Comments for Vrinda Grover and others about the Tejpal case
This is with regard to Vrinda Grover’s facebook post as well as assorted defenders of Tejpal’s poor, helpless victim, which I cannot comment on individually to engage in debate, so I am choosing to respond here.
To clarify my stand with regard to this case, I do not know Tarun Tejpal personally, have never even corresponded with him or Shoma Chaudhary. Maybe I made a few tweets to Shoma on Twitter criticizing something – I don’t recall. That is the extent of my being “friends” with them. This blog has over a dozen articles questioning the media bias on this case. Not a single one of them claims that Tejpal is innocent or even says the victim is lying. My points are:
- I believe there is a concerted effort to present this case in a unidimensional and unambiguous manner. This violates my right to accurate information through news media.
- It is not respectful of my country, its laws or women’s rights in general to rig a case through media in this manner.
I do not understand how it is a media trial to raise questions about an issue that was originally raised through organized promotion of selective leaks of confidential communication and judged in media. It is a response, not initiation of a trial. If a lie was told in media, it must be responded in media. The media supari tactics of hit and run reporting are not ethical in my view. The trial was initiated by the halo-dharis and judged in media and not just Tejpal, but his family and organization suffered before a judge ever saw this case.
That the original complaint that put this man in jail for four months mentions forced entry into lifts on separate occasions – neither of which are evident on CCTV footage is most certainly relevant to anyone following the case in media who knows it for a “fact” that the victim was physically pulled into the lift – based on the victim’s own statement. Not to mention your oh so feminist media (it turns out wrongly) reporting that the CCTV footage confirmed the victim’s complaint.
What is basically happening here is a widespread outrage about a media trial verdict of “guilty” being questioned – parading as outrage over “rape apology”. I challenge anyone to show any publication with any kind of credibility that has called Tejpal innocent. I can show thousands that call him guilty. No one has commented on victim’s character or such, but there is an abundance of coverage of Tejpal’s business dealings, a comment made in another year altogether and more to create a perception of his character. So let us not get sanctimonious about media trials when all the “rape apology” that anyone has ever done is questioned the black and white nature of information actively perpetrated and aggressively enforced in public domain – incidentally information put forth by the victim’s supporters or the victim herself – without redacting the victim’s name, since we are suddenly fussy about these things.
Has the victim complained a single time that her private emails were distributed by someone who disclosed her identity? This is not just a disclosure of her identity, it is a violation of her privacy on an extremely serious matter – far more serious than a description of CCTV footage away from the scene of the rape – unless she authorized it. No objection by victim? Why not? She is fine with graphic details of her trauma published, but relatively ordinary descriptions of getting in and out of lifts – that do not mention her identity in any manner and in fact don’t even mention the mild violence of pulling her in that she described? Who are we fooling here?
Well, why wouldn’t they, if they believe Tejpal to be a victim of a massive campaign against him and have what they believe is evidence that proves his innocence? That the footage is not recklessly released, but selectively shown indicates (to me) that the intent is not to make the footage public, but to simply get the point out to the wider public that the allegations are not as black and white as they have already been reported – it is a correction of a public opinion and as part of the “public” who gets strategically incited to outrage, it is public right to know what our voice fuels. Or the whole thing should have been taken to court without involving public outrage as leverage.
This is in violation of the law and the order of the court. Yes the family has a right to defend Tarun Tejpal, but not by committing unlawful and illegal acts.
I am not a lawyer. Can someone explain how it violates law and order of the court? As far as I am aware, there is no gag on the case, other than the voluntary selective one by media. The family may have done it to defend Tejpal, but none of the reporting says he is innocent. This is more neutrality than the supposed feminists have been able to manage – that too in a heavily prejudiced situation.
I would like Vrinda Grover to explain how Tejpal’s family has done unlawful and illegal acts, because such allegations have been used to deny bail in hearings.
The young woman journalist does not have a copy of the CCTV footage.
This is pathetic, Vrinda Grover. From Indian feminists fighting for the right of women to have access to evidence in their own case, the lack of access to the victim is being peddled as some kind of standard to deny factual information of a very public case being known to public. Also, the public has not got a copy of the CCTV footage. Only a description. Not even seen it.
Also, the victim may not have a copy of the footage, but the victim has seen the footage before her statement to the magistrate. She is not unaware of what it contains, as Vrinda Grover seems to be trying to lead the reader to believe. The victim changed some details from her original complaint after seeing the footage – which, before anyone accuses, I am not holding against her in any manner. It is common to be fuzzy on details after trauma. I am simply mentioning that she has seen it clearly enough to be able to find it useful for her statement.
I have not seen the CCTV footage. No one who has taken a public or private position asking for justice for the young woman journalist and demanded a fair trial, not prejudiced or overawed by the campaign conducted by the Tarun Tejpal gang, has seen the CCTV footage.
In other words, the whole circus gunning for Tejpal is taking the victim’s accusations as fact and is not interested in any information to the contrary. For the record, I too haven’t seen the footage and I too want justice for the victim. Only my definition of justice is not “What the victim says” but what actually happens in courts of law – which has been pre-rigged with massive media campaigning, so hope for my definition of justice is rather dim at the moment – regardless of who is guilty or innocent. The case has been botched beyond belief by the evangelists of “whatever the woman says” as women’s rights.
We are not supposed to see that footage because it reveals the identity of the woman journalist. That is the law.
I am a mere blogger, not a lawyer, but this seems like deliberate disinformation to me. Disclosing the identity of the victim on media is illegal. It is beyond absurd to say that those who KNOW the identity of the victim cannot see the footage because it REVEALS the identity.
Is the woman insane or merely trying to con the public into continuing to believe this “campaign for justice and fuck the law”?
For all those getting suckered into this crap, remember the countless interviews of victim’s families, including reporters informing neighbours that the victim was raped because they were dumbfucks enough to want comments about her for TRP laden crap. That sleaze is unethical, but still not illegal till they reveal victim’s identity ON MEDIA.
Yes we must debate issues and cases of public importance.
Here is a question I would like Vrinda Grover and gang to reply to. As a feminist, if you have supported a man being thrown into jail for violating a woman, is the woman’s complaint allegedly being provably wrong in critical areas your responsibility to investigate and clarify your stand on or should a woman making accusations be supported unconditionally and exclusively always?
On each ocassion the friends and family of Traun Tejpal have orchestrated a media capaign against the young woman journalist. The entire campaign hinges on the ‘young woman’s character’, which when decoded means the same old thing, her past sexual relationships.
This is slander about Tejpal’s family. To the best of my knowledge, the first bail was denied when the victim claimed to be intimidated by the visit of Tiya Tejpal to her mother. Incidentally a visit the victim thanked Tiya for on the night before complaining. The second bail was denied when Tejpal was accused of intimidating his Investigating Officer – incidentally, this is not recorded in either the investigation records or the chargesheet. Miraculously claimed only during the bail hearing and forgotten since. After that, the victim claimed that photos of her were circulated by Tejpal’s family. To the best of my knowledge, most of these forwards went to original recipients of the press release email leaks. I obtained one from a journalist and it turned out to be an image publicly available on the Think festival website. Now the cyber police are on a wild goose chase trying to find out which anonymous account emailed a publicly available image (that was later taken down) to intimidate the victim – must be Tejpal’s family. Then you have the mobile phone found on Tejpal even though he was officially allowed STD calls at that point (got revoked after that incident). Then I lost interest.
Can you explain how these are “orchestrated media campaigns about her character”? I have been following this case from the start. First out of outrage, then when I smelled a media rat and thought someone should raise a counter narrative. I don’t have many contacts, but I managed to connect with some ex-Tehelka journalists, Tiya Tejpal and some others. So far, the victim’s character is not an issue I ran into in spite of actively seeking information. I still have no idea what her character is like. I know who her boyfriend is – from her own letter. So can you describe the method of this campaign and who its audience was if someone seeking information did not run into it? Or are these campaigns also like the photo intimidation? Circulating mainly among those who got original email leaks?
Is it a coincidence that these articles appear at a juncture when a bail petition will be moved for Tarun Tejpal in the Supreme Court.
No idea, but I can definitely say, accusations about Tejpal’s family intimidating victim, disclosing her identity, breaking laws are being presented in time for a bail hearing. As usual.
I firmly believe that undertrials have a right to bail. However the jails are overcrowded with an undertrial population that is disproportionately POOR.
Right. Again that nice “feminist” concept of some people not getting rights being used as an excuse to deny rights you claim to usually support. Twice in one article. Not bad.
Where the accused persons can threaten witnesses, or tamper with evidence or use their position to cause prejudice to a fair trial, their liberty is constrained through denial of bail. We do not have a witness -victim protection mechanism that offers any real security to the complainants and so at times bail should be refused.
What is this intimidation? The victim claims a visit she thanked for was intimidation. An anonymously sent, publicly available photo was intimidation specifically by Tejpal’s family. The investigating officer was “intimidated” by Tejpal. None of these describe any specific actions of threat from Tejpal or family directed at her. Though of course I am not naive enough to imagine these would be done publicly, but at least where exposed, they would describe how the intimidation happened?
‘Going by the powerful people theory, let us assume Tejpal is indeed an intimidator with great power. Surely his being in jail wouldn’t make the victim safer if he has “reach”? On the other hand, if he is out of jail, wouldn’t it be one reason less to intimidate the victim (that is, if someone can explain how intimidation can cause bail to begin with unless the victim is the judge too)? Logic says, intimidation will deny bail, not cause it – like Vrinda Grover is arguing.
Another problem with the intimidation theory is that the victim holds no power to free Tejpal. The case against him has not been filed by her to begin with. She was refusing anyway. Suppose she got successfully intimidated. What would she do? She can hardly deny her allegations as they are in writing in public domain as well as in court records and statements in front of magistrate. As long as the allegations exist, she can do nothing. What would intimidating her achieve other than denial of bail – which is already happening?
We live in a real world where power, influence and position, can and does manipulate and subvert and truth. It appears that at times these results can be achieved even when the person is in custody.
This sounds more like a threat than a concern, considering that so far, all the media trials have happened against Tejpal and with active role by mega news channels. The supposedly all powerful Tejpal has been unable to defend his rights at times (including visits by family, pen and paper or news media neutrality), let alone getting out of jail or sabotaging the case. Even the victim’s description of Tejpal’s daughter’s actions were not verified with the daughter – in spite of the victim’s letter saying that she confronted Tejpal on victim’s behalf – before being published in newspapers that Tejpal’s daughter claimed to have seen Tejpal acting in an inappropriate manner with another woman when she was 13. Something Tiya flat out denied saying. Her visit to the victim’s mother was painted in media as intimidation without bothering to seek the other side of the story at all.
The CCTV footage is hardly the only hole in this mega justice story. It is merely another straw. What of the verifiable facts of the email have stood to verification other than those she herself told her witnesses? Tiya denies how she had been described in the emails. Tiya claiming innocence on her visit to victim’s mother is supported by the email by the victim herself. Descriptions of pulling by Tejpal are not backed by CCTV footage in a single instance (to even be remembered wrongly) according to reports.
You think the public whose outrage over “facts” helped put a man in jail has no right to know the status of the “facts” that triggered their outrage?
In contrast, the supposedly intimidated victim has people either staunchly declaring she is the victim and Tejpal is guilty or at best saying there is more to the case than the black and white narrative painted in media. Yet apparently it is Tejpal’s family manipulating and subverting truth. Maybe they are conspiring to keep him in jail? Strange, suicidal strategies could learn a lesson or five here. Like “how to get free accommodation from the government by breaking law before pretending to apply for bail” or something.
Even as the law stands by, as a mere spectator, indifferent to its promise to protect the woman’s dignity.
The woman’s dignity was paraded by her well wishers in media when they printed a distraught rape victim’s potentially inaccurate and angry emails word for word and treated them as the complete truth needing no verification. THAT is what is causing the victim to lose her dignity when the narrative does not tally up, not any mega conspiracies. The victim was distraught, but her advisers and media exploited her experience for maximum drama, and when the story gets holes, someone is a spoilsport. How dare his family not let him sit quietly in jail and rain on our parade? If more holes appear, this vicious lot will turn on the victim, quite forgetting that the victim herself did not do more than a complaint within the organization and it was them that treated every word without verification as total fact because it would put a “sensational” man in jail.
The victim’s dignity was paraded by her supposed friends who stayed completely quiet on the violation allowing a repeat and still staying quiet leaving potential for more repeats. The victim’s dignity was paraded by the people who sent out email forwards with graphic details of her trauma complete with her real identity and email. The victim’s dignity was paraded when she failed to register even a token protest of extremely private conversation being leaked to media – thus confirming that it was deliberate. The victim’s dignity was paraded when her “well wishers” – ALL of them familiar with law, women’s rights and procedures after rape either failed to convince her to report her rape and go to a hospital immediately to get tested, but instead participated in a media tamasha starring her experience. Who suddenly think description of CCTV footage is somehow more violating of her rights than her intimate trauma splashed across front pages nationwide that THEY FANNED WITH ALL THEIR RESOURCES.
Who the heck are we kidding here?
What is happening is an organized intimidation of any attempt to question an organized black and white narrative. This includes supposed free speech activists suddenly happy about Outlook and Citizen getting notices for reporting that breaks no laws, discloses no identities.
The sad part is the victim may indeed be wronged, and the inconsistencies with her complaint may be memory issues. She may be wrong in adding some details deliberately or inadvertently, but making an honest complaint of violation. Or she may be totally fake on the other hand (unlikely), But this is no longer about her. By taking her words and treating them as cannon, media itself has vested them with enough credibility and power to be taken word for word as proof of crime and inconsistencies will only highlight the difference between the reality being uncovered, and the one that is comprehensively enforced in media to the point of mere saying that there is more to the case is called a “rape apology”. The absolute character media invested in those leaked emails will haunt the victim, because inconsistencies will raise questions on how unverifiable parts can be trusted, when inaccuracies in reporting are hardly a new phenomenon.
At the end of the day, the victim will be used as far as she is useful keeping Tejpal out of commission and ditched ruthlessly denied of credibility for a real complaint she filed because she ended up being held accountable for a media agenda and taken onto a turf where the charges were determined by media, the judicial process was brought about by the media, and the media doesn’t lose. It simply moves to the next shiny headline. The damage to her case from media exaggerations/emphasis will be paid for by the victim in credibility.