Features
Mother and Daughter
Anticipating Kamala Harris winning the US presidency, the original title of my article was The Woman Behind the 47th President of the United States. Most unfortunately and surprisingly to us, Donald Trump won the election. However, defeated Kamala has a couple of achievements to her name. She is the first woman, Black American and South Asian American to be elected Vice President of the US, District Attorney of San Francisco and Attorney General of California. And more importantly she is young, healthy, vibrant and next time around may overcome obvious prejudices in the minds of the American voting public and garner the honour of being first woman president of the US. Four years hence?
The election result was surprising since she had so much going for her, in the sense that her proposed policies were so wide and beneficial to the people of America. “She has worked to bring people together to advance opportunity; deliver for families, particularly the less advantaged; protect fundamental freedoms across the country. She has led the fight for the freedom of women to make decisions about their own bodies; the freedom to live safe from gun violence, to vote; drink clean water and breathe clean air.” She promised reduced-price housing, improvement in education and helping the poorer student. In sharp contrast, Trump’s rhetoric was almost solely on blocking immigration to the US to keep out terrorists, rapists, dog and cat eaters.
Parents of the two candidates
Kamala Harris while campaigning for the presidency almost always spoke of her mother in gratitude for instilling certain qualities in her; we could surmise most being those of perseverance and overcoming prejudices and obstacles. She often narrated anecdotes to show how much she owes her mother who brought her and her sister up as a single parent. She wove her mother’s past into an only-in-America success story but it certainly was not exactly correct since her mother’s life was far from America offering her a welcome, care thereafter and equal opportunity. Her mother has been eulogized as “The greatest influence in her life – the Brown Woman with an accent who left India at 19 and spurned convention to marry a Jamaican and settle down in the US.” All correct but the woman praised having paid a heavy price.
This is so in sharp contrast to Donald Trump and his family since he hardly mentions his parents and never what he owes anyone. His father, Fred Trump (1905-1999), of Irish descent, born in New York was a successful real estate developer. Using his and his wife’s inheritances he founded E. Trump and Son in 1927, which undertook construction of houses in Queens and NY City, barracks etc for US Navy and major shipyards. He was investigated by a US Committee for profiteering in 1954 and again in 1966.
Trump’s mother Mary Anne Macleod (1912-2000) was born in a small village in the Western Isles of Scotland to a fisherman. At 17, with $50 in hand she migrated to the US.
Donald Trump became prez of his father’s business in 1971 and renamed it Trump Organization. Father and son were sued for violating the Fair Housing Act. He borrowed $14 m from his father but said it was one million. Thus lying and felony seem to have been traits of his, inherited and built upon. This is so in contrast to his presidential opponent’s humble beginnings, influence of mother and how both women strove to achieve their ambitions.
The South Indian Mother
Shyamala Gopalan (1938-2009) was the oldest daughter of four children of Indian civil servant Rajam Gopalan who rose from stenographer to higher levels. The longest article I read in the NYT of 28/10 has author, Benjamin Mueller, state that Gopalan was a Tamil Brahmin and diplomat. He did travel and work outside India.
Shyamala schooled in Delhi and then read for a degree in home science at Lady Irvin College, New Delhi. That was a course of study not her choice but followed since no other option was open. Her father too commented she was too intelligent to opt for such a degree to start a career. She applied for scholarships and won a research grant in biomedical science at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. In the last year of her teens, in 1958, all alone, she ventured forth to University of California, Berkeley, and took up research in isolating and characterizing progesterone receptor gene in breast and colon cancer. She had with her a $1,600 scholarship and funding from her parents with some of their retirement money. She succeeded in her Master’s programme in nutrition and endocrinology and earned her PhD at UC in 1964, researching on the physiology of cholesterol.
She was expected back in India with her parents busy arranging a suitable marriage for her. She had faced discrimination as a coloured and joined protest groups – Black Movements. One of her co-protestors went on to form the Black Panther Party in 1966. Shyamala met Jamaican Donald Harris in 1962; he reading for his doctorate in economics. They married in 1963. She continued her research but followed her husband when he moved to Illinois and Wisconsin. Their two daughters were born – Kamala Devi in 1964 and Maya Lakshmi in 1967. Maya is now a lawyer, public policy advocate, writer and was up front in Hilary Clinton’s campaign for presidency
The marriage was not going well so Shyamala with the two girls returned to Berkeley. She opted to reside in a cheap flat in a Black community rather than with Asians. “Dr Gopalan wanted to root her daughters in their black identity to prepare them for attacks on their race she could see coming.” Regina Shelton, a black neighbour, ran a day care centre and the girls were left in her charge, even for nights when Shyamala worked late. The split with her husband embittered her and she cut herself and even the two girls from him. He is now Emeritus Professor at Stanford University.
Much has been written about the discrimination she suffered and did not keep quiet about. “There are two people in Shyamala. One all about democracy, disparity and equality and all that. But she also grew up in the caste system.” “In an era when most scientists spoke in whispers about discrimination, Dr Gopalan Harris readily complained to her bosses about the mistreatment of nonwhite workers,” her supervisors at Berkeley commented in the early 2000s. At Berkeley in the early 1970s, she was still often running experiments for her bosses. “She came to feel that American schools were not yet ready to hire a brown woman who dressed for interviews in sari.” American norms to her seemed to demand her to quiet her laugh, swallow her opinions and keep her students at arms’ length; which last was far from how she behaved towards them. She was sympathetic and often helped with advice and even offered a home to an Indian or two who were new in American.
Benjamin Muller in the NYT of 18/10 cites these and many more instances of her outspokenness in his article ‘The Rebellious Scientist who made Kamala Harris.’ He quotes Joe Gray, who fielded Dr Gopalan’s complaints as an administrator at Lawrence Berkeley. “She was not at all shy about calling out things she thought needed to be corrected. She was probably more attuned to inequities in the workplace than was common in those days.”
Her research papers failed to win her the more secure academic positions she craved. The final straw was her supervisor at Berkeley reneging on a promise to give her a faculty position and hiring a white man from Britain. Angered, she pondered on legal action but instead, left Berkeley for a hospital affiliated to McGill University, Montreal, and moved to Canada with her daughters. She was given her own lab space and continued her research on cancer.
She returned to Berkeley and the Lawrence lab continuing her research and seeing her two daughters through college, both alpha students at University of California, Hastings College (Kamala) and Universities of California and Stanford (Maya). She was present when Kamala was sworn in as District Attorney of Los Angeles in 2003 but was ill with an autoimmune disease and later colon cancer. As her daughters progressed in their chosen careers, Shyamala looked after her ‘other kids’ – newly arrived in America research students. She wanted to return to Chennai to die but could not do so. Her end came when she was 70 in 2009, leaving both daughters greatly bereaved, more so Kamala.
Vice President Kamala Harris may be reviewing the recent past. I for one am sure she is not ‘licking the wounds of defeat’ but will be wisely recognizing realities and determining to win next time. As always she will have in mind the strength and will of Shyamala and probably echo what George Washington, Founding Father and first President from 1789 to 1797, said of his mother:
“My mother was the most beautiful woman I ever saw. All I am I owe to my mother. I attribute my success in life to the moral, intellectual and physical education I received from her.”
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
-
News5 days ago2025 GCE AL: 62% qualify for Uni entrance; results of 111 suspended
-
News7 days agoTariff shock from 01 April as power costs climb across the board
-
Features2 days agoRanjith Siyambalapitiya turns custodian of a rare living collection
-
Business6 days agoHour of reckoning comes for SL’s power sector
-
News2 days agoGlobal ‘Walk for Peace’ to be held in Lanka
-
Editorial5 days agoSearch for Easter Sunday terror mastermind
-
Features7 days agoSeychelles … here we come
-
Opinion7 days agoSri Lanka has policy, but where is the data?
