Features
Trump tariffs and their effect on world trade and economy with particular reference to Sri Lanka
In the early hours of April 2, 2025, President Donald Trump stood before a crowd of supporters and declared it “Liberation Day” for American workers and manufacturers. He signed an order imposing a minimum 10% tariff on all US imports, with significantly higher rates, ranging from 11% to 50%, on goods from 57 specific countries. This dramatic policy shift sent immediate shockwaves through global markets and trade networks, marking a profound escalation of the protectionist agenda that has defined Trump’s economic philosophy since the 1980s.
The implications of these tariffs extend far beyond America’s borders, rippling through the intricate web of global trade relationships that have been carefully constructed over decades of economic integration. While Trump frames these measures as necessary corrections to trade imbalances and vital protections for American industry, the truth is, it’s way more complicated than that. These tariffs aren’t just minor tweaks to trade rules, they could totally upend the way global trade works in the global economic order, disruptions that will be felt most acutely by developing economies that have built their growth strategies around export-oriented industries.
Among these vulnerable economies stands Sri Lanka, still recovering from a devastating economic crisis that led to sovereign default in 2022. With the United States serving as Sri Lanka’s largest export destination, accounting for 23% of its total exports and a whopping 38% of Sri Lanka’s key textile and apparel exports, the sudden imposition of a 44% tariff rate threatens to undermine the country’s fragile economic recovery. Approximately 350,000 Sri Lankan workers are directly employed in the textile industry. These tariffs aren’t some far-off policy, they are an immediate threat to their livelihoods and economic security.
The story of Trump’s tariffs and their impact on Sri Lanka offers a compelling window into the broader tensions and power imbalances that characterise the global trading system. It illustrates how decisions made in Washington can dramatically alter economic trajectories in distant corners of the world, often with little consideration for the human consequences. It also raises profound questions about the sustainability of development models predicated on export dependency and the adequacy of international financial institutions’ approaches to debt sustainability in developing economies.
This article examines the multifaceted implications of Trump’s tariff policies, tracing their evolution from his first administration through to the present day and analysing their projected impacts on global trade flows and economic growth. It then narrows its focus to Sri Lanka, exploring how the country’s unique economic circumstances and trade profile make it particularly vulnerable to these tariff shocks.
Finally, it considers potential mitigation strategies and policy responses that might help Sri Lanka navigate these turbulent waters, offering recommendations for both immediate crisis management and longer-term structural adaptation.
As we embark on this analysis, it is worth remembering that behind the economic statistics and trade figures lie real human lives and communities whose futures hang in the balance. The story of Trump’s tariffs is ultimately not just about trade policy or economic theory but about the distribution of opportunity and hardship in our interconnected global economy.
TRUMP’S TARIFF POLICIES: PAST AND PRESENT
Historical Context of Trump’s Protectionist Views
Donald Trump’s embrace of protectionist trade policies did not begin with his presidency. Since the 1980s, Trump has consistently advocated for import tariffs as a tool to regulate trade and retaliate against foreign nations that he believes have taken advantage of the United States. His economic worldview was shaped during a period when Japan’s rising economic power was perceived as a threat to American manufacturing dominance. In interviews from that era, Trump frequently criticised Japan for “taking advantage” of the United States through what he characterised as unfair trade practices.
This perspective has remained remarkably consistent throughout his business career and into his political life. Trump views international trade not as a mutually beneficial exchange but as a zero-sum competition where one country’s gain must come at another’s expense. This framework fundamentally shapes his approach to tariffs, which he sees not as taxes ultimately paid by American consumers and businesses (as most economists argue) but as penalties paid by foreign countries for their supposed transgressions against American economic interests.
First Term (2017-2021) Tariff Policies
When President Trump took office in January 2017, he quickly began implementing the protectionist agenda he had promised during his campaign. His administration withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership on his third day in office, signalling a dramatic shift away from the multilateral trade liberalisation that had characterised American policy for decades.
The first major tariffs came in January 2018, when Trump imposed duties of 30-50% on imported solar panels and washing machines. While significant, these were merely the opening salvos in what would become a much broader trade offensive. In March 2018, citing national security concerns under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, Trump announced tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminium imports from most countries. These tariffs initially exempted several allies, including Canada, Mexico, and the European Union, but by June 2018, these exemptions were revoked, straining relationships with America’s closest trading partners.
The most consequential trade action of Trump’s first term, however, was the escalating tariff war with China. Beginning in July 2018, the administration imposed a series of tariffs on Chinese goods, eventually covering approximately $370 billion worth of imports. These measures were justified under Section 301 of the Trade Act, based on allegations of intellectual property theft and forced technology transfer. China responded with retaliatory tariffs on American exports, particularly targeting agricultural products from politically sensitive regions.
By the end of President Trump’s first term, the average US tariff rate had risen from 1.6% to approximately 13.8% on Chinese imports and 3% overall, the highest level of protection since the 1930s. While a “Phase One” trade deal with China in January 2020 paused further escalation, most of the tariffs remained in place, becoming a persistent feature of the international trading landscape.
Current Tariff Policies (2024-2025)
President Trump’s return to the White House in 2025 has brought an even more aggressive approach to tariffs. During his campaign, he promised tariffs of 60% on all Chinese imports, 100% on Mexico, and at least 20% on all other countries. While the actual implementation has not precisely matched these campaign pledges, the scale and scope of the new tariffs have nevertheless been unprecedented in modern American trade policy.
The centrepiece of Trump’s current trade policy was announced on April 2, 2025, dubbed “Liberation Day” by the administration. The executive order imposed a minimum 10% tariff on all US imports, effective April 5, with significantly higher tariffs on imports from 57 specific countries scheduled to take effect on April 9. These country-specific tariffs range from 11% to 50%, with China facing the highest rate at 145% or rather 245%, effectively cutting off most trade between the world’s two largest economies.
The formula for determining these “reciprocal tariffs” remains somewhat opaque, but appears to be based primarily on bilateral trade deficits, with countries running larger surpluses with the United States facing higher tariff rates. This approach reflects Trump’s persistent view that trade deficits represent “losing” in international commerce, a perspective at odds with mainstream economic thinking, which generally views trade balances as the result of broader macroeconomic factors rather than evidence of unfair trade practices.
For Sri Lanka, the formula resulted in a punishing 44% tariff rate, the sixth highest among all targeted countries. This places Sri Lankan exports at a severe competitive disadvantage in the American market, threatening an industry that has been central to the country’s economic development strategy for decades.
The stated objectives of these tariffs include reducing the US trade deficit, revitalising American manufacturing, punishing countries perceived as engaging in unfair trade practices, and generating revenue that Trump has variously suggested could fund infrastructure, childcare subsidies, or even replace income taxes entirely. However, economic analyses from institutions like the World Trade Organisation, the Penn Wharton Budget Model, and numerous independent economists suggest these objectives are unlikely to be achieved, and that the tariffs will instead reduce economic growth both domestically and globally while raising prices for American consumers.
After a violent reaction in financial markets, the administration announced a 90-day pause on the higher country-specific tariffs for all nations, except China. However, the baseline 10% tariff remains in effect, and the threat of the higher tariffs continues to create significant uncertainty in global markets. This uncertainty itself acts as a drag on economic activity, as businesses delay investment decisions and reconsider supply chain arrangements in anticipation of potential future trade disruptions.
GLOBAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TRUMP TARIFFS
The imposition of sweeping tariffs by the Trump administration has sent ripples throughout the global economy, with international organisations, economic research institutions, and financial markets all signalling significant concerns about their far-reaching consequences. What began as a unilateral policy decision by the United States threatens to fundamentally alter global trade patterns, disrupt supply chains, and potentially trigger a broader economic slowdown that could affect billions of people worldwide.
WTO Projections on Global Trade Contraction
The World Trade Organisation (WTO), the primary international body overseeing global trade rules, has issued stark warnings about the impact of Trump’s tariffs. In its latest assessment of the global trading system, the WTO dramatically revised its trade growth projections for 2025. Prior to the tariff announcements, the organisation had forecast a healthy 2.7% expansion in global trade for the year. Following Trump’s “Liberation Day” declaration, it now projects a 0.2% contraction, a negative swing of nearly three percentage points.
This contraction in trade is expected to have direct consequences for global economic growth as well. The WTO has downgraded its global GDP growth forecast from 2.8% to a more anaemic 2.2%. While this may seem like a modest reduction, in absolute terms, it represents hundreds of billions of dollars in lost economic activity and potentially millions of foregone jobs worldwide.
Of particular concern to the WTO is the potential “decoupling” of the world’s two largest economies. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the WTO’s director general, has expressed specific alarm about this phenomenon, noting that trade between the United States and China is expected to plunge by 81-91% without exemptions for tech products, such as smartphones. Such a dramatic reduction in bilateral trade between these economic giants would be “tantamount to a decoupling of the two economies” with “far-reaching consequences” for global prosperity and stability.
The WTO has also modelled more severe scenarios that could materialise if the currently paused “reciprocal tariffs” are reimposed after their 90-day hiatus. In such a case, the organisation projects a steeper 0.8% decline in global goods trade. Should this be accompanied by a surge in “trade policy uncertainty” worldwide, as other countries adjust their own policies in response, the WTO suggests an even more severe 1.5% contraction in trade could occur, with global GDP growth potentially falling to just 1.7%, a level that would place many countries perilously close to recession.
by Ali Sabry
(To be continued)
Features
Justice and democracy in Sri Lanka’s new political era
The legal processes are steadily closing in on some of the most controversial cases that have remained as open questions without closure for many years. These include the Easter Sunday bombings of 2019, the Treasury bond scam that erupted in 2015, and a range of corruption allegations that became synonymous with successive governments over the past two or more decades. What once appeared to be stalled investigations are now showing signs of movement through the courts and investigative agencies. Recent developments suggest that these long running cases are entering a decisive phase. In the Easter Sunday attacks investigation, new arrests and investigations have brought renewed attention to allegations that extend beyond the immediate perpetrators and into questions of intelligence failures and possible political complicity. The arrest and detention of former intelligence chief Suresh Sallay under the Prevention of Terrorism Act has intensified public interest in uncovering the full truth behind the attacks.
The Treasury bond scam has also re-entered the spotlight. The Supreme Court has recently overturned legal obstacles that had prevented prosecutions from proceeding and directed that the case moves forward expeditiously. This has reopened one of the most sophisticated financial scandals in the country’s recent history and brought several prominent political and financial figures back under legal scrutiny. As those implicated in these unresolved cases are leading figures from previous governments, which have spanned both sides of the political divide since Independence, it can well be imagined that there is tremendous opposition to the gradually enveloping legal processes that is both seen and unseen.
These cases that are now being investigated cut across political camps and involve individuals who occupied some of the highest offices in the country. The result is that resistance to accountability is likely to emerge from many quarters. Still to be opened are the thousands of cases of persons gone missing during the war. Presidential Commissions have been appointed with regard to them, but there has been no serious investigations of the type now taking place.
In these circumstances, it can be surmised that the government led by those who are new to power would wish to retain a maximum of power to face the pushback that is bound to emerge from those in the opposition who have wielded power for generations. The government may calculate that this is not the time to disperse authority or reduce the instruments of state power available to it. Instead, it may believe that a period of centralised control is necessary if investigations, prosecutions and reforms are to proceed without interference.
Provincial Elections
It appears that the opposition’s efforts to mobilise the people and public opinion against the government have not been successful so far. One such instance was the attempt to generate opposition to price increases. Although people have undoubtedly been affected by rising prices and economic difficulties, these efforts failed to gather significant momentum. Another attempt came when President Dissanayake predicted that opposition politicians would face imprisonment in the month of May as legal cases progressed, though this has not happened. Critics claimed that such remarks suggested an intention to influence judicial outcomes. Yet this criticism also failed to gain traction among the public. The likely reason is that public memory remains fresh. Many people continue to associate previous governments with economic mismanagement, corruption scandals, abuse of power and the eventual economic collapse. In comparison, the present government continues to enjoy a reservoir of public goodwill and credibility. As long as legal action appears to be based on evidence and proper process, the public seems prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt.
The government’s deliberate and cautious approach to political reform that would reduce its centralised power needs to be seen in this context. The monthly approval by Parliament of the emergency regulations is justified by the government as due to the continuing need to respond to the devastation caused by Cyclone Ditwah. However, when viewed together with the reluctance to hold provincial council elections on the grounds of electoral reform, the failure to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the postponement of constitutional reform, they all appear to reflect a preference for retaining maximum control at a politically sensitive moment. There is a logic to this approach. Governments facing major legal and political confrontations often seek stability and control. So does every despot. However, there is also a downside.
When political competition is denied to legitimate outlets, it often finds expression in confrontation, obstruction and polarisation. The advantage of prioritising the conduct of provincial council elections at this time is that it could reduce the political pressures that are building up. The main opposition parties are united in calling for these elections to be held. Conducting them would provide an opportunity for opposition political parties to obtain a measure of democratic representation and political authority at the provincial level. This would be especially true in the northern and eastern provinces, in which the ethnic and religious minorities predominate. It cannot be forgotten that the provincial council system was developed as a constructive response to the ethnic conflict. Elections at the provincial level would create opportunities for a new generation of political leaders to emerge through democratic competition rather than patronage. Many of those now facing legal scrutiny belong to an older generation to whose needs the younger may be less deferential.
Two Pillars
Another reform that could command bipartisan support is the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The PTA has once again become controversial because it is being used in situations that extend beyond its original purpose. The detention of former intelligence chief Suresh Sallay under the Act, the continued incarceration of some Tamil detainees from the war period, and the arrest of individuals accused of speech related offences have all revived concerns regarding prolonged detention without trial and excessive executive power. The reason the PTA has been difficult to repeal is that it is closely associated with concerns regarding national security and territorial integrity. Introduced in 1979 as a temporary measure to confront the emerging separatist conflict, it survived through decades of war and has remained on the statute books long after the conflict ended.
At the same time, history shows that extraordinary powers are likely to be misused. Laws that permit detention without trial or broad executive discretion are rarely confined to their original purpose. Governments of different political parties have used such powers against opponents and critics. The temptation to do so is inherent in the possession of unchecked authority. The way forward could therefore be a combination of accountability and reform. The government should continue to support independent investigations and prosecutions in major corruption and security related cases. Demonstrating political will in this regard would strengthen public confidence in the rule of law and reinforce the principle that no individual is above the law. The PTA could be replaced with legislation that amends the Criminal Procedure Code and Penal Code in a manner that addresses legitimate security concerns while complying with democratic norms and human rights standards.
There are also international dimensions to consider. The European Union has repeatedly linked governance and human rights reforms, including reform of the PTA, to Sri Lanka’s continuing access to the GSP Plus trade concession. Progress on these issues would strengthen Sri Lanka’s international standing at a time when economic recovery remains a national priority. The government has a rare opportunity. It possesses a strong electoral mandate, public goodwill and a reputation for integrity that previous governments lacked. It can combine the pursuit of justice in long delayed cases with meaningful democratic reforms that reduce political resistance and broaden public support. At this time, accountability and power sharing are the two pillars which Sri Lankans need to be committed to build a just and democratic society for a better future without delay. Failure now would make for a long period of waiting for the next time.
by Jehan Perera
Features
Pitfalls and exclusions in academic recruitment
A public university relies on its teachers in fulfilling its responsibilities to the wider community. While teaching remains the chief responsibility of the academic staff, they also conduct research and play a central role in keeping the university a vibrant space where they and students can freely participate in conversations that concern not just routine classroom education but also society at large. The broader intellectual culture and intellectual integrity of a university thus depend on how its academics perform their functions. Therefore, universities should take the task of recruiting their academics seriously. It is important to ensure that this task is done responsibly, transparently and credibly through a fair, thorough and multi-phased evaluation process.
As both an applicant and a member of selection panels for recruitment, I hold that the recruitment procedures, currently in place in our university system, require radical reforms. Echoing some of the concerns raised by Kaushalya Perera in her Kuppi article on recruitment in March 2026, I focus on the limitations I have observed and experienced, specifically in the recruitment of Lecturer (Probationary) and Senior Lecturer positions. The article also aims to explore how these shortcomings could be addressed.
The Advertisement
Recruitment for Lecturer (Probationary) and Senior Lecturer positions is done through an open-advertisement which also involves an interview with shortlisted candidates. Advertisements are finalised in line with a template issued by the Registrar’s Office. Generally, an initial draft, prepared by the Registrar’s Office, is sent to the relevant academic departments for revisions. The revisions have to be made within the template provided, which allows space for the mention of only specialisation requirements.
It should be noted that not all revisions to the advertisement, suggested by the Department Head, are accepted in the next round. Deans, Vice Chancellors and Registrars, who have very little understanding of the disciplines associated with the position, sometimes reject the changes proposed by the Department. Technocratic in their thinking, they don’t recognise that an academic programme can be taught by persons with specialisation in another overlapping discipline. For instance, a position in English, at a university in Sri Lanka, is very well suited to not just those who have postgraduate qualifications in literary studies but also those who are from the disciplines of Applied Linguistics, Cultural Studies or Translation Studies, as these areas are taught as sub-fields of English studies at most universities in the country. These disciplinary overlaps, even when pointed out by Heads, are often overlooked by our administrators.
In place of this process, dominated by academic administrators and registrars, the advertisement should ideally emerge, from the relevant department, in the form of a comprehensive job description. It should mention the nature of the position advertised, the kind of teaching (and research) expected, how the position relates to other positions in the department, in terms of specialisation and workload, and the ways in which the recruited candidate would contribute to overall institutional development.
There can be no one-size-fits-all model when it comes to recruitment. Individual departments vary in size, strength and specialisation requirements. Departments with sizable academic staff may want to emphasise specialisation during recruitment, whereas smaller departments may prefer generalists who can handle a wide-array of courses. Specifying the rationale for the requirements included in the job description may help potential applicants get an understanding of the position advertised and the selection panel to conduct the evaluation process in a fair manner.
Review of Applications
Once applications are received, we sometimes find promising candidates but with qualifications that don’t carry in their title the name of the discipline or the department in which the position is advertised. Sometimes the disciplines or fields of specialisation that appear in the advertisement and the ones that appear in the qualifications are not identical in nomenclature, even though the research undertaken by the applicant during their graduate studies is strongly relevant to the position advertised. Even when such applications are accompanied by strong and relevant publications, our system does not view them positively. Instead, nomenclatural differences are used to reject promising candidates. Such differences are also used as a pretext when universities want to exclude a candidate for their cultural background, political beliefs or other reasons. Even if academic departments recognise such applications, at the next stage, the administrators of the university try to veto them. We lose inter-disciplinary scholars of high academic standing because of the high-handedness of university administrators.
Selection Panels
Selection panels for academic positions typically comprise the Vice Chancellor, the Dean of the Faculty, the Head of the Department, two academics nominated by the Senate and two members of the University Council. In the case of programmes/disciplines jointly housed under a single department, if the Head comes from a discipline other than the one in which the position is advertised, they may not be able to contribute in an informed manner to the recruitment process. However, some Heads refuse to appoint nominees from the relevant discipline in their place as they view sitting on selection panels as their exclusive privilege.
Sometimes university Senates do not take the appointment of Senate nominees seriously. These appointments are decided in a hurry without serious deliberations at senate meetings packed with numerous agenda items. Sometimes even if the relevant department has suitable academics to serve as Senate nominees, the Senate chooses academics from other departments or disciplines who do not have a nuanced understanding of the requirements of the position advertised and its disciplinary parameters. Sometimes specialists in the relevant discipline may not be available at a university. On such occasions, Senates tend to fill up the positions with academics from other disciplines, instead of inviting external nominees from other universities. At a state university in Sri Lanka, I was interviewed thrice for academic positions by selection panels that comprised not even one specialist from the relevant discipline.
The Marking Scheme
The marking schemes used in recruitment have their own drawbacks. Publications are sometimes evaluated for their quantity rather than quality. The opinion of the subject specialist is not sought or taken seriously when a candidate’s research is evaluated. This is why our universities are saddled with academics who engage in plagiarism or predatory publishing. The evaluation process should be tightened in such a way to bar the entry of those who lack academic integrity.
It is worrying to see that marking schemes and schemes of recruitment penalise applicants who have excelled in their graduate studies and are well-reputed for their recent research and publications just because they did not earn a first-class or second-class upper-division pass at the undergraduate level. Our narrow focus on a candidate’s first degree prevents us from giving due recognition to how that person has gained intellectual depth over the years. Some marking rubrics, which allocate points for eye-contact and posture during the interview, dilute the seriousness associated with the academic position, de-prioritise scholarship and turn the interview process into a stage performance.
Cultural Credibility
In recruitment, many universities look for cultural credibility (a term that I borrow from the work of Sulaxana Hippisley) as an unwritten requirement. Some departments are reluctant to hire applicants who are not their alumni. Some selection panels discriminate against candidates from certain ethnic or religious backgrounds. In some departments, women are rejected because they are likely to go on maternity leave or have more domestic responsibilities than men. Gender and sexual minorities have to mute and censor their identities at interviews because they are likely to face rejection if they openly declare their orientation. We have no policies and procedures in place to ensure recruitment is conducted in an inclusive way that sees diversity as a strength.
The Way-forward
When recruitment fails, the entire intellectual culture of that university takes a hit, and several generations of students are affected. Some of the current problems, related to quality in our higher education system, stem from bad recruitment policies and practices. Instead of trying to address these issues through rigorous and inclusive recruitment practices, we try to seek solutions via band-aids like quality assurance and workshops on curriculum writing and pedagogy for university academics.
In developing alternative recruitment policies and practices, we have to demand that the needs and expectations of individual departments are heard. Our selection panels should include more subject specialists than administrators and council nominees. Most of the evaluation should be completed before the interviews, and interviews should be treated as opportunities to get to know candidates in person and pose clarifying questions rather than as occasions for full-scale evaluation. We have to be open and receptive to new, inter-disciplinary scholarship and cultural, ethnic and gender diversity. If we are unwilling to introspect and bring about these reforms and revise our marking schemes, we will continue to recruit the wrong candidates and thereby fail our students and the wider community.
Mahendran Thiruvarangan is a Senior Lecturer attached to the Department of Linguistics & English at the University of Jaffna.
(Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.)
by Mahendran Thiruvarangan
Features
Rocking scene … in Japan
Chitral ‘Chity’ Somapala, now based in Sweden, has been active in the music scene for many years, and is known for his hard rock work with European bands like Firewind, Power Quest, and Avalon.
In Sri Lanka, he’s a household name and that’s the reason why he checks out the local scene, on a regular basis, keeping rock music lovers in the groove.
His shows are invariably ‘full house’’ events.
Sri Lanka’s rock star is now ready to do the needful … in Japan, and rock fans in that part of the world are already gearing themselves up for a rock explosion, with Chitral in the spotlight.
The show is scheduled for 03rd October, 2026, at the Hattori Ryokuchi Park, in Osaka, with Wayo.
The blast off is from 1.00 pm onwards.
However, before he checks out the Osaka scene, Chitral has another important date in his itinerary – a spectacular Sri Lankan musical extravaganza at the Sydney Opera House, in Australia.
The concert is titled Rhythms of Sri Lanka and will be held on 23rd August, 2026.

Back in Colombo soon to oblige local rock fans
Although Chitral Somapala is, indeed, a big name, as a rock artiste, he also revives the music of his parents, as well, often performing their music, along with his own songs, at live programmes.
In fact, the album ‘Dambulugale’, released in 2018, which is a tribute to his parents, famous Sri Lankan musicians P. L. A. Somapala and Chitra Somapala, turned out to be a massive hit, not only in Sri Lanka, but with Sri Lankans the world over.
The album, a compilation of various cover songs, previously written and performed by his parents, was dedicated to Chitral’s parents, and released on the 70th anniversary of Sri Lanka’s independence.
He also dropped ‘Chitral Somapala Live In Concert’, in 2023, with 22 tracks, and has several other releases to his credit.
Besides his rocking career, Chitral was asked by veteran film directors Chandran Rutnam, Asoka Handagama, Priyantha Colombage, Udayakantha and Shameera Naotunna to contribute his talent for their soundtracks, and he won a Presidential award and an International award for the movie ‘Let Her Cry’ by Asoka Handagama.
Chitral will be back in Colombo soon with another rocker for his fans, so watch out for Rock Meets Reggae.
-
Latest News6 days agoKusal Mendis, Pathum Nissanka, bowlers put Sri Lanka 1-0 up
-
News6 days agoNew US tariffs proposed on 60 countries, including Sri Lanka
-
Features5 days agoPower crept into the Sangha and is now tearing it apart
-
Features5 days agoKondachchi wind farm and battery storage project to boost energy security, says Power Ministry Secretary
-
Features5 days agoSaudi Arabia sets new benchmark in Hajj management as 1.7 million pilgrims complete sacred journey
-
News3 days agoWomen’s T20 World Cup 2026 warm-up: Chamari Athapaththu’s 94 helps Sri Lanka beat Pakistan
-
News4 days agoAsst. Manager, security officer arrested over Rs 30 mn snatch at Horana PB branch
-
Editorial2 days agoProbe Sallay’s complaint
