Connect with us

Features

Sir Waitialingam Duraiswamy

Published

on

Sir Waitialingam Duraiswamy

Extracted From All Experience: Essays and reflections by Sam Wijesinha, 2001.

The State Council created under the Donoughmore Constitution had its first meeting on July 7th, 1931. It ran its full term and was dissolved on December 7th, 1935.The elections to the Second State Council were concluded on March 7th, 1936. Of the fifty seats for which nominations were received seven returned uncontested members, viz.

Bandaranaike   Mr.SWRD for  Veyangoda

Corea               Mr.GCS for Chilaw

Duraiswamy     Mr.Waitialingam for Kayts 

Freeman          Mr.HR for Anuradhapura

Jayatilaka        Sir DB for Kelaniya

Kotalawela      Col JL for Kurunagala

Senanayake    Mr DS for Minuvangoda

 On March 17th at the first meeting of the Council three persons were nominated for the post of Speaker. On the first ballot the result was:

Mr. Waitialingam Duraiswamy 27 votes

Mr. Francis de Zoysa KC. 17 votes

Mr. Charles Batuwantudawa. 14 votes 

The third candidate was eliminated, and there was another ballot between the first two which resulted in:

Mr. Waitialingam Duraiswamy 29 votes 

Mr. Francis de Zoysa KC 29 votes

Since both had equal votes there had to be a third ballot on which finally a Speaker was chosen:

Mr. Waitialingam Duraiswamy 30 votes

Mr. Francis de Zoysa KC 28 votes 

So Mr. Duraiswamy, the Member for Kayts, was elected Speaker. It was a remarkable tribute that, in a Legislature of 39 Sinhalese and 19 others, a Tamil from Jaffna was elected to this prestigious post. Of the other six members who were uncontested, five were elected Ministers. The sixth Mr. Freeman, the former British Civil Servant who was elected the member from Anuradhapura, remained a back bencher.

Who was this remarkable member from Jaffna who defeated Francis de Zoysa, one of the foremost statesmen of this country, an eminently distinguished lawyer, a King’s Counsel and President if the Ceylon National Congress in 1925-26?

Sir Waitialingam Duraiswamy (he was knighted in 1936 was born in Velanai, an island on the west of the Jaffna peninsula, on June 8th, 1874. He was a son of Ayampillai Waitialingam who had spent some time in Malaya. Young Duraiswamy had his education at Jaffna College, Vaddukoddai where he excelled both in studies and in sports. Following the Jaffna tradition of seeking education whatever the difficulties, he was then sent across to India and joined Presidency College in Calcutta University. In 1897 he graduated with double honors in Mathematics and Science. He had the distinction of studying under Professor PC Roy and Jagdish Chandra Bose.

 Returning to Ceylon, he joins the Colombo Law College and was admitted as an Advocate in 1902. He worked in the chambers HJC Pereira KC, who was later President of the Ceylon National Congress.  HJC, as he was popularly known was not only a leading lawyer, but also a fighter for fair play and freedom. He exhorted workers to unite, which led in due course to the formation of Trade Unions. Young Duraiswamy this certainly had a great opportunity to obtain a good, all-round training in Pereira’s chambers.

 Due to family responsibilities he returned to Jaffna and left behind his association with HJC, thereby abandoning the prospect of a successful career in Colombo. He set up his legal practice in Jaffna and in 1905, as an eligible young lawyer, married Rasamma, the daughter of Mudaliyar Sittampalam Sathasivam.

 Whilst immersed in his advancing professional practice, he began his public life as a Founder member and Secretary of the Jaffna Association which, like the Ceylon National Congress, worked for the political advancement towards independence by democratic means. He was also a member of the Liberal party, led at that time by Sir James Pieris. In addition, he was joint Founder and Secretary of the Hindu Board of Education, which was responsible for establishing a series of schools. He was on the governing body of Jaffna Hindu College and the President of the Jaffna Paripalana Sabha, which was responsible for the publication of two newspapers.

For the next two decades he made steady progress in the profession to become the leader of the Jaffna Bar and to be appointed Crown Advocate, always the most coveted position in the field in Ceylon at that period. With his diverse interests in religious affairs, educational development and social service he was well recognized, warmly respected and deeply appreciated by the public of Jaffna.

By Ordinance No 13 of 1910, in terms of what are known as the McCallum reforms, a small semblance of the principle of representation through election was recognized for membership of the Legislative Council. One member was therefore elected in 1912 for the Educated Ceylonese Electorate of about 3,000 voters. One is very limited Educational franchise. Ponnambalam Ramanathan who had been in the Council from 1879 to 1892 as an Unofficial Nominated Member, was the choice of the electors. But agitation against the niggardliness of the concession, carried on for the next 10 years, resulted in the elective principle being extended by the Order-in-Council of 1920. This provided for election to 11 territorial and five non-territorial seats. Each of the provinces was to elect one member on a limited income franchise, with the much more largely populated Western Province being allocated three seats.

With his professional standing and his record of service to the public, Advocate Waitialingam Duraiswamy became the obvious choice to represent the Northern Province. He was the only Hindu elected to the Legislative Council of 1921 and was unopposed. Sir Henry Kotalawela (knighted in 1947), elected to represent the Uva Province was the only Buddhist. All the other nine territorially elected members, including Advocate ER Tambimuttu who represented the Eastern Province were Christians.

Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan who was elected by the people both in 1912 and 1917 was knighted and nominated by the Governor as an Unofficial Member of the Legislative Council in 1921. It was claimed by NE Weerasooria in his book Ceylon and her People that ‘The distinction conferred on Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan was the precursor of his secession from the Ceylon National Congress.

’ However, disappointment at the manner in which Sinhalese politicians insisted on taking all the elected seats in the Western Province as well as those for special groups (such as the Low Country Products Association, which had a voting membership of just 11) also doubtless contributed.

 In 1922 Sir Waitialingam successfully moved a motion in the Council for prohibition on the basis of local options, which resulted in all taverns and foreign liquor shops being abolished in the Jaffna District. The option, it should be noted, was not exercised elsewhere and prohibition in the South seems to occur only through impositions on specific occasions.

It was at this time that the recommendations of the Salaries Commission for increases were included in the budget for 1923-24, a contravention of a promise given by Sir Andrew Caldecott, the Colonial Secretary. The Unofficial Elected Members recorded a protest and eventually all 11 of them walked out of the Council. They resigned but were re-elected unopposed. Sir Waitialingam was one of the leaders of this protest which was organized by Sir James Peiris.

In 1923 the communal tensions that had been simmering for a couple of years came into the open with the question of a Memorandum about Minorities which had been ‘sent secretly’ to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Rt Hon Winston Churchill, with a view to thwarting the grant of responsible Government and recommending a return to communal representation.  The Colonial Secretary refused to table a copy of this ‘Secret Memorial.’ But the Ceylon Daily News published a scoop about it which created a sensation.

At a public meeting in honor of Governor Manning at Jaffna, the genesis of the ‘Secret Memorial’ was revealed. Sir Ambalavanar Kanagasabai (Nominated Unofficial Member) said, ‘It was Sir William Manning who obtained for the Tamils the preferential treatment and concession as outlined in the draft.’ The Governor in reply paid a fulsome compliment to Sir Ponnambalam Ramanathan for what it was suggested for assistance rendered in drafting these proposals.

Reflecting on these events, I feel today what Prof. KM de Silva so elegantly expressed when he wrote, “The Sinhalese Leaders of the Ceylon National Congress allowed themselves to be embroiled in a needless conflict. It was on an intrinsically unimportant issue – that reserved seat for the Tamils in the Western Province. A timely concession generously made would have removed it from the arena of political controversy.

” This big mistake on a small matter eventually cost us the friendship and the benevolence of two of the most outstanding men produced in 152 years of British rule. Ponnambalam Ramanathan and Ponnambalam Arunachalam, to both of whom so much is due from so many in our land. But this unwillingness to yield gracefully from a position of strength, so that concessions have to be exhorted with ever increasing suspicion, seems to be part of a congenital incapacity that continues to destroy the country.”

It should be noted however that the two elected Tamil members from the Northern and Eastern Provinces – Waitialingam Duraiswamy and ER Tambimuttu rejected the “Secret Memorial.” Duraiswamy indeed went on record saying, “I cannot understand how age and experience could have been guilty of such egregious blunders; this is all the work of our old men. If they cannot lead in the right way they lead in the wrong way, but they always lead, that is their one and only ambition.”

Meanwhile he was again elected uncontested to the enlarged new Legislative Council of 1924 to represent the Northern Province (Western Division). Tambimuttu was also re-elected to represent the Batticaloa District of the Eastern Province. During this period Duraiswamy was the architect of the Conference held in 1925 at Mahendra, his home in Jaffna, at which the delegates of the Ceylon National Congress led by Mr. CE Corea and the Ceylon Maha Jana Sabha led by himself discussed further reforms. Incidently Mahendra was the home graced by the visits of Mahatma Gandhi and Rajagopalachari in 1927 and in 1931 by Jawaharlal and Kamala Nehru and their daughter Indira.

During this time Duraiswamy was a member of the Akbar Committee of the Legislative Council which opted for establishing the Ceylon University in the Kandy District. Regrettably he remains, I believe, the only outstanding member of that Committee not recognized by a tangible memorial on the Peradeniya Campus.

In 1928 as the President of the Jaffna Association he gave evidence before the Donoughmore Commission and pressed for self-government. This was accepted but, together with many others in the Legislative Council at that time, he was not entirely happy with the Donoughmore Commission’s recommendations. At the debate in the Council in 1929 on the proposal that they be brought into operation, he was in opposition, and subsequently led the Jaffna boycott of the 1931 elections to the newly created State Council.

In a speech at Jaffna in 1931 Sir Waitialingam repudiated the suggestion that the boycott was for communal reasons. He went on to say, “We are not weak to depend on such sectional ideas, we are able to think for the good of the whole of Ceylon. Never did I think of communalism when I advocated reforms for the Island. We Tamils always worked for the good of the whole country, making no difference between race and race. Our safety lies in the safety of the Sinhalese, our freedom lies in the freedom of the Sinhalese, our progress in constitutional reforms depends on the co-operation of the Sinhalese. The policy of “Divide and Rule” shall not make us great. Therefore, let me once again assure the people of Ceylon that we are acting on behalf of the whole of Ceylon, and not from sectional motive.”

Jaffna abandoned the boycott and came back into the mainstream of national politics in 1934 when elections were held for the four seats in the district.  On this occasion Duraiswamy did not contest. Kayts therefore was won by Mr. Nevin Selvadurai. In 1936 however, in the general elections to the Second State Council, he was as noted above elected uncontested to the Kayts constituency.

I have tried briefly in these paragraphs to answer the questions I proposed at the beginning as to who this remarkable gentleman was who came from Jaffna to defeat Francis de Zoysa for the post of Speaker. His election to this post was a demonstration of the unbounded popularity, and the high esteem in which he was held by all sections of the country. He was a gentleman of a genial disposition with a ready smile, full of kind thoughts, kind words, and kind deeds. Blessed by nature with a graceful appearance, he had dignity in his deportment and the gift of a sharp intellect. Impartiality and fairness came to him naturally,

On his election as Speaker, Sir Baron Jayatilaka, the Leader of the House and Minister of Home Affairs, congratulating him said, “You can bring to bear on the questions that will come up a trained and disciplined mind and long experience, not only as a prominent member of the legal profession, but also as a member of the Old Legislative Council for over 10 years.

Jayatilaka and Duraiswamy were born in the third quarter of the last century, both were graduates of the Calcutta University when such academic qualifications were uncommon, both were professionally experienced lawyers and dedicated educationists with long records of public service. They were interested in their own literature, deeply learned in their respective religions, and highly respected by their own people.

They brought trained and developed minds to bear on the problems of their country without fear or favour. They advanced into parliamentary politics with the ripe experience of their chosen disciplines and the mature mellowness of their age. Both faced three elections, and both were returned three times without contest. Both had a serenity that reflected contentment.

In concluding his response to Jayatilaka, Duraiswamy said, “When the time comes for me to lay down the authority with which you have clothed me, I will do so conscious of having done our best, to help forward the progress of Ceylon.” That authority he was entrusted with in 1936 he laid down in 1947, having maintained the dignity and safeguarded the privileges of the State Council for an unparalleled 11 years.

He created healthy precedents and built-up honorable traditions. He sometimes quoted from Ramayana and the Mahabharata, the Thirukkural and the Bhagavad Gita to defend the rights of backbenchers and protect those of the less influential members of the House. He was able to direct, guide and inspire the most difficult raw material to handle – the young enthusiastic legislators of the State Council.

At this point it may not be irrelevant to mention that Duraiswamy was an outstanding athlete in his day and continued to maintain his healthy mind in a healthy body. He was the Founder member of the Tamil Union and its President for several years. I still remember a picture in a newspaper that showed him as Speaker bowling to the Governor Sir Andrew Caldecott, with Minister DS Senanayake behind the stumps.

When he laid down his office there was not one person in the State Council who had a single word against him. He was an exemplary Speaker by any standard, totally free from sectarianism and deeply devoted to the ideal of a Ceylonese nation.  As he wished on the day he was elected, so he downed his authority, having done his best to help forward the progress of Ceylon. The never-failing springs of his constant strength were the fundamental principles of his deep faith and the unbroken traditions of his ancient culture. Truly then it might be said of him that, ‘he was a man not for an age, but for all time.’



Features

Retirement age for judges: Innovation and policy

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Features

Ranked 134th in Happiness: Rethinking Sri Lanka’s development through happiness, youth wellbeing and resilience

Published

on

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

Continue Reading

Features

Hidden diversity in Sri Lanka’s killifish revealed: New study reshapes understanding of island’s freshwater biodiversity

Published

on

Aplocheilus parvus

A groundbreaking new study led by an international team of scientists, including Sri Lankan researcher Tharindu Ranasinghe, has uncovered striking genetic distinctions in two closely related killifish species—reshaping long-standing assumptions about freshwater biodiversity shared between Sri Lanka and India.

Published recently in Zootaxa, the research brings together leading ichthyologists such as Hiranya Sudasinghe, Madhava Meegaskumbura, Neelesh Dahanukar and Rajeev Raghavan, alongside other regional experts, highlighting a growing South Asian collaboration in biodiversity science.

For decades, scientists debated whether Aplocheilus blockii and Aplocheilus parvus were in fact the same species. But the new genetic analysis confirms they are “distinct, reciprocally monophyletic sister species,” providing long-awaited clarity to their taxonomic identity.

Speaking to The Island, Ranasinghe said the findings underscore the hidden complexity of Sri Lanka’s freshwater ecosystems.

“What appears superficially similar can be genetically very different,” he noted. “Our study shows that even widespread, common-looking species can hold deep evolutionary histories that we are only now beginning to understand.”

A tale of two fishes

The study reveals that Aplocheilus blockii is restricted to peninsular India, while Aplocheilus parvus occurs both in southern India and across Sri Lanka’s lowland wetlands.

Despite their close relationship, the two species show clear genetic separation, with a measurable “genetic gap” distinguishing them. Subtle physical differences—such as the pattern of iridescent scales—also help scientists tell them apart.

Co-author Sudasinghe, who has led several landmark studies on Sri Lankan freshwater fishes, noted that such integrative approaches combining genetics and morphology are redefining taxonomy in the region.

Echoes of ancient land bridges

The findings also shed light on the ancient biogeographic links between Sri Lanka and India.

Scientists believe that during periods of low sea levels in the past, the two landmasses were connected by the now-submerged Palk Isthmus, allowing freshwater species to move between them.

Later, rising seas severed this connection, isolating populations and driving genetic divergence.

“These fishes likely dispersed between India and Sri Lanka when the land bridge existed,” Ranasinghe said. “Subsequent isolation has resulted in the patterns of genetic structure we see today.”

Meegaskumbura emphasised that such patterns are increasingly being observed across multiple freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka, pointing to a shared evolutionary history shaped by geography and climate.

A deeper genetic divide

One of the study’s most striking findings is that Sri Lankan populations of A. parvus are genetically distinct from those in India, with no shared haplotypes between the two regions.

Dahanukar explained that this level of differentiation, despite relatively recent geological separation, highlights how quickly freshwater species can diverge when isolated.

Meanwhile, Raghavan pointed out that these findings reinforce the importance of conserving habitats across both countries, as each region harbours unique genetic diversity.

Implications for conservation

The study carries important implications for conservation, particularly in a country like Sri Lanka where freshwater ecosystems are under increasing pressure from development, pollution, and climate change.

Ranasinghe stressed that understanding genetic diversity is key to protecting species effectively.

“If we treat all populations as identical, we risk losing unique genetic lineages,” he warned. “Conservation planning must recognise these hidden differences.”

Sri Lanka is already recognised as a global biodiversity hotspot, but studies like this suggest that its biological richness may be even greater than previously thought.

A broader scientific shift

The research also contributes to a growing body of work by scientists such as Sudasinghe and Meegaskumbura, challenging traditional assumptions about species distributions in the region.

Earlier studies often assumed that many freshwater fish species were shared uniformly between India and Sri Lanka. However, modern genetic tools are revealing a far more complex picture—one shaped by ancient geography, climatic shifts, and evolutionary processes.

“We are moving from a simplistic view of biodiversity to a much more nuanced understanding,” Ranasinghe said. “And Sri Lanka is proving to be a fascinating natural laboratory for this kind of research.”

Looking ahead

The researchers emphasise that much remains to be explored, with several freshwater fish groups in Sri Lanka still poorly understood at the genetic level.

For Sri Lanka, the message is clear: beneath its rivers, tanks, and wetlands lies a largely untapped reservoir of evolutionary history.

As Ranasinghe puts it:

“Every stream could hold a story of millions of years in the making. We are only just beginning to read them.”

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Trending