- JVP supremo confirms ideology shift
- Namal faces Tamil diaspora wrath
- NPP Govt. wins int’l goodwill despite ‘standing bilateral with Macron’
The NPP –JVP Government’s bright sunshine over substantial progress in the anti-corruption front is currently threatened by dark clouds due to allegations of malpractices in the purchase of substandard coal for the Norochcholai Lakvijaya Coal Power Plant. Although Ministers and spokespersons tried to deny allegations, they could not stop mounting demands for political, economic, and technical scrutiny. The Opposition raises serious questions about procurement integrity, the cost to consumers, and potential corruption at high levels of Government and administration.
The controversy centres on a series of coal shipments imported for use at the country’s largest coal-fired power station. Official and independent sources indicate that multiple consignments failed to meet the minimum calorific value required under tender specifications. Reports prepared for the Parliamentary Sectoral Oversight Committee found the first three shipments imported this year (2026) showed a gross calorific value (GCV) significantly below the mandated 5,900 kilocalories per kilogram, undermining their suitability for efficient power generation.
Not only Opposition leaders but energy analysts also warn that using such inferior fuel reduces generation efficiency, and potentially forces the State to supplement it with expensive emergency power. It also accelerates the wear and tear on boilers and turbines, entailing future maintenance burdens.
Former Power and Energy Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka has cited internal documents from the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) estimating national losses in excess of Rs. 7.6 billion due to the use of substandard coal, calculated on the basis of the lost generation output and the projected cost of replacing it with higher-cost power sources. The CEB General Manager’s letter noted that penalties recoverable from suppliers have not yet been factored into these figures of loss.
These findings have triggered concern within the energy sector over the sustainability of the electricity supply system, particularly as the Lakvijaya Plant provides between 30 per cent and 40% of the national power needs and is central to meeting the base-load demand.
The main Opposition, the SJB has publicly accused Energy Minister, engineer Kumara Jayakody and Government officials of orchestrating a rigged procurement process to favour a supplier whose coal did not meet quality standards, potentially exposing the State to losses far greater than the penalties imposed. The Cabinet Spokesperson Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa admitted that of the nine shipments, the first one contained coal much below the required quality and that it will be fined. However, other shipments were little below the required standards, but could be used at the power Plant, he claimed.
Key points raised by critics include unusual modifications to tender qualification criteria and shortened procurement timelines, which Opposition figures argue effectively precluded broader participation by well-established international coal traders. Such procedural deviations, they contend, created opportunities for opaque deals and favours rather than transparent price and quality competition.
The coal contract in question stipulated that if two shipments failed to meet the requisite quality standards, the entire agreement should be canceled. However, the authorities have opted to impose penalties on a shipment-by-shipment basis rather than terminate the contract, a decision that has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers. Opposition Parliamentarians have staged protests near the Parliament urging a full investigation, claiming that all coal shipments for the year failed to meet quality benchmarks.
The scandal has become a flashpoint in national politics. Opposition leaders have likened the alleged coal procurement malpractices to some of the country’s most notorious financial scandals, calling on anti-corruption bodies such as the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption to take decisive action. Calls for the subject Minister’s resignation have grown in intensity amid wider public disquiet and media scrutiny.
Government supporters, for their part, have defended the procurement process, framing the quality variations as technical rather than intentional mismanagement and emphasising the complexity of international coal markets. Some have challenged Opposition figures to publicly debate the matter, suggesting political motivations behind the critiques. Agriculture, Livestock, Land and Irrigation Minister K.D. Lalkantha denied any corrupt practice in the import of coal.
When the pressure mounted, the Government appointed an inquiry committee consisting of university dons and bureaucrats to probe the issue.
In spite of these denials, the episode highlights deeper structural and governance related challenges within the power sector from procurement oversight and quality assurance to accountability mechanisms for major State-owned utilities.
Analysts argue that transparency in tender processes, independent quality verification, and clearer penalties for contract non-compliance are vital to restoring confidence. Without meaningful reforms, the consequences risk being felt not just in boardrooms and political chambers but in the regular load-shedding and higher electricity tariffs faced by consumers nationwide.
Together with the coal issue, the Government walked into another bad patch when there was a gas shortage in some parts of the country due to the bad management of imports and supplies. Fortunately, with the arrival of a few shipments of gas this week, a major crisis was averted. However, the issue underlined the need to handle the supply of essential goods professionally.
JVP’s ideological about-turn
In a striking break from its historical identity, the JVP, long synonymous with militant Marxist-Leninist ideology and fierce anti-Indian stances, is undergoing a profound ideological recalibration. This was acknowledged by JVP heavyweight Tilvin Silva who runs the Party (and the Government too as insiders claim) with an iron-hand as the Party General Secretary. What was once a defining pillar of the Party’s philosophy – hostility to India and doctrinaire Marxism – is now being publicly reconsidered, with implications for both domestic politics and foreign relations. In fact, one of the five lectures used by Party Founder-Leader Rohana Wijeweera for the indoctrination of Party recruits was on ‘Indian expansionism’.
In the 1980s, the JVP launched anti-Indian protests and even called for the boycott of Indian sarees, lentils and onions. At the time, the Party vehemently opposed the 1987 Indo-Sri Lanka Accord and warned against the Indian influence as a threat to national sovereignty.
However, in recent weeks, Silva has openly acknowledged that this chapter is now closed. Following an official visit to India last month (January), including engagements with the Indian External Affairs Minister Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and the Kerala State’s Marxist Chief Minister, he said that the old perception of India had to change and that the JVP’s longstanding confrontational stance “needs to be updated.” His comments came after meetings and discussions aimed at exploring cooperation in economic development and technological collaboration.
This reversal is significant not merely as a diplomatic shift but as a repudiation of the Party’s earlier posture. Where past rhetoric framed India as a hostile neighbour or imperial contender, Silva’s current narrative positions New Delhi as a strategic partner, with mutual benefits in economic and regional stability cited as priorities. Critics of the old anti-India approach have called the adjustment overdue, arguing that pragmatic engagement is essential for Sri Lanka’s growth.
The JVP’s journey from radical communism of armed militancy to mainstream electoral participation has been long and uneven. Originally founded in the 1960s as a Marxist-Leninist movement committed to radical transformation, the Party was responsible for an armed uprising in 1971. Although the Party expressed willingness to join democratic politics, the ban imposed by then President J.R. Jayewardene in 1983, pushed the JVP to the second armed rebellion in 1988-1989. As it evolved, JVP leaders moderated some aspects of the ideological command, participating in alliances and adapting to Parliamentary norms.
Silva’s recent statements suggest a further softening of ideological rigidity. While the Party still formally identifies as left-wing and continues to reference its revolutionary roots, there is now an almost explicit acknowledgement that literal Marxist orthodoxy alone is insufficient to address Sri Lanka’s complex socio-economic challenges. Scholars and commentators interpret this as an indirect recognition of Marxism’s practical limitations within a rapidly changing global and regional context – particularly where national development and international cooperation are concerned.
Rather than framing the economic policy purely through a class struggle lens, the JVP leadership under Silva appears to be prioritising outcomes – infrastructure, investment, and diversified diplomatic relations – over doctrinal purity. This turn underscores a broader trend: ideologies historically rooted in industrialised societies’ class conflicts increasingly struggle to map onto the realities of a small, open economy in a globalised age.
There are vital political and strategic implications in JVP ending decades of anti-India rhetoric as it opens the space for deeper bilateral cooperation at a time when Sri Lanka must balance relations with major powers, including India, China, and Western partners. Silva’s approach signals a willingness to recalibrate the foreign policy away from ideological confrontation towards strategic partnership.
A softened stance on India also carries a domestic dimension, especially regarding ethnic reconciliation. Historically, opposition to India often intersected with Sinhala nationalist sentiments. The JVP’s outreach, including dialogues with the Tamil diaspora and diaspora leaders, aims to soften these associations and reposition the Party as inclusive rather than adversarial.
Within Sri Lanka’s political spectrum, the JVP has long been a symbol of uncompromising leftism. Its new posture raises questions about the place of Marxism in national politics: is it a guiding philosophy, a rhetorical heritage, or a flexible toolkit? That the Party is now openly repositioning suggests the Marxist doctrine’s practical redundancy in pure form, at least in electoral and governance contexts, even if its language and symbols remain part of the Party’s identity. In this move, the JVP is likely to lose a substantial segment of radical youth cadres to the more militant break-away faction, the Peratugami (Forward) Party – the Frontline Socialist Party.
Cancellation of Namal’s speeches at Oxbridge
Last week, the scheduled speaking engagements for SLPP Opposition MP Namal Rajapaksa at two of UK’s most prestigious student debating societies were abruptly canceled following sustained protests and backlash led by British Tamil student organisations and diaspora advocacy groups.
He was invited to address both the Oxford Union on Wednesday (25) and the Cambridge Union today (27). These invitations formed part of his visit to the UK, and were framed by organisers as opportunities for discussion and debate on topics ranging from Sri Lankan politics to reconciliation.
Almost immediately after the events were announced, British Tamil organisations — including Tamil student unions across the UK and the Tamil Youth Organisation of Britain — mobilised opposition, characterising the invitations as “profoundly insensitive” and an affront to survivors of Sri Lankan State violence during the island’s separatist war.
The first cancellation came at the Cambridge Union. After extensive dialogue and rapidly mounting pressure from 22 different Tamil societies and other student bodies, the Union announced that it was withdrawing the invitation, explaining that it did not believe “it’s possible to have a balanced and open discussion on this subject” under the current circumstances. Critics inside the Union press also noted student safety and concerns about equitable participation as key factors.
This decision underscored the challenges of balancing debates on historically traumatic issues with concerns over inclusivity and security within university spaces.
Shortly after the Cambridge decision, the Oxford Union likewise canceled the planned talk with Rajapaksa, citing backlash and concerns about protest disruption. According to official statements quoted by student newspapers, the Oxford leadership expressed that students most directly affected by the subject matter did not feel safe engaging openly in such a forum, thus undermining the foundations of a robust debate the Union seeks to uphold.
Following the cancellations, Rajapaksa publicly decried the decisions on social media and in statements shared with journalists, characterising the outcome as the result of “organised pressure” that stifled free discourse. He expressed disappointment that the debates could not take place, claiming that institutions like Oxford and Cambridge have long traditions of encouraging challenging dialogues and that meaningful engagement — even with critics — is important for reconciliation and democratic debate.
Rajapaksa emphasised his willingness to face difficult questions from informed audiences and voiced hope that future opportunities for dialogue might be possible in a context where open discussion is protected.
The controversy draws historical parallels with previous protests by the Tamil diaspora in the UK. Notably, in 2010, a planned address by former President, attorney Mahinda Rajapaksa at the Oxford Union was cancelled after threats of protest by Tamil activists — a reminder of the long-standing tensions between sections of the Sri Lankan diaspora and globally visible platforms.
The episode also taps into broader debates about free speech, academic spaces, and the responsibilities of institutions when speakers carry controversial legacies. Critics of the cancellations argue that debating societies should more robustly defend open inquiry, while supporters of the protesters stress that certain historical traumas demand sensitivity and accountability that goes beyond formal debate.
Protocol snag in New Delhi
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake earned major international goodwill at the India Artificial Intelligence Impact Summit 2026 last week. However, what was meant to be a smoothly choreographed series of high-level discussions on the margins of the Summit saw an unusual diplomatic blip when France’s President Emmanuel Jean-Michel Frédéric Macron met President Dissanayake. There was a protocol hiccup that briefly unsettled expectations around bilateral engagement.
Within this packed schedule, national leaders were expected to hold a series of bilateral meetings to reinforce strategic ties and explore cooperation across digital innovation, climate action, sustainable development and economic engagement.
Sources and diplomatic observers noted the planned formal bilateral session between Macron and Dissanayake encountered a procedural stumbling block, The two leaders were scheduled for a proper bilateral meeting with State-to-State protocols, but initial logistical arrangements conflicted with Summit-level scheduling and precedence.
Though the meeting ultimately took place on 19 February on the Summit’s sidelines, it was merely a brief dialogue while both leaders were standing. Later, Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner to India Mahishini Colonne was reprimanded for not acting on the initial assurance that a proper bilateral meeting would be arranged.
The Sri Lankan side confirmed that the discussion was held but did not issue separate ceremonial statements that typically accompany standalone visits, an unusual step in diplomatic practice.
Not bothered about the protocol, the Sri Lankan Presidential office’s official press materials highlighted the interaction positively, emphasising cooperation opportunities without mentioning any scheduling irregularity, framing it as a milestone exchange in Sri Lanka–France relations.
The writer is a journalist, diplomat, and media professional with extensive experience in public communication and international media relations
-------
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication