When 1945 the proscription of the LSSP was lifted, the LSSP leaders in jail were released and others in India returned, there was a major split in the party. Leslie Gunawardena in ‘A Short History of the LSSP (1960)’ simplifies this dissension that divided the party into two camps, as a difference mainly centred round organisational questions and not in regard to programme or policy. However Prof. Y. Ranjith Amerasinghe in his research work ‘Revolutionary Idealism and Parliamentary Politics’ (2000) shows that it was more a serious dispute that reflected at least in part, the clash between the rightist and leftist tendencies of the leadership at the time.

Although the LSSP was a Marxist oriented organisation, Philip Gunawardena initiated it as a broad-based progressive movement. When the leaders like Philip, N. M. and Colvin were taken into custody Doric de Souza became the theoretician of the party. Doric was critical of the pre-war LSSP which he characterized as a Menshevic organisation. He wanted to re-organise the party with professional revolutionaries with in-depth knowledge of Marxist theory which he termed ‘Bolsheviczation’.

Doric wanted to bring forth university students in place of the working class and this was resented by the trade union leaders. They questioned "Who is Doric de Souza, a snooty professor to exclude worker comrades?". In 1942 when the LSSP leaders fled to India, Doric wanted to fill the vacancies in the central committee with university students. Over this Robert Gunawardena had remarked "This man will end up by destroying the party." He tried to assault Doric but was held back by others.

With the senior leaders in India, the matters went from bad to worse. A few months later a significant section of the party rebelled against ‘Petty bourgeoisie intellectuals’ in the LSSP. It was not a matter of few dissidents here and there but included a strong group with founding members like Susan de Silva. Most of the trade unionists too backed them and they felt that Doric and his circle had hijacked the party in the wrong direction.

When the news of this situation reached the LSSP leaders in India, they stood in solidarity with the workers faction and formed the ‘platform of the Workers’ with Philip, N. M. and Colvin as leading lights. It denounced that "Petty Bourgeoisie intellectuals have turned the LSSP into a narrow conspiratorial sect entirely cut off from the massess". Colvin as its secretary declared "The party cannot be restored to health, unity and effectiveness until this faction is smashed."

In response, the group in Sri Lanka led by Doric de Souza formed the Bolshevik Leninist Party. The Bolshevik faction included Doric, William de Silva, Edmund Samarakkody, V. Karalasingham and recent recruits Lorenz Perera, Dick Attygalle, R. S. Baghavan and Regi Siriwardena. Lionel Cooray and Hector Abhayawardena in India backed the Workers’ Platform but Leslie and Vivienne remained neutral.

The LSSP high command in India advised rank and file in Sri Lanka to overthrow the Bolshevik faction and elect a new regional committee. However, there was no effective means to implement it and Bolshevik faction continued to command the party. In the meantime, a factional dispute arose in the party leadership in India. Philip – N.M. faction formed one group and Colvin-Leslie faction formed another. The Bolshevik faction in Sri Lanka took the side of Colvin-Leslie faction and as a result managed to continue as the Bolshevik Leninist Party.

Philip-N.M. faction held that it was too much for a small organisation like Bolshevik Leninist Party in India to organise a revolution in India and there should be a broad front with other revolutionary groups in India like the Congress Socialist Party, the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Dattar Mazundar Party. The other faction argued that this would dilute the Bolshevik revolutionary concept and opposed it. At this time Philip-N.M. group was arrested in India and was brought back to Sri Lanka. Although Leslie Gunawardena reported to the 4th International that the factional dispute was resolved, it was not so because it came to a halt when Philip-N.M. faction was taken into custody.

The division in the LSSP continued from 1943 to 1950. Although Philip and N. M. were jailed, their followers continued as the LSSP which was a separate entity from the Bolshevik Leninist Party. W. J. Perera (Hospital Perera) belonged to this group and since 1943 this faction functioned separately. During the strike wave in Colombo in 1945, W. J. Perera issued a leaflet warning the workers not to trust ‘Parlour Bolsheviks.’

When Philip and N.M. were released from jail in 1945 the power in the party was in the hands of the Bolsheviks. They did not join the party which had assumed the name ‘Sri Lanka section of the Bolshevik Leninist Party of India’. Instead they went in search of former cadres and revived the LSSP. At this time Philip accused Doric as a Police spy. As a result the feud between the two factions worsened.

There are two conflicting views expressed by two activists of the underground days of the LSSP on the role of Doric de Souza during the war years. One was by Susan de Silva presented in the book ‘Wrecking of the LSSP’ released in 1959. The other is by Regi Siriwardena in the book ‘Working Underground’ published 40 years later in 1999.

Susan de Silva alleges that even before Doric completed his education in England, Marrs, an imperialist agent, got him down to Sri Lanka an and offered him a lecturer post in the University. She accuses that when the LSSP leaders broke Bogambara jail and came out, Doric began to conspire against Philip who was the de-facto leader of the LSSP. She wonders how when he was a government servant, Doric dared to have party activity in his house in front of the Bambalapitiya Police. Besides she points out that when Doric failed to get control of the party press, it was raided by the Police.

She draws attention to the fact that in India, Philip and his followers were not arrested by the Police but the henchman of Doric. Leslie Gunawardena managed to escape. She also highlights the close connection between Doric and CID officer Algy Perera. She questions why when Algy Perera apprehended both Doric and Karalasingham in India why Doric a pubic servant was fined Rs. 200 and allowed to go only Karalasingham was taken into custody. She corroborates the allegations of Philip that Doric de Souza was a police spy.

Regi Siriwardena comes out with a different version. He says that Philip made the allegation for the first time just after the LSSP leaders escaped from jail and when assembled in a house. When Philip had made the charge against Doric, it had stunned all. But Colvin had taken Regi Siriwardena to a side and had whispered "Don’t let this upset you, too much, he is still the one man who can lead us."

Following Regi Siriwardena, Charles Wesley Ervin in his book ‘Tomorrow is Ours - The Trotskyite Movement in India and Ceylon 1935-48’ questions if Doric had been a Police spy, why didn’t he reveal to the Police where Leslie Gunawardena was hiding, where the party press was concealed and why did he allow the jail break to occur. Both Regi Siriwardena and Charles Wesley Ervin opine that the allegation against Doric was preposterous and Philip had made it because of a personal grudge. At the same time, Charles Wesley Ervin wonders if Philip had a personal grudge, why did he resort to such a serious allegation is an enigma.

Regi Siriwardena was a loyal follower of Doric who had been in his camp during the disputes in the party. He left the party in 1946 and later was an activist of the NGO forum funded by foreign agencies with hidden agendas. Besides his story looks artificial. When Philip revealed that Doric was a policy spy, would Colvin have taken such a serious allegation so highly? Could Regi Siriwardena be relied upon?

Philip, on the other hand, was a man of integrity. In a defamation case filed against him by senior DIG Police, the Court declared that Philip was an embodiment of honesty and integrity. Surely Philip being such a brave person he would have settled a personal grudge at personal level without making a false allegation at party level!

However, Philip agreed to give evidence at the inquiry held by Kamalesh Bannerjee of the Bolshevik Leninist Party of India and presented circumstantial evidence to prove the charge against Doric. Bannerjee gave the verdict that there was no iota of evidence to prove Philip’s accusation. Philip denounced the proceedings and refused to abide by the decision.

Whatever it was from the time Doric joined the LSSP, there was turmoil in the party. The LSSP was set up as a common man’s party appealing to masses but Doric wanted to make it a narrow movement of petty bourgeoisie intellectuals. In 1941 he had written a letter to Sam Silva that N. M. was a social democrat who did not belong to a revolutionary party. He tried to distance the working class from the party leadership and thereby created trouble. His outlook destabilished the LSSP.