Tarun Tejpal was questioned by the Crime Branch of Goa police for over two hours yesterday. Tejpal emerged out of the Crime Branch office around 9.10 pm, accompanied by his lawyers and brothers, but refused to speak to the media.
He had been escorted to the Crime Branch office by the Goa police. Earlier in the day, he was given interim bail by a Sessions Court, after the latter decided to extend the hearing of his case till 10 am today. Tejpal had landed in Panaji, and was escorted by law enforcement officials to the court.
Authorities sought custodial interrogation, as they said that Tejpal was trying to avoid them and possible arrest. Goa Police had sought custodial interrogation of Tejpal, as they claimed that he was avoiding arrest and not cooperating in the investigations.
While the prosecution pressed for custodial interrogation, the defence raised a spectrum of points, ranging from Tejpal’s alleged political victimisation to accusing the victim of fabricating the rape case, even calling the new anti-rape law ‘draconian’.
Tejpal’s counsel Geeta Luthra told the court that the first e-mail sent by the woman journalist complaining of the sexual assault in a Goa hotel this month was an ‘afterthought’ and done with ‘vested interests’. “Journalists can write well with embellishments,” the defence argued, claiming the journalist had been hanging out at the resort’s bar and even strolling on the beach with friends after the ‘incident’.
“If she was so devastated and in trouble, why was she behaving normally after the incident which she claims happened?” During the proceedings, the judge blasted the defence counsel for reading out the name of the victim from the FIR. “Are you trying to malign the victim? Is she the accused or the victim?” the woman judge asked.
'My body is my own and not the plaything of my employer'
I am heartened by the broad support I have 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. 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.
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.’
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.
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.
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.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.
Unlike Mr Tejpal, who is fighting to protect his wealth, his influence and his privilege, I am fighting to preserve nothing except for my integrity and my right to assert that my body is my own and not the plaything of my employer. By filing my complaint, I have lost not just a job that I loved, but the 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.
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’.
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. 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. Thank you everyone for your support.