By Patricia Mukhim
The Indian media is rife with comments on Tarun Tejpal’s sexual misdemeanour with a junior staffer. It is ironic that the revenue model which sustained Tehelka – a news magazine which had become the premium brand for undercover journalism – was never questioned. Only now things are tumbling out one by one. Tarun Tejpal allegedly used the mining mafia to prop up the larger than life Thinkfest event organised at Goa. Perhaps they are meant to create waves as voluminous as the international film fests that draw huge crowds and get talked about among the chattering classes. Brands are created for the market. Tehelka has become a brand that people were proud to be identified with and in which those with something to hide such as the mining mafia in Goa, Chattisgarh and Odisha had learnt to fear. People buy into a brand. Scamsters pay money to cover up their tracks. Tehelka had both. Politicians like Kapil Sibal might have innocently invested in the brand but real estate and telecom honchos like Shahid Balwa, the Adani group accused of land grabbing in Modi’s Gujarat, the Tatas and Essar groups used Tehelka to cover up their sleazy operations.
That Tehelka should be grounded not by an expose if its highly problematic revenue model but because its poster boy editor, Tarun Tejpal tripped and fell over one of the world’s oldest crimes – sexual harassment – and that of a junior colleague only goes to show that crime tends to catch up with the perpetrator sooner than later. We are unaware of how many previous sexual encounters with willing or unwilling women Tejpal has had but this time he would find it hard to dust off the muck and grime that has marred his reputation.
In a world where young women are stepping out of their comfort zones to venture into the wide world of journalism, health, films, academia, industry etc., it is important for the system to provide them a secure environment where they can flourish without having to be reminded of their sex and gender at every turn of the corridor and each time they enter a male colleague or boss’s room. In an ideal world there should be no unequal relationship, no power play. Sadly we live in the real world where men at the point of their midlife crises test out their sexual potency on younger women -most often their juniors in the organisation. Many women cringe inwardly at having to face this ignominy and to having to put up with it. But the only reason why they scream inwardly and die a thousand deaths each time they allow their bodies to be used, is because blowing the whistle could cost them an important assignment. And they would not get a creditable reference to look for a job elsewhere after having offended a lousy boss.
The case of the Tehelka staffer who was accused of not blowing the whistle immediately upon being sexually assaulted but several days later is understandable. It is easier to lodge an FIR against a stranger but extremely difficult to do so against a boss who one has worked with for a considerable period. The young lady knows how powerful Tejpal is and how he could turn things around to make the episode look like a “consensual” affair. And that indeed that is what Tejpal has done. I have spoken to many women who have faced such distressing situations and have always detected a sense of guilt in them. It’s almost as if they blame themselves for triggering misdirected male testosterone. Sadly the conversation among men these days is about how women take advantage of the strict rape laws to cry ‘wolf’ at the slightest pretext of a consensual affair gone wrong. This is one reason why men cannot be trusted to lead an investigation into a sexual harassment case within or outside their organisations. They display a male camaraderie which takes away objectivity from the investigation.
This brings me to a similar interesting incident that happened at NEHU some years ago where a professor was accused of sexually harassing students and calling them to his home in the absence of his wife. I was part of the Committee formed then to look into this case which turned out to be quite a high profile one. It is instructive that barring one or two, most male professors stood up to defend the accused without for a moment considering the plight of the girl students who were taken advantage of. The professor went to court seeking redress from the penalties suggested by the Committee to the NEHU administration. Since then I have got to know from several sources that such cases are rampant in universities and that male professors (guides) ask women research scholars to come to them for guidance after sunset “so that they are not disturbed” and to rooms where they are assured of privacy. The women scholars don’t dare scream “molestation” or rape because their futures are at stake. Their PhD is on the line; it could be delayed, disrupted or even aborted. After that no other guide might want to pick up the threads. Such is the plight of women research scholars. Unlike the young journalist who might yet find another placement in some other media house (although that is doubtful), women research scholars cannot even begin to recount the harrowing experiences of a PhD hanging fire.
There are certain professions which make it difficult for women to bring to light the indecencies and indignities they have to suffer for fear of losing their jobs. And while some brave, young women such as the one in the Tehalka case have come forward to claim their right to work in safe environments where they are treated with the respect they deserve, many others dare not do so. Some keep silent because it is the only way to climb the difficult and often non-existent ladder of equity and because promotions are still based on subjective performance evaluation.
Every pervert who inflicts indelible scars on a woman is also born of a woman. If only there was more respect for the mother, for womanhood for sisters and daughters, society might not have to deal with the scourge of patriarchy day in and day out. This takes a different kind of parenting and mental and psychological conditioning at home, in school and in other societal spaces. That sexual depravity is the attribute of psychopaths and that intelligent men do not usually display the traits of unreasonable perverts is counter-intuitive. Men seem to be living their Freudian traits despite the enlightened gender discourses and sensitisation programmes they are exposed to. Powerful men seem more prone to the malaise perhaps because they believe they are invulnerable. It is said that with great power comes great responsibility. Powerful editors like Tarun Tejpal are expected to mentor young journalists to hone their investigative skills and to do so my walking the talk. Tejpal has done neither. He has let down his colleagues as a professional who did not adopt the ethical parameters he had set up for others. Morally he stands exposed as yet another degenerate man whose purple prose does not match his deeds.