<link rel="stylesheet" href="//fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Open+Sans%3A400italic%2C700italic%2C400%2C700">Shoma Chaudhury Archives « Aam JanataSkip to content

2

From: Shoma Chaudhury <shoma@tehelka.com>
Date: 27 November 2013 8:13:35 pm IST
To: ******
Cc: Editors <editors@tehelka.com>
Subject: RE: Resignation with immediate effect

Dear ******,

It is unfortunate that your resignation from Tehelka comes under these circumstances. As you have said, we have stood together for women’s rights, and today for me to be seen in opposition to you is a real travesty by any account.

In the absence of an existing official grievance redressal mechanism in office, along Vishaka guidelines, when this crisis hit, I acted on instant outrage and solidarity for you as a woman and a colleague. My responses may not have reflected the correct formal procedures but the intent cannot be doubted.

To feel a sense closure, you had asked for a written apology from Tehelka editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal; an acknowledgement of this apology to be sent to office; and the setting up of an anti-sexual harassment cell in Tehelka.

Within one day of your complaint, you had the written apology. Tarun stepped down the next day. After this, the process of setting up the anti-sexual harassment committee was begun. I asked you to suggest names as well. You are yet to give names of your nominees.

There were only two days to act on your complaint before the story broke in the press. I believe the taken actions strongly count as my standing by you. Post this, things have been misconstrued and have snowballed exponentially in the media, based on half-facts and selective leaks.

In your initial conversations with me, you had wanted redressal from within the institution in a way that would acknowledge the gravity of your complaint, yet protect your privacy. I proceeded with this in mind. You, above all others, in the clamour surrounding us today, know the truth of my actions in support of you.

You have accused me of many things in your resignation letter. This is not the time to enter into a detailed point-counter point exercise with you. There are, however, a few things that must be set straight, particularly given that I am being publicly accused of a ‘cover-up.’

Firstly, the written apology was forwarded to your three journalist confidantes. This cannot be read as an attempt to hush-up things.

On 19 November, I called you to check whether you an acknowledgement of Tarun’s apology should now be sent to the Tehelka staff. I also strongly urged you to continue working in Tehelka, if you wanted to. You said you needed a week to think it through and asked me to hold-off the acknowledgment till then. This is the only reason an acknowledgement of the apology was not sent to the staff and bureau immediately.

Regarding your assertion in your resignation letter that I am only “now” attempting to establish that Tarun has “another version”: this is factually untrue. It was recorded in my first email that he said he had ‘misread the situation’. This ‘other version’ is also on record on 19 November in the personal email from Tarun to you, which you copied to the three journalists and me in your reply. Subsequently, this version was also discussed on the phone between you and me.

Questions have been asked about why I did not go to the police. In our conversation, you had mentioned that you had considered this option but did not want to go that route. I thought I should respect that and had no reason to disbelieve this, as you had already spoken to journalists about your sexual assault, and both they, and you, could have gone to the police in the ten days that transpired before you brought your complaint to me. Once the enquiry committee took the matter into its hands, its recommendations would have been followed and the course of law would have taken over.

In so far as the issues you have raised over Tarun’s recusal letter, and my use of the words “untoward incident” or “satisfied”, I have already been on national television both accepting and explaining how and why the vocabulary of this was inadequate. You also have emails from me, copied to the three journalists, on Thursday, 20 November, explaining this.

I accept that you may have found expressions I used, verbal or written, inappropriate. I am sorry about this, and only say that notwithstanding the mildness perceived in my language, I took strong steps to ensure that there could be no possible silencing of the issue.

Regarding your objections to the wording of Tarun’s written apology, you received this email on Tuesday afternoon, 19 November. You mailed wanting phrases changed on 21 November, after the press storm triggered by the leak. By then, events were too fast-paced, to address your concerns.

After Wednesday night, 20 November, we haven’t spoken or communicated in any way, other than through emails. The suggestion that I am involved in any attempt to intimidate you or your family is absolutely untrue and uncalled for. The same goes for your claims that I have indulged in character assassination or slander against you.

From the moment I received your complaint, my actions, were driven by outrage on your behalf, urgent concern for you, and a desire to assuage your sense of injury. In this, contrary to assertions in the media, I was, in fact, demonstrably driven to honour your word above any other. To this extent, I, rightly or wrongly, did not even cross-check your account with the other journalists you had confided in, until you had been given the official apology you sought.

At the end, you have accused not just Mr.Tejpal, but Tehelka of failing “women, employees, journalists and feminists collectively”. This accusation unduly extrapolates the events of the last week with an institution whose journalists, staff and body of work have nothing to do with it.

Today, despite my immediate and assertive actions in support of you, I stand wrongly defaced and accused of having abandoned the public values I uphold in my work. This leaves me inexpressibly dismayed.

I wish you well in the future.

Shoma

http://tehelka.com/author/shoma-chaudhury/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Shoma-Chaudhury/147949388590130

==========================================================

From: ******
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 1:29 PM
To: Shoma Chaudhury
Cc: Editors
Subject: Resignation with immediate effect
Importance: High

Ms. Chaudhury,

I am resigning from my position as ****** at Tehelka magazine, with immediate effect, because Tehelka's Editor-in-Chief Tarun Tejpal sexually molested me on two occasions in November this year.

I am deeply traumatized by the lack of support offered by the organization.

In such circumstances, it is untenable for me to continue to work for this organization.

At this moment, I would like to present the following facts to support my claim:

1. I was sexually molested by Tarun Tejpal on two ocassions, the 7th and 8th of November 2013 at the annual Think festival in Goa this year. In the emails of apology that followed my complaint to you about Mr Tejpal’s grievous sexual misconduct, he admitted to the fact, and apologized unconditionally.

2. I requested, at the very least, for Mr Tejpal to acknowledge this apology publicly to the staff and bureau of Tehelka. While I did not want this acknowledgement to have graphic details, I asked that the words “sexual misconduct” be included. In a phone conversation with me, you asked that he be recused from doing so because he had already admitted to sexual molestation in his emails, and because we needed to “protect the institution”. In this conversation, I said, “I trust you to do the right thing”.

3. In the public acknowledgement sent to the bureau, Mr Tejpal and you referred to his act of sexual violation as “an untoward incident” — this was not an attempt to “protect the institution” but in fact, an attempt to cover up what had really occurred — the act of sexual molestation, an admission of the facts that Mr Tejpal had “attempted sexual liaison” with me (to quote his email) on two occasions despite my “reluctance to receive such attention”. Further, in conversations with my colleagues, you admitted to them that you did not see the need to set up an anti-sexual harassment cell as per the Vishakha guidelines, because you did not contest my version of what had occurred on the nights of 7th and 8th of November.

4. In your appearances on national news channels, you first attempted to establish that I was “satisfied” with Tehelka’s actions, when only one of my immediate demands from the organization had been met — namely, that Mr Tejpal had unconditionally apologized for sexually molesting me in private emails to you and I. His public acknowledgement of the apology did not include any reference to his grievous sexual misconduct, and you had still failed to set up an anti-sexual harassment cell as per Vishakha guidelines. This could, in no way, have left me “satisfied”. Further, I had responded to both of Mr Tejpal’s emails (cc'd to you and the three colleagues I had confided everything to since the 7th of November) clarifying:

A) that his behaviour could not be described as “sexual liaison”, and that was in fact an act of sexual molestation and a violation of bodily integrity and trust, since it occurred (by his own admission) despite my refusal.

B) A sexual act carried out without consent cannot be justified on any basis.

C) That after Mr Tejpal (by his own admission) had referred to his position of power over me in the organization, he did not withdraw this statement as his emails allege.

You continued to ignore my rebuttals to these emails, while insisting, in public, that I was satisfied.

5. You are now attempting to establish that Mr Tejpal has “another version” of events (as surely, any sexual predator does), and that the “encounter” may have been consensual or non-consensual. Meanwhile, on the night of the 22nd of November, an immediate member of Mr Tejpal’s family went to my mother’s house to ask her the details of my legal counsel, and what I “wanted” as a result of my complaint about being sexually molested by Mr Tejpal. In emails and text messages sent to his friends, read out on national news channels, Mr Tejpal is now claiming that what occurred was a “fleeting, consensual encounter”; and that he wrote his apologies to me because of your “adamantine feminist principles”.

Over the past years, we have collectively defended the rights of women, written about custodial rape, sexual molestation at the workplace, spoken out harshly against the culture of victim blame and the tactical emotional intimidation and character assassination of those who dare to speak out against sexual violence.

At a time when I find myself victim to such a crime, I am shattered to find the Editor in Chief of Tehelka, and you – in your capacity as Managing Editor – resorting to precisely these tactics of intimidation, character assassination and slander.

Given the sequence of events since the 7th of November, it is not just Mr Tejpal who has failed me as an employer — but Tehelka that has failed women, employees, journalists and feminists collectively. Please consider my resignation effective immediately.

******

When the email about Tejpal's recusing himself from his job for six months leaked, I took it at face value and was angry with Tarun Tejpal and Shoma Chaudhary. Shoma's refusal to form a sexual harassment committee whipped it into fury. There was no way that a sexual harassment committee was not required.

Then, the narrative evolved, and the clamour for an FIR, using the emails as proof happened. Goa police filed an FIR on their own and came to Delhi. This seemed to overrule the victim's wishes on the matter, and no way was that a good idea in my eyes.

Yesterday, the narrative has avalanched into something that needs to be questioned. There are too many gaps, too many things going on under the cover of "supporting the victim". It reminds me of that scene from Face Off. That wonderfully surreal fight scene with an audio track with a child's song. I have questions. In no particular order.

Letter by Shoma Chaudhary including forward of Tarun Tejpal's letter

  1. The letter was leaked as soon as it was sent on the 20th November 2013. I had taken this to be an indicator of how much it outraged the staff, but considering the number of leaks littering this case, I am no longer sure. Was this letter made public because it established something evidence of the case up to that point didn't and there no longer was a need to wait for Tejpal to incriminate himself? Possibly that the SMSes were not explicit in establishing what happened between them? This isn't to blame the victim. I'd probably try and trap a guy who wronged me into confessing and nailing himself squarely. And after all, this was an organization that elevated stings to a whole new level of truth telling.
  2. The letter is an astonishing admission of guilt, even if it does not mention the specifics of the case - which couldn't possibly remain hidden after the bombshell of Tejpal "recusing" himself. Neither Shoma Chaudhary nor Tarun Tejpal are idiots or ignorant of processes of justice, and it is rather unbelievable that they did not realize that these emails would be seen as an acceptance of guilt. I don't imagine that either of them would have done this without feeling confident that the victim would not be pursuing a police case (at that point, everything was still within the organization and the victim was refusing to file an FIR). What or who convinced them that an admission of guilt was in their best interest?

Please note. I don't believe Tejpal is innocent at all. My question is, how did someone this entrenched in crime journalism write an admission of guilt? This does not look like a cover up, regardless of media hysteria. More importantly, to me it points to some input from somewhere (clearly not the victim, who was not satisfied) that accepting guilt was the right way to go for someone accused of rape.

I also don't believe Tejpal gave enough of a damn about Shoma's feminist beliefs that he would incriminate himself for them. So there is something else here that has not been leaked. Whether it has an impact on the "facts" of the situation as we know it is anyone's guess.

I also don't believe the "hindsight" theory some seem to be inventing - that he apologized first and then decided to call it consensual. Any criminal's first instinct is to deny the crime - particularly one with guaranteed difficult consequences. That the founder and editor of a magazine routinely delving into and exposing strategies of crime was so innocent that he didn't consider it is too much for me to believe.

Letter by Tehelka rape victim to Shoma Chaudhary

Now this one is even more interesting. This is the magic letter that has allowed suo motu cognizance by the Goa police, National Commission for Women and every third handle on Twitter.

  1. The letter was written by the victim informing Shoma Chaudhary of the actions of Tarun Tejpal. It was copied to three of the victim's friends who she had confided in along with a comment that Shoma could contact them for any clarifications she saw necessary. A strange way of putting it, since the three knew what she told them anyway. Regardless of the odd way of including them, they were included in what was basically the victim's letter of complaint to an office senior that made accusations Tejpal & Co are extremely unlikely to want public. The other three were supposedly the victim's friends standing by her staunchly. Yet the email was leaked. Who leaked it?
  2. The email was leaked without redacting the victim's name. Was this intentional? What was achieved?
  3. While not impossible, I am having trouble visualizing a situation where a person engages in sexual aggression while steadily multitasking enough to be pressing lift buttons continuously, or that a reluctant and/or struggling woman would be divested of her undergarment, attempted oral sex with AND penetrated with fingers in the time a lift took to come down two floors, since it seems even more improbable to achieve with one hand busy with lift buttons. I am not saying the victim is lying and Tejpal may very well have done something else to delay the lift, but it sounds quite rapid for the short time span as well as reluctance claimed as described. Besides, a rapid violation is no less a violation.

Leaky letters

This scandal is littered with leaked letters.

  1. Tejpal's "recusing" letter forwarded in Shoma's letter.
  2. Victim's email to Shoma
  3. Tarun Tejpal's email to victim
  4. Tarun Tejpal's email to his friends
  5. Victim's email to Shoma

How are these leaks happening?

Shoma and Tejpal have nothing to gain and everything to lose, including their organization (if we go by predictions of the end of Tehelka with this) by contents of at least some of these letters going public. The victim or her wellwishers would not want her name leaked. It would be very easy to edit out or use a pseudonym *before* it went out of hand and appeals to public were needed. So who else has access to these emails, who may be fine throwing both Tejpal and the victim to the wolves?

But more interesting than the emails leaked are the emails not leaked. We have no sense of Shoma's response to the victim - for example. Which makes me wonder whether that is because she didn't use email to respond or she isn't relevant to the goal of the leaks, or she didn't say something that would incriminate Tejpal leaked or she said something that couldn't be presented as "Tehelka trying to silence the victim"?

About the last, there seems to be a general consensus that Tejpal/Tehelka are trying to silence the victim without any specifics on why that is so. There is no evidence that the victim is getting silenced or prevented from seeking justice in any manner. In fact, there is an abundance of support for the victim seeking a more severe method of justice. A visit by a member of Tejpal's family to her results in a press statement about it that talks of apprehensions of what could be - let alone being unable to act freely on what is. She has achieved one of the most impossible things on the internet. Remaining anonymous even after identity has been leaked by a political+celebrity proile with 40,000 followers, with hundreds of people chasing down any mentions on her behalf and getting them removed. Leaks are manifesting to strengthen her case even as she pleads that her emails not be leaked. What part of this is sounding like anyone is silencing her? So where is this being manufactured?

Threat perceptions

There have been unusual mentions of inexplicable threats in this scandal. There are those that make sense - for example the victim's email to Shoma speaking of expecting to lose her job, feeling scared and so on. Completely natural for a victim to feel.

And then there are these: Victim spoke with media yesterday claiming to be pressured and intimidated by a member of Tejpal's family visiting her mother asking her to protect Tejpal and asking for information about the legal help the victim was receiving and what she wanted from the investigation. Sounds like intimidation aimed to silence the victim, particularly if you read "reports" of it instead of the statement only. Except an update on Facebook by Kavita Krishnan well after the supposed visit of this intimidating person states emphatically:

The complainant in the ‪#‎Tejpal‬ case is neither isolated nor pressurised, on the contrary she is in close consultation with several lawyers and activists whom SHE chose to reach out to. She's the one who resisted any pressure and came forward and complained. If you ask me, I'd love an FIR to be filed and Tejpal jailed. But we respect this woman very much, and she knows we'll stand by her no matter what her decision. I'm not in the business of coercing her or rushing her. The real and sole evidence is her word, not CCTV footage - and no one is going to wipe that out. If she decides to file an FIR or to cooperate with the Goa police FIR that's great. But if she decides that a properly constituted Vishakha enquiry is what she wants, keeping the FIR option open for later, we should respect that decision. I and other activists are waiting patiently for her to arrive at a decision and issue a statement, and I would urge others to do the same, instead of assuming she's a helpless 'victim' or that we are evil feminists misleading her. In fact it's Tejpal's pals who are spreading that we the activists are 'misguiding' her - precisely because we are there with her as the strongest and most solid support there is.

This could possibly be related only to denying that activists are pressuring her, and may not apply to Tejpal's relative who visited her mother, but an "unnamed source" (God. This case is full of concealed sources of relevant information) clarified that the person to visit the victim's mother was the person who had unconditionally supported the victim and confronted Tejpal out of anger on the victim's behalf (something the three friends she confided in did not seem do). In that context, how threatening does her asking about legal help the victim is seeking or what she wants from the investigation sound?

Perhaps it still is threatening. Or perhaps the victim is spooked and naturally feels apprehensive of a family member of Tejpal approaching her mother. But there are others feeling the threats too.

For example, Shoma Chaudhary asking a reporter (Aditya Raj Kaul) who asked her a question his name had him wondering on Twitter whether she was threatening him.

There is the "threat" of Shoma Chaudhary stating that there is another side to the story. I mean whoever would have thought that a story has any side except the one in media? Of course it has to be a threat if she says Tejpal has his version. I really don't buy this paranoia, but it is in dozens of articles.

Niti Central goes ahead and states that the sexual harassment committee would be an act of vengeance against the victim (who is the one who wanted it - Tehelka didn't actually have one till outrage on the victim's behalf forced them) complete with a script of the kind of things that would be said so that the victim would be intimidated into silence.

The CCTV question

Goa police said they would examine the CCTV footage of the hotel. On the 22nd, they said that the hotel had not yet given them the footage.

Also on the 22nd, Tarun Tejpal's press release urged that the CCTV footage of the hotel be examined and released to establish what had happened.

A day later, Goa police say that they have no CCTV footage from inside the elevator where the alleged assault took place.

Now, the million dollar question is whether Tarun Tejpal knew that there was no footage before demanding that the footage be examined, or whether the Goa police "failed to get footage of the inside of the elevator because there was no camera in elevator" after Tarun Tejpal asked for it to be examined.

Stray tweets on Twitter seemed to think Times of India has footage from the CCTV showing Tejpal pulling victim into elevator. If that is so, it will be yet another leak of evidence to media.

The Political angle

This case sees the right wing once again a champion of human rights, which means they are accusing the left wing of sabotaging the interests of the victim. The usual. Most likely dictated by the routine hyperbole, particularly with elections coming up. For example, BJP affiliated accounts have consistently given the most paranoid explanations of what is happening and insisted on FIRs to the point of their National Spokesperson pointing out in front of media that as per the new law, sexual assault was a crime against the state. Which probably means that victims of sexual assault have an obligation to suffer additional trauma in order for the state to get justice against the crime committed against it, if a suitable political party decided it should be so.

BJP is all over this case to the point of wondering how and where it fits after wanting nothing to do with Tehelka all these years. It is Madhu Kishwar who openly tweeted the victim's name (other than a few handles with negligible followers). She brazened it out by claiming that she had seen the name being openly used in many places, which wasn't true.

ABVP supporters held protests outside the Tehelka office, there were whispers of stones thrown at Tarun Tejpal's house. The Chief Minister of Goa who has spectacularly failed to arrest the accused in the assault of a Nigerian that gave him serious head injuries, sent police from Goa to Delhi after filing an FIR, though it was hardly any time since he had said he couldn't do anything unless the girl complained. This is in addition to countless statements by party leaders. The loudest noises that an FIR should be filed regardless of the victim's wishes comes from the BJP as well.

And while it isn't uncommon for BJP to pick a trending cause, particularly if it involves targeting someone they already hate, it is hardly any specific interest in law and order or even the victim's rights, which are basically props.

Overall trend is that the BJP (who hasn't forgotten the stings that stung) is the most critical of Tehelka, Tarun Tejpal and Shoma Chaudhury. Congress leaders are cautious but certain that more information and investigations are necessary. AAP seems to have commented cautiously, praising Tejpal's stepping down while Other leaders have given statements to media on the subject that are more cautious, endorsing the victim's rights and offering solidarity.

So what is really happening here?

I have no idea, but whatever it is has Tejpal neatly caught where he can't escape (which is probably a good thing) and is riding roughshod over the victim (which is probably a bad thing).

My current conclusions on the Tejpal scandal

I have no doubt that Tejpal is in the wrong. ALL options point there including Tejpal's own confessions.

I am not sure Shoma Chaudhary is guilty. She seems upfront when speaking, if a little defensive - which is likely the stress more than guilt. Her explanation for the email that broke the scandal makes sense. She was beginning to deal with this, and taking charge seemed the first step. There is no reason to disbelieve her, particularly since she has been doing the right things one by one. I am a little disappointed that she didn't stick with her stand of not cooperating with an FIR against victim's wishes (which was a stand I respect particularly for the high stress circumstances it had to be taken in), but from what I hear, victim herself is cooperating with it, so no reason for Shoma to not do so either.

No matter which way you look at it, Tejpal looks like a goner. At best - even if his every claim of innocence is true, he engaged in an unprofessional "liason" with a junior colleague, which is usually understood to be exploitative due to unequal power involved. Rohan Joshi nailed it - unequal on gender, power and age. More likely, he engaged in a crime that has the least punishment as 10 years and technically, he seems to qualify. It is another matter if our judges see it as fair to destroy the life of a member of the precious male sex over something like this, though thankfully, the media spotlight may make upholding the law more likely at least.

I am not sure what other forces and agendas are influencing the tip of this iceberg that is visible, but I'm fairly certain that confessions and apologies would not be possible without considerable confidence that the victim was not going to use them in court.

The victim's wish for Sexual Harassment Committee has been successfully bypassed, whether the farce ends now or later. With the Goa police filing an FIR, there remains no reason for Tejpal to cooperate and every reason for him to not cooperate considering any admission, apology or regret before the SHC will get used against him in court. So it is a matter of time before the penny drops.

Will Tejpal go to jail? My gut feel is no. Should he? Hell yes, but my guess is that once the elections are done, this story will die out, and the victim will be left floundering to find her way with far less power at her fingertips.

Also looking at the news this case came and wiped out of people's attention. And other factors.

In my view, this case has been compromised by political agendas to the point of it being a second exploitation of the victim. Brand new impeccable moral stands still smelling of paint have been whipped up on display for this case, while anything before and since seems to not exist. Check out the contrast with the story of sexual harassment in the Supreme Court, which actually had serial PIL filer and creep extraordinaire, advocate M L Sharma (of the Delhi Gang Rape comments outrage) filing a public interest litigation against newspapers for giving voice to the victim - and it does not appear to have struck very many people as a silencing of the victim by powerful people. Instead, media has meekly ignored the story for the most part.

The message is crystal. Tejpal is a unique person doing an unbelievably heinous crime that has no precedent or comparison and what he has done is so unbelievably dangerous that unless we overrule the victim's insipid ideas of justice that don't put him in jail for a decade right now, no telling what he will do next.

Just like every media tamasha.

Yawn.

I support whatever the victim wants. Everyone else can fuck off.

And a part of me worries about the journalists at Tehelka who have done nothing to deserve this.