Features
Asia’s Last Peace: Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai

The seeds of doubt between China and India were sown in the 20th century, with British attempts to align Tibet with British India, leading to the 1904 Expedition to Tibet, which the Qing Dynasty viewed as a direct affront to its sovereignty. By 1965, India (IB) and the CIA secretly planted a nuclear-powered surveillance device on Nanda Devi to monitor China’s nuclear tests, but the mission failed, and the lost plutonium device, radioisotope thermoelectric generator, remains unaccounted for to this day, deepening the mistrust between the two nations.
On April 1, 1950, India became the first non-socialist bloc country to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. In a few days, we will celebrate the 75th anniversary of this relationship. Two giants—China and India—occupy the heart of this vast and diverse landmass, their destinies irrevocably intertwined. As Wang Yi noted, Mao used the metaphor of a “cooperative pas de deux of the dragon and the elephant” to describe the importance of China and India working together harmoniously.
With populations exceeding 2.85 billion, these nations wield the power to shape the future not only of Asia but of the entire world. Yet, despite their economic rise and deep historical connections, their relationship remains one of profound ambivalence, laced with suspicion, insecurity, and an unresolved legacy of conflict. If the peace of Asia is to hold, it hinges on this question: can India and China shed the weight of history and build a future of cooperation, respect, and stability?
The answer to this question is not as simple as it might seem. In the aftermath of the 1962 Sino-Indian War, India and China were forced into a narrative of hostility, which directly contradicted Nehru’s bold assertion, “Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai” (Indians and Chinese are brothers). The war, with its brutality and China’s swift victory, continues to echo through the decades, its scars never fully healed. For India, China’s military might has loomed large as an existential threat, shaping its foreign policy and strategic alliances. The West, particularly the United States, has become an increasingly important partner for India as the country seeks to counterbalance China’s rise in the region.
The spectre of the Sino-Indian War, an uncomfortable memory for the Indian psyche, serves as a continuous reminder of the unpredictable and dangerous nature of the bilateral relationship. China, for its part, remains largely indifferent to India’s anxieties, with Nehru’s words after the Sino-Indian War of 1962 continuing to haunt the Indian psyche: ‘We were misled into thinking that China was our friend. We have been deceived into thinking that China would respect our interests and security. But they have shown their true face.’
Yet, despite tensions and the occasional flare-ups of military skirmishes, particularly along the contested areas of the Line of Actual Control (LAC), it is clear that the trajectory of the Indo-China relationship is more nuanced than simple antagonism. Both nations have made remarkable strides in modernizing their economies. China’s rise as an economic juggernaut, coupled with its geopolitical ambitions, has forced India to rethink its position in the world. However, India’s rise has been slower and less controlled, hindered by domestic chaos, systemic corruption, and a democratic framework that, while empowering, often hinders swift and decisive decision-making. Unlike China, India succeeds, as Kishore Mahbubani put it, not because of its government, but despite it. This paradox defines Indian democracy: a system that operates in constant dysfunction yet still manages to deliver results.
India’s struggles are evident in stark contrast to China’s model of governance. In China, the centralized power of the Communist Party has allowed for rapid reforms and unprecedented growth, lifting millions out of poverty and placing the country at the forefront of the global economic stage. For China, this ascent has been marked by the pursuit of hegemony—asserting its influence over its neighbours through both economic means and military presence. India, on the other hand, has faced internal divisions that have stymied its growth.
There is a bitter irony here. As India and China grow—albeit at different rates—the mutual suspicion between them only deepens. For India, China’s meteoric rise is seen not just as an economic miracle but as a strategic and ideological threat. Meanwhile, China views India’s increasing closeness with the West with wariness, sensing an attempt to encircle it, weaken its dominance, and tip the balance of power in Asia. These fears are not unfounded. India’s deepening ties with the United States, the QUAD alliance, and its growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region have been framed by many in Beijing as a deliberate attempt to counter China’s ambitions.
Yet, in recent months, there have been signs of a shift. Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi reiterated the need to normalize relations with China—a statement that was both a recognition of the reality of the global order and a tacit acknowledgment that conflict between India and China would spell disaster not just for Asia but for the world. Modi, in his effort to elevate India as a global power, has become acutely aware of the importance of stabilizing ties with China, opting for dialogue over discord, healthy competition, and strategic focus.
His push for a more pragmatic approach—setting aside the past and focusing on the future—has met with mixed reactions domestically. Indian nationalists, emboldened by their country’s rise, have questioned the wisdom of making overtures to China, accusing the government of compromising India’s sovereignty. But this is a necessary conversation—one that transcends partisan politics and jingoistic nationalism, focusing on what is best for India and Asia as a whole.
Despite their historical antagonisms, both nations are too enmeshed in the global economy to risk full-scale war. The rise of these giants presents a unique opportunity for the world’s largest democracies to forge a united Asia, not one divided by rivalry but strengthened by shared prosperity. Yet this requires more than just diplomatic rhetoric—it demands a profound shift in mindset. India and China must overcome centuries-old grievances and recognize that their fates are intertwined.
The future of Asia hinges on whether these two civilizations, long divided by borders, can rekindle an ancient spirit of cooperation. This is particularly crucial as BRICS, with India and China as key enablers in remapping the Global South, progresses with its vision to reshape the world order. While differences remain, particularly over de-dollarization, the BRICS nations remain inseparable partners in addressing the urgent challenges ahead. Together, they aim to overcome the diminishing influence of the West, which is increasingly failing to hold its position in the global arena. If India and China fail to find peace, the entire continent risks becoming the tinderbox of a future global conflict. The stakes have never been higher.
by Nilantha Ilangamuwa
Features
Playing blind man’s bluff with tariff man

While the whole world was waiting anxiously for President Donald J. Trump, a self- proclaimed “tariff man”, to present his plan for “reciprocal tariffs” on his “Liberation Day”, an American commentator Jon Stewart declared on “The Weekly Show” podcast that he knew what “Donald Trump’s whole plan” was. Since Trump was elected, I have been closely following the developments in Washington but didn’t come across any other such claims. Yet, I was not surprised by Jon Stewart’s claim because he is a highly paid comedian and his podcast was recorded on the day before President Trump unveiled his plan. But now I know Jon Stewart was not the only person who knew how Trump’s plan for “reciprocal tariffs” would unfold. Most of our politicians (other than those in the government) had known what the plan was, much in advance of the official announcement. Now they are on our evening TV news blaming the government for not taking measures to pre-empt Trump’s move and providing their expert advice on how the government should engage with the US!
Tariff Tsunami
Unlike these politicians and their advisers, I did not expect President Trump to slap punitive tariffs of 44 percent on our exports. Our garment exports to the United States expanded from the early 1980s to December 2004, due to a very generous textile and apparel quota extended by the United States under the now-defunct Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. It was a clear and very successful example of providing trading opportunities as development aid by a development partner. However, we were also paying high tariffs for these exports but remained competitive in the US market as quotas ensured a reasonable market share. But after 2004, with the end of the quotas, the Sri Lankan exporters started to face strong competition in the US market, particularly from countries that had duty-free market access. So, in December 2004, Sri Lanka was hit by two tsunamis, the Asian Tsunami and the Tariff Tsunami.
On 06 January 2005, The Wall Street Journal published on its op-ed page an opinion piece titled, “Tariff Tsunami,” highlighting this: “… some eye-popping statistics showing how U.S. tariffs discriminate against world’s poor, including in particular those in Sri Lanka. The duties paid on Sri Lankan garment exports to the US in 2003 were $238.5 million – which was more than the total duties ($227 million) paid that same year on every product exported to the U.S. from all six countries of Scandinavia. That’s despite the fact that Scandinavia exports roughly 12 times more to the US than does Sri Lanka – $23.8 billion versus $1.8 billion in 2003. The average US duty rate from products from those rich nations of Northern Europe is about 1%, while the average rate on Sri Lankan goods is 13.8% and 16.6% on the bulk of its exports, which happens to be clothing.”
Twenty-one years later, if one checks the US Customs data for 2024 a similar pattern will be observed, as our exports’ basket to the US and the import duties in the US have not changed much. Though, some of our exports, like tea, gem stones and rubber products, have duty free access. for some apparel products we pay 25% tariff resulting in very high average tariff.
When Trump promised, during his campaign for the White House, a 10 percent tariff on all imports from all countries and a higher tariff on China, I expected Sri Lanka to improve her competitiveness and anticipated a shift in sourcing from China to other Asian countries. I also believed that the “slow surge in orders” received by Sri Lankan apparel exporters after the US elections, as well as the investment by an American engineering technology group at Wathupitiwala, could have resulted from this discreet shift of sourcing. (Please read my article published on 8th January in “The Island.”). It also appeared that when US Ambassador Julie Chung stated, last October, at the foundation stone laying ceremony for a new American factory at Wathupitiwala, “SHIELD’s decision to shift its facility in China to establish a manufacturing facility here in Sri Lanka is a testament to the growing interest of US investment in Sri Lanka …. If the new government can strengthen the investment climate, implement anti-corruption measures, and strengthen business-friendly governance and transparency, there is potential for even more manufacturers to make similar moves,” she, too, didn’t expect that, six months later, the United States would hit us with punitive tariffs. Because no American investor would ever think of investing in Sri Lanka with an over 44% tariff.
A guessing game on the tariff plan
When President Trump announced, in early February, his “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” on Trade, he did not provide much information about the plan. Then a few weeks later, the Director of the National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett, stated that 10 to 15 countries accounted for America’s “entire trillion-dollar trade deficit” and the Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, mooted a plan for a higher tariff for the ‘Dirty 15’, a group of countries that have large trade imbalances. But they did so without naming the countries they were planning to target. Based on these two statements a guessing game started all over the world on the composition of this group. Still, most of the observers expected these countries to be those with highest goods trading deficit with the United States. In 2024, the United States faced highest trade deficits with China ($291 billion), the EU ($236 billion), Mexico ($172 billion), Vietnam ($124 billion), and Taiwan ($74 billion). Compared to these countries, Sri Lanka’s trade deficit with the United States is relatively insignificant.
However, with these declarations, there was a remote possibility of Sri Lanka getting hit by a higher tariff due to our relatively large trade deficit as a percentage of the total trade. For many years this was always raised by the American negotiators during the negotiations at bilateral multilateral levels. Though we had always managed to settle it amicably, with mutually acceptable explanations, the issue had remained as an irritant in our bilateral relations. Therefore, the Sri Lankan Embassy in Washington, and appropriate government agencies in Colombo, with inside knowledge of the views of the US trade officials on the bilateral trade deficit, should have prepared for this worst-case scenario, however remote it was, and strategised on possible responses.
Highest tariff on countries “which nobody has ever heard of”
A few weeks after the American elections, at a birthday party, I bumped into a Sri Lankan expert on the United States who works on these issues for the government. During our conversation I raised Trump’s proposed tariff with him, and inquired whether they had initiated any study on it, particularly any possible adverse impact on Sri Lanka. “Don’t worry,” he quipped, “…
Trump doesn’t know where Sri Lanka is. So, we will be the last to get hit!” As we were standing at the bar, sipping our first round of drinks, I didn’t take the conversation any further. But what he said reminded me of my first visit to the office of the United States Trade Representative, in Washington. That was in January 1998. After examining my freshly issued State Department diplomatic ID, the security guard inquired, very politely, where Sri Lanka was. And I explained, with the help of a quick sketch, where we are located. During the next three years, during my frequent visits to that building, she always welcomed me with a broad smile and remembered my name and where I was from. During my tour in the United States, I met few other people who had never heard of a country called Sri Lanka.
Unfortunately, predictably unpredictable Donald J. Trump had decided to impose the highest reciprocal tariffs on countries “which nobody has ever heard of,” Lesotho and the French Archipelago of Saint Pierre and Miquelon! Both got 50% tariffs under the new reciprocal tariff plan. Since the beginning of the century, Lesotho, a tiny landlocked African country, managed to expand her exports to the US under the African Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA) and is considered as one of the success stories under that programme. But during his annual address to Congress last month, President Trump, while defending his extensive cuts in the US aid budget, singled out a past aid project of “eight million dollars to promote LGBTQI+ in the African nation of Lesotho … a country that nobody has ever heard of.” In spite of its size, Lesotho refused to ignore the comment or take the matter lightly.
Foreign Minister Lejone Mpotjoane declared that the Lesotho government was “shocked and embarrassed” by the comments because Lesotho “… did not expect a head of state to refer to another sovereign nation in such a manner” and had sent an official protest note. Now, Mr. Mpotjoane must be a contented man. With the highest tariffs in place, the entire world has heard of a country called Lesotho! Saint Pierre and Miquelon, with a population of roughly 6,000 people and very limited trade with the US was the other country to get hit by 50% tariff. However, for this a tiny French archipelago, located off the shores of Canada, the time under the global limelight was short-lived as soon after the announcement the US administration made a U-turn and reduced the tariff to 10%.
Some of the other countries in this group with highest tariffs are not so tiny and are more well known. The table illustrates the United States imports from these countries and trade balance (in USD million) during 2023. (See Table 1)
Although President Trump has declared that these reciprocal tariffs are necessary to tackle America’s massive $1.2 trillion goods trade deficit, from this group of countries only Vietnam with $109 billion surplus and Cambodia with $11.8 billion surplus can contribute meaningfully towards a reduction of that deficit. The US trade deficit with all other countries in the group are minimal and together accounts for less than $5 billion. Based on 2023 statistics it is difficult to even understand Syria’s inclusion in the list. Then how did these countries end up with highest reciprocal tariffs?
Calculation of reciprocal tariffs
President Trump, while presenting his new tariff plan, stated that “reciprocal means they do it to us, and we do it to them. Very simple. Can’t get simpler than that,” and according to his Executive Order on the reciprocal tariffs, these are based on the average tariff rate charged to US exports, plus currency manipulation and other trade barriers. However, in many countries it is very difficult to quantify the tariffs, currency manipulation and other trade barriers. So, the calculation was simply done for each country by taking its trade in goods deficit for 2024, then dividing that by the total value of imports which provides the size of the trade imbalance in percentage terms. The US administration simply presumes that persistent trade deficits are due to a combination of tariff and non-tariff factors that prevent trade from balancing. Therefore, it divided that percentage number by 2 to fix the amount of reciprocal tariff. If the presumption on which the tariff is fixed is inaccurate then the burden of proof is with the country affected by the tariffs.
Way forward – ‘Make Haste Slowly’
With a 90-day grace period, Sri Lanka has sufficient time to move forward thoughtfully, appropriately, and discreetly. However, it is essential to negotiate with the American Administration the removal of the reciprocal tariffs, and if that is not negotiable, then reduce them to the global average. As the livelihood of thousands of poor workers are dependent on it, the government should act fast without making any wrong moves. In other words, it is time to make haste, slowly. But it is important to understand, as of now, it is a guessing game like blind man’s bluff, with modified rules: only two players at a time, and you are blindfolded. You have to guess where the other player stands and catch him, while the game is played on a cliff edge.
By Gomi Senadhira
(The writer, a former public servant and a diplomat, can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)
Features
New species of Bronzeback snake, discovered in Sri Lanka

In a rare and a prestigious honour in the world of biological sciences, a newly discovered species of bronzeback snake has been named after one of Sri Lanka’s foremost herpetologists, Dr. A. A. Thasun Amarasinghe. The new species, scientifically named Dendrelaphis thasuni, was found in Eastern Sri Lanka and belongs to the genus Dendrelaphis— a group of slender, tree-dwelling snakes known for their agility and distinctive colouration.
This naming is more than symbolic. It reflects global recognition of Dr. Amarasinghe’s invaluable contributions to the field of herpetology and biodiversity research, not only in Sri Lanka but across South and Southeast Asia. The discovery and naming were published in the prestigious journal Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, one of the leading international platforms for herpetological research.
Fitting Tribute to a Career in Conservation
For Dr. Amarasinghe, the gesture is both humble and meaningful. “To have a species from my own country named after me is one of the greatest honours I could receive,” he said in response to the announcement. “Over the past two decades, I’ve dedicated myself to the study of reptiles and amphibians. This recognition is a reflection not only of my work but also of the importance of scientific exploration in Sri Lanka and our region.”
Dr. Amarasinghe’s career has been marked by an unwavering commitment to uncovering and understanding the hidden diversity of reptiles and amphibians, particularly within the biodiverse Indo-Malayan region. His efforts have helped bring international attention to the unique and often endangered herpetofauna of South Asia.
So far, he has been involved in the discovery and formal description of more than 35 new species, including frogs, lizards, and snakes. These include six species of snakes from countries like Sri Lanka, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia—each one expanding the scientific understanding of ecosystems that are rapidly being altered by human activity.
The Discovery of Dendrelaphis thasuni
The new species was discovered during fieldwork conducted in Eastern Sri Lanka by a diverse team of researchers, including Anusha Aththanagoda, Dr. Anslem de Silva, Dr. Gernot Vogel (Germany), Sithar Udayanga, Champika Bandara, Majintha Madawala, Dr. L. Lee Grismer (USA), and Suranjan Karunaratne. The team’s findings led them to identify a previously undocumented member of the Dendrelaphis genus.
Bronzeback snakes are arboreal, non-venomous colubrids widely distributed across Asia. However, Dendrelaphis thasuni exhibits several unique morphological traits—such as distinct colouration, scale arrangement, and body proportions—that justified its classification as a new species.
The species was named using Dr. Amarasinghe’s first name, “Thasun,” in accordance with international zoological naming conventions. This gesture not only immortalises his name in scientific literature but also connects his legacy to Sri Lanka’s ecological history.
Rich and Fragile Habitat
The discovery location—Eastern Sri Lanka—is part of a region known for its ecological richness, containing a mix of dry zone forests, wetlands, and coastal ecosystems. These habitats are home to many endemic species, making them crucial for conservation.
Sri Lanka itself is one of the world’s top biodiversity hotspots. With high rates of endemism and relatively unexplored terrain, the island continues to yield new species even in the 21st century. However, this biodiversity is under increasing threat due to deforestation, urban expansion, agriculture, and climate change.
The discovery of Dendrelaphis thasuni underlines the importance of continued research and conservation efforts. As Dr. Amarasinghe has frequently noted in his writings and interviews, documenting biodiversity is a critical first step in protecting it.
“We cannot conserve what we do not know exists. Each new species we discover is another piece of the puzzle, another reason to fight for the ecosystems that sustain them.”
Global Collaboration
One of the most inspiring aspects of this discovery is the international collaboration it represents. Scientists from Sri Lanka, Germany, and the United States worked together to conduct fieldwork, analyse morphological data, and publish their findings. It showcases the growing network of researchers who are committed to preserving global biodiversity.
Such collaborations are vital in herpetology, a field that often relies on both deep local knowledge and advanced global research techniques. The research team behind Dendrelaphis thasuni exemplifies this synergy—combining traditional field surveys with modern scientific methodologies to deliver world-class outcomes.
Dr. Thasun Amarasinghe: A Scientist, Educator, and Conservationist
Dr. Amarasinghe is not only a prolific researcher but also a mentor and advocate for conservation. Over the years, he has co-authored numerous scientific papers, trained young researchers, and raised public awareness about the importance of reptiles and amphibians in maintaining healthy ecosystems.
He is known for his ability to bridge the gap between science and conservation policy, often emphasising the role of taxonomy—the science of naming and classifying organisms—as a tool for environmental protection. His work has influenced local and international efforts to safeguard species and habitats that would otherwise be overlooked.
His contributions have been recognised through fellowships, international speaking invitations, and now, with a species named in his honor—a rare distinction in the scientific world.
More Than Just a Name
While having a species named after someone is often considered one of the highest accolades in biology, Dr. Amarasinghe views it as part of a broader mission.
“This isn’t just about me. It’s about the science, the ecosystems, the communities who live alongside these species, and the young researchers who will carry this work forward. Naming a species is not the end—it’s the beginning of a deeper responsibility to protect it.”
The discovery of Dendrelaphis thasuni adds a significant chapter to Sri Lanka’s natural history and serves as a reminder of the urgent need to conserve the country’s fragile ecosystems. It also shines a spotlight on the people behind the scenes—scientists like Dr. Amarasinghe—whose dedication makes such discoveries possible.
With biodiversity loss accelerating globally, the role of field biologists and taxonomists has never been more critical. Their work not only reveals the hidden wonders of nature but also provides the data necessary for policymakers, educators, and conservationists to act.
As Sri Lanka continues to emerge as a key player in global biodiversity research, recognitions like this one highlights the nation’s scientific potential—and the global importance of preserving its wild spaces.
By Ifham Nizam
Features
Why Sinhala omitted in famous stone inscription by ancient Chinese Admiral ?

A plaque erected to mark the opening of a new electronic library at the Attorney General’s Department was removed because the writing thereon was only in Sinhala and English, and Tamil had been left out. This reminded me of a stone plaque bearing the date 15th February 1409 put up by Chinese Admiral Zheng He at the Galle harbour during one of his grand voyages to Sri Lanka, India and the African Continent.
Zheng He was a Chinese mariner, explorer, diplomat, fleet admiral , and court eunuch during China’s early Ming Dynasty. Born as Ma He or Ma Sanbao into a Muslim family in 1371, he later adopted the surname Zheng conferred by the Yongle Emperor. He completed seven historical voyages to trade and gather knowledge from other parts of the world. He died in 1433, at the age of 62, during his last voyage near Calicut (now Kozhikode), India. His remains were dropped to Davy Jones’ locker (buried at sea) off Coromandel coast of India.
Zheng He had his voyages a long time before the European powers visited this part of the world. (The Portuguese first landed in India on 20 May 1498). Zheng visited Sri Lanka almost a century before him, and his stone stela is about the offerings he made to the Buddha, Allah and Hindu God Vishnu seeking their blessings for successful trade with Sri Lanka.
Sinhala omitted
Now, this historical stela is at the National Museum, Colombo. What he offered to Buddhist temples, Mosques and Hindu temples is fascinating and the whole list has been inscribed on the stela, which was erected in a predominantly Sinhala area, is in three languages—Tamil, Persian and Chinese; he omitted Sinhala!
Admiral Zheng He’s fleet was unbelievably large. He had sailing ships which were more than 120 metres in length (longer than the Sri Lanka Navy’s flagship) and had five decks each. Unconfirmed stories say their crews grew fresh vegetables on the top decks and had piggeries in the bottom bilge decks, where pigs were fed with leftover food of the crew during passage. These ships were floating fortresses.
Admiral Zheng He had more than 100 ships of this size and smaller vessels; his fleet consisted of 217 ships and 28,000 sailors/marines. In comparison, Columbus, in 1492, had only three ships and 90 sailors. “Santa Maria”, the flagship of Columbus, was only 30 meters in length.
Admiral Zheng He’s big ships carried valuable cargo, like silk, gold and silver coins, porcelain vases and plates for trading around the world.
When Admiral Zheng He first visited Sri Lanka, in 1405, at the Beruwala harbour, which was popular among Arab traders at that time, he visited the Kotte Kingdom and climbed Sri Pada. His first visit was only limited to India and Sri Lanka. During his second voyage in 1411, he clashed with the Kotte kingdom, and King Alakeshwara tried to attack his ships. The Admiral launched a counterattack with his expeditionary forces and captured Alakeshwara, who was subsequently replaced with King Parakramabahu VI. He sailed to China with the Sinhalese prisoners, including King Alakeshwara.
According to historical records, Admiral Zheng He presented captured King Alakeshwara and his followers to Yongle Emperor (third Emperor of Ming dynasty), only to be told that the Chinese went on voyages to promote their trade and not to wage war, and ordered to take the captives to Sri Lanka during his next voyage itself. The Admiral took them back to Sri Lanka, as ordered by the Emperor. They were looked after well during their stay in China.
The present-day Chinese leaders have said the same thing as regards their Belt and Road initiative: “We are for trade and investment and not war.”
After his sixth voyage, Admiral Zhang He concluded that there was nothing China could learn from the outside World. True enough, China was very much advanced compared to the outside world at that time. He reported this to the Emperor, who later had the fleet dismantled after the Admiral’s last voyage and funds were utilised for keeping the Mongolian invaders at bay. Admiral Zheng He spent 28 years of his adult life on voyages.
Stone tablet
In 1911, S.H. Thomlin, a British engineer working in Galle, along the southwestern coast of Sri Lanka, found the stone tablet lying in a culvert.
I am only a seafarer and not a historian. Can someone enlighten me on why the Sinhala language was not used in this plaque?
Were the Sinhalese upset and angry then as there was no inscription in Sinhala. Let us have a discussion on this interesting subject.
(I will be failing in my duty if I do not mention the help I received from Ravi junior for gathering some historical details.)
(The writer Admiral Wijegunaratne WV, RWP& Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc (Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defense Staff, Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd., Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation and Former High Commissioner to Pakistan.)
By Admiral Ravindra C Wijegunaratne
-
Business3 days ago
DIMO pioneers major fleet expansion with Tata SIGNA Prime Movers for ILM
-
Features5 days ago
Nipping the two leaves and the bud
-
Features5 days ago
Avurudu celebrations … galore
-
Features4 days ago
Prof. Lal Tennekoon: An illustrious but utterly unpretentious and much -loved academic
-
News2 days ago
Family discovers rare species thought to be extinct for over a century in home garden
-
Foreign News2 days ago
China races robots against humans in Beijing half marathon
-
Latest News6 days ago
Trump freezes $2bn in Harvard funding after university rejects demands
-
News5 days ago
Counsel for Pilleyan alleges govt. bid to force confession