Between intimidation and rape: Things we learnt from Tehelka case

The Tehelka sexual harassment case, which sent the whole media fraternity into a tizzy, by now has become dirtier. The incident took place at Tehelka’s Think Fest organised in Goa where the magazine bigwigs had spent considerable time discussing sexual harassment with guests.

When the case came into light, the thing which made the allegations crystal clear was Tejpal’s own e-mail to the editor of the media house, Shoma Choudhury, in which he had accepted the charges although in a very unapologetic manner. He termed the incidence as a ‘lapse of judgment’ and sought ‘atonement’ by ‘offering to recuse’ himself from the job for ‘next six moths’.

Tejpal’s later statement which floated in the media after his ‘unconditional apology’ was an outrage. When contacted by The Indian Express Tejpal said that he had written the mails because Shoma had insisted he issues an apology as demanded by the victim to close a ‘contentious’ issue. He added that he has a completely different version of the events which will be revealed in course of the probe.

But his words fell flat when the details of the e-mails exchanged between victim, Tejpal and Shoma leaked into the social media. In those e-mails, Tejpal had accepted that he had tried to create “sexual liason” twice with the victim despite her disapproval.

What was more bizarre was his statement that followed: “I am being framed, political forces are behind it.”

The announcement e-mails by the editor Shoma Choudhury to the Tehelka staff was even more scandalizing. Shoma reduced the gravity of the case of sexual harassment to a mere ‘untoward incident’. Her later statements made us doubt whether she was the right person from whom the victim had sought help. Briefing the media outside her office, Shoma said that she was not able to absorb the incidence and that’s why her choice of words was not sharp, and that it was an ‘internal matter’.

Well, the words which she used even after ‘absorbing’ the incidence for three days showed that she was riding on her own prejudices and was biased toward Tejpal despite being the one from whom the victim sought justice at first. She simply seemed unaware of the implications of her own actions and that of the others in her organization.

Moreover, she sounded wary when other reporters flanked her asking questions about the incident. She said that ‘she thought’ the victim was ‘satisfied’ (what an apt word!) with Tarun’s apology but now it comes out that she is not. Not only that, she also added that she formed a sexual harassment committee ‘after three days’ of the incident, that ‘what more’ the journalists ‘wanted from her’, and that ‘why you are calling it rape’.

By filing an FIR on behalf of the victim, Shoma could have sent a strong signal to all the ‘Tarun Tejpals’ of the world. She had an opportunity to create history and prove that she truly was a leader. She had the opportunity to trash the stereotype that women in position of power would do anything to protect their power; they would do exactly what men in such positions would do.

What could be more shameful than the fact that her own employee, Revathi Laul, quit the office in disgust while she remained silent? It is no rocket science to understand that the whole incident was ‘leaked’ to the social media by Tehelka’s employees which was another manifestation of disgust to let the world know of Tejpal and Shoma’s chicanery.

But Shoma chose to remain silent which silenced all her female colleagues in the industry who would otherwise have come forward with stories about how they were subjected to similar crimes by ‘Tarun Tejpals’ in their own organisations.

Meanwhile, taking a suo motto cognizance, the Goa police filed an FIR in the case and charged Tejpal with rape. A team came to Delhi and recorded statement of victim and Shoma. They also took copy of all the e-mails exchanged between all three and collected recording of Think fest. Tejpal is to be quizzedby the police but his unavailability is posing problems till now.

Earlier, the police had collected CCTV footage from the hotel as the incident had taken place in the elevator of the hotel. Though there was no CCTV in the elevator, the lobby CCTV footage showed the victim running away after stepping out of the elevator.

The victim journalist, who is daughter of Tejpal’s friend, had narrated the incident to Tejpal’s daughter who is apparently her friend. The father-daughter fight over the matter finds mention in various e-mails and texts exchanged between Tejpal and the victim.

Reportedly, the victim and her family are being intimidated by Tejpal’s kin. Her statement to the police read: “On the night of 22nd of November 2013, a member of Mr Tejpal’s immediate family came to my mother’s house in New Delhi, asking my mother to protect Mr Tejpal and demanded to know 1) who I was seeking legal help from and 2) what I “wanted” as the result of my complaint of sexual molestation by Mr Tejpal, that was made to the Tehelka management earlier this week.

This visit has placed tremendous emotional pressure on my family and I at an intensely traumatic time. I fear this may be the beginning of a period of further intimidation and harassment.

I call upon all persons connected to Mr Tejpal and his associates to refrain from approaching me or my family members.”

The whole incident has put media organisations in a position they thought they will never face. The digress, that we became witness of, taught us many things within few days. The media that cried itself hoarse at many occasions making the voice and plight of the victims reach right to the top, forgot to look within.

It also gave us a glimpse of nepotism which is rampant in the industry. The very fact that Shoma failed to redress victim’s grievances gives us a hint that redress is difficult to come by in media than in any other organisations. The hierarchy in media contains an inverted pyramid of power and contacts.

This power equation is proven by the attitude in which the whole Tehelka case is wrapped.

Although the momentum of this case increased after the social media started speaking at length about it, but instead of finding a solution to continuous harassment cases in this country it indulged in finding more salacious details of a sexual crime. As Reetika Subramanian points out in her blog posting on the feminist blog Ultra Violet:

“Amidst the hordes of tweets and other posts on social media, another disturbing aspect that came to the fore was the brazen voyeurism of the masses. The Twitterati also christened themselves as the messiahs for justice.

“Bits and pieces from the confidential e-mail sent out by the victim made its way to social media websites. Within minutes, intimate details about the grave nature of the ‘unfortunate incident’ were analysed, re-analysed, tweeted and re-tweeted.

“The words ‘penetration’ and ‘disrobing’ invited the wrath of several tweeple. Conversations on the World Wide Web were spent on finding aspects to identify the ‘victim’ without naming her. Thus, with every minute passing by and every new notification, the seriousness of the offence was duly replaced with the need for more intimate details.

“Under the guise of disseminating ‘justice’ and backing the ‘victim’, there were aspersions cast against Tejpal’s twenty-something daughter. Eventually, she succumbed to the pressure and according to news reports, was compelled to delete her Twitter account.

“In this cacophony, I fear that this ‘unfortunate incident’ i.e. an act of ‘sexual harassment’ will be eclipsed by hypocrisy, voyeurism and the unending need to dispense justice in 140 characters.”

Nonetheless, the signal that the case sends out is very bad. It says openly that a ‘drunken banter’ with female colleagues is okay. It says that you can harass the employee and get away with it if you are the supreme boss and if your subordinate helps you.

Above all, the case also says that you can ignore the law of the country even if the victim musters the courage to speak up.