We write as feminists and activists in the women’s movement, disturbed by imputations of motive to some fellow activists who have spoken out publicly in the Tehelka sexual assault case. These allegations of pandering to the Tehelka management’s attempts to cover up the serious charges against Tarun Tejpal, have come expectedly from the Right, but also disturbingly, from sections of the Left, who interpret the insistence on respecting the decisions of the complainant, as disrespect of the law on sexual assault.
Many of us have been in the position of being confidantes to women who come to us with complaints of sexual harassment and assault. In such situations, we see our prime responsibility as that of offering unconditional support to the complainant, making available to her the largest possible range of options, helping her to take difficult decisions. Among these options is always the recourse to the police and criminal prosecution. But we believe it would be entirely counterproductive to insist that the complainant report to the police if she is not prepared to do so immediately. And until she expresses her readiness to move forward on that path, we try to build her courage to take that step, while remaining quietly supportive of whatever steps she does wish to take in the interim.
In this particular case, too, this was the view being expressed by the activists/ feminist lawyers being attacked. The fact that the Managing Editor of Tehelka opportunistically used these statements of support for the complainant woman, to defend her own attempt to cover up and internally manage the complaint rather than dealing with it, cannot be used as a weapon against the feminist activists who were speaking in a different context entirely. It must be stated here that the employer and the police must carry out their duties as mandated by law and cannot make excuses for their breach of law and willful omissions, by citing the complainant. Of course, the Tehelka Managing Editor did not even honour the three demands that the complainant journalist made to her.
In other words, we need to distinguish between the duties and responsibilities of the employer, the police and the complainant.
Of course the issue is quite different in situations of communal, caste violence or other conflict zones, where the reluctance of women to complain to the police may be due to large scale intimidation, in which case our role, responsibility and articulation will be very different. This difference must be kept in mind.
In the case of the workplace, when women (and men) complain about incidents of sexual harassment and/or assault, especially against powerful figures, they need to feel confident that they themselves will have the right to control the pace of the follow-up, and also to decide how far to take it. We need to help build up this confidence, otherwise we would be scaring people away from seeking redress and justice, rather than empowering them to speak up.
The increasingly belligerent insistence that the complainant must immediately file a criminal complaint with the police, reflects both an unreflective statism that sees as legitimate only one possible form of justice and closure for the complainant, as well as a betrayal of the feminist ethic of respecting the agency of the victims and survivors of sexual assault. Respecting the agency of the survivor does not mean of course, leaving her in isolation, but offering her solidarity and support of all kinds till the end.
Pratiksha Baxi
Shahana Bhattacharya
Uma Chakravarti
Rajashri Dasgupta
Suneeta Dhar
Nivedita Menon
Kalyani Menon-Sen
Laxmi Murthy
Kavita Panjabi
Shilpa Phadke
Sharmila Purkayastha
Rakhi Sehgal
KAFILA - COLLECTIVE EXPLORATIONS SINCE 2006 
Reblogged this on Reporting Live and commented:
A very important perspective on the Tehelka case and how employers have to handle this such cases.
LikeLike
Thank you, again, for this well thought-out statement. The needs of the victim/survivor trumps all other concerns and it is for them and them alone to decide any future course of action in consultation with others they trust. This insistence that “law needs to take its course” bellies decades of theorization by feminists about the double bind of law. Let me also add to this the problem of “governance feminism” or the tendency among some feminists to work with the state, which has proven to be highly counterproductive.
I am really touched by your nuanced approach to this issue. Yes, the police might be an option at some point, but to revert to it as the only solution is nothing but a problem by itself.
LikeLike
The most striking thing about this Tejpal affair is the predominance of “belligerence” over “empathy”. From the first day itself, this case has been driven by a sense of vindictive righteousness that can’t stop rubbing its hands in glee and say “ha! gotcha!”. For legal reasons, particularly the cascading effects of suo moto action by the goa police, there remains no agency for the girl, whichever way this may choose to get positioned. This doesn’t doubt the intent or ability of the concerned journalist to assert agency, just underlines the vicious power of a media-driven national belligerence (again, not empathy) and blood baying that leaves such little room to navigate. The most unfortunate consequence is that yet again, it has become not about the victim, or the issue of gender relations at the work place, or even custodial transgressions, but entirely about the need to see someone seemingly famous and powerful bite the dust.
Surely, “justice” can look better than what it looks on television right now.
LikeLike
While I welcome this statement, my take on these incidents would be to take with a pinch of salt. In West bengal, as we have seen in the past and even more now, allegation around outraging a woman’s modesty is often used as a tool to settle political or factional scores. Often women fall into the trap and then repent after failing to prove unsubstantiated charges. Also, there are women (always urban and affluent) who gain ascendancy in the organisational hierarchy by using these charges as part of a well-orchestrated blackmailing campaign. My point is simple, there are increasing number of cases where allegations are false and completely concocted. However, media trial starts as soon as there is an allegation and eventually the case goes for out of court settlement with a hefty sum. This is not to say that molestations do not happen – it does happen and in those cases , law should give the accused a severe punishment. However, an accused cannot become convicted just be because on the basis of a complaint and without any fair trial. While I condemn Tarun Tejpal for his attitude and misconduct, I am more concerned about the rape victims of Gujarat and the murdered women in Mujaffarnagar. While every case of molestation must be treated with utmost seriousness and urgency, every case of false allegation must also be treated with exemplary alertness so they do serve someone’s ulterior motive of settling scores.
LikeLike
On the hand, ” every case of molestation must be treated with utmost seriousness and urgency”, and on the other ” (take) these incidents … with a pinch of salt.” Affluent urban woman bad, poor rural woman good… Why even bring up the issue of false allegations here and in this particular case? And if this is your “take” — namely, that more often than not these charges are fabricated — why exactly do you “welcome this statement” that argues for giving assaulted women agency?
LikeLike
Ritaja is free to hold her opinions but I am here to record my disagreement….
Justice is expected to be “blind” and the law has to apply equally to all (at least in theory). Yes, it is a fact that laws will be misused, and more so in a corrupt society falling to greater and greater depths. It may even be that rape laws are more often misused than used correctly (Ritaja doesn’t argue so, no data provided either). But even if that be the case, that is no green signal for us to take all such alleged sexual harassment incidents lightly. If we choose to go down that path, even greater horrors await us as it will embolden more and more sexual predators to have their way with vulnerable victims. In short, a dangerous argument.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Elavarthi Manohar's Blog and commented:
Feminist interventions and the agency of the survivor: A Statement
LikeLike
Does not the law itself say that action can be taken only when a complaint is lodged?
LikeLike
Consider this: In the sensational “morphed CD” case where Abhishek Manu Singhvi was the aggrieved party, the complaint was lodged not by Abhishek Singhvi but by another lawyer who happens to be a partner in Singhvi’s son’s law firm. Essentially a non-party.
It should be clear to you that the complaint can be lodged by *anyone*, not necessarily the aggrieved party. (Civil disputes is different).
LikeLike
Thank you. “… action can be taken only when a complaint is lodged” were my words. It should be clear to you that I did not say that the aggrieved party must do the complaining.
LikeLike
Thanks for bringing out this statement, I fully support. Ritaja B’s response is typical of a Police Officers who take complaints of women with suspicion and move forward- we hear this off and on in Police Stations.
LikeLike
Dear Uma Chakravarthy and Ors,
I read the piece you all have written on Kafila about the choice of agency should be with the victim.
I totally agree with you all that the choice of the agency should always be with the victim.
I only feel the choice of agency should be an informed choice as there are many issues that come up when there is delay in approaching the criminal justice system.
But there are few issues which I would like to highlight as a lawyer who has dealt with some of these cases in courts and especially while dealing with the criminal prosecution while representing the victim.
Most of the companies/institutions are lacking in-house mechanism to deal with the cases of sexual harassment and sexual assault. Many a times we have moved the courts only to see that the committees which have been formed are according to the guidelines laid down in the case of Vishaka.
When it comes to the criminal justice system, we have observed many a times when a complaint of sexual harassment is made the institutions are in denial and also try to cover up instead of taking action as per the Vishaka guidelines. There have been some cases where the institutions have gone on offensive against the woman and have immediately filed false cases of extortion and also defamation in the courts. So the woman is anyway dragged in the criminal justice system. After this when the woman files a criminal complaint, the police as well as the courts look at the victim and her complaint with grave suspicion and it is very difficult to explain the delay in registering the police complaint as the courts and judges do not understand the concepts of mental trauma and hence the delay in registering the complaint.
The debate on the choice of agency by the woman is being raised only in the context of the two cases which are in the limelight at the moment, the case of sexual harassment by the Supreme Court judge, and of rape by Tarun Tejpal, both influential persons. My question is, why is the whole issue of the choice of agency being raised only now in the context of these two cases, while in most other cases activists push for registration of the FIR, arrest of the accused, speedy investigation and arrest.
Its also a bit problematic as two high profile personalities are accused of sexual harassment and hence the debate will be used by these accused for their advantage as has been done by Shoma Chaudhry to defend her inactions and the cover up.
The debate needs to move towards how the criminal justice system looks and treats women when either they are victims or facing criminal charges as accused. We all know from various judgements of rape and sexual assault how the courts look at them and what a woman goes through while proving rape or sexual assault. The bias is very evident when woman face the criminal justice system as accused also. In several cases where the husbands or boyfriends have killed their wife or female partners the courts make a huge effort to bring down the charge of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and reduce the punishment in appeals, while the same is not done in cases of wife or girl friend who have killed their husband or male partner respectively.
Apart from these, the kind of utterances repeatedly judges make against woman in courts is also disturbing. My only request is to widen the debate from the choice of agency to the overall treatment of women within the criminal justice system.
Vijay Hiremath
LikeLike
I endorse this statement. -Juhi Jain
LikeLike