Rear Admiral Udaya Bandara, VSV, USP (retired)

This incident happened in 2006 when I was the Director Naval Operations, Special Forces and Maritime Surveillance under then Commander of the Navy Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda. Udaya (fondly known as Bandi) was a trusted Naval Assistant (NA) to the Commander.

We were going through a very hard time fighting the LTTE Sea Tigers’ explosive-laden suicide boats that our Fast Attack Craft (s) and elite SBS’ Arrow Boats encountered in our littoral sea battles.

Brilliant Marine Engineer Commander (then) Chaminda Dissanayake, who was known for his “out of the box” thinking and superior technical skills on research and development, met me at my office at Naval Headquarters and showed me a blueprint of an explosive- laden remotely controlled small boat.

Udaya’s Naval Assistant’s office was next to mine, the Director Naval Operations office. Both places are very close to the Navy Commander’s office. I walked into Bandi’s office with Commander Dissa and showed this blueprint a brilliant idea. Being a Marine Engineer “par excellence”, Bandi immediately understood the great design. I urged him to brief the Commander of the Navy with Commander Dissa.

My burden was over! Bandi took over the project and within a few weeks we tested our first prototype “Explosive-laden Remotely Controlled arrow boat “at sea off Coral Cove in the Naval Base Trincomalee. It was a complete success.

This remotely controlled boats went out to sea with our SBS arrow boats fleet and had devastating effects against LTTE suicide boats and their small boats fleet. Thanks, Bandi, for your contribution. The present-day Admiral of the Fleet used to tell us during those days “you cannot buy a Navy – you have to build one”!

We built our own small boats squadrons at our boat yards in Welisara and Trincomalee to bring LTTE Sea Tigers. The Special Boats Squadron (SBS) and rapid action boats squadron (RABS) being so useful with remotely controlled explosive-laden arrow boats to win sea battles convincingly.

Bandi used to say, “Navy is a technical service and we should give ALL SRI LANKA NAVY OFFICERS FIRST A TECHNICAL DEGREE AT OUR ACADEMY (BTec degree).” That idea did not receive much attention here, but the Indian Navy—Bandi graduated as a Marine Engineer- at Indian Navy Engineering College SLNS Shivaji in Lonavala, Pune, India— understood this idea well over two decades ago. Indian Navy Commissioned their new Naval Academy at Ezhimala (in Kerala State) which is the largest Naval Academy in Asia (Campus covers area of 2,452 acres) starts its Naval officers training with a BTech degree, regardless of what branch of the navy one joined.

Bandi’s technical expertise was not limited to SLN. He was the pioneer of “Mini – Hydro Power projects” in Sri Lanka. When I was a young officer, he urged me to invest some money in one of these projects and advised me “Sir! as long as water flows through turbines, you will get money from the CEB, which is always short of electricity”. I regret that I did not heed  Bandi’s advice.

When he worked under me when I was Commander Southern Naval Area, as my senior Technical Officer, I observed pencil marks on walls of his chalet and I inquired from him what they were. He said it was the result of his “pencil shooting training”, a drill Practical Pistol Firers do to improve their skills. He used to practice “draw and fire” drills and pencil shooting drills late into nights to be a good Practical Pistol firer in Sri Lanka Navy team. He didn’t stop at that. He represented Sri Lanka National Practical Pistol Firing team and won International Championships.

As the Officer in charge of Technical Training in the Navy, he worked as Training Commander to train Royal Oman Navy Engineering Artificers in Sri Lanka, especially on Fast Attack Craft Main Engine Overhauls. The Royal Oman Navy Commander was so impressed with the knowledge acquired by Artificers that he donated money for the construction of a four-storey accommodation building for Sri Lanka Navy Naval and Maritime Academy, Trincomalee now known as “Oman Building”. The credit for this project should go to Bandi.

Bandi’s wife was a senior Judge of Kegalle High Court, and she retired a few years ago. Their only child, a son studied at the British School, Colombo and followed in his mother’s footsteps became a lawyer. Bandi was so much attached to his family and very proud of his son’s accomplishments.

When Bandi was due to retire in 2016 as a Rear Admiral and Director General Training, after distinguished service of 34 years, and reaching retirement age of 55 years, I requested him to serve for some more years after mobilising him into our Naval Reserve Force. He had other plans. He wanted to take his mini-Hydro Power projects to East African countries.

His demise after a very brief illness at age of 64 years was a shock to his family and friends. His funeral was held on Feb. 27 with Full Military Honors befitting a Rear Admiral at his home town Aranayake.

Dear Bandi, the beautiful Sri Lanka Navy, Naval and Maritime Academy in Trincomalee, which was built with your efforts will serve for Sri Lanka Navy Officer Trainees and sailors for a very long time and remember you forever.

May dear Bandi attain the supreme bliss of Nirvana!

Naval and Maritime Academy, Trincomalee

By Admiral Ravindra C Wijegunaratne
WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc
(Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)
Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defence Staff
Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd,
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation,
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan

Religion, perhaps, is the most important invention of the human mind. It is said that there are more religions in the world than spoken languages! According to Ethnologue, a website considered to be an authoritative catalogue of languages, there are around 7,170 living languages, grouped into about 142 language families, the Indo-European family having the most speakers. English is the most widely spoken language and around 40% of languages are considered endangered as there are less than 1,000 speakers each. Depending on the way ‘religion’ is defined, the number of religions in the world range anywhere from 4000 to 10,000, though the top four make up for 76%: Christianity 30%, Islam 25%, Hinduism 15% and Buddhism 6%.

However, religion is far from being the greatest invention of the human mind. Though many religions advocate all that is good including tolerance, compassion and kindness, in practice religion has become very divisive, led to many wars and spread discord. On the other hand, though language can be used to spread hatred, an ever-increasing phenomenon associated with the advent of social media, overall, human culture and civilization has been built on the foundation of language. It is hard to imagine human civilization without language though one can well imagine a civilization thriving without religion. Has religion which was meant to be the ‘Rose’ of civilization become a ‘Thorn’?

A vast majority of Buddhists are content with the concept of Buddhism being a religion, continuing their practices with emphasis on the ritual, but ‘thinking’ Buddhists rightly question whether more harm than good has been done to the teachings of the Buddha by the envelope of religion. Going by the widely accepted definitions of religion such as “the belief in and the worship of superhuman power or powers, especially a god or gods” or “a particular system of faith or worship” or “a pursuit of interest followed with great devotion”, perhaps, it is only the third that may be used, though loosely, to categorise Buddhism as a religion, as in Buddhism there is no belief in a supernatural power and there is no place for acceptance based purely on faith.

Maybe, the Buddha Dhamma is better classified as a philosophy, and it can be argued that the teachings of the Buddha may have had wider recognition and acceptance had the Buddha been born in the West than in India and recognised more as a philosopher than a religious leader. Going by the definitions of philosophy “the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline” or “a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour” it is obvious that Buddhism is much more than that.

Perhaps, the recognition of Buddhism as a religion rather than a philosophy was advantageous, in a way. As a religion, an art and culture around Buddhism developed with myriads of religious artefacts dotting around the world, especially in the East. However, it may be argued that this is not what the Buddha would have wished for. Notwithstanding, among the many monuments that are a testimony to the creative genius of our ancestors, standing tall are Ruwanmeliseya, built in 140 BCE by King Dutugemunu and Jetavanaramaya, built by King Mahasena and completed around 301 CE, which are among the ten tallest structures in the ancient world. Jetavanaramaya, built with over 93 million bricks to a height of 400 feet, was the third largest man-made structure on earth, second only to the two Great Pyramids in Giza and still holds the Guinness record for the tallest stupa ever built. It is a great shame that so little is talked about this engineering marvel of the ancient world.

The Buddha commands my respect more as a scientist; as the pioneer who laid the foundation for the modern scientific method. Kalama Sutta laid the foundation for scientific thought, verification before acceptance. Whereas other religious leaders were representatives of a higher power and their word must be accepted on faith, the Buddha encouraged his followers to question before conviction. The Four Noble Truths forms the basis on which scientific questions are addressed even today. Buddha’s concepts of cause and effect, impermanence which is dynamic flux are very scientific. The Middle Path is shown to be a cornerstone of political science.

Mindfulness, a concept the Buddha introduced, is fast gathering momentum as a therapeutic modality and Mindfulness Meditation has spread across the world thanks to the efforts of Satya Narayan Goenka. His Holiness Dalai Lama’s dynamism has stimulated many scientists to prove Buddhist concepts by modern scientific methods. When Richard J Davidson, Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who had done research on the effects of meditation on the brain at the behest of the Dalai lama, invited him to participate in the “Neuroscience and Society” programme of the Society for Neuroscience meeting in 2005, over 500 researchers signed a petition in protest. They alleged that his closeness to the Dalai Lama may influence the results, but the controversy subsided as most of the scientists who attended the meeting valued the presentation by the Dalai Lama. It later turned out that many of the scientists who protested were Chinese. Even science is not spared by politics!

Robert Wright, an American writer with an interest in evolutionary psychology, has written a New York Times bestseller, titled “Why Buddhism Is True”, with the subtitle “The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment” commented in Wikipedia as follows:

“In Why Buddhism is True”,

Wright investigates a secular, Westernised form of Buddhism focusing on the practice of mindfulness meditation and stripped of the element of reincarnation. He believes Buddhism’s diagnosis of the causes of human suffering is largely vindicated by evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, justifying his book’s title. He further argues that the modern psychological idea of the modularity of mind resonates with the Buddhist teaching of no-self (anatman)”

The Buddha’s analysis of the mind and thought processes remains unsurpassed. His analysis of sensory perceptions seems far superior to scientific explanations. Although modern science recognises only five senses, the Buddha considered the mind as the sixth sense. Scientific observations confirm that what we see is what we want to see and what we hear is what we want to hear etc. It looks as if the mind acts as a modifier sense. Further, Out-of-Body Experiences, described in detail by some who have had Near Death Experiences, makes one wonder whether the mind can see without the eye and hear without the ear. Mindfulness, through meditation, seems the best way of controlling the mind.

Buddhism, in addition to many other things, is the Science of the Mind.

by Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

President Donald J. Trump, as the American President often calls himself, is a global spectacle. And so are his tariffs. On Friday, February 20, the US Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Roberts and a 6-3 majority, struck down the most ballyhooed tariff scheme of all times. Upholding the earlier decisions of the lower federal courts, the Supreme Court held that Trump’s use of ‘emergency powers’ to impose the so called Liberation Day tariffs on 2 April 2025, is not legal. The Liberation Day tariffs, which were comically announced on a poster board at the White House Rose Garden, is a system of reciprocal tariffs applied to every country that exported goods and services to America. The court ruling has pulled off the legal fig leaf with which Trump had justified his universal tariff scheme.

Trump was livid after the ruling on Friday and invectively insulted the six judges who ruled against Trump’s tariffs. There was nothing personal about it, but for Trump, the ever petulant man-boy, there isn’t anything that is not personal. On Tuesday night in Washington, Trump delivered his first State of the Union address of his second presidency. The Chief Justice, who once called the State of the Union, “a political pep rally,” attended the pomp and exchanged a grim handshake with the President.

Tuesday’s State of the Union was the longest speech ever in what is a long standing American tradition that is also a constitutional requirement. The Trump showmanship was in full display for the millions of Americans who watched him and millions of others in the rest of world, especially mandarins of foreign governments, who were waiting to parse his words to detect any sign for his next move on tariffs or his next move in Iran. There was nothing much to parse, however, only theatre for Trump’s Republican followers and taunts for opposing Democrats. He was in his usual elements as the Divider in Chief. There was truly little on offer for overseas viewers.

On tariffs, he is bulldozing ahead, he boasted, notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling last Friday. But the short lived days of unchecked executive tariff powers are over even though Trump wouldn’t let go of his obsessive illusions. On the Middle East, Trump praised himself for getting the release of Israeli hostages, dead or alive, out of Gaza, but had no word for the Palestinians who are still being battered on that wretched strip of land. On Ukraine, he bemoaned the continuing killings in their thousands every month but had no concept or plan for ending the war while insisting that it would not have started if he were president four years ago.

He gave no indication of what he might do in Iran. He prefers diplomacy, he said, but it would be the most costly diplomatic solution given the scale of deployment of America’s fighting assets in the region under his orders. In Trump’s mind, this could be one way of paying for a Nobel Prize for peace. More seriously, Trump is also caught in the horns of a dilemma of his own making. He wanted an external diversion from his growing domestic distractions. If he were thinking using Iran as a diversion, he also cannot not ignore the warnings from his own military professionals that going into Iran would not be a walk in the park like taking over Venezuela. His state of mind may explain his reticence on Iran in the State of the Union speech.

Even on the domestic front, there was hardly anything of substance or any new idea. One lone new idea Trump touted is about asking AI businesses to develop their own energy sources for their data centres without tapping into existing grids, raising demand and causing high prices and supply shortages. That was a political announcement to quell the rising consumer alarms, especially in states such as Michigan where energy guzzling data centres are becoming hot button issue for the midterm Congress and Senate elections in November. Trump can see the writing on the wall and used much of his speech to enthuse his base and use patriotism to persuade the others.

Political Pep Rally: Chief Justice John G. Roberts sits stoically with Justices Elena Kagan, Bret Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, as Republicans are on their feet applauding.

Although a new idea, asking AI forces to produce their own energy comes against a background of a year-long assault on established programs for expanding renewable energy sources. Fortunately, the courts have nullified Trump’s executive orders stopping renewable energy programs. But there is no indication if the AI sector will be asked to use renewable energy sources or revert to the polluting sources of coal or oil. Nor is it clear if AI will be asked to generate surplus energy to add to the community supply or limit itself to feeding its own needs. As with all of Trump’s initiatives the devil is in the details and is left to be figured out later.

The Supreme Court Ruling

The backdrop to Tuesday’s State of the Union had been rendered by Friday’s Supreme Court ruling. Chief Justice Roberts who wrote the majority ruling was both unassuming and assertive in his conclusion: “We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

IEEPA is a 1977 federal legislation that was enacted during the Carter presidency, to both clarify and restrict presidential powers to act during national emergency situations. The immediate context for the restrictive element was the experience of the Nixon presidency. One of the implied restrictions in IEEPA is in regard to tariffs which are not specifically mentioned in the legislation. On the other hand, Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution establishes taxes and tariffs as an exclusively legislative function whether they are imposed within the country or implemented to regulate trade and commerce with other countries. In his first term, Trump tried to impose tariffs on imports through the Congress but was rebuffed even by Republicans. In the second term, he took the IEEA route, bypassing Congress and expecting the conservative majority in the Supreme Court to bail him out of legal challenges. The Court said, No. Thus far, but no farther.

The main thrust of the ruling is that it marks a victory for the separation of powers against a president’s executive overreach. Three of the Court’s conservative judges (CJ Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett) joined the three liberal judges (all women – Sonia Sotomayor, Elana Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson) to chart a majority ruling against the president’s tariffs. The three dissenters were Brett Kavanugh, who wrote the dissenting opinion, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were appointed by Trump. Trump took out Gorsuch and Barrett for special treatment after their majority ruling, while heaping praise on Kavanaugh who ruled in favour of the tariffs. Barrett and Kavanaugh attended the State of the Union along with Roberts and Kagan, while the other five stayed away from the pep rally (see picture).

The Economics of the Ruling

In what was a splintered ruling, different judges split legal hairs between themselves while claiming no special competence in economics and ruling on a matter that was all about trade and economics. Yale university’s Stephen Roach has provided an insightful commentary on the economics of the court ruling, while “claiming no special competence in legal matters.” Roach takes out every one of Trump’s pseudo-arguments supporting tariffs and provides an economist’s take on the matter.

First, he debunks Trump’s claim that trade deficits are an American emergency. The real emergency, Roach notes, is the low level of American savings, falling to 0.2% of the national income in 2025, even as trade deficit in goods reached a new record $1.2 trillion. America’s need for foreign capital to compensate for its low savings, and its thirst for cheap imported goods keep the balance of payments and trade deficits at high levels.

Second, by imposing tariffs Trump is not helping but burdening US consumers. The Americans are the ones who are paying tariffs contrary to Trump’s own false beliefs and claims that foreign countries are paying them. 90% of the tariffs have been paid by American consumers, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Small businesses have paid the rest. Foreign countries pay nothing but they have been making deals with Trump to keep their exports flowing.

According to published statistics, the average U.S. applied tariff rate increased from 1.6% before Trump’s tariff’s to 17%, the highest level since World War II. The removal of reciprocal tariffs after the ruling would have lowered it to 9.1%, but it will rise to 13% after Trump’s 15% tariffs. The registered tariff revenue is about $175 billion, 0.6% of U.S. gross domestic product. The tariff monies collected are legally refundable. The Supreme Court did not get into the modalities for repayment and there would be multiple lawsuits before the lower courts if the Administration does not set up a refunding mechanism.

Lastly, in railing against globalization and the loss of American industries, Trump is cutting off America’s traditional allies and trading partners in Europe, Canada and Mexico who account for 54% of all US trade flows in manufactured goods. Cutting them off has only led these countries to look for other alternatives, especially China and India. All of this is not helping the US or its trade deficit. The American manufacturers (except for sectoral beneficiaries in steel, aluminum and auto industries), workers and consumers are paying the price for Trump’s economic idiosyncrasies. As Roach notes, the Court stayed away from the economic considerations, but by declaring Trump’s IEEPA tariffs unconstitutional, the Court has sent an important message to the American people and the rest of the world that “US policies may not be personalized by the whims of a vindictive and uninformed wannabe autocrat.”

by Rajan Philips