Connect with us

Features

Marxism and nationalism: A never-ending debate

Published

on

Tom Nairn

By Uditha Devapriya

On December 1, 1975, the New Left Review published an essay by the Scottish historian and political theorist Tom Nairn which began with these extraordinary words: “The theory of nationalism represents Marxism’s great historical failure.” The essay came five years or so before the beginning of the global retreat of socialism, the great neoliberal revolution that would eventually deal a blow to the Left the world over. It was a broad critique of Marxism and Marxists. But rather than critiquing the Left for not being strong enough against their opponents on the economic right, it castigated them for overlooking a more formidable foe: the nationalist right. For Nairn, this was an unforgivable omission.

It has been almost half a century since Nairn’s essay was first published, and much water has flowed since then: the end of socialism, symbolised by the collapse of the Soviet Union; the all too brief rise of a unipolar order, led by the United States; the growth of resurgent, militant nationalisms, aimed against that order and country; the incredible ascent of rival powers, particularly China, and an array of “middle-powers”, including India and Brazil; and growing solidarity in the Global South. While not all these developments have borne out Nairn’s prognostications, the Marxist Left has actively tried to adapt itself to them, and has tried to tackle the issues that Nairn highlighted in his essay.

And yet, even after 50 years, we can still say that Marxism, and Marxist movements, including mainstream political parties, remain somewhat amiss when it comes to the issue of nationalism. The orthodox Marxist position – that nationalism was a remnant of some bygone, archaic past, and that the Left’s task was to undermine such remnants and pave the way for a socialist advance – has simply not stood the test of time. To this critique, orthodox Marxists give an even more predictable response: that the Left itself was hijacked by deviant elements – by which they invariably mean the petty bourgeoisie – and that these elements distorted Marxist tenets to their benefit, thereby preventing the Left from achieving its task. Such arguments are to me disingenuous, evasive, and anything but productive.

To say that is not to ignore the complex relationship between nationalism and Marxism. In fact, at times, this relationship has been more problematic, more complicated, than that between Marxism and liberalism. With its valorisation of “universal” constitutional rights, and despite its refusal to embrace material economic rights, liberalism has won sections of the Left to its cause. With its repudiation of universalism, its emphasis on the particular, by contrast, nationalism, particularly its more extremist, fringe variants, has made a foe out of Marxism. This is all the more boggling when you consider that around 75 years ago the two forces seemed aligned and united on several issues, including the key question of opposing imperialism. Anti-imperialist politics do bring them together today, but such unity seems to me facile, marginal, a pale replica of the situation before 1977.

Particularly in colonial societies like Sri Lanka, the Left had no alternative but to pursue common ground with anti-imperialist nationalism. In Sri Lanka this encouraged the Left, broadly composed of urban and suburban middle-class intellectuals who had studied in Europe and the US, at the LSE and at Cambridge, to make inroads into the country’s south-western quadrant, from Colombo, Kalutara, and Ratnapura, through the Uva and into the South. Once established there, the Left had to speak in the language of these communities. This does not mean they appropriated or embraced their rhetoric, or that they succumbed to the temptations of narrow communalism, as later Left movements did. But for a while at least, they were able to win these communities over, and to set camp in peasant heartlands, even as they mobilised working class movements in the cities.

Was it a failure on the part of the Left that it did not fully appreciate the contradictions between the secular-humanist goals they had set for the country and the communalist-exclusivist goals their nationalist allies had set for it? Perhaps. Yet to be fair by the Left, there were factors which exacerbated these tensions, among them the UNP government’s decision to deprive plantation Tamils of their citizenship – a move aimed at crippling the Left of its base in the estates – and the SLFP government’s mobilisation of Sinhala and Buddhist middle-classes, a development that not only deprived the Old Left of a progressive rural-urban nationalist base, but also converted that milieu from the ideals of a secular-humanist Marxism to an ideology based on the pursuit of exclusivism.

Perhaps it was their wholesale embracing of those ideals – of secularism and humanism, ideals which to me seem superior to those touted by nationalists – which blinded them to the appeal of their opponents, from both Sinhala and Tamil nationalist streams. This would be Tom Nairn’s argument, and it is the argument that Michael Walzer invokes in his book The Paradox of Liberation as well. Certainly, the chasm between the Left and the nationalist middle-classes in Sri Lanka indicate that the Marxists’ adherence to such ideals has made it difficult for them to forge or enter any alliance with this milieu, unless they seek an alliance with political outfits which appeal to such communities.

This is the strategy that the Old Left, in particular the Communist Party, has chosen, as witness the CPSL’s involvement in the Uttara Lanka Sabhagaya. Yet the Old Left now has a formidable opponent in the JVP-NPP, an outfit that has demonstrated again and again that, despite its liberal cosmopolitan veneer, it is not above using the same inflammatory rhetoric which upended the CPSL and the Lanka Sama Samaja Party decades ago.

In an interview years ago, Nalin de Silva, the ideological citadel of Sinhala nationalism, spoke rather frankly about his former involvement in Marxist politics. He pointed out that just as Siddhartha Gautama attempted to seek Enlightenment through Āḷāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta, he had tried to learn about the world through Marxism. Yet like the soon-to-be Gautama Buddha’s encounter with Kālāma and Rāmaputta, his immersion in Marxist politics eventually disillusioned him and turned him away. Marxism had repudiated imperialism and launched a commendable assault on neoliberalism, but to Nalin, it had not fully critiqued or attacked Western hegemony, particularly hegemony over knowledge. In that respect, Nalin noted, his shift from Marxist politics to an ideological repudiation of the West had been, not a descent as Left ideologues would counter, but a progression.

There is much to disagree with this argument. But it underlies the irresistible and almost mystical appeal of nationalism. Nationalism represents itself as an alternative not so much to economic subjugation as to all forms of subjugation by the West. Not long ago, I myself flirted with it, and in its own way it has moulded me, despite my objections to it. Yet I know that for all the limitations of narrow-minded nationalism, it is much easier to mobilise the Sinhala Buddhist middle-class – which, despite what you may think of its ideals, constitutes the single biggest electorate in this country – with the rhetoric of religion and race than the cause of socialist advance. This is a gap Marxists must endeavour to fill.

And fill it they must, for in the never-ending debate between Marxists and nationalists, the latter have usually come off well, not least because of the ideological and material support they have gained, and continue to gain, from the economic right. In itself, this is a paradox: how can forces supposedly hostile to Western economic subjugation allow themselves to be captured by powerful economic forces one would normally not associate with them? But then that has always been the case. Indeed, the nationalist right’s charge that the Old Left, at the height of their power in the 1970s, connived in destroying the Sinhala businessman, that in nationalising the transport and estate sectors they crippled the Sinhala bourgeoisie, is a favourite refrain of the petty bourgeoisie coveted by the right, and it sits in well with the interests and the aims of elite sections of the Sinhala middle-classes.

In his book, Michael Walzer suggests that the Left should seriously engage with these forces and communities, rather than succumbing to or dismissing them. There is much to think about this argument. It represents a sequel of sorts to Nairn’s critique of Marxism. In the context of an ever-widening gap between Left forces and the nationalist right in Sri Lanka, I believe we should take stock of such arguments and build bridges, not with the nationalist right, but with the communities which the nationalist right targets. To do so, it is imperative that our Marxist theorists and commentators reflect on how they are seen by conservative-traditionalist elements in our society, and confront some of the more persistent stereotypes associated with the Left, such as its hostility to the past.

NB: This essay has benefitted substantially from conversations with Pasindu Nimsara Thennakoon, who provoked me to think of the ways in which the Sinhala middle-classes, particularly in rural areas, view Marxism and Marxists.

The writer is an international relations analyst, researcher, and columnist who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

BRICS upholds inclusive growth; re-affirms South-South cooperation

Published

on

BRICS political leaders at the 2026 New Delhi summit.(BBC)

A principal highlight of the recently concluded BRICS 2026 summit in New Delhi was the grouping’s unambiguous championing of the empowerment of ordinary people everywhere. This was yet another notable coming together of Southern governments over matters of common concern alright but it was the grouping’s people-oriented thinking that struck the impartial commentator as particularly important this time around.

The latter accent merits underscoring in view of the widespread perception that Southern oriented international organizations, such as the Non-aligned Movement (NAM), have had their day, so to speak. However the BRICS summit not only re-affirmed NAM principles but gave proof of its willingness to complement the main undertakings of NAM. Accordingly, causes such as South-South cooperation, international economic and social equity, multilateralism, international peace and the need to uphold the current UN-centred world order received resounding and fresh emphasis.

Particularly encouraging for those espousing Southern development concerns was the stressing of the historic ‘Bandung Principles’ in the New Delhi Declaration which crowned the summit deliberations. As is known, it was the ‘Bandung Spirit’ of 1955 that paved the way for the establishment of NAM and South-South cooperation in a major way. As such the ‘Spirit’ was primary in helping to reshape international development discourse and in giving it a pro-people bent. That is, development correctly conceived was birthed.

The New Delhi Declaration said in this regard: ‘We recall the 1955 Asian-African Conference in Bandung, Indonesia that proclaimed general principles, including equality, independence, non-intervention and mutual benefit. We stress that the Bandung Spirit serves as a reference in the pursuit of a fairer, more inclusive, and representative multilateral system.’

‘Geopolitics’ was not glossed over or ignored in New Delhi, but it is quite forgotten by some sections of opinion in particularly Sri Lanka that BRICS, while being an important Southern counter-balance in terms of power to the global North is also essentially about international economic growth with equity. The New Delhi summit helped to put right this conceptual imbalance in what groupings such as BRICS ought to be thinking and doing.

Even more precisely, people should be at the heart of development and in the exertions and preoccupations of international organizations claiming to represent the South. Southern governments equipped with economic and military might in particular remain important but it is people’s empowerment that ought to be the overriding consideration.

The latter concerns help stress the cruciality of democratic development since it is the latter that facilitates best the well being of people. Unfortunately, BRICS happens to be top-heavy with authoritarian governments that could deliver economic growth but not equity. It is fully representative, participatory governance that could best deliver to the people their essential needs and not totalitarian governments.

This is a complex dilemma for BRICS. It could be resolved somewhat by admitting more and more pro-people, democratic states into the BRICS fold to counter-balance the power and influence of authoritarian states. At present among the principal BRICS countries it’s only India that meets most of the criteria for democratic development.

Hopefully, more and more Southern democracies would see it fit to join BRICS in consideration of the latter’s potential to be a prime ‘economic powerhouse’ of the world. Equally hopefully, people’s empowerment in the true sense would come to be valued as a crucial merit for BRICS membership. It is relevant to stress that the fulfillment of the fundamental rights of a people is integral to their complete empowerment.

A grave negative fallout from the Trump administration’s current militarism is that more and more states world wide would come to value military heft over people’s empowerment. Consequently, the preference for military power could lead to countries wanting BRICS membership for the wrong reasons. That is, security through collective armed might would come to matter over all else and the world would be rendered an increasingly ‘dangerous place’.

But thinking people would expect from BRICS a more responsible role in world affairs and prefer to have from it inspirational guidance in democratic development, correctly understood.

A commitment by BRICS at the summit of considerable importance to world peace that should not be underplayed is its commitment to the UN system and the strengthening of International Law. The relevant quote from the Declaration spoke of BRICS’ ‘Commitment to strengthening multilateralism and multi-polarity and upholding International Law, including the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations.’

Coming at a time when the UN is seen by some as a spent force, lacking effectiveness, the above endorsement of the UN Charter and International Law is of crucial significance. This amounts to solidly upholding the post World War Two order despite current largely rhetorical assertions that it is fast unraveling.

While UN reform remains a compelling necessity, the endorsement of the UN-centred order holds out the possibility of some of the BRICS heavyweights, who are currently acting in violation of International Law, eventually getting back to conduct that would be more in keeping with the requirements of International Law.

The UN could put these developments to constructive use by redoubling its efforts to work out diplomatic solutions to the current conflicts and wars that are showing no signs of being receptive to fresh peace efforts.

Two of these theatres of conflict are the Middle East and the Ukraine. While the US, Israel, Russia and Iran would need to be engaged by the UN with exceptional persuasive power to sort out the conflicts where they have come to feature directly and indirectly, the relevant BRICS members’ commitments to world peace and multilateralism could be used as instruments of moral pressure perhaps to induce them to get onto the path of peaceful conflict resolution.

The wide consensus among the BRICS powers amounts to their scoring a significant political victory over the US and its allies. Their espousal of international peace and the UN Charter exposes the US as being at cross purposes with peace-oriented and democratic sections world wide. Specifically, the moral and intellectual poverty of the Trump administration is being revealed glaringly.

This does not amount to a condemnation of the people of the US perse. It is just that some of them have voted quite unwisely. As a first step towards correcting this situation they could make good use of the upcoming mid term elections to register their strong disapproval of the Trump administration and the political extremists among the US Right. Course correction is not impossible.

Continue Reading

Features

Not I — We: A new uniform will mean nothing if the person inside it is left behind

Published

on

by Mahil Dole

Senior Superintendent of Police (Retd.)

Sri Lanka Police has just marked 160 years. The parades were in order. The sentence that should have followed them has not been written with enough force. A police service that is pulled by politics, rewarded for individual glory and tried every night on social media cannot protect a country that is now a maritime hinge for international narcotics and financial crime. The political authority must decide, not in a speech, but in conduct, whether this force belongs to the law or to the loudest faction of the week.

That is not a plea. It is a warning.

The political hierarchy and the police hierarchy now agree that the service needs a new outlook, beginning with the uniform. The cut and the kit are not yet settled. That conversation is overdue. Criminals have moved into containers, encrypted apps and international logistics. An officer equipped for a quieter decade is less able to detect, and less able to come home.

Sophistication of kit is essential. Body-worn cameras, communications and protective equipment that match the threat are not luxuries. They keep a policeman alive.

If the first decision of this compact is only what the officer will wear, the wrapping will be modern and the person untouched. The priority is not a new silhouette. It is a different person inside the uniform.

The officer is a human being

He and she is a product of this complicated society. The fractures that run through the village, the school and the social-media feed run through the recruit. Communal suspicion, religious identity and ethnic memory are not checked at the armoury gate. The question treated as delicate is operational: is this officer mentally geared for ordinary crime and for communal, religious and ethnic conflict?

What is his stand if he belongs to one community and is sent into a dispute involving another? How will the parties look at him? How will the media frame the first photograph? That decides whether a crowd sees the law or “the other side.” We are all Sri Lankans. The sentence is easy on a Police Day banner. It is hard at a junction when rumour is already ahead of the patrol.

Every officer, from constable to gazetted rank, must be trained for these issues as deliberately as for a baton. Not one lecture at Katukurunda: recurring, scenario-based work on mixed neighbourhoods, mixed complainants, and keeping personal faith out of the method of work. The media will hunt the communal angle; parties to a conflict will hunt the ethnic one. The only answer that holds is an officer whose first identity on duty is Sri Lankan and whose first loyalty is the law.

That is “We.” Assuming the uniform dissolves identity is how a single incident becomes a national story.

What they have been is not what they can remain

From the 1866 ordinance this service has been the state’s civilian arm, colonial order-keeping, post-independence law and order, then a wartime partner that buried its dead beside the armed forces. Specialised units were built for terrorism, organised crime and financial intelligence. The same institution was used as a residual army, a political instrument and a promotion marketplace. Loyalty too often attached to a person, not to the law. Easter Sunday made the price visible. So did every file that moved, or stalled, according to who was in office.

A history of sacrifice does not excuse a present of capture. It makes the capture more shameful.

What they are today

On paper the force is large, some 79,000 authorised, 609 stations. On the ground it is thin. More than 4,300 officers have left since 2020. Vacancies exceed 30,000. Shifts of twelve to eighteen hours are still treated as normal. Distress is still logged as discipline rather than welfare. That is waste, not toughness.

Crime has two faces, and both strike national security. Gang violence over narcotics still produces shootings. Sri Lanka also sits on feeder routes moving Afghan and Pakistani product toward other markets. Harbour and high-sea detections in the hundreds of kilograms are no longer rare. Ice hidden in towels at Colombo Port; heroin pulled from multi-day trawlers; scam compounds and frozen assets in the billions of rupees, these are not “ordinary crime.” They buy influence and fund the next consignment.

The third battlefield is information. Reels and anonymous accounts impersonate officers, launder rumour as fact, and reward the man who seeks a following. Inside the service the culture still teaches “I”: my file, my photograph, my briefing. Rank is being treated as a prize. It is a trust.

The container that became a campaign

Late August 2026, officers opened containers at the Colombo International Container Terminal and recovered some 463 to 472 kilograms of crystal methamphetamine, concealed in towels, originating from Pakistan and valued in the billions of rupees. Suspects including foreign nationals were arrested. The United States DEA publicly associated itself with the intelligence. The criminal case sits with the Central Crime Investigation Bureau.

That is a success. It should have been protected as a success.

Instead, an internal process review, ordered by the Inspector General into how information moved between bureaux, was translated on social media into another story: that the IGP and Senior DIG Ranmal Kodituwakku were being “chambered” over the detection. An Opposition MP warned, correctly, that putting the officers who delivered the raid under a public microscope will teach the service the wrong lesson.

State the distinction without apology. A criminal file is about the network and the money. A process file is about timelines and chain of custody. A blog is neither. Collapsing a Senior DIG’s recorded statement into “the hierarchy is in the dock” is not accountability. It is a gift to those who packed the towels. After a half-tonne interdiction, a process review is normal; leaking it as a morality play is not. Complete the inquiry on the record. If negligence is found, deal with it. If not, say so. Half-spoken files let rumour colonise the institution.

Training, technology and a mind that can bear the load

The IGP and the hierarchy must stop treating training as a calendar ornament. Immediate programmes are required, not next year’s paper.

First

, the evolving issues: communal and religious tension, narrative operations, child and women protection, financial and cyber crime, harbour interdiction, the law of arrest.

Second

, the technologies: digital evidence, data protection under the Personal Data Protection Act, disciplined open-source work, body-worn cameras that protect the public and officers alike.

Third

, mental health as operational infrastructure, counselling an Inspector can use without becoming a Legal Division case, and early recognition of burnout before it becomes a headline.

Incentives must follow: allowances for certified competencies, promotion credit for courses applied, not for attendance photographs. Asking for sophistication at the port with no path to acquire it is theatre.

A new uniform that can carry a camera, worn by an officer unprepared for the society he polices, is a costume. The station, the cell, the unseen hour Look next at where this officer lives and works. Many stations are old, congested and unhygienic. Living standards on duty are low. You cannot demand a different person in the uniform and house him as if he were expendable.

Cells are a particular failure of command. Too many sit out of sight of the men on duty. They are dilapidated. What happens inside goes unnoticed until a death, an assault or an escape. That is a design of our own buildings, not a secret of the underworld. A cell that cannot be seen cannot be defended in court or in conscience. Refurbish, fix sightlines, monitor what the Constitution requires, and treat an escape as a failure of supervision before it becomes a press note.

These are not welfare extras. They are the conditions under which evidence is kept, suspects are held, and officers decide whether the job is still worth the family cost.

The health of the officer is the health of the public

One of the first duties of the hierarchy is the health of the policeman and his family. A sick officer with a sick child is not “uncommitted.” He is a risk to himself, to the next raid, and to the citizen at the counter. Police hospitals are few. Officers in rural stations cannot reach them in time. The IGP should not wait for a building programme. Speak to the health authorities now. Arrange priority access for officers and their families at government hospitals. Dedicated wards or reserved beds are not a privilege class. They are the minimum owed to people sent into harm, and into other people’s crises, at every hour.

Good health is a good mind. A good mind is good care for the people. No uniform compensates for an officer who has not slept, has not been treated, and cannot reach a Police hospital.

What they must be tomorrow

The country does not need more decoration. It needs a service the public can approach without fear and that no politician can casually redirect: intelligence-led against networks that threaten the state; digitally capable and legally bounded; trained for communal heat as well as narcotics; housed and treated as human beings; collectively minded. We hold the ground, not I cleared the file.

The constable at the junction and the analyst tracing a hawala chain are the same institution. National security is not a specialist’s private property.

To the policymakers and the political authority

You have agreed with the Police hierarchy on a new outlook. Use it for more than cloth.

Independence is not the IGP’s personal autonomy. It is the institution’s ability to apply the law without fear or favour, and still answer to the law. You cannot have that and also have a Police summoned, transferred or publicly undermined according to the needs of the week.

Appointment and removal of the Inspector General must remain a process, not patronage. The National Police Commission must exercise its powers over promotions, transfers and discipline without being hectored from the gallery. Cabinet sets policy and budget. It does not choose Tuesday’s suspect. Comment from the House on the guilt of named officers while a file is open is not oversight. It is interference under another name.

If you want an apolitical Police, stop using internal inquiry as a factional weapon and social media as a substitute bench. Different treatment of files is the old disease. Naming it only when the officer is someone you dislike is the same disease.

Then fund what a new uniform implies: immediate training, habitable stations, cells that can be seen, and a health arrangement with the Ministry of Health that does not leave a rural sergeant’s family outside the gate. Announcing kit and withholding living conditions is not reform. It is dressing the service for a photograph.

The public has a part. Distinguish error from crime. Cooperate with the officer who is fair; demand consequences where he is not. In conflict, look at the uniform as the law, not as a census of name, faith or village. Do not outsource judgement to an anonymous account.

The stand It is not I. It should be We.

A new uniform will not make an officer Sri Lankan. Training, health, housing, an apolitical file, and a command that treats him as a human being might. A service that thinks in individual glory will be outrun by networks that think in systems. A political class that thinks in capture will keep receiving detections and wondering why the pipeline never closes. A country that argues about the cloth while the person inside it is exhausted, untrained for communal fire, and unseen in a dilapidated cell block is not preparing for tomorrow. It is rearranging the wardrobe.

The law cannot serve two masters. Neither can the uniform, old or new.

(This analysis is offered in the interest of national security, institutional reform, and public safety)

Mahil Dole, SSP (Retd.), served as Deputy Director in charge of the Counter-Terrorism Desk of the State Intelligence Service and later as Intelligence Coordinator to the Inspector General of Police. He is a former Member of the Sri Lanka Wakfs Board and author of Security Beyond Enforcement: Practical Approaches for a Safer Nation. Email – mahildole54@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Features

The Miss World 2026 scene …

Published

on

History was made under the lights on 05th September, as Joheirry Mola Dominguez, of the Dominican Republic, was crowned Miss World 2026 by outgoing queen Suchata Chuangsri of Thailand at April 2nd Square in Nha Trang, Vietnam.

It is only the second Miss World title for the Dominican Republic; 44 years after Mariasela Álvarez’s win in 1982. Reports described it as an “emotional and historic moment” for the nation.

Joheirry, 24, beat 110 other delegates to take the crown.

A dedicated educator and community advocate, she holds a degree in Business Management and Administration from Universidad Iberoamericana. She is Founder and President of “Voices of Tomorrow”, an initiative expanding access to English education for children in vulnerable communities. She also teaches Literature and Social Studies in English, and works as a correspondent for Univision New York’s Ventana a Quisqueya.

Her advocacy won hearts

It was her advocacy that won hearts.

“My Beauty With a Purpose is to take English programmes to kids in vulnerable communities,”

she said at the Grand Final. “Because I believe that when they know this language, the opportunities, the doors that can open to their life, it’s huge. English is a tool that will stay with them and benefit them for the rest of their lives.”

Spain’s Elisabeth Reynés finished 1st Runner-Up, while Malaysia’s Taanusiya Chetty, also winner of Beauty With a Purpose, took 2nd Runner-Up.

The Top 6 included Vietnam’s Le Nguyen Bao Ngoc, Eritrea’s Snit Habteab, and South Africa’s Romanda Hombir.

The 75th Anniversary edition, hosted for the first time in Vietnam, was a spectacle before 20,000 spectators. Staged on a 110+ meter outdoor platform by Nha Trang beach, the square was lit up with huge LED screens and high-power sound.

Even heavy rain during the Americas & Caribbean segment couldn’t dampen spirits. Umbrellas and raincoats popped up and the show resumed 15 minutes later. Nobody left. That’s dedication.

With 111 ambassadors, cultural dances, ao dai performances, and the seaside backdrop, officials called it a celebration of beauty, talent, confidence, and social responsibility.

With 20,000 people, rain or shine, screaming, cheering, live-streaming, waving flags… it was, indeed, pure Miss World magic.

For Sri Lanka, Prathibha Liyanaarachchi did not make the Top 40 at the 73rd Miss World Festival, but she reached the finalist stages of four fast-track events — Top Model, Talent, Sports, and Beauty With a Purpose.

Miss World magic: The square was lit up with huge LED screens and high-power sound

Continue Reading

Trending