Of late the SLBC has resorted to jamming certain parts of the BBC Sandesaya programme. These comments are made for consideration by those who are responsible for the move.

 1. Sandesaya is the guest of the SLBC. If the host finds that the guest is misusing the privilege extended to him, he has the undisputed right to ask the latter to leave. Doing so would be more appropriate than humiliating him at home.

2. Personally I felt humiliated myself by the jamming. My right to hear and decide for myself was being denied. Someone else was imposing his will on me and I had no choice in the matter.

3. Clearly the Sri Lankan listeners are far too enlightened to be led by the nose. I could always discern Sandesaya’s merits and its faults on my own. Judging from the comments made by ordinary listeners in the ‘Tepelmalla’ of the Sandesaya, such appears to be the case with other listeners of the programme as well.

4. In any case the jamming is not conclusive. Its effect lasts less than an hour as the disappointed can listen to the un-bowdlerized version when the BBC broadcasts Sandesaya through its direct service at 10.00 on the same night.

5. Jamming encourages more and more listeners to patronize the BBC direct. I myself listened to the programme direct on days the local transmission was jammed to check for myself the ‘corrupting influence’ from which I had been ‘shielded’ earlier.

6. I found the jammed sections comparatively innocuous. They were not as half as embarrassing as the propaganda, accusations and invective we listen to throughout the day in the multifarious local media. In fact they were even favourable to the government at times as when MR. Sambandan claimed primogeniture over the LTTE and independence there from.

7. Jamming naturally makes listeners unnecessarily curious. That grants celebrity to what would have usually passed off as ‘run of the mill’. In the process the suppression automatically confers on the Sandesaya a gallantry and mysticism that it may not otherwise enjoy.

8. The SLBC follows Sandesaya with a ‘Postscript’ which is devoted to rectifying misgivings arising from the programme. Shutting out the ‘offensive’ parts denies the opportunity to reply to them through the ‘Postscript’ while they go unchallenged when repeated direct from London subsequently.

9. It is natural to presume that certain parts are shut out because they are unpalatable to the authorities. That makes the government culpable even though they may not have had anything to do with the matter.

10. The biggest damage is caused internationally by needlessly providing fodder to the growing allegation that Sri Lanka is repressive of the media.

It is earnestly hoped that those responsible for the jamming would rethink their policy in the light of these observations and that saner counsel would prevail in the long run.

 Somapala Gunadheera