Features
NABBED IN NAMIBIA
(Excerpted from an anthology of memoirs by LC Arulpragasam)
Political Background
Some background is in order. Germany held the territory known as South West Africa from 1880 to 1914. Apart from massacres of the natives, their rule was accompanied by the establishment of very large German-owned farms in the cultivable parts of the country. After Germany’s loss in World War I (1914-18), it was forced to give up the territory to South Africa by the League of Nations in 1918, to be held in trust as a mandated territory. But South Africa annexed the territory and refused to give it up when the United Nations withdrew its mandate at the end of World War II.
Worse still, South Africa applied its oppressive apartheid policies to South West Africa too. Spurred by resistance movements in neighboring countries, such as Angola and Zimbabwe, armed resistance was started by the South West African People’s Organization (SWAPO). In view of South Africa’s defiance of the UN’s termination of its mandate, the UN sponsored moves to nurse this territory and its people, now known as Namibia, towards independence. To this end, it set up a United Nations Council for Namibia in New York to orchestrate political efforts at the international level and a UN Institute for Namibia in Lusaka (Zambia) to provide the needed technical and administrative training to Namibians, in order to prepare them for independence.
Meanwhile, given the turning tides of international opinion and the ongoing guerrilla war, the South African Government decided to seek a political solution (short of independence) in its conflict with SWAPO. To this end, it proposed the Turnhalle Agreement in 1977, which offered limited autonomy to Namibia, provided that SWAPO agreed to give up its armed struggle and accept territory-wide elections, which would determine the terms and conditions of the proposed autonomy. My first visit to the UN Institute in Lusaka, Zambia occurred at this time, when SWAPO, the Namibian independence movement, had to decide whether it would participate in the national elections to be held in 1978 in terms of the Turnhalle Agreement.
Agrarian Reform Options
Since Namibia was supposed to be on the verge of independence at this time (around 1977), there was a rush to prepare it for independence in terms of institutions and policies. This applied especially in the field of agrarian reform, since access to land was the primary demand of the SWAPO freedom-fighters. In this context, the Institute for Namibia (located in Lusaka, Zambia) convened a Symposium on Land Reform for Namibia (around 1977) to be attended by the top land reform scholars and authorities in the world. Since no one in FAO knew anything about land tenure in South West Africa, I was sent to fill the breach, although I too knew nothing about Namibia.
For the first two days of the meeting, I kept my mouth shut with the sole purpose of not displaying my ignorance. On the final day, I started questioning the line of reasoning and intended recommendations, thus contradicting most of what had been decided over the past three days. The Symposium had, therefore, to break up with no conclusions reached, except that I should brief the consultant who was to write the paper on ‘Land Reform Options for Namibia’! I was called upon later, to write a road map for agrarian reform for an independent Namibia.
As is well known, there was an enormous disparity in land ownership between the native Namibians, who constituted about 90 per cent of the population but controlled only 10 per cent of the cultivable/pasture land, as against the white population of German or South African origin, who comprised only five per cent of the population but controlled 90 per cent of the land. Briefly, there are three parts of the country, each requiring a different land reform solution. While there was agreement in the approaches for the north and central parts of the country, there was a conflict between my recommendation and that of the conference to the problems of the south, the area of most unequal land ownership. Ultimately, my views on agrarian reform options for Namibia were accepted by SWAPO, who of course preferred the socialist option (I had set out two options) due to their political preferences at that time.
My ‘Surrender’ to SWAPO
That night, at a party hosted by Dr. Hage Geingob, the Director of the UN Institute for Namibia, I joined in the drinking and dancing that was going on. During one of my pauses I happened to join a small group of young Namibians who were discussing the pros and cons of SWAPO’s participation in the proposed elections under the Turnhalle Agreement. Having had a couple of drinks, I opined that SWAPO would be foolish to accept the offered terms, since the entire election machinery was controlled by the South African Government. I even gratuitously predicted that SWAPO would lose the election, despite its wide support in the country.
I did not know much about elections, but among the blind, the one-eyed man was king! I pointed out that, first, the electoral register would be prepared by the South African Government with no input or monitoring from SWAPO, since they had no election machinery, Secondly, there were logistical difficulties. For instance, the ballots of the bushmen in the desert would be ‘obtained’ by officers of the South African Government and transported through the desert for two days by jeep. How would SWAPO ever know what happened to those ballot boxes during their journey? So I stressed again that unless SWAPO was able to closely monitor the preparation of the electoral registers as well as the entire electoral process, it would find itself cheated of victory, signifying also the end of their dream of independence.
After briefing the consultant well past midnight with my head heavy with drinks, I tried to make my way to my room at the end of a long, open walkway, with men standing on both sides, drinking. So I walked warily to my room and for safety, double-locked the door. Since it was past 01 a.m. and I had to leave for the airport by 05 a.m.to catch my flight, I started packing before I fell asleep.
But I was interrupted by sharp knocking on my door. After repeated knocks, I had to open the door, taking my best boxing stance, giving only the side of my body in case of a knife thrust. To my surprise, I found the Director of the Namibian Institute, Dr. Hage Geingob and five others who wanted to enter. The Director then ‘re-introduced’ himself and the others, stating that they were all members of the Central Committee of SWAPO. When they came into power, he himself would be the Foreign Minister (in fact, he became the first Prime Minister of Namibia), Comrade Chitzero here would be the Minister of Education and so on.
They had come to see me because they had heard of my contrary view regarding their participation in the elections under the Turnhalle Agreement. I had earlier ad-libbed after too many drinks; but now I had to speak with greater responsibility, since I was now speaking to the future government of Namibia! But my position was basically the same: if SWAPO could not control or closely monitor the electoral process, it would certainly lose the election – and its hope for independence.
The problem was that SWAPO had been advised by the UN Council for Namibia in New York (their only helper in international affairs) to accept the Turnhalle Agreement and the proposed elections. Further, they (SWAPO’s Central Committee) had already sent official instructions to their delegation in New York to accept the terms of the election and the rest of the Agreement. Quite worried now, they wanted more details of the nuts and bolts of the electoral process. Although most of these young men had high postgraduate qualifications from American and British Universities, they had never been allowed to advance beyond elementary school, nor even allowed access to lower clerical positions in their country. As a result, they had no knowledge, nor experience of election laws or of the procedures for their implementation. So although I had a short election experience in only one district in Sri Lanka, I had to give them a run-down of the critical points of control and possible points of manipulation and cheating at elections. From this I went on to the minimum points of organization, administrative checks and monitoring that would need to be established in order to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process.
They talked animatedly among themselves for some time. They then explained their problem. Their Central Committee had already instructed their delegation in New York to officially communicate to the UN Council that SWAPO had agreed to participate in the elections. The UN Council for Namibia was to meet in four days’ time to ratify this decision. In light of what I had told them, they (SWAPO’s Central Committee) had decided (in my room!) to reverse their position on the elections and on the Turnhalle Agreement. However, they did not know enough about election law and procedures to explain their reasons to their representative in New York. So they wanted me to fly to New York immediately as their special emissary to brief their delegation there, before the scheduled meeting of the UN Council. They said: ‘You are our brother, and you must help us!’
I was taken aback by this turn of events, but was equally afraid of being dragged into a political enterprise into which no international civil servant should venture. Besides, I knew that FAO would fire me if they knew that I had traipsed off to New York on a political expedition! Faced with my refusal, they changed their tack and said that if I would not go to New York, I should at least help them by writing a full brief, outlining all that I had explained to them, so that they could send it that morning by special emissary to New York. Despite my protests, their reply was simple: ‘Your plane will not be allowed to take off until you finish it!’ It was only then that I realized that I was a ‘captive’ of SWAPO. I also realized the political power that they wielded as a rebel movement in Zambia, even though it was not their own country – and that they did not have a country at all!
So I had to put my head under the shower (to keep awake) and start writing! I had already written 17 full pages when their car arrived to take me to the airport; but I had not yet finished. To which they matter-of-factly replied: ‘Don’t worry: we will not allow your plane to take off until you finish!’ True to that night’s decisions, SWAPO rejected the Turnhalle Agreement and refused to take part in the proposed elections, resulting in Namibia losing what seemed to be its best chance of ‘independence’. I naturally began to feel quite guilty that a few extra drinks of mine had rolled into events that had ultimately led to the postponement of Namibian independence by about 10 years!
I had nothing to do with Namibia for those nearly 10 years. By this time, the growing international opposition to South Africa’s apartheid policies, the burgeoning military strength of SWAPO, plus mounting UN pressure was making Namibian independence come closer to reality. Hence, around 1985, FAO received a request for my services from the UN Council for Namibia to write a new paper on ‘Agrarian Reform Options for an Independent Namibia’. So off I went again to Lusaka (Zambia), slinking into the UN Institute for Namibia, feeling quite guilty about my role that had resulted in the postponement of their Independence. But I was greeted by the Director of the Institute (later to be the first Prime Minister of Namibia) who thanked me for having saved them from the trap of a rigged election, through which they could have lost everything. Needless to say, I felt quite relieved and vindicated!
Now they wanted me not only to write their new position paper on agrarian reform, but they also wanted my participation in a symposium on ‘Election Law and Procedures’. I had to plead that I was no expert on elections and had never pretended to be one: But since the Director was insistent, I had to tell him that FAO would give me much trouble if the UN sought me out as an expert in election law, in which I was not qualified at all!
Agricultural Policy for Independent Namibia
A new UN Commissioner for Namibia had been appointed in the person of Mr. Marti Adhisaari to actively steer Namibia towards independence. Meanwhile the UN had started preparing policy papers in all development fields. FAO as the lead agency for agriculture was asked to mount a mission on agricultural policy and I was asked to lead this first agricultural policy mission to Namibia.
This afforded me my first opportunity to actually set foot on Namibian soil. Our needed technical and policy briefings were given by white South African officials, who had obviously not dealt with coloured persons of authority before. I was able through my experience in agricultural policy analysis in many countries, to pull together a fairly impressive agricultural policy paper for Namibia. In fact, my presentation so impressed Mr. Marti Adhisaari (the UN Commissioner for Namibia) that he insisted that I should fly in his personal plane to the following donors’ meeting in Oslo.
Conclusion
My biggest ‘problem’ on this last mission was my personal relationship with Dr. Hage Geingob, who had by this time resigned his post as Director of the UN Institute for Namibia to become the Secretary-General of SWAPO and its new Commissioner of Elections. He had probably intervened to ensure that FAO nominate me to lead this policy mission and would have fully expected me to call on him. To this day, I regret very much that I did not do so. Recently, I have been trying to analyze the reasons why I consciously avoided meeting him. My first ‘reason’ seems to have been a hark-back to my old ‘stiff-upper-lip’ colonial training, where I was taught to avoid all political contacts. I realize in retrospect how stupid this had been, because I owed it to my assignment to obtain all possible inputs – even from active politicians – for my study on agricultural policy. However, I also had to admit that my avoidance of this prize political contact (knowing that he was to become the Prime Minister of Namibia) was that I feared that he would commit me to work in Namibia for the next few years.
I had just retired from FAO, was just beginning to enjoy my life in Rome: I did not want to be consigned to a faraway country in Africa. My family was also scattered between America, Italy and Sri Lanka, and I could not contemplate going halfway around the world to the southern tip of Africa to spend the last years of my life there. Anyway, my action (or lack of it) must have seemed a gratuitous insult to Dr. Hage Geingob, who later became the first Prime Minister of independent Namibia. He has made no further attempt contact me – or I, him. So ended the Namibian chapter of my life.
Features
Combining local resources,traditional knowledge and science to build a food-secure Sri Lanka
World Food Day 2026: Innovating today for a better food future
by Dr. Kaushalya Wijayasekara
What will be on the Sri Lankan dinner table ten years from now? Will our children be able to get nutritious food at a price their families can afford? Will farmers be able to grow enough despite changing weather and rising costs? And how much of the food we produce will actually reach the consumer, instead of being lost or wasted along the way?
These questions can’t wait. A farmer faces unpredictable weather. A family faces rising food costs. Fruit goes unsold after a good harvest. Some children do not get enough nutrition. The future of food is tied to the future of Sri Lanka itself.
World Food Day 2026 is a chance to look beyond the immediate problems and ask whether we can build a food system that feeds our people well, gives farmers better opportunities, protects the environment and makes better use of what we already have. The answer can be yes, but we will have to think differently.
We are not starting from zero. Sri Lanka has diverse crops, fisheries, traditional food knowledge, indigenous varieties, research institutions, universities and a young generation able to create new solutions. What we need is to bring these together and act. Producing more will not secure our food future on its own. It will depend on how intelligently we produce, process, preserve, distribute and consume food.
Making more of what we already have
Innovation does not always mean inventing something new. Often it means finding better uses for the resources we have.
Sri Lanka grows traditional rice varieties, kurakkan, green gram, cowpea, jackfruit, breadfruit, cassava, sweet potato, coconut and palmyrah. All of them have great potential for modern, nutritious, value-added foods. Jackfruit and breadfruit can be made into flour and other convenient products. Traditional rice varieties can go into new foods that suit changing consumer needs. Palmyrah, with its strong cultural heritage, can create new income through better processing, packaging, quality assurance and market development.
The aim is to connect our traditional food knowledge with modern consumer needs and technology, while keeping our food heritage.
Stop wasting the food we produce
Reducing food loss and waste should be a major priority. Seasonal fruits such as mango, banana, papaya and pineapple can be lost in large quantities when production exceeds demand or when storage, transport and processing facilities are inadequate. With suitable technology, these fruits can become dried products, pulps, powders, beverages and other shelf-stable foods.
Agricultural and fisheries by-products are resources too. They could be turned into food ingredients, animal feed, bio-based products and other useful materials, which would move us toward a more circular food economy.
Technology alone is not enough. We need stronger local processing facilities, cold storage, efficient transport, collection centres and market information systems, especially close to where food is produced. Cutting food loss raises the value of what our farmers and fishers already produce.
Nutrition and food safety come first
Food security means more than having enough food. People also need food that is safe and nutritious.
Sri Lanka can develop affordable, nutritious foods from local pulses, grains, vegetables, fruits and fish. Children and other vulnerable groups should get particular attention. Schoolchildren in particular deserve a focus: safe, nutritious, locally sourced products for school feeding programs would support child nutrition, local farmers and domestic food industries at the same time.
Food safety must stay at the centre of food innovation. Good hygiene, quality control, laboratory testing, traceability and appropriate food safety systems are what make new products safe as well as attractive and nutritious.
A food system that can cope with climate change
Climate change is already affecting agricultural production, water availability, crop yields and food prices. We need food systems that can handle changing conditions. That means climate-resilient crops, efficient water use, soil and water conservation, better storage and resource-efficient food processing.
Traditional knowledge matters here. Generations of Sri Lankan farmers have developed practices suited to local climates and ecosystems. Combining that experience with modern science can give us solutions that fit local conditions and are sustainable. Technology alone will not build the future of food. Science, experience and local knowledge together can.
Give young people a bigger role
Sri Lanka’s universities have an important part to play in shaping our food future. Young people should be encouraged to identify real problems in the food system and work on practical solutions in areas such as food waste, sustainable packaging, nutrition, food safety, modernising traditional foods and digital technologies.
A good research project should not always end as a research paper. Where appropriate, research should be supported to move on to products, technologies, enterprises and community solutions. That needs stronger partnerships between universities and industry, along with mentoring, research funding, business support and market connections. If young researchers and entrepreneurs can turn their ideas into viable food innovations, both consumers and producers will benefit.
A pathway designed for Sri Lanka
We do not need to copy food-system models from other countries. We can build a pathway that suits our own resources, culture and needs. It would bring together local resources, traditional knowledge, scientific research, appropriate technology and entrepreneurship, with farmers, fishers, universities, research institutions, food industries, entrepreneurs and policymakers working side by side.
The goal goes beyond selling raw materials. We need to create more value, reduce waste, improve nutrition, generate jobs and strengthen rural livelihoods. This matters especially for small and medium-scale food enterprises, which can drive local economic development when they get the right technical, financial and market support.
The choices we make today
The food future will not create itself. It will be shaped by what we grow, what we research, what we process, what we consume and what we choose not to waste.
So, the question for World Food Day 2026 is this: what can we do today so that every Sri Lankan has safe, nutritious, affordable and sustainable food tomorrow?
The answers are already around us, in our farms, fisheries, food businesses, universities, laboratories and communities. We have the resources, the traditional knowledge, the scientific expertise and talented young people. What we need now is to connect them and act.
A better food future begins with the choices we make today.
Dr. Kaushalya Wijayasekara
Senior Lecturer, Department of Biosystems Technology, Faculty of Technology, University of Ruhuna
Features
20th Anniversary of Digampathana blast – the day Sri Lanka Navy cried
By Admiral Ravindra C Wijegunaratne
WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc
(Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)
Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defence Staff
Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan
The Digampathana suicide truck attack on 16th October 2006 remains the deadliest single strike in Sri Lanka Navy history, leaving scars that time cannot erase.
It was a seemingly ordinary Monday morning on 16 October 2006, but the calm of that day would soon be shattered in a way none of us could have imagined. As the Commandant of the Naval and Maritime Academy and Flag Officer Commanding Naval Fleet at Trincomalee, I was aware that a number of my cadets were travelling that morning, part of a convoy of fifteen buses carrying naval personnel from Trincomalee, Colombo, and other bases, heading toward Dambulla to rendezvous with another group. The convoy also included trucks and escort vehicles, a routine movement planned and coordinated with the army to ensure the roads were clear. The morning started quietly. Some personnel greeted friends, handed over their weapons, or strolled to a nearby tea shop. It all seemed so ordinary—too ordinary for what would come next.

Sri Lanka Navy sunk LTTE Ships carrying arms, ammunition and warlike materials thousand miles away from Sri Lanka in Indian Ocean in September and October 2007.
By late morning, both convoys had reached the small ground at Digampathana, near the Sigiriya junction, and personnel mingled briefly, unaware that a carefully orchestrated act of terror was waiting. Then, suddenly, an empty half-truck veered directly into the convoy. It exploded with a ferocity I can still recall as if it were yesterday. Nuts, bolts, and high explosives tore through the air. Pandemonium erupted instantly. I later learned that 107 of our naval personnel were killed on the spot and another 153 critically injured. The scene was indescribable—bodies scattered, vehicles mangled, personal effects strewn across the ground. I remember later hearing that the head of the suicide bomber was recovered more than 100 meters away from the blast, a grim testament to the sheer force of the explosion.
I was in my office at the Naval and Maritime Academy when my mobile phone rang. A young midshipman from the 21st intake called, his voice trembling: “Sir, there was a huge explosion at the convoy point! Many are dead … my batch mate Wijesundara is among them.” I immediately jumped into my jeep with my escort Chief Petty Officer and driver and rushed to Digampathana, relying on every ounce of my driving skill to reach the scene. The journey, which usually took little more than an hour, felt endless that day, each passing mile weighed down by dread.
When I arrived, I was confronted with a sight that no training can prepare you for. The injured were being rushed to Dambulla Hospital, where doctors and nurses worked tirelessly, improvising in ways that saved lives despite the overwhelming chaos. I went back to the site after visiting the hospital. The remains of our naval personnel were scattered across the ground, and someone had begun collecting weapons and protective gear. I immediately contacted Surgeon Rear Admiral Nico Jayasekara and received his instructions: collect all body parts in separate bags and transport them to the Trincomalee Naval Hospital mortuary. This gruesome work had to be done with care and dignity, and it filled the icebox in my vehicle. Through DNA testing initiated by Rear Admiral Nico, we were able to identify every naval personnel lost that day, bringing some closure to grieving families.
The Navy Commander at the time, Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda, was devastated. I had worked closely with him and knew how deeply he cared for his men. He ensured that the fallen were honoured with full ceremonial naval funerals at Welisara Naval Base, attended by families and comrades. Sixty-seven funerals were conducted in a single day—a number that still haunts me.
The Digampathana attack remains the largest single loss of naval life in our history. It was a day of sorrow, but also a day that reinforced our resolve. The tragedy galvanized the Navy to target the LTTE Sea Tiger wing with renewed determination and reshaped our maritime operations forever. Every time I think of that day, I remember not just the lives lost, but the courage, professionalism, and dedication of those who survived, those who treated the injured, and those who ensured the fallen were honored properly. May the souls of our naval hero’s rest in peace, their sacrifice guiding us and inspiring generations of naval personnel to come.
Features
‘Murder at Whitby Abbey’
Tales of Mystery and Suspense – 24
I was intrigued by the title of a book I found in a book drop at the condominium of a friend, Murder at Whitby Abbey, and I brought it home with me though I will not be able to return it in the near future. It was described on the cover page as ‘a standout in the crowded medieval mystery field’, though I fear I do not know of other books in this field, apart from the Cadfael series, which I have dealt with earlier.
The book, by Cassandra Clark, is set during the reign of Richard II and has as a backdrop his precarious position, which led to his being replaced, and murdered, by his cousin Henry, who reigned as Henry IV. It is a gloomy book, the action taking place in the twelve days of Christmas leading up to the Epiphany. And the gloom is pervasive, even though this is supposed to be a time of festivity, with mummers performing, and many of those in the guest house where the heroine stays going to town to enjoy themselves, with much drinking and much music, which also fills the guesthouse.
The heroine Hildegarde is a nun, sent to try to acquire a relic being sold by Whitby Abbey, though this was also a penance set by the Abbot of the monastery that governed her abbess because she had had sex with a man. Soon after she and her companions reach the Abbey set high on a cliff, she finds that there are other bidders, and soon suspects that the hierarchy, not perhaps the Abbot who seems a weakling, but his rapacious bursar, is determined to make money, and not above creating false relics to sell to several aspirants.
After Hildegarde and her Cistercian companions – Whitby is a Benedictine Foundation – two monks, Gregory and Egbert, and a young priest Mark, reach the abbey, they find that Aelwyn, a monk they had met on their way to the guesthouse had died. This was in the apple store, and they realize, when they find the surplices of novices stuffed into the air vents, that he had been left to suffocate in the overwhelming scent of apples.
The Cistercians are asked to look into the death, perhaps because they are likely to get no cooperation from the Abbey folk, but perhaps because those in charge are keen to know what happened. And the infirmarer, an old monk, suggests Hildegarde talk to a man called Edred who worked for the bursar, and had been a friend of Aelwyn’s. But Edred too is killed, before he can keep an appointment he had made with Hildegarde, drowned in a pool near the farmhouse of the Abbey.
Meanwhile tensions arise between the fisherfolk and the abbey for the bursar wants to charge them for using the beach that technically belongs to the abbey to dry their fish and their nets. This leads to physical battles, when the guards used by the abbey, under the command it seems of the bursar whose determination to make money is not resisted by the abbot and the prior, try to storm the area where the fishermen live.
Hildegard finds out more about what had happened through two youngsters, one of whom Torold is the son of Aelwyn by a woman who worked as a prostitute for a cartel, and with whom Mark fell in love. The other works on the farm and had seen Edred meet someone near the pool, after which that someone left the place by himself. And the boy had also found in the pool a sort of dagger with the seal of the abbey.
He and his dog, and Torold who follows her, rescue Hildegarde from a man at arms who has waylaid her and tries to rape her earlier. Escaping into the abbey she was nearly been raped then by the bursar, but she managed to escape, in the process setting fire to him and the muniments room, which led, when he was rescued, to the discovery of a box with the money he said had been stolen, blame being cast on both Aelwyn and Edred.
Matters come to a head when the fisherfolk try to storm the abbey, being resisted by the men at arms stationed on the towers. But then Hildegarde realizes that behind the murders was the bursar’s clerk, whom she pursued to the cathedral. There is great drama then as she escapes from him when he tries to kill her, and then from the man at arms who had tried to both rape and kill her, but they both fall from the scaffolding she had climbed, the latter coming from a tower where he had been stationed.
Both of them think they run the rapacity of the abbey, the latter claiming to work for the nobles opposed to Richard, who is presented throughout the book as devoted to his subjects, not to power or money. But though the villains die, the bursar continues, having got over the hysteria the fire had caused and his acknowledgment then of guilt – and though the abbot and the prior seem less vicious, whether they will be able to assert themselves is questionable.
Before the climax, when the others in the guesthouse were leaving, Hildegarde found that two of them were in possession of the relic, for which they seem to have paid well. Hildegarde herself had made a derisory offer, but before she leaves the abbot gives her the relic, perhaps in gratitude for what she and her fellow Cistercians had discovered, the abbey having made as much money as it needed and more from the gullible other buyers.
Mark’s inamorata is saved from the stews because she moves in with Edred’s widow whom the bursar had thrown out of the rooms he occupied when her husband was found dead. Hildegarde had paid for lodgings, in a house run by the man who ran the brothels, but he had a kindly side and was going to finance them to make nets for the fishermen.
So, the Cistercians set off for their home as swiftly as they can to get there on the day of the Epiphany, having stopped en route to pray for King Richard whose birthday it was.
-
News6 days agoSri Lanka escalates anti-graft drive with Shiranthi’s jailing
-
News7 days agoNPP govt. reminded of its responsibilities as US warship leaves Colombo
-
Latest News7 days agoFarhan, Sadaqat help Pakistan ace 183 chase to go 1-0 up
-
Latest News5 days agoFarhan and Sadaqat help Pakistan seal series in style
-
News6 days agoIranian ships stranded, Lanka fears US sanctions
-
Latest News3 days agoNissanka’s return headlines Sri Lanka’s Test squad against Pakistan
-
News7 days agoInterdicted top House official Kularatne receives special recognition in Mexican Parliament
-
Features5 days agoIntake 16: 45 years of duty and honour


