more creative, and, therefore, more effective recruitment policies are badly needed to attract talented individuals to university positions. Rather than carving out a ‘special category’ for academics to achieve this purpose, which is informed by a classed logic, this needs to be done through fundamental reforms in recruitment processes. Third, a persistent attack on the entrenched hierarchy within universities through internal reform is much called for. Reforming recruitment practices will go a long way towards addressing this. Measures should also be taken to introduce more stringent policies against SGBV (not to mention ragging, even though it is not directly connected to brain drain). Such measures would create a safer, fairer, and more attractive workplace, which would give more reasons for people to stay.
On top of greater allocations, we also need a transformation of our aspirations themselves if this situation is to change. That necessitates a kind of education capable of questioning the ‘paradise’ conception of Western societies, and lays bare their colonial material and ideological dimensions, in both their historical and contemporary manifestations. These colonial understandings of the ‘good life’, moreover, have devastating ecological implications for the planet, not to mention social justice. An education with the ability to transform this mindset would hopefully prove to be more than a mere path to social mobility, rather being a tool of social emancipation that renders mobility moot.
(Hasini Lecamwasam is with the Department of Political Science, University of Peradeniya)
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
Features
Friends favourite Suzi Croner returns for Oktoberfest 2026
Charming audiences in Switzerland as Suzi Flückiger, Sri Lanka’s own Suzi Croner is coming home… for a very special occasion.
The bubbly former frontline vocalist of 90s band Friends will take the stage at a popular venue in Colombo for Oktoberfest 2026.
Known in Europe for her country and classic hits, Suzi has remained a much-loved name back home. This will be a rare chance for local fans to see her live and celebrate the voice behind so many Friends memories.
Oktoberfest 2026 in Colombo promises an evening of live music, traditional Bavarian food and beer, colourful dirndls and lederhosen, folk dancing, and plenty of community cheer.

Suzi Croner (Flückiger)
Against this lively backdrop, Suzi will take the stage for a special solo set, featuring her own pre-recorded music. She performed at the event last year too, as a solo artiste, but a German band providing the music.
This year, however she says, it’s a different scene.
“The novel attraction will be the dancers from Germany — all girls, clad in German outfits,” Suzi said. She added that the event will also highlight the activities generally connected with Oktoberfest, which should generate a lot of fun and excitement for those who join her in Colombo next month.
Suzi has become a much-in-demand artiste in Europe, and has even performed Down Under, in Melbourne.
In Switzerland, where she has been based for the past 42 years, she continues to charm audiences with country and classic hits, performing at private events and community nights across Europe.
“My weekends are generally loaded with my work as a singer,” she said. “And I also play tennis three times a week, because I need to keep fit to entertain my audience in an active way.”
Her repertoire is made up mainly of Swiss, German and English songs.
And true to form, Suzi loves springing surprises.
“So watch out when you join me at Oktoberfest 2026, in Colombo!” she said.
-
Sports5 days agoDDS set to lose Test captaincy
-
News5 days agoSri Lanka faces new grid challenge as rooftop solar surges: former CEB GM
-
Latest News5 days agoShafali, Deepti power India into sixth T20 Asia Cup final
-
Opinion7 days agoNavigating Sri Lanka’s Israeli Dilemma
-
Latest News4 days agoSri Lanka thwart Fatima Sana challenge to secure Asia Cup final spot
-
Features6 days agoLost for 90 years: Rare Goby resurfaces in Jaffna
-
News3 days agoGnanasara Thero absconding after SC ruling
-
News4 days agoAmmunition cache found in old Kandy bungalow
