Features
Labour standards, human rights?
Stranded garment workers in Jordan
By Gomi Senadhira
(Specialist in Trade and Development Issues)
Recent news items about the tear gas attack by the Jordanian police on stranded Sri Lankan garment workers in Amman has once again turned the spotlight on the problems faced by the migrant garment workers in Jordan. Unfortunately, the United States and the European Union, the two main proponents of the use of trade policy instruments to uphold the basic labour standards and human rights continue to turn a blind eye to gross violation of the basic rights of these poor migrant garment workers working under conditions similar to those of indentured labourers.
The tear gas attack, last month, by the Jordanian police on Sri Lankan garment workers stuck in their overcrowded dorms without adequate food and water, thousands of miles away from their families and loved ones, illustrates the plight of the migrant garment workers in Jordan. According to the available reports, these workers along with migrant workers from several other Asian countries laid off by their employers with the onset of COVID 19, had remained unemployed for the last five months. Naturally, all of them want to go back to their countries immediately but are unable to do so due to the non-availability of flights.
In the case of Sri Lankan workers, three staff members from the embassy had visited a hostel attached to the garment factories to look into their welfare were held hostage by the workers for over five hours. During the five-hours period the hostages were even forced to eat the food the stranded workers have been eating for the past five months. Finally, the Jordanian police intervened to rescue the hostages had attacked the workers, and had even fired tear gas on them.
The Incident and Sri Lanka Bashing
by the Usual Suspects
This incident had triggered fresh round of Sri Lanka bashing by the usual suspects. “Migrant workers … looking to be repatriated to Sri Lanka were teargassed earlier today, as they stand a protest outside the Sri Lankan embassy in the country. Jordanian police reportedly intervened after an escalation between Sri Lankan Embassy authorities and protesters, with the workers fleeing after being tear-gassed” reported the “Tamil Guardian”.
Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice (Sri Lanka bashing business of Charu Lata Hogg et el) tried to hog the limelight by launching an email campaign against the government as illustrated in their post below;
To maximise the damage, these groups have also used websites like that of the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) for their campaign. The CCC in its blog on “How the Coronavirus affects garment workers in supply chains” tagged the Asia Floor Wage Alliance (AFWA) Sri Lanka Coordinator’s discussion on the Globe Tamil’s Facebook page about the situation of Sri Lankan garment workers in Jordan. Quoting AFWP, the CCC also reported “Sri Lankan migrant (garment) workers …. in Jordan, have not been paid wages since April and are not receiving adequate food and water. When they tried to meet Sri Lankan embassy officials, workers were brutally beaten and tear-gassed…. over 20 workers have been hospitalised…. Meanwhile, … women’s rights groups in Sri Lanka and relatives of the stranded migrant workers are currently protesting in front of the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment (SLBFE) demanding urgent support for Sri Lankan garment workers in Jordan.”
These were deliberate attempt to defame the government of Sri Lanka as a government which is insensitive to the plight of the poor migrant garment workers. One cannot expect anything better from them. So, we can leave aside the issue of Sri Lanka bashing by these people. Even then, the question “why are Sri Lankan workers in Jordan going hungry?” is a valid one. It needs to be answered. Actually, we need an answer slightly more detailed question, that is;
“Why are stranded migrant garment workers in Jordan going hungry, not been paid wages, brutally beaten and tear-gassed?”
Before I try to do that, let me start with a true story of a migrant worker in the Middle East. Many years ago, when I was posted in Kuwait, my neighbour, a highly paid Filipino engineer, experienced a minor car accident. He had stopped at a traffic light when the car behind him took a little too long to stop and “bumped” his rear bumper. The driver admitted that he misjudged stopping distance. My neighbour requested that the Kuwaiti arrange to pay for the repairs as it was his fault. “No. It was your fault. This is my country. If you were not here, this accident wouldn’t have happened. So, it’s your fault.” the Kuwaiti said very firmly before he drove away into the sunset.
So, as our friendly Kuwaiti said, this teargas attack was the migrant garment workers’ fault. If they were not there this wouldn’t have happened. Actually, I too believe, they should have never been there. Or for that matter, there shouldn’t be a garment industry in Jordan in the first place, for them to be employed in. Jordan, after all, doesn’t have indigenous experience in garment manufacturing or trading, doesn’t grow cotton, or produce textiles. In Jordan, the female participation rate in labour force is very low (garment workforces are predominantly female) and the salaries are relatively high. In other words, Jordan doesn’t have any of those “factors of production” which provide a comparative advantage for her to develop a garment industry. Hence, Jordan is not a country that would usually attract investments from the global garment industry. Not even from those “fly-by-night” types. Yet, garment production has become a major component of Jordan’s export. How did they achieve that miracle?
The U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement
(USJFTA) and the Sweatshops
The Jordanian garment industry is a creation of highly generous tariff and other concessions extended by the United States and the European Union and cheap migrant labour from South and Southeast Asia (countries which do not have such preferential tariff in the American market) working under conditions equivalent to those of indentured labourers
The American tariff concession to Jordan, through the United States – Jordan Free Trade Agreement (UJFTA), provide Jordan substantial tariff advantages in certain product categories over more competitive countries in South and Southeast Asia. When the agreement was signed, one of the main incentives for signing it was the possibility of reducing the high level of unemployment in Jordan, which was impacting on her economic, political, and social stability. Given the high female unemployment, the development of the garment industry was touted as an important means of realising that objective.
Though the Jordanian garment industry grew rapidly as a result of the FTA and reached all -important billion-dollar mark by 2006 it did not reduce the unemployment rate in the country as the Jordanian women were not willing to work in garment factories. The industry grew by employing a large migrant workforce (from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, China, India, or Nepal) who were working under conditions similar to those of indentured labourers. In May 2006, the National Labor Committee (NLC), an American advocacy group for workers’ rights, published a report exposing a series of labour rights and labour law violations in Jordanian garment factories, some of which were at the level of serious human rights abuses. These include, among others, compulsory work shifts that extended from 38 to even 72 hours, inhumane living conditions, beatings, torture, and even rape of young female workers by factory managers.
This report was given wide publicity by American media. “…dismal conditions — of 20-hour days, of not being paid for months and of being hit by supervisors and jailed when they complain…” reported The New York Times. The NLC report also published a list of major brands/ companies that were sourcing from the factories described in its report. It included Wal-Mart, Disney, Jones Apparel, K-Mart, Gloria Vanderbilt, Kohl’s, JC Penney, Liz Clairborne, Victoria’s Secret, Perry Ellis, and Mossimo. This had a devastating impact, particularly on the buyers.
The Jordanian Government was highly concerned about the possibility of losing market share or even the entire industry and acted rapidly to address the allegations. It admitted some weaknesses in the system and, with the assistance of the USAID commissioned a third party report to verify the NLC report. Apparently, his report while confirming many of the NLC’s allegations, had watered down the gravity of most of them. For example, the allegations about sexual harassment, the USAID funded report has stated “could not be confirmed”.
The International Labour Organization too continuously promoted the Jordanian garment industry with major international buyers through their promotional materials and business forums despite many credible reports about inhumane living conditions, beatings, torture, and even rape of young female workers.
To assist Jordan to improve the image of the garment industry, particularly in the eyes of the buyers, the International Labour Organization and the International Finance Corporation, with generous assistance from western donor agencies, set up a shop called, Better Work Jordan (BWJ). The BWJ produced a promotional video on Jordan’s garment industry (Jordan’s Garment Industry: Migrating to Better Work – ILO) painting a rosy picture of the industry. The video even shows an election in a factory to elect worker representatives and comments “it is the first democratic opportunity in which they (the workers) have participated.” In other words, they never had such opportunities in their own countries, namely, Sri Lanka, India, or Bangladesh. This ILO video fails to mention that these migrant workers are not allowed to be full members of the trade unions or whether Jordan has ratified the core ILO convention on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise! How can the ILO justify the application of such double standards, half-truths, and lies to promote the Jordanian garment industry? How can the ILO deliberately mislead buyers? More importantly, how can the ILO mislead these poor workers (particularly young vulnerable girls) with such claims, so that they migrate thousands of miles for “better jobs” and to go hungry, get teargassed, beaten up, and even get raped?
Forced labour and modern day slaves
Due to the seriousness of these allegations Jordan was also placed in the US forced labour list and the country report on Jordan confirmed; “Chinese, Bangladeshi, Indian, Sri Lankan, Nepali, and Indonesian men and women encounter conditions indicative of forced labor in a few of the Jordanian garment sector’s factories, including unlawful withholding of passports, delayed payment of wages, forced overtime, and, to a lesser extent, verbal and physical abuse.”
In August 2019, Bangkok based Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW), presented a research report on the working and living conditions for the migrant garment workers in Jordan. The conditions reported were not much different from what was reported in the National Labor Committee report in 2006. The report also claimed, “…in Jordan, woman migrants routinely face sexual harassment and physical assaults by male supervisors.” In an interview with a Bangladesh newspaper on the GAATW report, Bangladeshi workers’ rights activist Nazma Akter correctly summed up the situation in Jordan when she said, “(in) Jordan migrant workers were often treated as modern day slaves.”
Why do major global brands continue to source from Jordan?
Despite such reports, the Jordanian garment industry continues to thrive due to the availability of the preferential tariff in the United States and the European Union and easily manageable indentured workforce. Then, what about those lofty CSR standards of the major buyers. Why do they continue to buy from Jordan? That because the International Labour Organisation the necessary cover at the Annual Buyers’ Forums organised by the Better Work Jordan. Yes, in Jordan the ILO even organise annual business forums! These forums bring together major international buyers, as well as local and international garment sector stakeholders. At these meetings, the ILO- BWJ assures the buyers that the Jordan’s garment industry is a wonderful place for the workers. If not for the ILO’s continued assurances, most of the major international buyers would have walked out of Jordan many years ago.
BWJ’s unified contract
At the Annual Better Work Jordan Buyers’ Forum in 2015, a new unified contract for all migrant workers in Jordan’s garment sector designed by the ILO experts, was proudly unveiled in the presence of the Jordanian trade minister and the American Ambassador. By 2020 the migrant garment workers in Jordan should be covered by these contracts which requires the employer to provide return air ticket as well as with accommodation and meals until his/her travel proceedings are completed. Largely as a result of these measures Jordan was removed from the forced labor list in 2016.
Now, the factories have terminated some of these contracts, and the workers have not been paid wages for many months and they are held up in the hostels without adequate food and water, beaten and teargassed by the Jordanian police, doesn’t ILO- Better Work Jordan to has responsibility to intervene and assist these workers. These workers should be adequately compensated, provided safe accommodation, food, water and medical assistance until their travel proceedings are completed. The ILO and the IFC as the promoters of these contracts and the industry have a greater responsibility and (certainly) more resources than governments of the labour exporting countries to look after these workers’ welfare. After all, if not for them or the BWJ these workers would not have been there to go hungry and to be teargassed.
. The Government of Jordan also has a major responsibility. That certainly does not include brutal police actions. This is not the first time these workers were beaten and teargassed by the Jordanian police. The United States and the European Union have a responsibility to ensure that their attempts to link trade, labour and human rights policies are not mere rhetoric. The buyers also should demonstrate that there is no deviation between rhetoric and reality of what they call “corporate social responsibility” principles. Under the prevailing conditions, those countries and the organisations are in a position to provide assistance to these workers, more than the governments of Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh or Cambodia.
Then the organisations like the Clean Clothes Campaign should have a better fact-check and refrain from adding credibility to fake news circulated by Hogg and others. They should direct their appeals to the governments and the organizations which are responsible for the plight of these migrant workers. For example; the European Commission, the United States, the Jordanian government, the ILO, the leading international clothing brands and the large garment factories which employed these poor workers
Way forward
Finally, as and when supply chains restart fully, they should be radically restructured. Production should be taken to factories closer to where workers live. The supply chains should not be based on models that force workers to migrate thousands of miles away from their homes, that too after paying many thousand rupees, takas, renminbis or rials, to work as indentured labourers, to go hungry and get beaten. The trade instruments,like FTAs, should not be used to suppress human rights and labour rights of these poor workers.
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
