Features
Kachchativu and its maritime boundary ignore international law
By Neville Ladduwahetty
Issues relating to Kachchativu and its Maritime Boundaries come alive with the approach of elections in Tamil Nadu. Consequently, the practice of competing political parties in Tamil Nadu has been to pressure the Union Government of India and even legally through the Supreme Court of India to claim sovereign rights to Kachchativu and with it, shift the Maritime Boundary in a manner that would disproportionately favour the interests of Indian fishermen in the hope of capturing their votes. Now Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also joined the fray. Against this background, it is appropriate to revisit the issue of Kachchathivu, not from the perspective of historical claims of India or Sri Lanka as is the practice, but from the stand point of recognized International Law “Doctrine of UTI POSSIDETIS”.
For instance, it is reported that starting with the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Karunanidhi, the political leadership of Tamil Nadu is disappointed by the statement issued by the Central Government of India to India’s Supreme Court that “…no Indian territory, including Kachchativu, was ceded to Sri Lanka, and the question of retrieval does did not arise” (The Island, September 2, 2013). The hope of Tamil Nadu is that the Supreme Court would do justice by them and retrieve Kachchativu because of their flawed notion that it was ceded to Sri Lanka by India under the 1974 Agreement out of goodwill in the interest of furthering bilateral relations.
The issue of Kachchativu was dealt with comprehensively by the late Mr. W. T. Jayasinghe, starting with the history during colonial times and culminating with the 1974 Agreement between India and Sri Lanka (KACHCHATHIVU: AND THE MARITIME BOUNDARY OF SRI LANKA, 2003). In the Preface to his publication he states categorically, “Kachchathivu was at no time the property of India, as Sri Lanka had been exercising sovereignty over that island from early times”. The fact that Kachchativu was part of Sri Lanka’s territory was also accepted by both delegations representing Colonial India and Colonial Ceylon during the Conference of 1921.
Apart from the fact that Kachchativu “at no time was the property of India” and the fact that Britain accepted that the island was part of Sri Lanka’s territory during their colonial administration, it is a matter of serious concern and disappointment, why independent Sri Lanka did not take full advantage to exploit provisions of Internationally accepted Doctrine of Uti Possidetis that recognizes the legality of colonial boundaries during negotiations with decolonized India. Had Independent Sri Lanka taken such an initiative, Sri Lanka would have been entitled to retain the limit of three miles West of Kachchativu instead of ceding the boundary to one mile West as reportedly agreed upon later.
The material presented below repeats material from an Article titled “KACHCHATIVU in the CONTEXT of INTERNATIONAL LAW”, (September 4, 2013).
THE CONFERENCE OF 1921
In order to avoid over-exploitation of maritime resources and the possibility of competition between the fishermen of India and Sri Lanka in the same waters for their catch, the colonial Governments of Madras and Colombo agreed to delimit the waters in the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Bay. The two parties met in Colombo on October 24, 1921. The Indian team was led by Mr. C.W.E.Cotton and the team representing the government of Ceylon was headed by Hon. B.Horsburg.
Both parties accepted the “principle of equidistant and the median line could be the guiding factor”. However, since at Kachchathivu the principle of equidistant “would considerably narrow the area of operations for the Indian fishermen”, the Ceylon delegation proposed a line that was three miles west of the island “so that there would be an equitable apportionment in the fisheries domain for both Sri Lanka and India”. The proposal by the Ceylon delegation was based on the fact that “Sri Lanka’s sovereignty over Kachchathivu was never in question, was beyond any doubt and was not a matter for negotiation. He (Hon. B. Horsburg) quoted from the correspondence that the Survey Department and the Department of Public Works in Colombo had exchanged with the counterparts in India, in which the sovereignty of Sri Lanka over Kachchativu had been taken for granted by the Indian authorities… After discussion the delimitation line was fixed three miles west of Kachchativu”(Jayasinghe, p. 14,15).
Agreement between the two parties is reflected in the letter from the head of the Indian delegation Mr. C.W.E.Cotton in which he states: ” …we unanimously decided that the delimitation of the new jurisdiction for fishing purposes could be decided independently of the question of territoriality. The delimitation line was accordingly fixed, with our concurrence, three miles west of Kachchativu and the Ceylon representatives thereupon agreed to a more orderly alignment south of the island than they had originally proposed…” (Ibid, p. 130).
What is relevant from all of the above is that regardless of the basis for establishing a boundary under colonial rule, such boundaries morph into territorial boundaries of independent states under the International Law “Doctrine of Uti Possidetis”.
DOCTRINE of UTI POSSIDETIS
According to Black’s Law Dictionary the legal Doctrine of “Uti possidetis juris” is defined as: “The doctrine that old administrative boundaries will become international boundaries when a political subdivision achieves independence (Hansal & Allison, “The Colonial Legacy and Border Stability”, p. 2; quoting Garner 1999).
The principle behind this doctrine dates to Roman times. The principle first emerged in the modern sense with the decolonization of Latin America when each former Spanish colony agreed to accept territories that were “presumed to be possessed by its colonial predecessors” (Ibid). The same Doctrine was accepted by former colonies in the African continent. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has “argued for its relevance across the world” (Ibid).
“This principle was stated most directly in the ICJ’s 1986 decision in the Frontier Dispute/Burkina Faso Republic of Mali case. The ICJ had been asked to settle the location of a disputed segment of the border between Mali and Burkina Faso, both of which had been part of French West Africa before independence. In their judgment over the merits of this Frontier Dispute case the ICJ emphasized the legal principle of uti possidetis juris”:
“The ICJ judgment in the Mali-Burkina Faso Dispute case also argued that the principle of uti possidetis should apply in any decolonization situation regardless of the legal or political status of the entities on each side of the border”:
“The territorial boundaries which have to be respected may also derive from international frontiers which previously divided a colony of one State from a colony of another, or indeed a colonial territory from the territory of another independent State…There is no doubt that the obligation to respect pre-existing international frontiers in the event of State succession derives from a general rule of international law, whether or not the rule is expressed in the formula of uti possidetis” (ICJ 1986, Ibid).
CONCLUSION
There is a considerable body of historical evidence relating to Kachchativu written by commentators and scholars in India and Sri Lanka. This body of evidence has been relied upon by interested parties in India and Sri Lanka to justify their respective claims depending on whose interests are being advanced. Consequently, the evidence presented by each is selective and serves only to advance the perspectives each decides to promote. However, among this body of historical evidence this writer has not come across a single document that justifies its claims on the Internationally recognized “Doctrine of UTI POSSIDETIS”, which in essence is the international acceptance and recognition given to Colonial Boundaries as International Boundaries of decolonized Independent Sovereign Nation States.
In this background it is indeed inexplicable and disappointing why a decolonized Sri Lanka did not exploit provisions of International Law as provided in the Doctrine of UTI POSSIDENTIS to establish its sovereign rights to Kachchativu and its Maritime Boundaries, despite its clear advantage arising from the acceptance and recognition given to its provisions by the International Court of Justice, when it stated: “The ICJ judgment in the Mali-Burkina Faso Dispute case also argued that the principle of uti possidetis should apply in any decolonization situation regardless of the legal or political status of the entities on each side of the border”, instead of relying on selective archival historical evidence that could be challenged.
Had Sri Lanka adopted such an approach, the issue of the sovereignty of Kachchativu as being an integral part of Sri Lanka’s territory would have been indisputable and the fact that the Maritime Boundary was three Miles West of Kachchativu would ipso facto have followed. Furthermore, no grounds would have existed to foster the flawed notion that the Government of India had ceded Kachchativu to Sri Lanka.
The same stubborn reluctance to exploit provisions of Customary International Law prevails in the manner Sri Lanka has been addressing accountability issues relating to Sri Lanka’s Armed Conflict. Despite the fact that the Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on Sri Lanka (OISL) contains several provisions that are favourable to address accountability, no Government has exploited any of them to Sri Lanka’s advantage.
For instance, commenting on the applicability of International humanitarian law, Paragraph 182 of the OISL Report states: “Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions relating to conflicts not of an international character is applicable to the situation in Sri Lanka, with all parties to the conflict being bound to respect the guarantees to the treatment of civilians…contained therein. Common Article 3 binds all parties to the conflict AND Paragraph 183 state: “the Government and armed groups that are parties to the conflict are bound alike by relevant rules of customary international law applicable in non-international armed conflict”.
If according to the opinion of the OISL, “the Government and armed groups that are parties to the conflict are bound alike to relevant rules of customary international law”, it must follow that issues of accountability should be responsibility of the Government and the LTTE and those who accepted the LTTE as their leaders. Furthermore, if “all parties to the conflict are bound to respect the guarantees to the treatment of civilians”, the LTTE and those who accepted them as their leaders should be held accountable for taking civilians hostage and compromising their safety by putting them in harm’s way. Since no Government has officially brought this fact to the attention of the UN Human Rights Commission, Sri Lankan Governments have inherited the sole responsibility of addressing issues relating to accountability by default.
The two examples cited above, one relating to Kachchativu and its Maritime Boundaries and the other relating to accountability, are two instances where successive Governments have ignored International Law provisions to the disadvantage of Sri Lanka’s interests. The plea to this Government is that it critically and objectively evaluates the opinions presented above for the sake of restoring the dignity of the Sri Lankan Nation.
Former Chief Minister Karunnidhi is reported to be disappointed by the submission of the Central Government of India to the Supreme Court that no Indian territory including Kachchativu was ceded to Sri Lanka and therefore, the question of retrieval does not arise. The political establishment in Tamil Nadu is hoping that the Supreme Court of India would determine otherwise. The Supreme Court of India cannot be unaware of the International Law Doctrine of “uti possidetis”, not to mention the force of the agreement signed in 1974 by the respective Heads of State of India and Sri Lanka. Despite all of the above, if the determination by the Supreme Court is prejudicial to Sri Lanka’s interests, Sri Lanka would have no option but to appeal to the International Court of Justice. Sri Lanka should stand firm on this issue because of the shift of the International Maritime Boundary with its attendant loss of territory would result in many consequential disadvantages to Sri Lanka.
Attempts by the Tamil Nadu political establishment to retrieve Kachchativu through the Central Government of India and/or the Supreme Court must mean that they are either not aware of the Doctrine of uti possidetis (a fact that is difficult to accept), or while being aware and recognizing that it is a lost cause, is pursuing it in order to demonstrate that they have tried their best to protect local electoral interests despite the odds stacked against them. Whatever the case may be Sri Lanka is on solid ground as far as Kachchativu is concerned.
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.
-
News7 days agoSri Lanka escalates anti-graft drive with Shiranthi’s jailing
-
News7 days agoIranian ships stranded, Lanka fears US sanctions
-
Latest News6 days agoFarhan and Sadaqat help Pakistan seal series in style
-
Latest News5 days agoNissanka’s return headlines Sri Lanka’s Test squad against Pakistan
-
Features6 days agoIntake 16: 45 years of duty and honour
-
News6 days agoMalwathu Chapter issues statement on talks with President over Gnanasara Thera’s robes
-
News7 days agoNavi Pillay’s Lankan affairs in focus as she wins 2026 Nobel Peace Prize
-
News6 days agoCP alleges NPP has taken the blame for illegal US sanctions on Iranian vessels


