Will Tarun Tejpal open a can of worms?

The manner in which the case of the editor who sexually exploited an intern is being played out one would imagine that people never had a low opinion of the media. From the looks of it, they expect the highest standards of propriety, chastity and morals from the news purveyors.

Tarun Tejpal, founder and editor of Tehelka, the investigative and sometimes controversial magazine, forced himself upon a young reporter from his office during the recent ThinkFest organised by the magazine. He wrote a letter to the managing editor; she, in turn, forwarded it to the rest of the staff with a short note.

Not noteworthy

The letter has been taken to the cleaners, and rightly so. But, let us pause and think. What could he have said? I am surprised he put anything on record at all. Why is nobody suggesting that perhaps he has been forced to by one or two of the many who are supposed to be sponsors or 'well-wishers' of Tehelka?

In the note, he does a promo for his mag. Let us look at it from the long-term perspective. He has to keep his best people around, and ensure that they are not affected by the scandal. It is part patriarch and mostly self-interest. The financial stakes are not to be sniffed at. His mention of a six-month leave is probably a face-saver. Or, perhaps, someone up there has provided some sort of guarantee?

Tejpal, of course, attempts to cover his tracks:

"It is tragic, therefore, that in a lapse of judgment I have hurt our own high principles. Because it involves Tehelka, and a sterling shared legacy, I feel atonement cannot be just words. I must do the penance that lacerates me."

This is all about him, and not a thought for the young woman, the daughter of his old colleague, his daughter's friend. However, the quibble over his use of terminology has revealed something: most have played right into it by getting moralistic themselves rather than treating his behaviour as a crime that needs to be tried legally.

Shoma Chaudhary in her letter to the Tehelka team has called it an "untoward incident". Again, much as this term is reductionist, did she have a choice if she had to forward a note? Could she go beyond the mandate, that too when she was to be in charge of the team?

On NDTV last night, she came across more strongly, and spoke about treating this case as sexual harassment at the workplace.

One needs to broadbase this, to include SH in other work-related environment too. Women journalists have to conduct interviews that are often not without the uncalled-for attention they receive. I am deliberately being euphemistic here, because adding to the sexual connotations just gives those looking for a high a talking point and little else.

Look, who's talking

This incident, like many others, has become about scoring over an opponent. Tehelka was supposedly a magazine with Congress leanings, so the opposition is quick to bring in references to Asaram Bapu and even the stalking by 'Sahib' in Gujarat, as though one evil cancels the other. Then there are competitors in the media, who have found a wonderful opportunity to pick holes at everything Tehelka has done, as though their own house is clean.

Should this incident be an example for exposing the media? Yes. But, if anybody thinks it is an isolated incident, then they are wrong. The assumption behind wanting such an exposé is that the public really did not believe such a thing was possible and the media was above-board. I doubt if it is naïveté. It seems more like the feigning of innocence so that they can now concentrate, rather lasciviously, on a case study.

However, can one entirely wipe out the work of many of its reporters only because of what their boss did, unknown to them? Now that they know, should they be punished for being part of the organisation?

The problem here has ceased to be about sexually abusive behaviour. Tejpal is the right candidate for pillorying. Brash, flashy, and sanctimonious. Even a letter written by an environmentalist made a mention of him and his red Pajero.

To be noted therefore: If a person in a position of power is not brash, flashy and does not have a red Pajero there is a better chance of his crime being less eyeball-grabbing. Tejpal had plans to start Prufrock, some sort of elite club. Where did he get the money, how can he do such elite things after claiming to stand up for investigative journalism...such questions are posed by those who seem clueless about the media, or think it better to go along with the flow.

The whole corporate structure works on barter, and as has happened often power is abused. It would not help to indulge in innuendo or even give random examples.

In some cases such abuse is passed off as consensual. This sort of consent is as forced as molestation. Besides media heads, there are the sponsors, the businessmen, traders, film stars, PR agents, and even colleagues that follow a pecking order. Women are used as bait, if not a straight honey trap. Go fly a kite if you did not know about this.

The Tehelka ThinkFest has been in the news regarding some of its sponsors. Again, I have an issue with all such fests because they only dumb down intellectual/literary exchange and compromise them at the altar of the highest bidder. For the critics to now use unconnected material from the past is sheer opportunism and will do nothing for the crime for which Tejpal must be tried.

Is anybody really interested in the victim or justice for her? Does it matter whether or not she covered cases of exploitation for the magazine? What if she wrote a gossip column or about fashion or sexy things — should we then judge her differently?

If anything, Tehelka was given a halo by the readers, mainly for its over-emphasis on sting operations that became trendy. Now, they are treating this as the story of the fallen hero.

Justice is not about self-righteous indignation.

© Farzana Versey

---

Also read my 2003 essay (from an anthology on the media): When puppets hide behind pomposity

---

Update on November 23

Although most people are in the loop of who said what, just to put on record what the girl said:

In her complaint to Tehelka Managing Editor Shoma Choudhary, the victim says, "It is extremely painful for me to write this email to you – I have struggled with finding an easier way to say it, but there isn’t one. The editor in chief of Tehelka, Tarun Tejpal, sexually assaulted me at Think on two occasions last week. From the very first moment, I wanted to call you, or find you and tell you what he had done to me – but given how absorbed you were at Think; preparing for and conducting sessions, and the fact that it was impossible for the two of us to get even a minute alone together, I could not. To add to this, I had to process the fact that it was Tarun who molested me — my father’s ex colleague and my best friend’s dad, and someone I had so deeply respected and admired for so many years."


“I hope you will also understand how traumatic and terrifying it has been for me to report this to you — and yet how critical it is that Tehelka constitute an anti sexual harassment cell as per the Vishakha guidelines immediately, to investigate this matter. At the very least, I will need a written apology from Mr Tejpal and an acknowledgement of the same to be circulated through the organization. It cannot be considered acceptable for him to treat a female employee in this way.”

And here is Shoma Chaudhary's statement

Character Assassination

Due to the untimely demise of one of my characters, I was in mourning and could therefore not submit the story on time.

This is a real note I sent years ago. A colleague had entered my name for a short story competition by the British Council. I was not terribly enthusiastic about such events, but since it required imagining, it was par for the course. I thought nothing about it and since I was not accustomed to writing for a reason, I wove the words at a leisurely pace.

A tap on my shoulder and a thick envelope served as reminders that I paid no attention to. The date of submission was gone. I folded the sheets of paper and put them in the envelope – the address and stamps were ready. My friends were still enthusiastic. I quickly grabbed a page from my diary and wrote down the note:

“Due to the untimely demise of one of my characters I was in mourning and could therefore not submit the story on time.”

What else could I say? I am not good with formal letters. Besides, it was succinct and happened to be the truth. The cat in the story had died. Obviously, I had killed it. Yet, its death was a departure, a turning point.

Recently, an Indian media house gave an award to a novel and the jury used a curious phrase for its choice: one of the reasons was “for its non-judgmental attitude to the characters”. How does a writer not judge a character when s/he has created it? This is not immaculate conception. You sweat over it, love it and get suffused in it, for however brief a time. The judgement lies in the nature of the relationship. The writer is the initiator and woos the character. It is possible that the character might mirror the writer. Introspection is also judgement. You are pronouncing a verdict on your thoughts and feelings.

Any objectivity would be forced. The character is because you are.

Back to my old story, I had written it for myself. In those days, there was no audience I was seeking or speaking to.

A few days later, rather uncharacteristically, I got a note from the British Council. It said, and I will rely on memory and promise not to exaggerate, that indeed I had missed the date of submission and rules would not permit my work for consideration. However, my accompanying note was rather interesting and caused much amusement and they could not but let me know that although the story would not be included in the competition, it was noticed.

I wondered whether dead cats could lick the cream.

Obama and young India

I got this note from a well-respected and well-placed member of one of our rightwing political groups. It was sent to ‘undisclosed recipients’ but on occasion in the past we have disagreed with civility.

Reproduced is an excerpt from his letter followed by my rather long response:

Enclosed is a link to a video of two questions that were asked of Obama in his interaction with the students. One girl, from Xavier's College, asked him about his opinion on jihad, and a boy, from HR College, asked him a question on spirituality and materialism. I thought the questions reflect very well on the young generation of India. The first would indicate that issues like jihad are being discussed by the youth, and perhaps they are not carried away with the negationism being indulged in by the supposed intellecutals. The second was put forward in an intelligent manner, and also a topic that one may not associate the youth to be so involved in.

Namaste

   - - -

Dear Shri X:

Thank you for sharing your views. Barack Obama, like most of the US leadership in the past, tends to be not quite upfront and dangles carrots while using the stick.

I do not agree at all with your views on the young generation and their concerns. Is this the representative sample of the youth of India – the urban kids who get to spend quite a bit of money, go on annual vacations, are clued-in to trends and hanker after, if not possess, the latest gizmos? Is this the representative youth that will not mind working at KFC and McDonald’s but would titter at the local vendors of essentials? This is the Americanised young generation and their curiosity is US-centric.

Asking Mr. Obama about his opinion on jihad is playing to the gallery created by the President’s predecessors and backroom boys. Did those young people ask him why he has chosen selected people in his cabinet with what is referred to as Hindutva leanings? Why does he choose a minister to deal specifically with the Islamic world as though it is a conglomerate of Dirty Harrys? Did this section of ‘aware’ youth bother to question him about terrorism elsewhere and of other kinds? Does discussing jihad necessarily mean that “they are not carried away with the negationism being indulged in by the supposed intellectuals”? Can one assume, then, that they are being carried away by another sort of intellectualism that strives to thrust one version of cultural hegemony over another?

Jihad is a most discussed topic, so for young people to talk about it is not unexpected. It is the new soccer. I’d have said cricket, but it is so third world for this young generation.

I fail to understand how you believe that questions about materialism and spiritualism reflect well on the youth only because it is not a topic you associate with them. There are a few factors here. Growing up includes dealing with internal turmoil and it does spark off interest in what may be termed a spiritual quest. It has been a constant since ages. Besides, these queries have also become part of money-spinning feel-good and how-to books, again not a recent phenomenon but more sharply evident of late. Then, there is the influx of pop spiritualism on the web and on the airwaves, the mode being of American televangelism. Gurus speak the language of Now and their celebrity devotees ensure that they become immensely desirable. The young generation is likely to be enticed by this as they are by social networking sites.

The point is they are not interested as much in real issues or, if they are, they do not voice it. When I write about the Sikh riots or the 1993 Bombay riots, there is ennui and a disdainful attitude towards what they deem to be obsession with history.

Like you I am more interested in what our young people think rather than what the US Prez says; the difference is that we are on different sides of the spectrum. I see it as a good thing and wish the youth would be able to stride across thought processes rather than follow tried-and-tested paths. I am not too sure if the so-called intellectuals that you hold in contempt would want a blinkered following. If they do, then their vision is as narrow, and I believe it is so in many cases. But let us not tar every segment with one brush.

Jihad and spiritualism are gainful, and some instances opportunistic, pastimes for such youth. Curiosity ought to lie in the details, not mere chatter of the times.

Namaste and best regards,
FV

- - -


Updated:


There has been further correspondence from the gentleman. Here follows the exchange in dialogue form:

Dear Farzanaji,
Pranam,

Thank you for your message.

The negativeness that I see in your message does not make for pleasant reading.

Dear Xji:

Thank you for taking this further. It was not meant to be pleasant, but I do not see ‘negativism’ the way you do. One may wonder why they asked negative questions about subjects like jihad and did not concentrate on positive subjects. I am not suggesting that they ought to have done so; it is only to emphasise my point about negativity.

There were six questions that were asked. Given that ALL of them were what I consider to be mature and intellilgent ones, and not frivilous that one would normally associated with what is called the MTV generation, it is only correct to conclude that more questions would have been of the same quality.

I do not know how the colleges were chosen and how the students within each colleges were chosen. I would like to know, and perhaps you could use your journalism contacts to find out.

It seemed to me that Obama chose the students who asked the questions quite randomly. I have seen a video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xnFAad9eQE&feature=player_embedded#at=213
where two of the questions and their answers are available. This feeling is reinforced by the fact that at least some of the questions were of a nature which did put him on the defensive. If the organisers made a show of randomness, then they surely botched the whole exercise.

I think maturity and intelligence can be selective. You have not noticed that I specifically alluded to their NOT asking certain questions. I hope you agree that these same young people will not question the US establishment or any other forms of terrorism, subjects you too have avoided in your response.

While there is a frivolity in the MTV generation, those who stick to MTV and its allied ideas can be granted some honesty. I am afraid but I do not have journalistic contacts of this nature, but it isn’t merely about the choice of college; it is the whole urbanised movement that has taken over. In this case, it is what India sees as important to deal with the outside world that is disconcerting.

It really does not matter that Obama was put on the defensive. He might have been so even if they had asked about the US policies in Iraq, Afghanistan or its history of slavery or of him being the totem Black President. The more important factor is that India is dependent on US goodwill and many other things, which I wrote about in Obama’s Hawk Policy in India.

To say that they were NOT representative of the thinking of the educated youth in Mumbai trivalises the sincerity of those who asked the questions. The nature of the questions tells me what are the issues that the youth are discussing, apart from holidays, latest gizmos, KFC, etc.

I reiterate that they are not representative of the educated youth. Of course, we will then have to question what education is. I have already stated that such ‘interests’ work as much as trendy talk. It does not trivialise anything but seeks to examine the mindset beyond the trivial.

Let me tell you an incident from Mahabharat. One day, Yudhishtar was asked to go into the town and come back with one bad person, while Duryodhan was asked to go into the same town and come back with one good person. Both came back empty handed. Yudhishtar found at least one redeeming quality in every person he met, and Duryodhan found at least one bad quality in every person he met.

Thank you for this enlightening anecdote. But, as you are aware, it was Duryodhan who sought to make the ‘outsider’ Karna king and an equal of the Pandava, Arjun. Therefore, the good and bad are perceptions, not necessarily real.

And please do use this exchange, too, in your blog, without mentioning my name.

Namaste

It has been an interesting exchange. And you shall remain anonymous on the blog.

Namaste,
F

Dear Praveen bhai Togadia

Why you so angry? I am thinking how big NRI doctor leaving all antiseptic and scalpel comes to smelly hometown and trishul to make India proud. I am thinking and thinking that one day you will get just desserts for your sacrifice. No, no, not shrikhand and puran poli. I am talking about you getting something for giving up big job. Here you are only giving speeches.

I don’t know why that SIT called you. You are just man with big mouth and cannot do anything on your own. I can be wrong also, maybe you are real Chanakya and you took hypocritic oath and all. They are calling you VHP international general secretary, so your bhaav is more in Hindutva market but that is only upra-oopar.

Really they are showing you off, but I am not getting the intention. What is there in you to show off? You got old green card? But they don’t like green. So you gave that up also?

What international work is VHP doing? You are collecting money? For what? You must be open book.

I felt very emoshunal when reading that you are being victimised because you are Hindu. I wanted to tell you no need to worry so much. Please. I am feeling your pain. You said:

“SIT has called me because I am a Hindu. No Hindu in Gujarat is safe. In this country, Hindu saints, temples, organisations are targets of jihadis.”

You are expat Hindu, not dal-dhokli Hindu, so they must give more respect. I understanding your pojishun awkwardness. Gujarat is not safe for Hindus that is only why the CM and other politicians and police officers did danga-fasaad. It was to defend because alien attack was going to happen from Mars. Mars has green men and green men are all jihadis.

I am only asking frank question like Indian to NRI type, okay? Don’t mind, hanh…which saints have been killed? How many temples have been targeted? How many Hindu organisations? I knowing you are excited and don’t know difference between Indian and Hindu. Chalta hai. You are not experienced. For you it is all like patient – one wound on hand and you want to cut arm because you thinking whole arm will become wound.

I tell you I am feeling like crying. We Indians like to treat NRI nicely and here you are asked to sit in SIT office, all sit, sit and answer question about what speech you gave and why you were in town when riot took place. Where you will go? You have to protect Hindus. You are international general secretary. Whole world is looking and seeing how you do good work.

Zakia Jafri took case to Supreme Court because her husband was burnt alive in Gulberg Society. Some saying 2000 people landed there. She named 62 people. So SIT called you.

See, Praveen bhai, Modi bhai is telling all how Gujarat making leaping and bounding progress. He is bringing Nano, moto, everything. Now you saying that it is unsafe. So who will come to that place, who will invest? You are one time saying you are in danger, then you are saying:

“Very soon, they (Zakia Jafri and her supporters) will get a befitting reply to whatever they have been trying to do.”

My mind is getting confusing.

Keep quiet, be honest. Bas. If you had gone back, I would come to airport with sandalwood garland and box of thepla and Surat pedha. Now it is too late.

I am giving you free advice because I am feeling very pain when you say you are not safe. I want to give you medicine for this afraid beemari even if you are doctor. It is not anyone after you but your own shadow.

Ekdum sincerely,
Suraj ni kiran

Open letters to Mumbai police, Muslims in peace rallies and myself

These are disparate thoughts based on current events. The best way is to address them to the people concerned. Although they are meant to convey a serious purpose, the tenor might not be so.

To the Mumbai Police Commissioner

Sir:

I understand that the lone terrorist you have in your custody has been given his last name by your department. You have made him talk about other things – even their psychological training where they make sure the terrorists have no emotional ties. You insist he refused to give out any name. So, you called him Kasab or Kasav. Reports say it means butcher. In which language, sir?

I remember as a child accompanying my mother to one of those mohallas where the zariwalla worked…they had this golden coil-like thread. It was called kasab, and embroidered on dupattas or any other clothing.

As far as I know a butcher is a Kasai. On behalf of these professionals I think it is unfair to use such a term. Butchers slaughter animals that are consumed by people who pay for it; there is a market for the meat. You take away the butchers and most people will wonder what to do with the ghaas-puss. Look, everyone is not into this organic lifestyle. At the most, the style divas will have their meat lightly cooked with healthy herbs. And let me remind you that except for three states in – Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan – the rest of India happily allows kasai-khanas. Even in these states, meat is available.

Therefore, I urge you to kindly rename Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab. Please choose a shuddh Hindi name. How about Julmi? Nah, not zulmi…it has to be Julmi; the recordings crackle with the mispronunciation.

I hope you understand that I am an ordinary citizen and I represent bakras, that too kishtoun pe.

Your shubh chintak

To Muslims at peace rallies

Salam alaikum dear fellowmen and women:

Firstly, stop signing off notes with ‘your brother in Islam’ unless you mean it quite literally. I am a literal person. Besides, to be my brother you need certain qualifications, so just go slow on this, okay?

Now tell me what did you get by walking from CST to the sea-face outside Oberoi-Trident? What did you do? Stand there and shout slogans like “killers of innocents were enemies of Islam’’ and the “enemies of India were enemies of Muslims too’’.

You lifted your hands in prayer. Right? The cameras captured you looking like good Mussalmans, just the way they like it. It looks like you are all out for Eid ki namaaz.

Did any of you insist that the celebrities come dressed like that? Why not? If this is to be seen as standard Islamic dress then why did Javed Akhtar, who was screaming “enough is enough” on the Indian Idol show and then giggling about love-struck stories, not wear the skull cap and join his hands in prayer and ask Allah’s blessings?

Had you even heard about Alyque Padamsee before he decided to start his fatwa nautanki? You sat there and quietly listened as this man started on his nonsense:

“Terrorists are fake Muslims while peace-loving tolerant Muslims are the real Muslims. 99.9% of Indian Muslims believe the Quran, which says the killing of innocents is wrong. Those who don’t believe it are ‘nakli (fake)’ Muslims. Committing suicide is a sin in Islam, so how can a suicide bomber believe he will go to ‘jannat (paradise)’?’’

See, he sat with some maulana in a nice room, had badaam doodh and learned two-three lines which everyone knows. Gosh, even Mr. Advani can say these things. Has anyone ever talked about fake Hindus, fake Christians, fake Jews? Now you have to put up with this item number…he says it is a sin to commit suicide in Islam. You should have hit back with, “It is illegal to commit suicide according to the Indian Constitution.”

That would show him his place and make you rise above this Muslims-are-not-bad trip that you are forced to take.

I know that as per your idea of religion I am not a good Muslim. I agree; if you call me naqli, I will say, to an extent I am. That is the difference. I accept it.

I don’t lecture you on Islam or ask you to join these rallies and herd you like sheep to the kasai-khana where these people hang their consciences.

Your ‘sees’-tah

To myself

Dear FV:

I wish to tell you that you are right about these things, but I want to share with the readers a part from one of the letters I have received. It has shaken me up.

The person has a Hindu name, but the contents seem to reveal deep knowledge about Islam; the tone is of a true secularist. He wrote:

“Please don't make statements like – ‘They are irritated because I do not quote anything from the Quran, but can bring up Shakespeare and Neruda and revel in Urdu poets like Faiz and Faraz.’ So, my question is why are Muslims so defensive about their religion. You really don't have to quote Shakespeare and Neruda - you can go ahead and quote The Holy Quran.

You write in paper and you are a public face (I am not sure whether you are Muslim. Please forgive if it is not the case). Why do you make such apologetic statements?”

If I don’t expose myself now or how I am viewed, I won’t be true to anything. This person is right. In some ways I do sound apologetic to a person who does not know that I really cannot quote from the Quran because of lack of knowledge. I also feel that in a secular democracy religion should be in the private domain. I was taunting those who want me to fall into a set style; I truly don’t. However, I can see how it can be perceived.

I just had to say it here and come clean. I hope the mirror does not crack.

Your shadow…and light…

End note:

CNN-IBN had a show last night commemorating many of those dead. Rajdeep Sardesai was at St. Xavier's College; young people were voicing their views. Rajdeep came up with a shocker of a last line: "So this is the Obama generation saying we want change".

Obama is twice their age. And change, whether somoene asks for it or not, will happen. Like Rajiv Gandhi talked about taking us into the 21st century. It had to happen.

Let us stop bringing the West and America into this. At least learn to have some self-respect and use our own models to get the spine we are now flaunting.