World record 53 red cards shown in Brazilian youth game
Vadodara and Mumbai to host WPL 2027
Mendis and Udara steady ship with warm-up fifties
Mahinda meet formidable Mahanama in semi-final
Wins for Dialog Axiata and Green Miracle Grand on Wednesday
by Sasanka Perera (The writer is on X as @sasmester)
The frenzied online actions of thousands of Sri Lankans responding to the Canadian actress, Maitreyi Ramakrishnan, calling herself an Eelam Tamil and opting not to identify herself with Sri Lanka has gone viral. Many of these were ‘Sinhalas’ from the country and the diaspora. An equal number of people spoke in support of the actress too, most being diasporic and local Tamils. Much of the latter was driven by a sense of online-Eelam nationalism. The liberal-woke types from Lanka claimed the Canadian actress as our own despite Ramakrishnan having made it very clear she does not want to be identified as such. The first two of these expressions are clear examples of ways in which nationalism should not manifest, usually as a divisive and exclusionary force. The liberal third expression is simply silly, irrelevant and sad. This said, I have never considered nationalism as useless or dangerous if it can be intelligently and inclusively fashioned to serve the nation. This is very different from my friends in the Sri Lankan Left, who have generally rejected all forms of nationalism.
However, one must be mindful that across the globe nationalism has long walked a dangerous tightrope. Too often, its supporters in different countries have defined the nation through an exclusionary lens, drawing narrow circles around who ‘truly’ belongs and pushing minority communities to the periphery. Two very dangerous ongoing manifestations are epitomised by the virulent US and Israeli nationalisms espoused by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. Consequences of their toxic rhetoric have gone beyond their national borders to impact the entire world. In Sri Lanka, this global malaise has found a localised anchoring as exemplified by the online explosion of competing ethnic nationalisms referred to at the beginning of this essay.
For decades, dominant political narratives have cast nationalism mostly in majoritarian and ethno-cultural and religious terms, overtly or subtly privileging the Sinhala identity. In doing so, this version has mostly alienated Tamil, Muslim, Burgher, and other communities, transforming a concept that should have ideally unified the people of the nation into a wedge that drives them apart. These other communities also have on their own come up with similarly competitive, exclusionary and at times, virulent forms of ethnoreligious natalisms.
But this is not how Sri Lankan nationalism emerged, at least among the elites, in the early years prior to independence. It was far more inclusive and inclusionary than we can fathom today. Compounding the present exclusionary trend is a more cynical phenomenon. That is the weaponization of identity by woefully unethical political interests. In the hands of many political parties and at present, among the fractured and irrelevant political opposition, nationalism in Sri Lanka has been reduced to crude, emotional rhetoric. Or to put it more clearly, it has been turned into a tool of convenience hauled out during election cycles or in times of existential political crisis to secure votes and support through divisive and chauvinistic mobilization. This phenomenon is clearly visible among Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim-dominated political parties.
This brand of nationalism is both offensive and counterproductive, even though many nationalisms in the world today work precisely like this. Such a negative, virulent and exclusionary nationalism only offers hollow slogans while failing to address the fundamental socio-economic realities and existential crises reaching across international borders that ordinary citizens must face regardless of whether they speak Sinhala or Tamil. It thrives on stoking fear rather than building state capacity or national pride.
To break this cycle, Sri Lanka must self-consciously move toward an inclusive civic nationalism. In my mind, this reimagined identity must necessarily encompass all Sri Lankans across ethnic, linguistic, and religious boundaries. This is the kind of nationalism that did exist among the elites prior to independence and also reemerged decisively during the public protests of the aragalaya. But I am unsure of its continuity, although it is clear the present government has not offered any ammunition to build a divisive and exclusionary nationalism within the country as in the past. Such inclusive civic nationalism however, does not manifest in the government’s dealings with other nations where the more dominant streak is an unfathomable sense of servility.
Crucially, this new civic nationalism must operate purely on behalf of the sovereign state and its national interest, refusing to use ethnicity or religion as filters for patriotism. It should also be a driver for our national interest when dealing with other countries –– big or small. When a citizen contributes to the economy, pays taxes, or defends the rule of law, their right to the nation is absolute. True nationalism respects diversity not as a concession, but as the very bedrock of the nation’s strength.
An inclusive nationalism, however, is not merely a domestic moral imperative; it is a geopolitical necessity as well. In an era where small nations are increasingly caught in the crosshairs of great power competition, Sri Lanka cannot afford to be internally fractured.
We have seen ample evidence of how external pressures can sideline our interests — whether through lopsided economic leverage, geopolitical arm-twisting, or diplomatic overreach by regional and global powers like India and China. Particularly this international dimension of nationalism has not seriously been discussed in Sri Lanka and it is hardly an integral part in our negotiations with other nations.
There has been continuous diplomatic pressure and policy lobbying, driven by long-term Indian security and political interests, to construct a physical road and rail link along with power and energy connections between India and Sri Lanka. While Indian proponents and their many Sri Lankan cohorts pitch this purely through an economic lens of trade and tourism, many Sri Lankans view it with deep apprehension. But this apprehension is hardly articulated in any sensible way in any sensible forum including in national politics. It is almost a whisper, albeit a widespread one. Beyond environmental vulnerabilities in the fragile Palk Strait ecosystem, there is a legitimate fear that an open land corridor would strip away Sri Lanka’s natural island strategic defence as well as its identity itself. It risks opening up the country to asymmetric socio-political pressures more than it endures at present, potential demographic and migration imbalances, and tighter economic subjugation by its massive neighbor, effectively transforming Sri Lanka into an easily accessible periphery of the Indian mainland. Besides, a physical link is not an absolute necessity for connectivity.
The Chinese situation is no different. Over the past two decades, aggressive infrastructure financing by Chinese state-owned banks have led Sri Lanka into high-cost commercial debt, culminating in the 2022 economic collapse and the infamous 99-year lease of the Hambantota Port to a Chinese joint venture. This highlights how a weak, fragmented state can be reduced to the role of a pawn in a ‘debt-trap’ or broader Indo-Pacific great power rivalry. When national leaders prioritise short-term political survival or personal patronage networks and wealth accumulation over national interest, critical sovereign assets are compromised, turning parts of Sri Lankan territory into strategic flashpoints for foreign powers. This has already happened in Sri Lanka.
An inclusive Sri Lankan nationalism ensures that decisions on sovereignty and borders as well as the value of national economic assets are evaluated from the standpoint of all citizens and only in the national interest –– not forced through by a locally powerful government with a compliant international relations outlook susceptible to external lobbying. A unified nation can objectively weigh economic connectivity against strategic vulnerability without internal or regional factions weaponizing the issue for sectarian advantage.
In my mind, an inclusive, civic nationalism establishes a firm, non-negotiable doctrine: no foreign power, whether Eastern or Western, regional or global, is permitted to compromise Sri Lanka’s territorial integrity or economic sovereignty. It ensures the country’s national interest and long-term survival are carefully aligned to the economic independence of the nation, ensuring that future governments maintain transparency, resist predatory lending, and treat national assets as sacred public trusts rather than bargaining chips. This does not mean the closure of opportunities for overseas investments. Rather, it means those investments would be based on transparency, on equal grounds and with equal benefits based on similar rules and conditions as those operational in the very countries we deal with.
When a nation is internally divided along ethnic and religious lines or is submissive in the way it deals with the world, it is inherently weak, vulnerable to external manipulation, and ill-equipped to negotiate fiercely.
A unified, inclusive Sri Lanka, backed by a nationalism rooted in collective strength and an inclusive sense of national pride rather than narrow exclusion, can stand its ground. Only then can we speak with one voice to defend our sovereignty, protect our economic assets, and chart an independent course in the Indian Ocean and the world.
Closing the Book: Fair regulation of gambling – V
Eastern University and the making of a culture of peace
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
In what could probably be a happy spin-off from the US mid-term elections Ukraine is to receive a $ 2.1 billion fresh arms package from the US. Included in the bundle are some 500 Patriot PAC-3 interceptor missiles, which for Ukraine would prove most handy in its ongoing war of resistance against Russia.
The decision on the package indicates an end to the US’ recent reluctance to continue to arm Ukraine and demonstrates fresh US resolve to stand by the latter. The package will be some years in the coming but the message to Russia meanwhile is that the war of attrition would continue indefinitely. That is, it is a no-win situation for both sides.
However, from the viewpoint of international peace-making, only a more divided and polarized world comes into focus. Recent developments on the world stage point to a deepening of the East-West cleavage and indicate that the resultant antagonisms would prove impervious to expeditious resolution. That is, the world would be shaping up as an increasingly ‘dangerous place’ to live in.
The recent G20 foreign ministers’ summit in Atlanta proved an eye-opener of the first magnitude. Whereas the US expected to have a happy ‘family photo’ at the beginning of the deliberations, this was not to be. For instance, the EU countries indicated that they would under no circumstances appear for the picture opportunity alongside Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
The EU bloc indicated, among other things that, ‘There is no normality with Russia’ in view of the latter’s invasion of Ukraine. An Australian Foreign Ministry spokesman was emphatic: ‘We will not normalize Russia’s brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine.’
Economic interdependence in particular would compel the G20 to continue to interact among themselves in a non-disruptive fashion in the short to medium terms but long term, intra-group peaceful coexistence is likely to prove a remote prospect in view of the challenges continuing to be posed by the Ukrainian question. The sides are no closer to arriving at a consensus on this host of issues as they were four years ago. In fact Russia is quoted in sections of the world media as stating that ‘World War Three’ is as good as having been launched.
Such rhetoric could be expected in times of heightened international tension but there could arrive a juncture at which such threats degenerate into real time armed hostilities. Russian impatience with the West could be expected to grow in proportion to which the latter continues to staunchly back Ukraine and provides it with the required military hardware to continue fighting.
Given its strong commitment to furthering the Ukrainian cause, there is no immediate possibility of West-dominated formations such as the EU backing down from this policy commitment.
The immediate challenge for the reconciliation-inclined sections of the world community would be to ensure that the main international parties to the Ukraine conflict refrain from allowing their differences from flaring into open military confrontations. In the latter event, nothing could prevent Russia, for instance, from militarily attacking those countries in the Western fold which have committed themselves to the defence of Ukraine. Needless to say, such a turn of events could lead to unpredictable, grave security consequences for the world.
A possible foretaste of things that could materialize for the world amid these grave security dilemmas was conveyed to the international community a few months back when Russia reportedly attacked a train carrying Western leaders on the Polish-Ukraine border.
This was a signal of sorts that Russian restraint and patience could have serious limits. Next time around, there could occur grave military confrontations between the West, read NATO powers in particular, and Russia. These could prove stepping stones to a Europe-wide conflict which in turn could degenerate into an all out East-West military confrontation. That is, a conflict with serious ramifications for world peace and security.
Interestingly, it is international formations such as the G20 which have the most potential to bring Russia and the West to a less confrontational path and platform and possibly a peace parley of some sorts. This is mainly on account of the fact that the G20 has within its fold the foremost economic and political powers from both East and West. The time is ‘now’ for international alliances, such as the G20, to ‘stand up and be counted’.
In fact even from the viewpoint of overall Southern development, the G20 could prove its worth quite substantially. It would not have escaped the notice of Southern watchers in particular that the G20 has taken upon itself the task, among other things, of ‘addressing debt restructuring, trade integration and infrastructure development of low income countries of Africa’, for instance.
Thus the G20 has undertaken the crucial responsibility of ushering Southern development, without which it would be quite short-sighted to deliberate on international peace and security. In other words, the G20 could prove its worth in bringing Russia and the West together in the task of defusing East-West tensions growing out of Ukraine and other seeming ‘perennial worries’.
Yet the world cannot afford to work outside the UN framework. The latter remains the most unambiguous upholder of International Law and the world would do well to remain anchored to the UN system as it seeks to usher in a safer and more law-abiding world.
Thus, UN reform could no longer be postponed or allowed to languish in the ‘back burner’, so to speak, of international concerns. Besides, the UN would need to prove itself to be the primary platform for international peace deliberations. An efficient UN system, then, would be in the interests of the world. Besides, there is no ignoring the fact that the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ remains the most seminal blueprint for international peace.
The US, however, remains rather indifferent to the above international concerns. At the time of writing, for example, it has launched fresh military strikes against Iranian targets in the Gulf region, whereas what is most required from the US is a major drive to end the current rounds of tension which are costing the world very dearly.
Cost of living protests are yet to manifest in the US on a large scale but the time would not be far off when popular economic grievances overtake the US as well.
President Donald Trump is in no mood currently for a policy of reconciliation towards the country’s perceived adversaries, but the ‘iron laws of economics’ would sooner rather than later make their presence felt. From this viewpoint, the post mid-term polls months could prove vital.
by Mahil Dole Senior Superintendent of Police (Retd.)
A police service may defend an officer or an action only when the facts support that defence. Once the facts no longer do so, continued defence becomes a further wrong. It shields error, signals to the ranks that accountability can be avoided, and erodes the single asset no force can create by regulation or by strength of numbers: the confidence of the public. Without that confidence, information dries up, cooperation declines, and every new incident is judged against the record of earlier failures. In a country that still faces residual security risks, organised crime and ordinary demands of public order, the loss is both a justice problem and a national-security problem. It can no longer be treated as a matter of public relations.
Court removes ranks conferred by favour
The clearest recent illustration arrived through the Supreme Court. Three officers who had held the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police for more than a decade, V.V.S. Gunathilaka, A.J.Y.B. Krishantha and P.M.B. Perera, have been returned to the rank of Chief Inspector. Their promotions in 2010 from Chief Inspector to Assistant Superintendent of Police, and the subsequent rises that followed, were ruled unlawful. The Court examined the Cabinet papers and found that the promotions rested on services rendered to the then President and Minister of Defence, Mahinda Rajapaksa, and his family, rather than on any administrative necessity for departing from the established procedures. The decision violated the right to equal protection of the law under Article 12(1). The Inspector General has given effect to the ruling. The officers must now relinquish the senior rank they exercised for years.
This is not a routine administrative adjustment. It is judicial confirmation that political favour was allowed to override the service’s own rules. For fifteen years these officers held senior command on the strength of promotions the Court has nullified. They occupied positions of substance: Director of the Police Grievances Division, Director of the Expressway Division, and Officer-in-Charge of the Bandarawela Division. One had earlier served as Officer-in-Charge at Beliatta. Officers who advanced through examinations, service and seniority now see that the rules could be set aside for those with access. The public sees that the hierarchy itself was distorted by political consideration.
What the demotion actually costs the service
The consequences are concrete. The three officers lose the salary scale, allowances, seniority and authority attached to the ranks they held. Their service records are altered. Pension calculations will rest on the restored Chief Inspector rank. More significant is the institutional effect. Officers who waited their turn have watched political access produce multi-rank advancement that required a decade and a half of litigation to reverse. Command decisions taken under ranks later declared unlawful carry less weight. The practical lesson many will draw is not that the system corrects itself, but that correction is slow and depends on persistent action by those who were disadvantaged.
How emergency habits became ordinary practice
The episode belongs to a longer pattern. The colonial police were organised chiefly for control. After independence the Public Security Ordinance of 1947 provided the framework for states of emergency and granted immunities for acts done in good faith. The 1971 insurrection and, more decisively, the violence of 1987–89 converted police stations in the south and centre into places of detention, interrogation and disappearance. Officers trained for ordinary crime investigation were placed under the operational logic of counter-insurgency. Methods developed against armed groups were later applied, with little adjustment, to ordinary suspects.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1979 reinforced the same approach. Prolonged detention and the admissibility of confessions recorded by the police created clear incentives: a confession or a claimed recovery of weapons could close a case rapidly, while the prospect of later accountability remained low. During the civil war these practices became normal for large parts of the security apparatus. After 2009 the same patterns, custodial assault, deaths explained as attempts to escape or to recover hidden items, incomplete records, and the transfer of officers rather than their prosecution, moved into the handling of ordinary crime and drug cases. Political interference, visible from the late 1970s, deepened the problem. Promotions and postings increasingly rewarded those who produced results or showed loyalty. Transfer became the usual response to misconduct. An officer moved from one station carried the same methods to the next.
Pattern that survived the end of the war
The outcome is a culture of impunity that survived the end of the emergencies that produced it. Cases spanning decades, the death of Wijedasa Liyanarachchi, the torture and subsequent killing of Gerald Perera, the Angulana murders, and repeated Supreme Court findings of fundamental-rights violations, show the same features. Compensation was sometimes awarded; removal from the service or criminal conviction was not the ordinary result. Records compiled by the Asian Human Rights Commission of hundreds of torture cases in ordinary criminal investigations demonstrated that most victims were not terrorism suspects. Oversight bodies existed on paper but lacked the consistent authority or political support required to change the pattern.
Recent cases that follow the established course
Recent incidents follow the established course because that course was never rewritten. In Homagama, 29-year-old Ishara Harsha Kumara died after arrest in connection with a small quantity of crystal meth. Family members alleged assault. Medical findings indicated broken ribs and possible brain injury. Senior officers acknowledged procedural failures. The Crimes Division Officer-in-Charge was arrested; earlier complaints against him had been reported. The Headquarters Inspector was suspended for supervisory shortcomings. Investigations continue. In Kadawatha, police fired on a three-wheeler that officers said failed to stop, injuring a 16-year-old passenger. The official account stressed non-compliance; the mother contested aspects of it. A later social-media message urging obedience attracted further criticism. These cases stand against Human Rights Commission figures of dozens of deaths in cells and encounters between 2020 and early 2025, and against a National Police Commission backlog in which roughly 82 per cent of complaints received between 2016 and the end of 2024 remained unresolved.
Why political favour weakens everyday discipline
The link to the demotion is direct. When rank itself can be conferred for political service, the incentive to treat other rules, custody protocols, use-of-force thresholds, documentation standards, as flexible increases. When the service has accepted one form of departure from rules at senior levels, the reflex to defend incomplete investigations or after-the-fact explanations lower down becomes easier to maintain. Officers who observed political favour produce rapid advancement adjusted their own calculations. Those adjustments have not been undone by a single court decision.
Price paid in confidence and security
The costs are plain. Public complaints have increased. Cooperation has declined. Intelligence has become harder to obtain. In a media environment every poorly documented use of force is recorded and contested within hours. The service’s credibility suffers not only from the actions of a minority but from the perception that the institution will first protect its own. Most officers carry out difficult and often dangerous work under resource constraints. They are undermined when excesses are shielded and when the promotion system is shown to have been open to negotiation. Effective policing and intelligence work depend on public confidence that cannot be compelled. When that confidence falls, national security is affected.
What the authorities must now require
The authorities must treat the present situation as a point of decision rather than another episode to be managed by transfer or statement. The Supreme Court has shown that irregular promotions can be reversed. The same standard must apply elsewhere. Every custodial death and every discharge of a firearm requires investigation by a unit outside local command, with full access for the Human Rights Commission and prompt magisterial oversight. Where credible evidence exists, arrest or suspension must follow without waiting for public pressure. Existing custody protocols must be enforced, and commanders held to account when they are not.
The National Police Commission requires the resources and authority to clear its backlog and to dispose of new complaints within defined periods. Transfers must cease to be the default answer to serious allegations. Criminal allegations of assault or unlawful killing must be investigated as crimes. An officer’s prior complaint history must be known and considered before posting to sensitive units. Promotion and posting criteria must reward integrity and the quality of investigation alongside detections. Training must treat de-escalation, custody standards and accurate recording as core professional requirements. Governments must make the talk walk.
Political authority must leave the police service alone with the National Police Commission and the Human Rights Commission to deal with discipline, if any government, whatever its colour, wishes to win and maintain the people’s confidence. At the same time, indiscipline cannot be tolerated, allowed or ignored without punishment. This is a division of responsibility, not an invitation to leniency. Promotion, posting, transfer and disciplinary action must rest with the professional machinery of the service and its independent oversight bodies. When political authority inserts itself into these processes, whether to reward loyalty, protect an ally or settle a score, the rules cease to operate as rules. The nullification of the 2010 promotions demonstrated the distortion. Officers who watched the process learned that access could outweigh the established scheme. Once that lesson is absorbed, the effect moves downward. If senior rank can be conferred outside the rules, the incentive to treat custody and use-of-force standards as equally adjustable grows stronger.
Leaving discipline to the Police Commission and the Human Rights Commission requires those bodies to act. Complaints of assault, unlawful detention or excessive force must be investigated promptly, outside local command, and followed by suspension, interdiction or criminal prosecution where the evidence warrants it. Transfer must cease to be the principal response. An officer’s prior record must be known before sensitive postings are made. Commanders who fail to enforce custody and use-of-force standards must face accountability themselves. The Commission’s long backlog cannot continue if the public is to regard oversight as real.
A service able to enforce the law equally is an asset to any administration that seeks to retain public support. A service seen as an instrument of political convenience is a liability to all of them. The authorities, the community and every stakeholder who depends on a credible police service now have the facts before them. Political favour distorted the hierarchy for years. Impunity outlasted the emergencies that produced it. Recent deaths and shootings follow a familiar pattern. Silence and delay have not resolved the problem; they have extended it.
The choice is no longer between defending the service and examining it. The choice is between correcting what the courts and the record have already shown to be wrong, or watching the remaining confidence of the public continue to decline. Only the first course remains available if the police service is to keep the legitimacy on which its effectiveness, and the country’s security, ultimately rest. The people’s confidence is not secured by statements. It is secured by consistent evidence that the rules apply to the police themselves, and that no political interest stands between an officer and the consequences of misconduct. That evidence is still incomplete. Until it is supplied, every new incident will be judged against the record of the last one, and the service will continue to pay the price in lost cooperation and reduced legitimacy.
( This analysis is offered in the interest of national security, institutional reform, and public safety)
The writer is a retired Senior Superintendent of Police, former head of the counter terrorism desk at the state intelligence service, a former member of the Sri Lanka Wakfs Board, and the author of “Security Beyond Enforcement: Practical Approaches for a Safer Nation” (2026). [email protected]
Elina Gunawardena, the 19-year-old wonder girl from Colombo, has become the FIRST-EVER Sri Lankan model to walk the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show (VS)!
The big, iconic show happened on October 18th, 2026, at Sony Pictures Studios, Los Angeles — and she didn’t just walk once, she walked TWICE!
Look 1: A super cute pastel lime-green ruffled top and skirt — so fresh, so Elina!
Look 2: The showstopper — a crystal-embellished look with a flowing champagne-gold dupatta trailing behind her like ANGEL WINGS! She gave the VS runway a beautiful South Asian touch, and everyone, they say, was obsessed over that desi twist.
She shared the stage with the biggest names in the world — Gigi Hadid, Bella Hadid, Adriana Lima, Irina Shayk, Ashley Graham — with live performances by Tate McRae, Megan Thee Stallion and KATSEYE!
“I’m officially a VS Angel! Honestly never thought that this would ever happen… I am so so soooooo grateful to be the FIRST Sri Lankan model to walk for VS. Literally crying because this is just a dream come true!”
“To be the first Sri Lankan model for Victoria’s Secret feels unreal!”
Yes, Elina took our little island to the biggest lingerie stage in the WORLD!
I guess readers would want to know how Elina G got to Victoria’s Secret?
She didn’t get it because she was lucky, nor did she fill a form and apply! She got it because she was READY when luck knocked! And this is how she got the Golden Ticket:
She was discovered at just 14 years old in Sri Lanka! She joined Panthera Management because her older sisters were there! From there — Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week, Sri Lanka 2022, then Colombo Fashion Week 2024 and 2025!
In February 2025, she went for an interview with the legendary Ford Models in Paris — and, yes, they signed her THE NEXT DAY!
At her very first Paris Fashion Week she walked nine shows — Chanel, Hermès, Rabanne, Dries Van Noten, Moncler — and she OPENED the Isabel Marant show! Opening is like being the queen of the show!
Now she is represented by the top three agencies in the world — Ford Models (Paris), Storm Management (London), and The Lions (New York)! These big agencies submit their girls to VS casting directors! So her agencies put her name forward!
Before VS, she already did 50+ runways — Fendi, Givenchy, Max Mara, Alexander McQueen, Dolce & Gabbana! She was on the cover of Vogue Netherlands in May 2026! And in September 2026 — she OPENED the Ralph Lauren Spring/Summer 2027 show in New York! Opening Ralph Lauren is MASSIVE! That made the VS casting team say — WHO IS THIS GIRL?!
VS does secret castings in New York and LA weeks before the show. All the top girls walk for the casting directors, the stylists, Emmanuelle Alt and team. They look at walk, confidence, social media power, personality! Our Elina’s walk, her international look, her fresh South Asian beauty, and that amazing resume — she won their hearts!
And when Victoria’s Secret called — she was not a new girl. She was a professional.
So, if you have a dream — whether it is fashion, or singing, or business, or studies — remember Elina.
Over Rs. 8 mn worth of copper stolen from KDU Hospital lightning protection system
Private sector salaries surge ahead of public sector pay structures as National Budget looms
Protecting Sacred city of Anuradhapura
Social media backlash over Lankan cricket legend’s Ryanair ‘racist’ remark
Inaugural SAU-RCSS South Asia Dialogue: Former Foreign Secretary Palihakkara calls for trust-based connectivity and ‘Variable Geometry’ in regional cooperation
ITAK, DTNA mount joint protest against PTA
PSTB sharply deviates from expert committee’s report
Copyright © 2020 Upali Newspapers (Pvt) Ltd. Solution by LankaCom Privacy Policy
Loading comments…