What Tejpal did falls within legal definition of rape; it is not a political conspiracy: Victim
New Delhi: Rejecting 'insinuations' that her complaint is part of a pre-election political conspiracy, the victim of Tehelka Editor Tarun Tejpal's alleged sexual assault on Friday said what he did to her 'falls within the legal definition of rape'.
In a statement ahead of Tejpal's journey to Goa to face police questioning, she said she was heartened by the broad support she has received over the past fortnight.
"However, I am deeply concerned and very disturbed by insinuations that my complaint is part of a pre-election political conspiracy," she said in a two-page statement.
Categorically refuting such insinuations, she put forward arguments to say what Tejpal did was rape. While he was fighting to protect his wealth, influence and privilege, for her it was a fight to preserve nothing except 'my integrity and my right to assert that my body is my own and not the plaything of my employer'.
"Perhaps the hardest part of this unrelentingly painful experience has been my struggle with taxonomy. I don't know if I am ready to see myself as a "rape victim", for my colleagues, friends, supporters and critics to see me thus.
"It is not the victim that categorises crimes: it is the law. And in this case, the law is clear: what Mr Tejpal did to me falls within the legal definition of rape," the victim, a journalist in Tehelka, said. She has since resigned.
The girl said, "I categorically refute such insinuations and put forward the following arguments: The struggle for women to assert control over their lives and their bodies is most certainly a political one, but feminist politics and its concerns are wider than the narrow universe of our political parties.
"Thus, I call upon our political parties to resist the temptation to turn a very important discussion about gender, power and violence into a conversation about themselves."
Refuting allegations that she was acting on someone's behest, she said, "Suggestions that I am acting on someone else's behest are only the latest depressing indications that sections of our public discourse are unwilling to acknowledge that women are capable to making decisions about themselves for themselves.
"In this past week, television commentators who should know better, have questioned my motivations and my actions during and after Mr. Tejpal molested me.
"Some have questioned the time it took for me to file my complaint, more inquisitive commentators have questioned the use of the word 'sexual molestation' versus words like 'rape'," she said.
The victim also termed her case as a litmus test of the new anti-rape law.
"Now that we have a new law that broadens the definition of rape, we should stand by what we fought for. We have spoken, time and again, about how rape is not about lust or sex, but about power, privilege and entitlement. Thus this new law should be applicable to everybody - the wealthy, the powerful, and the well connected - and not just to faceless strangers," she said.
As seen by some of the responses to this case, instances of familial and custodial rape present doughty challenges to even the most adamantine feminists, she added.
She said that by choosing this path, she has opened herself to 'personal and slanderous attack' and this will not be an easy battle.
"Unlike Mr. Tejpal, I am not a person of immense means. I have been raised singlehandedly by my mother's single income. My father's health has been very fragile for many years now.
"By filing my complaint, I have lost not just a job that I loved, but much-needed financial security and the independence of my salary. I have also opened myself to personal and slanderous attack. This will not be an easy battle," she said.
Remembering her days as a journalist reporting stories of rape survivors, she said that this "crisis" has confirmed the difficulties faced by them.
"In my life, and my writings, I have always urged women to speak out and break the collusive silence that surrounds sexual crime. This crisis has only confirmed the myriad difficulties faced by survivors.
"First, our utterances are questioned, then our motivations, and finally our strength is turned against us: a politician will issue a statement claiming that speaking out against sexual violence will hurt our professional prospects; an application filed in the Delhi High Court will question why the victim remained "normal"," she said.
"Had I chosen silence in this instance, I would not have been able to face either myself or the feminist movement that is forged and renewed afresh by generations of strong women," she said.
"Finally, an array of men of privilege have expressed sorrow that Tehelka, the institution, has suffered in this crisis. I remind them that this crisis was caused by the abusive violence of the magazine's Editor-in-Chief, and not by an employee who chose to speak out," she said.
In an earlier email, she had described how Tejpal had switched off the lights in his cabin and had pounced on her. (see Page 2)
Next - Tejpal violated my trust, body: Victim
Tejpal violated my trust, body: Victim
November 20
From: --------
To: Tarun J Tejpal
Subject: Re: Personal
Tarun,
1. The conversation from that night was not "heavily loaded" or "flirtatious" - you were talking about "sex" or "desire" because that is what you usually choose to speak to me about, unfortunately, never my work, which if you had had occasion to read, you might not have attempted to sexually molest me, and certainly would have known that there was no way that I would stay silent about it and just vanish. There was no "aftermath" of that evening with the "thunderclouds" - this is exactly what happened: I wanted to discuss the first story I had written about a rape survivor with you. (Name deleted) called me to your office, I walked in and you were lying on the couch with the lights off. I asked you if you wanted me to turn the lights on, and you refused. You continued to lie on the couch. I sat on a chair across from you in the same room and told you the survivor's story. I wish again, that you remembered the professional reason I had met you that evening, instead of the storm and the thunderclouds.
2. This is what non-consent constitutes: the moment you laid a hand on me, I started begging you to stop. I invoked every single person and principle that was important to us - Tiya, Geetan, Shoma, (name withheld, the woman's father), the fact that you were my employer, to make you stop. You refused to listen. In fact, you went ahead and decided to molest me again on the following night. We have often spoken of "what turns men into beasts" at Tehelka edit meetings, you yourself have commissioned several stories on this. It is this - not being able to take no for an answer.
3. You never, even once uttered the following words: "I withdraw that straight away - no relationship of mine has anything at all, ever, to do with that". If your attempt at sexual molestation were really as consensual as you seem to imply that it was Tarun, why would you have suddenly switched to speaking in legal terms in a "frivolous, laughing" moment?
4. Not only did you lash out at me verbally for telling Tiya, you also sent me a text message the next morning saying "I can't believe you went and told her even the smallest thing. What a complete absence of understanding of a parent-child relationship".
Tarun, I can't believe you think molesting an employee your daughter's age, who is also your daughter's friend is something you'd describe as "the smallest thing". What an absence of understanding of what Tehelka stands for.
Unfortunately, your desire to apologize to (name withheld, her boyfriend) only reeks of your own patriarchal notion that men own and possess female bodies, and that since you violated what you recognize as his "property", you are in some way accountable to him. The only people you owe an apology to are your employees at Tehelka, for desecrating their and my faith in you. Please do not attempt any further personal correspondence with me - you lost that privilege when you violated my trust and body.
