By Sena Thoradeniya
1. Introduction: Speeches That Sparked a Dialectical Inquiry
Addressing the 60 th Anniversary of the formation of the JVP on 14 May 2025, Anura Kumara in a moment of rhetorical blunders, said that there are leaders in the NPP who were not considered even as door mats (Papisi”) by the other political parties, a metaphor that was as provocative as it was revealing. This speech reverberated across Sri Lanka’s political landscape.
For many observers, this was a passing remark in the heat of political discourse. For others, including myself, it signaled a deeper ideological and organizational tension within the NPP-JVP nexus – one that warranted serious theoretical investigation.
This shows that there are rugs within the NPP, of various materials, shapes and designs. It cannot be rugs serving as a decorative purpose adding warmth, comfort and style to inner chambers, handmade Persian carpets, a symbol of cultural prestige, wool or intricately woven ones, but rugs kept at the doorway primarily to remove dust, mud and other debris- so that sanctity within remains undisturbed.
On August 11 addressing the JVP/NPP youth leaguers, Anura Kumara echoed the same truth cloaked in a different rhythm that NPP has Sun-bun” amongst its ranks, remains of something that has been destroyed (wreckage/ fragments/ scraps/ litter/ ruins/ ash/ waste/ shards).
These comments underscore simmering internal contradictions, tensions and inconsistencies between the JVP and NPP, made especially significant by the fact that they originate from the JVP/NPP leader himself.
NPP/JVP publicly declare that they are the only party capable of redeeming” Sri Lanka, that their victories are irreversible, they cannot be defeated, setbacks will never occur to them, that they gained power not to give back (some calculate in decades or generations) and every conspiracy” will be crushed.
These speeches became the catalyst for an essay I began drafting shortly thereafter, aimed at exploring the contradictions between the NPP and the JVP through the lens of Marxian dialectics. The essay remains unfinished – not due to neglect, but by design, a deliberate choice, above all else due to ill health. Also, I chose to allow time to pass, to observe the unfolding political developments and to gather further developments and insights, more empirical and discursive material that could enrich the analysis. In doing so, I embraced the dialectical method itself: contradictions are not static and its handling or resolution – or intensification require time-based and contextual sensitivity.
Over the ensuing months, some of my colleagues expressed skepticism about the value of such an inquiry, advised against taking such remarks too seriously. They cautioned against over-interpreting political rhetoric and warned me not to desecrate the integrity of Marxian dialectics, particularly the theory of contradictions as rigorously articulated by Mao Zedong, that applying Marxian theory- particularly Mao Zedong’s elaboration on contradictions to contemporary Sri Lankan politics might risk distorting its original intent. They argued that the speeches should be taken as a tactical maneuver rather than a theoretical disagreement and that Marxist theory should not be “desecrated” by overextension.
I respectfully disagreed. Marxian theory especially its dialectical core and dialectical richness has consistently demonstrated its capacity to interpret and explain the evolution of society, political formations and the behavior of individuals across diverse contexts and adaptable across historical epochs. To ignore contradictions – especially when they manifest within political entities that paid lip service to Marxism-Leninism, rather distorting it and vulgarising – is to overlook the very dynamics that shape ideological and organizational transformation.
Mao’s theory of contradictions, which distinguishes between antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions, offers a powerful framework for analyzing tensions within political organizations; to ignore such contradictions is to ignore the very dynamics that shape political transformation, ideological realignment and organizational evolution.
Now hidden contradictions between the NPP and JVP are not merely rhetorical or superficial. They reflect deeper divergences in legacy, cadre structure, of individuals chosen at random, unfamiliar new faces with no prior recognition and status, names no one knew. These differences are dialectical. They can either be resolved through synthesis or escalate into fragmentation.
For now, my comprehensive article on the contradictions between the NPP and JVP will remain in development. Whether these contradictions will surface publicly or remain submerged is uncertain, but the dialectical process itself is ongoing – and it demands rigorous theoretical engagement.
A public confrontation emerged between the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the National People’s Power (NPP) over the Supreme SAT satellite project, highlighting internal contradictions within the coalition. On 6 June, the NPP Prime Minister informed Parliament that the satellite had generated Rs. 342 million in revenue. She stated that the company responsible for the satellite was established through loans from two Chinese banks, had entered into a commercial agreement with the Board of Investment (BOI) in 2015, and that no government funds had been utilized. According to her, the satellite remains operational in orbit and continues to yield an annual income of Rs. 20 billion.
However, JVP Minister Samarasinghe publicly contradicted the Prime Minister, asserting that she had been misled by inaccurate data provided by the BOI and claimed that the satellite was, in fact, missing. This contradiction was further exacerbated when Leader of the House, Ratnayake, declared that the Prime Minister’s statement did not reflect the official position of the government, thereby undermining the principle of collective cabinet responsibility.
To downplay the discord, Ratnayake later remarked that the Prime Minister and the government were in full love”, full fit” – a phrase widely disparaged as inappropriate and unbecoming of ministerial decorum within the parliamentary setting.
At the National Youth Conference held on 18 August, Anura Kumara publicly stated that he has no intention of remaining “glued to power” and expressed his willingness to pass leadership to the next generation. However, this sentiment appears to contrast with the stance of his political allies, including the General Secretary of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) Tilvin Silva, who have asserted that retaining power for a period of 15 to 20 years is essential to fully realize their political objectives.
Tilvin Silva’s remarks followed his recent visit to China, prompting speculation that his statements may have been influenced by Chinese officials. Nevertheless, available information indicates that his interactions were limited to a regional party representative, rather than senior members of the Communist Party of China. This discrepancy has led to criticism that the JVP inadvertently cast the Chinese leadership in a negative light, potentially damaging diplomatic perceptions.
Despite stated openness to leadership transition, other voices within the movement have reiterated their belief that they are deeply entrenched and cannot be easily displaced. They argue that their ascension to power was intended to not to vacate, but to perpetuate dominance.
Alarmingly, recent rhetoric from a suburban mayor Ranjan Jayalal affiliated to JVP has drawn widespread condemnation. The mayor reportedly claimed that they are capable of “eliminating at least 10 million” individuals, suggesting a readiness to use lethal force against perceived enemies. Such statements raise serious concerns about the normalization of violence in political discourse.
The specter of 1988–89 is quietly reemerging within the political sphere casting a shadow over the current political landscape – subtly influencing contemporary dynamics while remaining largely overlooked by the incumbent administration.
2.Malima Cabinet Reshuffle: Less About Accountability and More About Optics
While my inquiry into the NPP-JVP relationship continued uninterrupted, the recent cabinet reshuffle presents a new layer of complexity that warrants separate analysis. It may influence or even expose latent contradictions within the JVP- NPP government.
Cabinet reshuffles are by no means a novel occurrence; they are undertaken for a variety of reasons, ranging from strategic diversions and realignments and genuine reforms to political expediency. In this context, we deliberately avoid the oft-repeated cliché that such changes merely amount to “putting old wine in new bottles.” Indeed, if the wine is aged, so much the better – aged wine possesses distinctive qualities, including depth, flavor and aroma. Sweetness, acidity, tannin, alcoholic content and vintage (the year and the region of production) are fundamental qualities of good wine. Wines are priced from budget range to mid-range, premium and luxury.
The JVP man in Japan, who claimed that he had consumed a bottle of wine upon RW taken in the Black Maria, was likely indulging in a locally produced variety priced at approximately ¥500 – a modest selection by any standard, may be purchased from a cask in a suburban market.
The more pertinent question, however, is whether the wine is truly matured and whether the bottles themselves are suitable vessels to contain it. This metaphor invites a deeper inquiry into the competence and integrity of both the individuals retained and those newly appointed.
Recent developments surrounding the mini cabinet reshuffle have prompted speculation among political analysts, many of whom interpret the move as symptomatic of deepening internal contradictions within the ruling administration – contradictions that appear increasingly difficult to suppress.
The reassignment of the Ports and Aviation portfolio, previously held by Minister Bimal Ratnayaka, is perceived as a demotion. However, this maneuver seems less about accountability and more about optics, made to create a favourable impression, manage public discontent and divert them from deeper issues, rather than genuinely solving a problem. In our opinion the reshuffle was done to demonstrate that the government is acting but not necessarily to address the real issues. The purported investigation into red-flagged containers allegedly released under the Minister’s influence appears to be a calculated distraction aimed at pacifying public dissent rather than a sincere effort at reform.
This reshuffle coincides with troubling revelations involving narcotics – specifically the detection of “ice” in the southern region, reportedly linked to elements within the Malima party. In this context, the timing of the reshuffle suggests a deliberate attempt to divert public attention from these damaging associations.
Despite the apparent sidelining of Bimal Ratnayaka, it remains doubtful that the President would sever ties with such a politically entrenched figure, so close to him and Tilvin Silva, the velvet-tongued manipulator. If the reshuffle were truly driven by meritocratic or ethical considerations, several other ministers – such as those overseeing Foreign Affairs, Education, Energy, Trade and Commerce, Mass Media, Plantations and many more and deputies (Labour, Technical Education) – would arguably be more deserving of replacement.
The government’s silence regarding Chairman of Tourism Development Authority, Director General of CIABOC, IGP sidetracking the Police Commission and Minister of Internal Security, Deputy Minister of Defense and many other Malima inductees raises critical questions about transparency, accountability and institutional credibility and continuity and politicization of top appointments.
Moreover, the appointment of new Deputy Ministers appears to serve a dual purpose: reinforcing the government’s offensive against the opposition while simultaneously creating the illusion of opportunity for aspiring political actors. This tactic seems designed to placate party loyalists and maintain the facade of inclusivity, despite the underlying strategic intent.
The elevation of Kaushalya Ariyaratna to Deputy Minister of Mass Media, for instance, could be interpreted as a subtle rebuke to the current Minister of Mass Media- another figure closely aligned with the leadership. This appointment may also reflect an effort to appease influential civil society actors, notably the Sarvodaya movement, which has long been associated with NGO advocacy. Appointment of new Deputy Minister of Water Supply borders on farcical given his prior proposals to construct toilets every 4 km and his claim of discovery an alien aerodrome he intended to promote as a tourist destination.
A government attuned to the sensibilities of its diverse population will refrain from appointing a Muslim maulavi who ran many madrasas- hotbeds of Islamic extremism- as the Deputy Minister of Religious and Cultural Affairs.
Ultimately, while internal tensions within the Malima party may persist, they are unlikely to surface publicly. Many of its members lack independent political viability, unknown individuals, unfamiliar faces, names no one knows or heard of and remain tethered to the party’s monolithic structure for survival. As such, the reshuffle appears less a reflection of genuine reform and more a strategic recalibration aimed at preserving the status quo.
In our younger days Thambuttegama rose into prominence thanks to a child giant” (Lama Yodhaya) named Thambuttegama Herath Banda, a voracious rice-eater. He later became a fixture in Kandy Perahera carnivals, a spectacle more suited to amusement than chivalry. Today the people of Sri Lanka have placed the proverbial rock as in the parable of Andare squarely on the back of modern day Andare of Thambuttegama!
