Features

Sri Lankans can learn from Mandela’s visionary thinking

Published

3 years ago

2023/07/25

Mandela

Excerpts of the Nelson Mandela
memorial lecture delivered by
Premakumara de Silva,
Chair Professor of Sociology, University
of Colombo

on 18 July 2023 at the Tharangani Hall, Sri Lanka Film Co-operation, Colombo. The lecture was organised by The Ministry of Higher Education and High Commission of South Africa, in Colombo.

As we all know, Mr. Nelson Mandela was an antiapartheid activist, politician and philanthropist who became South Africa’s first black President from 1994-1999. He was born in Cape Province, South Africa, on 18th July 1918, day like this. He died at age of 95 on 5th December 2013 in Johannesburg. Nelson Mandela was an extraordinary leader, who fought for the citizen’s rights and was the main influence in removing apartheid, which was practiced as the law of the land in South Africa since 1948. This law not only created a social gap between the Whites and the Blacks in the country but also fuelled the discrimination against the black population.

The policies during his leadership (1994-1999) were mainly aimed at improving the economy while reducing the social inequalities. One such policy is the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RPD). The purpose of this RPD is to overcome the social and economic problems faced by South Africans, such as violence, lack of jobs, of housing, equal access to adequate education, and healthcare. At the time of Apartheid, there was a division of cities where White people were placed in developing cities while Black people were placed in cities that were marginalized and neglected, even their housing was in the form of huts. So South Africa was a structurally unequal society where Black people were visibly marginalized and discriminated on the basis of colour of their skin.

Nelson Mandela joined the African National Congress (ANC), in 1942, the organization that was aiming for the independence of the South African people from apartheid and bringing equal rights for all groups. Mandela was one of the important figures in this movement and played a major role. He has directed peaceful campaigns, challenging violence against the government of South Africa and its racial policies for over 20 years. Nelson Mandela presented several important strategies related to his struggle against apartheid through the ANC under pressure from the South African government at the time. He launched the M-Plan (Plan Mandela). He was also a member of the People’s Charter for Congress and Freedom. The Pan African Congress, PAC, was formed under Robert Sobukwe’s leadership in 1959. The ANC and PAC responded by setting up a military wing in 1961. Nelson Mandela was instrumental in creating the ANC group in what was a radical departure from the ANC policy.

On 30th July 1952, under the Law on the Eradication of Communism, Mandela was arrested and tried in Johannesburg as part of 21 defendants. Convicted of violating this law, their forced labour sentence of nine months was extended to two years. Mandela was banned for a period of six months in December from attending meetings or talking to more than one person. On July 11, 1963, he was arrested again with other leaders. In the trial, Nelson Mandela was charged with more than 200 charges of “sabotage, preparing for guerrilla warfare in SA, and preparing for SA’s armed invasion.” Mandela was one of five (out of 10 defendants) to be sentenced to a life sentence and was sent to Robben Island.

Strong protests against Mandela’s arrest were increasingly voiced to the government through the ANC’s continuing movements. The world also supported the liberation movement of Mandela, including the UN. The UN obviously set out to fight Apartheid on 1 January 1976. Resolution 554 (UN 2014) was also issued on 17 August 1984. At that time, various violent protests were directed at the government of South Africa. Nelson Mandela’s 70th Birthday Tribute at Wembley Stadium was made on June 11, 1988. The concert, broadcast to 67 countries with over 600 million audiences, was one of the protests against Nelson Mandela’s imprisonment by the South African government.

Nelson Mandela was finally released from Victor Verster Prison on 11th February 1990. ANC and Nelson Mandela’s struggle was not in vain. South Africa finally succeeded in holding a democratic presidential election on October 3rd, 1994, without any racial differentiation of rights. Nelson Mandela’s inauguration as the first black President of the country on May 10th, 1994, at the age of 77, with Willem de Klerk being the first Deputy, was one of the ANC’s goals in carrying out resistance to Apartheid politics. Mandela worked to bring the transition from minority rule and most Black Apartheid rules, from 1994 to June 1999.

During the Mandela era, ANC’s strength was its ability to portray itself as a more racially inclusive alternative to South Africa’s racially segregated colonial and Apartheid ruling parties. Mandela did not respond to narrow African nationalism. His outlook for African nationalism was far more inclusive than those of many leaders in today’s Africa.

South African National Reconciliation

Let me say something about his national reconciliation project. As Sri Lankans we certainly can learn a lesson from his visionary thinking. On many occasions after being elected President, Mandela made more speeches about the beginning of the struggle to make improvements in various fields of life in South Africa based on democracy and respect for equal rights between Whites and Blacks, and other racial groups in South Africa. New challenges for South Africa can be described as “Crafting representative social institutions of deep-seated ethnic rivalries and economic inequalities.” Establishment of institutions representing various parties and obtaining public trust in societies divided by economic, ethnic and social rivalries that ran very deep was a very heavy homework for transitional government. It shows how complex the problems faced by the new South African regime. Mandela’s main concern after being elected President was to create a new pattern of relations that was more harmonious among various different races and ethnicities in South Africa. In the transition period 1990-1994, Mandela and de Klerk played an important role in preventing the occurrence of wider conflicts and violence. It was described that Mandela and de Klerk shared the same essential character of leadership, namely the willingness to change South African political legitimacy based on Proportional Representation, one thing that had never existed in previous South African political history. De Klerk and Mandela began the process of negotiation and power sharing which made the process of political transition in South Africa peaceful and a model that should be learned by other countries particularly by a country like ours.

Efforts to create a more harmonious and conducive relationship for the development of South Africa in the future began with reconciliation of various cases of State violence that occurred during South Africa still shackled in Apartheid politics. The term “reconciliation” itself became very popular in discussing conflict studies precisely because of what various parties and actors in South Africa had tried. The South African phenomenon seems to be a kind of textbook for the development of the concept of post conflict reconciliation because it is considered successful in developing methods to build more stable relationships between previously conflicting actors, more durable peace and strong legitimacy for post-conflict policies. But efforts to see the phenomenon of reconciliation in South Africa are not based solely on optimistic voices.

Concerns also emerged regarding efforts to eliminate Apartheid in South Africa. Apartheid as a systematic state policy based on the differentiation of treatment of the State based on race or skin colour may be easier to erase or replace, but as an ideology that has been practiced for years and based on patterns of racial relations that have been built for centuries, it was not an easy task. Apartheid is a complex problem. So those who tend to be pessimistic are not arguing about the problem of the possibility of the elimination of Apartheid but more of the continuous processes needed to carry out the overall elimination of the existence of Apartheid at the State level as a policy, or at the social level as values that shape individual behaviour in context of social interaction.

The initial stage of the South African reconciliation process began with the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). This institution was formed after Mandela received and listened to proposals from various groups, especially civil society organizations in South Africa. Through the public selection process, commissioners were chosen to lead the institution. The commission was led by the South African archbishop, Rev. Desmond Tutu, a respected black Christian figure. TRC is based on several thoughts as follows:

A non-Racial Ideology of Reconciliation:

The view that South African reconciliation was based on efforts to abolish the racial identity created by Apartheid

An Inter-communal Ideology of Reconciliation:

Reconciliation is seen as an attempt to bridge community groups divided by Apartheid by creating a shared understanding of democratic values on both sides of the community or society.

A Religious and Human Rights Ideology of Reconciliation

: Reconciliation is a strengthening of religious and humanitarian values to apologize and use Apartheid’s past as an important lesson so that it does not happen again in the future.

These ideal rationale shows that the important orientation of the reconciliation effort to be carried out by TRC is emphasized on creating harmony for the lives of the people of South Africa to build in the future, not only focusing on the issue of disclosing violence and achieving justice for victims. The view of justice in the context of reconciliation will threaten the perpetrators of violence in the past in the present context. The view that they are guilty parties, solely, will actually hinder the participation of perpetrators of violence in the process of reconciliation, to those who are disadvantaged (Blacks) but also relates to those who benefit from the Apartheid system. This goal is far broader than just dealing with the problems of violence that occur, but also related to efforts to form new foundations for the people of South Africa.

Let me wind up my brief intervention here by saying something that relates to our country. Nelson Mandela is no more, but his legacy would hopefully inspire people, particularly the young, for some generations to come all over the world, including Sri Lanka. His book “A Long March to Freedom” must be a text book for every Sri Lankan. The story of his life, his determination to struggle for justice, his vision for a reconciled society or nation, and, most importantly, his exceptional human quality to see the others to be worthy of forgiveness are crucially important historical lessons for all communities in Sri Lanka in achieving a better future for their apprehension.

In a sense, South Africa’s conflict was much more complicated than Sri Lanka’s one. It was mainly a racial conflict between the indigenous ‘Blacks’ and the migrant ‘Whites,’ underpinned by vast economic and class differences. Racial prejudices are naturally much deeper and difficult to reconcile, although equally superficial. There are no racial differences between the Sinhalese, the Tamils and the Muslims. They all come, more or less, from the same ‘racial’ stock, if you want to claim so. The economic differences are much less, except in the case of the plantation Tamils.

This is not to undermine the feelings of discrimination by minorities in Sri Lanka often equated to ‘Apartheid,’ but to get a correct comparative picture of the two situations. Perhaps Sri Lanka is much more complicated at least in one major aspect with majority sanctions for discrimination, naturally difficult to unravel. Mandela said “people are undoubtedly at fault, but the systems are more at fault than the people. We all are victims of systems.” He appreciated Willem de Klerk’s goodwill, and if not for that goodwill or pragmatism he wouldn’t have been able to achieve what he expected. Mandela realized that freedom in South Africa could have been long delayed perhaps even after his death. Mandela had a deep sense of justice not as ‘revenge’ but as ‘correcting the wrong’ and ‘empowering the victims’ through truth and appropriate compensation.

The South African transition or reconciliation was primarily an internal process and as a result it was healthy and sustainable. This is the primary lesson that Sri Lanka should learn. It was a learning process to the people to do away with prejudices, animosity and hatred. There are five summary lessons that perhaps Sri Lanka should try to emulate.

After a transition, and in this case, the end of the war in Sri Lanka, reconciliation should take priority. Economy is undoubtedly a supportive factor for reconciliation but not a primary mover.

Reconciliation is foremost a political matter for the leaders to resolve and for the people to support. It is best that the leaders of all sides should take the lead without waiting for another disaster of the kind. The primary responsibility, however, being on the part of the leaders of the majority community, as Nelson Mandela himself embodied.

Talk directly, as Nelson Mandela did with Willem de Klerk without neglecting all the stakeholders or their leaders. Justice is primary. Justice, however, does not mean revenge, but correcting the wrongs and empowering all the victims through truth and appropriate compensation.

Never resort to violence or intimidation, never again. This is the primary lesson of Mr. Nelson Mandela.

All News Advertisement

Up Next

Govt.’s fear of losing control

Don't Miss

Mini world tour in 60 days…

Click to comment

Features

Retirement age for judges: Innovation and policy

Published

6 hours ago

2026/04/6

Thilina Walpola

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

Published

6 hours ago

2026/04/6

Thilina Walpola

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

Published

6 hours ago

2026/04/6

Thilina Walpola

Aplocheilus parvus

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