Features
Buddhism, Spirituality and Science
Some 800 km East of Bhutan is the city of Varanasi in India. In the 2566th year of the Buddhist era, human beings – members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens – total some eight billion individuals and still increasing. There is an estimated total of over two million separate species of animals, plants and microorganisms, with humans evidently poised at the pinnacle of evolution, on a planet that is 4.500 million years old. Today humans comprise a species ill at ease with itself, uncertain of its place and role in the scheme of things. Evidence of our cave dwelling ancestors date back to over two million years and our stone-age ancestors nearly 12,000 years ago.
An impressive recorded history of art, culture and civilization associated with modern man stretches over at least 5,000 years. Yet the past 100 years have seen the most dramatic changes in the entire history and destiny of our species. Alongside the acquisition of scientific knowledge and the explosion of technology on a grand scale, there has been a steady moral decline and decay which appears to continue unabated. The decline has a profound effect on the well-being of the planet itself. The Earth’s scarce resources of energy are being squandered, and its environment polluted in ways that threaten the very integrity of the planet.
The unbridled greed of the richer nations to amass a disproportionate share of the planet’s resources is leading to a situation where the inequality between rich and poor continues to rise. The number of people living close to starvation is reckoned, not in tens or hundreds of millions, but closer to several billion, and this number continues to grow. International aid projects are patronizingly conceived to pay lip service to “compassion” and to assuage the consciences of the rich, but the underlying causes of inequities are scarcely touched.
In the developed world, perhaps the most dramatic changes to the human condition have followed the weakening and virtual collapse of the social unit we call the family; a social unit that had served our ancestors exceedingly well for millions of years. Billions of humans are now left wandering hither and thither on the surface of a threatened planet like a disturbed swarm of bees, bewildered and without any sense of moral purpose.
Evidence to justify this grim caricature of ourselves can be seen everywhere. On a Friday or Saturday night in most of the major cities of the UK (for instance) one could see all the signs of a civilization in decline. Binge drinking in public houses and bars overflows into the streets in the form of disorderly conduct, even senseless murders – a pattern of behavior unmistakably symptomatic of a social system in the throes of decay.
Newspapers and the media the world over are full of stories of gratuitous violence at all levels. From strife within small social groups at the lower end of the scale to a simmering discord between nations that might eventually engulf the entire world in war. We are being constantly reminded of the horrors of international terrorism whenever we travel and pass through ever-more stringent security checks at our airports and seaports.
Against this grotesque backdrop of insecurity it is not too difficult to convince oneself that we are perilously close to self-destruction. Disaster could strike within a matter of a few years or decades unless measures can be devised to avoid it. And destruction, if it does come, will not be restricted to the humans; rather would it threaten the extermination of all life on the planet.
The long-term survival of humanity must be contingent upon the emergence in the very near future of a collective sense of sanity and group preservation – an Enlightenment. Whether this can be seen as an extension of the Darwinian process of natural selection, the struggle and instinct for survival, for which there is an evolutionary imperative, is left to be seen. As individuals we are unquestionably endowed with an instinct for self-preservation, but in the larger demographic groups of the modern world such an instinct appears to have become increasingly insignificant.
Natural biological survival instinct at an individual level may have to be replaced by a self-preserving philosophy of life embodying some form of moral code. Perhaps this can come from the emergence of AI (artificial intelligence) which seems to be emerging as an ever more powerful factor in controlling human behavior.
For centuries in Western Europe moral and ethical values were provided by Christianity that proved to be a powerful civilizing force. Even though such ethical principles failed to prevent the recurrence of wars and conflicts, they were adequate to secure happiness for individuals in society, maintain the cohesion of social units, and to ensure the survival of mankind. With the rising tide of secularism in the latter half of the 20th century, the influence of Christianity as a moral force for good began to wane, leaving a moral vacuum in a society that is now the poorer for its loss.
All this has happened against the backdrop of a unique empowerment of our species through advances in science. In a brief interlude of a hundred years the world has witnessed a technological revolution that has seen no parallel in the past. The atom was smashed in the 1930’s unleashing the formidable power of nuclear energy. The blue print of life – DNA – was discovered in the 1950’s, heralding the birth of biotechnology.
Space science and astronomy have advanced enormously in the past two decades with the development of a new generation of telescopes and instruments. The solar system has been thoroughly explored using space vehicles and spacecraft. Orbiting space telescopes like the Hubble telescope have unraveled the minutest details of astronomical processes that are taking place in the most distant galaxies. The Kepler telescope launched in 2009 have revealed the existence of many million habitable (Earth-like) planets in our galaxy alone.
In the past year evidence of life on an exoplanet over 100 light years away has been discovered. The origin of most of the matter in the visible universe had been thought to be traced to an explosive Big Bang – type event that occurred nearly 13.8 billion years ago. But this point of view has been challenged months ago after the discovery of galaxies much further away – far, far too close to the Big Bang itself.
We have understood the processes by which life arrived at the Earth, and spreads through the Universe, although the precise processes that led to the emergence of the first life in the Universe is still obscure. Maybe life and the Universe were always there, and there was no beginning or act of creation. This is what was stated in Buddhist scriptures of 2,500 years ago. It is becoming increasingly clear that life, even intelligent life, could be ubiquitous in the galaxy.
Computers, the internet, and mobile phones have transformed the lives of every inhabitant of our planet. Recently scientists have engineered a bacterium from synthetically constructed stretches of DNA. We are at the threshold of creating new forms of life in the laboratory, or for that matter lethal microbes that could kill an entire species at will. It is all too obvious that the fruits of modern science could be harnessed for good or for evil. Today bioterrorism and nuclear weapons in the possession of rogue states pose the greatest threat to the security of nations.
In the crisis that faces us it is perhaps no surprise to find more and more people in the West turning for solace to Eastern philosophies, philosophies in which peace and compassion are accorded pride of place. Buddhism is a supreme example in this category.
Buddhism has an immediate appeal to the intellect. It seeks solutions to the problems of the world by trying to understand their causes at a deep and fundamental level. Solutions are sought mainly by a process of meditation and self-analysis. Such a procedure might be expected to lead to the transference of interest in oneself and self-preservation to the benefit of larger groups. A deep concern for one’s own inner peace and tranquility could be quickly transformed into an equal concern for all mankind or even for all living things. So arises the Buddhist refrain, May all living beings be happy!
In its original form Buddhism may be seen as a pragmatic philosophy worked out by an Indian Prince Siddharta Gautama 2,554 years ago. As a royal prince, married and with a young son, he had enjoyed all the regal comforts that befitted his station. But such privileges did not make him blind to the intensity of human suffering that he witnessed all around him.
One day, at the age of 29, riding in his chariot in the royal gardens, he is said to have witnessed four sights: a decrepit old man leaning on a stick and shaking all over, a sick man, a corpse and finally a monk in calm repose. He began to ask questions about what he saw, but he could not find answers that satisfied him. He was so deeply moved by what he saw that he rode out at night to renounce all worldly pleasures and to lead the life of an ascetic. For six years he tried many forms of asceticism, including self-mortification and fasting, but to no avail. Finally he retreated to meditate under the shade of the sacred Bo-tree, seeking to discover his own solution to the problems of life, disease, suffering and death. His eventual enlightenment came after 49 days, after which he came to be known as Gautama, the Buddha – the enlightened One.
The philosophy that emerged from this enlightenment was at once simple and profound. lt touched upon all aspects of life, the cause of suffering and the nature of human relationships as well as the nature of the world in which we live. It was as all-embracing and comprehensive as any philosophy could be. An important point to note is that this enlightenment was not regarded by Gautama Buddha as a miraculous event or one that involved communication with an external divine agent.
It is presented as a state of mind at peace with the world from which objective knowledge flows naturally. It is a condition that every single human being could aspire to and reach to varying degrees in his or her own lifetime. For the remainder of Gautama’s life until his death at the age of 80 he travelled widely in Northern India preaching his doctrines and making millions of converts to his point of view.
(Vidya Jyothi Prof Chandra Wickramasinghe, MBE, MA, PhD, ScD (Cantab) is an internationally renowned Sri Lankan-British astronomer. Former Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, former Professor at Cardiff University, Honorary Professor University of Buckingham UK, Ruhuna University and National Institute of Fundamental Studies Sri Lanka)
(To be continued next week)
Vidya Jyoti Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe
Features
Retirement age for judges: Innovation and policy
I. The Constitutional Context
Independence of the judiciary is, without question, an essential element of a functioning democracy. In recognition of this, ample provision is made in the highest law of our country, the Constitution, to engender an environment in which the courts are able to fulfil their public responsibility with total acceptance.
As part of this protective apparatus, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal are assured of security of tenure by the provision that “they shall not be removed except by an order of the President made after an address of Parliament supported by a majority of the total number of members of Parliament, (including those not present), has been presented to the President for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”[Article 107(2)]. Since this assurance holds good for the entirety of tenure, it follows that the age of retirement should be defined with certainty. This is done by the Constitution itself by the provision that “the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court shall be 65 years and of judges of the Court of Appeal shall be 63 years”[Article 107(5)].
II. A Proposal for Reform
This provision has been in force ever since the commencement of the Constitution. Significant public interest, therefore, has been aroused by the lead story in a newspaper, Anidda of 13 March, that the government is proposing to extend the term of office of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal by a period of two years.
This proposal, if indeed it reflects the thinking of the government, is deeply disturbing from the standpoint of policy, and gives rise to grave consequences. The courts operating at the apex of the judicial structure are called upon to do justice between citizens and also between the state and members of the public. It is an indispensable principle governing the administration of justice that not the slightest shadow of doubt should arise in the public mind regarding the absolute objectivity and impartiality with which the courts approach this task.
What is proposed, if the newspaper report is authentic, is to confer on judges of two particular courts, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, a substantial benefit or advantage in the form of extension of their years of service. The question is whether the implications of this initiative are healthy for the administration of justice.
III. Governing Considerations of Policy
What is at stake is a principle intuitively identified as a pillar of justice.
Reflecting firm convictions, the legal antecedents reiterate the established position with remarkable emphasis. The classical exposition of the seminal standard is, of course, the pronouncement by Lord Hewart: “It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. (Rex v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy). The underlying principle is that perception is no less important than reality. The mere appearance of partiality has been held to vitiate proceedings: Dissanayake v. Kaleel. In particular, reasonableness of apprehension in the mind of the parties to litigation is critical: Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, a reasonable likelihood of bias being necessarily fatal (Manak Lal v. Prem Chaud Singhvi).
The overriding factor is unshaken public confidence in the judiciary: State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak. The decision must be “demonstrably” (Saleem Marsoof J.) fair. The Bar Association of Sri Lanka has rightly declared: “The authority of the judiciary ultimately depends on the trust reposed in it by the people, which is sustained only when justice is administered in a visibly fair manner”.
Credibility is paramount in this regard. “Justice has to be seen to be believed” (J.B. Morton). Legality of the outcome is not decisive; process is of equal consequence. Judicial decisions, then, must withstand public scrutiny, not merely legal technicality: Mark Fernando J. in the Jana Ghosha case. Conceived as continuing vitality of natural justice principles, these are integral to justice itself: Samarawickrema J. in Fernando v. Attorney General. Institutional integrity depends on eliminating even the appearance of partiality (Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant), and “open justice is the cornerstone of our judicial system”: (Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI).
IV. Practical Constraints
Apart from these compelling considerations of policy, there are practical aspects which call for serious consideration. The effect of the proposal is that, among all judges operating at different levels in the judicature of Sri Lanka, judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal only, to the exclusion of all other judges, are singled out as the beneficiaries of the proposal. An inevitable result is that High Court and District Judges and Magistrates will find their avenues of promotion seriously impeded by the unexpected lengthening of the periods of service of currently serving judges in the two apex courts. Consequently, they will be required to retire at a point of time appreciably earlier than they had anticipated to relinquish judicial office because the prospect of promotion to higher courts, entailing higher age limits for retirement, is precipitately withdrawn. Some degree of demotivation, arising from denial of legitimate expectation, is therefore to be expected.
A possible response to this obvious problem is a decision to make the two-year extension applicable to all judicial officers, rather than confining it to judges of the two highest courts. This would solve the problem of disillusionment at lower levels of the judiciary, but other issues, clearly serious in their impact, will naturally arise.
Public service structures, to be equitable and effective, must be founded on principles of non-discrimination in respect of service conditions and related matters. Arbitrary or invidious treatment is destructive of this purpose. In determining the age of retirement of judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, some attention has been properly paid to balance and consistency. The age of retirement of a Supreme Court judge is on par with that applicable to university professors and academic staff in the higher education system. They all retire at 65 years. Members of the public service, generally, retire at 60. Medical specialists retire at 63, with the possibility of extension in special circumstances to 65. The age of retirement for High Court Judges is 61, and for Magistrates and District Judges 60. It may be noted that the policy change in 2022 aimed at specifically addressing the issue of uniformity and compatibility.
If, then, an attempt is made to carve out an ad hoc principle strictly limited to judicial officers, not admitting of a self-evident rationale, the question would inevitably arise whether this is fair by other categories of the public service and whether the latter would not entertain a justifiable sense of grievance.
This is not merely a moral or ethical issue relating to motivation and fulfillment within the public service, but it could potentially give rise to critical legal issues. It is certainly arguable that the proposed course of action represents an infringement of the postulate of equality of treatment, and non-discrimination, enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
There would, as well, be the awkward situation that this issue, almost certain to be raised, would then have to be adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court, itself the direct and exclusive beneficiary of the impugned measure.
V. Piecemeal Amendment or an Overall Approach?
If innovation on these lines is contemplated, would it not be desirable to take up the issue as part of the new Constitution, which the government has pledged to formulate and enact, rather than as a piecemeal amendment at this moment to the existing Constitution? After all, Chapter XV, dealing with the Judiciary, contains provisions interlinked with other salient features of the Constitution, and an integrated approach would seem preferable.
VI. Conclusion
In sum, then, it is submitted that the proposed change is injurious to the institutional integrity of the judiciary and to the prestige and stature of judges, and that it should not be implemented without full consideration of all the issues involved.
By Professor G. L. Peiris
D. Phil. (Oxford), Ph. D. (Sri Lanka);
Former Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs and National Integration;
Quondam Visiting Fellow of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London;
Former Vice-Chancellor and Emeritus Professor of Law of the University of Colombo.
Features
Ranked 134th in Happiness: Rethinking Sri Lanka’s development through happiness, youth wellbeing and resilience
In recent years, Sri Lanka has experienced a succession of overlapping challenges that have tested its resilience. Cyclone Ditwah struck Sri Lanka in November last year, significantly disrupting the normal lives of its citizens. The infrastructure damage is much more serious than the tsunami. According to World Bank reports and preliminary estimates, the losses amounted to approximately US$ 4.1 billion, nearly 4 per cent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. Before taking a break from that, the emerging crisis in the Middle East has once again raised concerns about potential economic repercussions. In particular, those already affected by disasters such as Cyclone Ditwah risk falling “from the frying pan into the fire,” facing multiple hardships simultaneously. Currently, we see fuel prices rising, four-day workweeks, a higher cost of living, increased pressure on household incomes, and a reduction in the overall standard of living for ordinary citizens. It would certainly affect people’s happiness. As human beings, we naturally aspire to live happy and fulfilling lives. At a time when the world is increasingly talking about happiness and wellbeing, the World Happiness Report provides a useful way of looking at how countries are doing. The World Happiness Report discusses global well-being and offers strategies to improve it. The report is produced annually with contributions from the University of Oxford’s Wellbeing Research Centre, Gallup, the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and other stakeholders. There are many variables taken into consideration for the index, including the core measure (Cantril Ladder) and six explanatory variables (GDP per Capita ,Social Support,Healthy Life Expectancy,Freedom to Make Life Choices,Generosity,Perceptions of Corruption), with a final comparison.
According to the recently published World Happiness Report 2026, Sri Lanka ranks 134th out of 147 nations. As per the report, this is the first time that Sri Lanka has suffered such a decline. Sri Lanka currently trails behind most of its South Asian neighbours in the happiness index. The World Happiness Report 2026 attributes Sri Lanka’s low ranking (134th) to a combination of persistent economic struggles, social challenges, and modern pressures on younger generations. The 2026 report specifically noted that excessive social media use is a growing factor contributing to declining life satisfaction among young people globally, including in Sri Lanka. This calls for greater vigilance and careful reflection. These concerns should be examined alongside key observations, particularly in the context of education reforms in Sri Lanka, which must look beyond their immediate scope and engage more meaningfully with the country’s future.
In recent years, a series of events has triggered political upheaval in countries such as Nepal, characterised by widespread protests, government collapse, and the emergence of interim administration. Most reports and news outlets described this as “Gen Z protests.” First, we need to understand what Generation Z is and its key attributes. Born between 1997 and 2012, Generation Z represents the first truly “digital native” generation—raised not just with the internet, but immersed in it. Their lives revolve around digital ecosystems: TikTok sets cultural trends, Instagram fuels discovery, YouTube delivers learning, and WhatsApp sustains peer communities. This constant, feed-driven engagement shapes not only how they consume content but how they think, act, and spend. Tech-savvy and socially aware, Gen Z holds brands to a higher standard. For them, authenticity, transparency, and accountability—especially on environmental and ethical issues—aren’t marketing tools; they’re baseline expectations. We can also observe instances of them becoming unnecessarily arrogant in making quick decisions and becoming tools of some harmful anti-social ideological groups. However, we must understand that any generation should have proper education about certain aspects of the normal world, such as respecting others, listening to others, and living well. More interestingly, a global survey by the McKinsey Health Institute, covering 42,083 people across 26 countries, finds that Gen Z reports poorer mental health than older cohorts and is more likely to perceive social media as harmful.
Youth health behaviour in Sri Lanka reveals growing concerns in mental health and wellbeing. Around 18% of youth (here, school-going adolescents aged 13-17) experience depression, 22.4% feel lonely, and 11.9% struggle with sleep due to worry, with issues rising alongside digital exposure. Suicide-related risks are significant, with notable proportions reporting thoughts, plans, and attempts, particularly among females. Bullying remains a significant concern, particularly among males, with cyberbullying emerging as a notable issue. At the same time, substance use is increasing, including tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes. These trends highlight the urgent need for targeted interventions to support youth mental health, resilience, and healthier behavioural outcomes in Sri Lanka. We need to create a forum in Sri Lanka to keep young people informed about this. Sri Lanka can designate a date (like April 25th) as a National Youth Empowerment Day to strengthen youth mental health and suicide prevention efforts. This should be supported by a comprehensive, multi-sectoral strategy aligned with basic global guidelines. Key priorities include school-based emotional learning, counselling services, and mental health training for teachers and parents. Strengthening data systems, reducing access to harmful means, and promoting responsible media reporting are essential. Empowering families and communities through awareness and digital tools will ensure this day becomes a meaningful national call to action.
As discussed earlier, Sri Lanka must carefully understand and respond to the challenges arising from its ongoing changes. Sri Lanka should establish an immediate task force comprising responsible stakeholders to engage in discussions on ongoing concerns. Recognising that it is not a comprehensive solution, the World Happiness Index can nevertheless act as an important indicator in guiding a paradigm shift in how we approach education and economic development. For a country seeking to reposition itself globally, Sri Lanka must adopt stronger, more effective strategies across multiple sectors. Building a resilient and prosperous future requires sound policymaking and clear strategic direction.
(The writer is a Professor in Management Studies at the Open University of Sri Lanka. You can reach Professor Abeysekera via nabey@ou.ac.lk)
by Prof. Nalin Abeysekera
Features
Hidden diversity in Sri Lanka’s killifish revealed: New study reshapes understanding of island’s freshwater biodiversity
A groundbreaking new study led by an international team of scientists, including Sri Lankan researcher Tharindu Ranasinghe, has uncovered striking genetic distinctions in two closely related killifish species—reshaping long-standing assumptions about freshwater biodiversity shared between Sri Lanka and India.
Published recently in Zootaxa, the research brings together leading ichthyologists such as Hiranya Sudasinghe, Madhava Meegaskumbura, Neelesh Dahanukar and Rajeev Raghavan, alongside other regional experts, highlighting a growing South Asian collaboration in biodiversity science.
For decades, scientists debated whether Aplocheilus blockii and Aplocheilus parvus were in fact the same species. But the new genetic analysis confirms they are “distinct, reciprocally monophyletic sister species,” providing long-awaited clarity to their taxonomic identity.
Speaking to The Island, Ranasinghe said the findings underscore the hidden complexity of Sri Lanka’s freshwater ecosystems.
“What appears superficially similar can be genetically very different,” he noted. “Our study shows that even widespread, common-looking species can hold deep evolutionary histories that we are only now beginning to understand.”
A tale of two fishes
The study reveals that Aplocheilus blockii is restricted to peninsular India, while Aplocheilus parvus occurs both in southern India and across Sri Lanka’s lowland wetlands.
Despite their close relationship, the two species show clear genetic separation, with a measurable “genetic gap” distinguishing them. Subtle physical differences—such as the pattern of iridescent scales—also help scientists tell them apart.
Co-author Sudasinghe, who has led several landmark studies on Sri Lankan freshwater fishes, noted that such integrative approaches combining genetics and morphology are redefining taxonomy in the region.
Echoes of ancient land bridges
The findings also shed light on the ancient biogeographic links between Sri Lanka and India.
Scientists believe that during periods of low sea levels in the past, the two landmasses were connected by the now-submerged Palk Isthmus, allowing freshwater species to move between them.
Later, rising seas severed this connection, isolating populations and driving genetic divergence.
“These fishes likely dispersed between India and Sri Lanka when the land bridge existed,” Ranasinghe said. “Subsequent isolation has resulted in the patterns of genetic structure we see today.”
Meegaskumbura emphasised that such patterns are increasingly being observed across multiple freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka, pointing to a shared evolutionary history shaped by geography and climate.
A deeper genetic divide
One of the study’s most striking findings is that Sri Lankan populations of A. parvus are genetically distinct from those in India, with no shared haplotypes between the two regions.
Dahanukar explained that this level of differentiation, despite relatively recent geological separation, highlights how quickly freshwater species can diverge when isolated.
Meanwhile, Raghavan pointed out that these findings reinforce the importance of conserving habitats across both countries, as each region harbours unique genetic diversity.
Implications for conservation
The study carries important implications for conservation, particularly in a country like Sri Lanka where freshwater ecosystems are under increasing pressure from development, pollution, and climate change.
Ranasinghe stressed that understanding genetic diversity is key to protecting species effectively.
“If we treat all populations as identical, we risk losing unique genetic lineages,” he warned. “Conservation planning must recognise these hidden differences.”
Sri Lanka is already recognised as a global biodiversity hotspot, but studies like this suggest that its biological richness may be even greater than previously thought.
A broader scientific shift
The research also contributes to a growing body of work by scientists such as Sudasinghe and Meegaskumbura, challenging traditional assumptions about species distributions in the region.
Earlier studies often assumed that many freshwater fish species were shared uniformly between India and Sri Lanka. However, modern genetic tools are revealing a far more complex picture—one shaped by ancient geography, climatic shifts, and evolutionary processes.
“We are moving from a simplistic view of biodiversity to a much more nuanced understanding,” Ranasinghe said. “And Sri Lanka is proving to be a fascinating natural laboratory for this kind of research.”
Looking ahead
The researchers emphasise that much remains to be explored, with several freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka still poorly understood at the genetic level.
For Sri Lanka, the message is clear: beneath its rivers, tanks, and wetlands lies a largely untapped reservoir of evolutionary history.
As Ranasinghe puts it:
“Every stream could hold a story of millions of years in the making. We are only just beginning to read them.”
By Ifham Nizam
-
News4 days ago2025 GCE AL: 62% qualify for Uni entrance; results of 111 suspended
-
News6 days agoTariff shock from 01 April as power costs climb across the board
-
Business5 days agoHour of reckoning comes for SL’s power sector
-
Editorial4 days agoSearch for Easter Sunday terror mastermind
-
Features1 day agoRanjith Siyambalapitiya turns custodian of a rare living collection
-
Features6 days agoSeychelles … here we come
-
Opinion6 days agoSri Lanka has policy, but where is the data?
-
News1 day agoGlobal ‘Walk for Peace’ to be held in Lanka
