Features
GR could face obstacles in entering US
by Daya Gamage
Sri Lanka’s former president Gotabaya Rajapaksa is reportedly seeking his once-renounced Lawful Permanent Residency (LPR) restored in the United States.
According to U.S. federal laws, foreign nationals – in this case Rajapaksa as a Sri Lankan citizen – have to apply for an immigrant visa at a U.S. Department of State consular office in Colombo (at the embassy) after receiving an approved petition or application. Without his petition or application ‘approved’ – according to stated federal law – he is unable to even apply to get the LPR restored.
Gotabaya renounced his US citizenship to contest Sri Lanka presidency as the Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution barred dual citizens from entering the Executive Office or the Legislature.
With the reports of uncertainty surrounding his permanent residency in Sri Lanka due to personal security and safety, Rajapaksa, it is speculated, is making an endeavour to join his spouse and son – both US citizens – in the United States.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides various bases for obtaining LPR status. These bases include (but are not limited to) sponsorship by a close family member who is a U.S. citizen or LPR.
Granting admission for permanent residency is spelled out in federal statutes such as 8 USC 1182, and Chapter 2 – Lawful Permanent Resident Admission for Naturalization. In 8 USC 1182, however, provisions for alien inadmissibility are very clearly defined.
In Title 8 USC 1182- Aliens and Nationality Chapter 12 read with Immigration and Nationality Subchapter II of Immigration Part II (Admission Qualifications for Aliens) provide the reasons the manner in which an alien is not considered for admission to the United States.
Title 8 Section (2) under Criminal and Related Grounds describes the inadmissibility of an alien as (Quote) Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of-a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime (End Quote)
Gotabaya Rajapaksa has not been convicted of any crime under the above provision but there are two lawsuits against him in the State of California judiciary alleging his ‘attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime’. The judges refused to hear the cases citing immunity bestowed to a Head of State as prescribed in the US federal law.
The law says, “Sitting heads of state, heads of government, and foreign ministers are absolutely immune from suit during their terms of office. Head-of-state immunity is a status-based immunity that attaches because of these officials’ positions “to ensure the effective performance of their functions on behalf of their respective States.”
One of the law suites in the California judiciary related to detention-torture connected to the following Section II of the Title 8 USC 1182 which refers to the inadmissibility of an alien: (Quote) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organisation) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained. (End Quote)
The US Code further states – reasoning why an alien is ineligible for admission to the United States – “with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property”.
The South Africa-based International Truth and Justice Project (ITJP), in partnership with the international law firm Hausfeld and human rights lawyer Scott Gilmore, filed a civil damages case in California against former Sri Lankan Defense Secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, on behalf of a Tamil torture survivor Roy Samathanam.
The case was brought under the (US) Torture Victim Protection Act, which gives torture victims legal redress in US courts. Notice was formally served on Mr. Rajapaksa on April 7, 2019.
According to the lawsuit Roy Samathanam, a Canadian national, was arrested on false charges in the Sri Lankan capital, Colombo in September 2007 by Sri Lankan police who reported directly to Defense Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the time. Visiting Sri Lanka to marry his wife, Samathanam was detained for three years and repeatedly denied access to a lawyer or a judge. It has been alleged, under Mr Rajapaksa’s command, guards tortured Samathanam, threatened to rape and kill his wife and child, and made him watch the electrocution of other prisoners. He was forced to sign a false confession before being released in August 2010 on a plea deal. All these facts were in the lawsuit.
On April 4, 2019, Centre for Justice and Accountability (CJA) filed a civil suit against Gotabaya Rajapaksa for his alleged involvement in the killing of journalist Lasantha Wickrematunge and the widespread and systematic targeting of journalists perceived to be critical of the Rajapaksa government.
In this case Ahimsa Wickrematunga, the daughter of murdered investigative editor Lasantha Wickrematunga, filed a complaint for damages in the same U.S. District Court in California for allegedly instigating and authorising the extrajudicial killing of her father. In her complaint, Ahimsa said that after the murder of her father in January 2009 Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his allies obstructed her “efforts to seek justice in Sri Lanka by tampering with witnesses and engaging in a pattern of coercion and intimidation”.
Following Rajapaksa’s election to the presidency, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (California) dismissed the complaint 27 February 2020 in light of his immunity as head of state.
So the case brought to the same court by Roy Samathanam was dismissed citing immunity.
There is a strong possibility that the above cited U.S. Federal statutes could be activated with the two law suits renewed as Gotabaya Rajapaksa has no immunity any more as he relinquished his presidency on July 15 this year.
The revival of Roy Samathanam and Ahimsa Wickrematunge law suits with the loss of immunity, 18 U.S.C 2340A could be activated to charge Rajapaksa in the U.S. Court, or the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service could deny or halt his entry to the United States.
The 18 U.S.C. 2340A defines torture as (QUOTE) Section 2340A of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits torture committed by public officials under colour of law against persons within the public official’s custody or control. Torture is defined to include acts specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering. (It does not include such pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions.) The statute applies only to acts of torture committed outside the United States. There is Federal extraterritorial jurisdiction over such acts whenever the perpetrator is a national of the United States or the alleged offender is found within the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or the alleged offender. (UNQUOTE)
The catch phrase in the Section is: “The statute applies only to acts of torture committed outside the United States. There is Federal extraterritorial jurisdiction over such acts whenever the perpetrator is a national of the United States or the alleged offender is found within the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or the alleged offender”.
Both law suits declare – in keeping with Section 2340A – that the alleged crimes were committed by Gotabaya Rajapaksa when he was still a citizen of the United States and in a foreign jurisdiction “irrespective of the nationality of the victim or the alleged offender”.
Then the allegation of war crimes.
Defined in Section 1091(a) of Title 18 an alien is inadmissible if he/she:
(QUOTE) (ii) Participation in genocide
Any alien who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide, as defined in section 1091(a) of title 18, is inadmissible.
(iii)
Commission of acts of torture or extrajudicial killings
Any alien who, outside the United States, has committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the commission of-
(I)
any act of torture, as defined in section 2340 of title 18; or
(II)
under color of law of any foreign nation, any extrajudicial killing, as defined in section 3(a) of the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (28 U.S.C. 1350 note) (UNQUOTE)
The American Embassy in Colombo did not approve the entry visa Rajapaksa sought in July when the protest campaign was gathering momentum in Colombo threatening his security and safety. Such administrative decisions are in fact classified material yet the Sri Lankan media somehow reported it. This writer is quite knowledgeable of ‘leaks’ from the US diplomatic mission to suit its projected purposes due to his long official engagement there. Many Sri Lankan military personnel including the current Joint Chief of Staff Gen. Shavendra Silva and war winning Army Commander Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka have been barred from entering the U.S. for ‘alleged war crimes’.
There is no allegation of genocide but war crimes are mentioned in U.S. official documents.
The U.S. embassy in Colombo on 15 January 2010 under the signature of Ambassador Patricia A. Butenis dispatched a classified analytical cable to Washington (later disclosed by Wikileaks) which stated “There are no examples we know of a regime undertaking wholesale investigations of its own troops or senior officials for war crimes while that regime or government remained in power. In Sri Lanka this is further complicated by the fact that responsibility for many of the alleged crimes rests with the country’s senior civilian and military leadership, including President Rajapaksa and his brothers and opposition candidate General Fonseka”.
Obviously the contents of the cable accusing them of war crimes were based on the gathered information the U.S. official intelligence network shared with the senior embassy and State Department officials.
The gathered information – both covert and overt – that the State Department and the National Security Agency (NSA) possess are communicated to the War Crimes and Human Rights Divisions of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through the offices of the State Department for scrutiny. When an alien applies to become a Lawful Permanent Resident the information the DHS possesses are taken into account.
When Gotabaya Rajapaksa applied to renounce his U.S. citizenship, this information which Washington already possessed was ignored for some unknown reason for him to have a safe passage to Sri Lanka’s presidency.
Section 1091 of Title 18, the United States Code declares “There is Federal jurisdiction if the offense is committed within the United States. There is also Federal extraterritorial jurisdiction when the offender is a national of the United States”.
At the time the U.S. Embassy dispatched the classified diplomatic cable to Washington accusing the three Rajapaksa brothers (along with Fonseka) as war criminals, one of the brother’s, Gotabaya, was a U.S. citizen who is well connected to Section 1091 of Title 18.
There is no doubt that the American embassy in Colombo and both the Departments of State and Homeland Security in Washington, D.C. could take note of the above mentioned Federal Statutes if and when Gotabaya Rajapaksa approaches the Consular Section of the embassy for the reinstatement of the Lawful Permanent Residency in the United States.
(The writer Daya Gamage is a retired Foreign Service National (FSN) Political Specialist – 1980 through 1995 – of the U.S. Department of State assigned to the Political Division of the American Embassy in Colombo, Sri Lanka)
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
-
News4 days ago2025 GCE AL: 62% qualify for Uni entrance; results of 111 suspended
-
News6 days agoTariff shock from 01 April as power costs climb across the board
-
Business5 days agoHour of reckoning comes for SL’s power sector
-
Editorial4 days agoSearch for Easter Sunday terror mastermind
-
Features6 days agoSeychelles … here we come
-
Opinion6 days agoSri Lanka has policy, but where is the data?
-
Opinion3 days agoHidden truth of Sri Lanka’s debt story: The untold narrative behind the report
-
Editorial5 days agoIdeological confusion and identity crisis
