What Tejpal did falls within legal definition of rape: Victim

November 29, 2013

TejpalNew Delhi, Nov 29: Rejecting "insinuations" that her complaint is part of a pre-election political conspiracy, the victim of Tehelka Editor Tarun Tejpal's alleged sexual assault today 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.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 2,2020

Feb 2: The Supreme court on Monday decided to hear on March 4 a plea seeking registration of FIRs against politicians for hate speeches which allegedly led to violence in the national capital.

A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde agreed to hear the plea filed by riots victims.

The petition was mentioned for urgent listing by senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the riots victims.

Gonsalves said that the Delhi High Court has deferred for four weeks the matters related to riots in the national capital despite the fact that people are still dying due to the recent violence.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 23,2020

Bengaluru, Mar 23: Indian stocks plunged over 9% on Monday, as the rapidly spreading coronavirus pandemic sent major states including the country's capital into a lockdown amid increasing fears that outbreak could bring world economies to a grinding halt.

The NSE Nifty 50 index slipped 9.17% to 7,937.75 by 0408 GMT, while the S&P BSE Sensex was 9.42% lower at 27,093.24.

Over the weekend in India, the virus drove several companies to shut operations and the government sent states into lockdowns, bringing normal life to a grinding halt.

"Panic has gone up domestically because of the lockdown situation," said Vinod Nair, head of research at Geojit Financial Services.

"There is fear that the situation will not be brought under control soon."

The rupee hit a fresh record low of 76.05 against the dollar, as a flight into cash and worries about tightening liquidity boosted demand for the world's reserve currency.

Meanwhile, global markets crumbled, with MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan sliding nearly 4% as the global death toll climbed to over 14,000, further battering economic activity, and raising fears of a global recession.

After market hours on Friday, the Securities and Exchange Board of India halved position limits for certain stock futures, restricted short-selling of index derivatives and raised margin rates for some shares to curb "abnormally high" volatility amid the pandemic.

In domestic trading, the Nifty PSU Bank Index plunged 8%, while the Nifty bank index crashed nearly 10%.

The Nifty Auto Index slid 9% after several carmakers over the weekend suspended production due to the virus.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 24,2020

Kochi, Apr 24: The central government on Thursday submitted a statement in the Kerala High Court on the three petitions challenging the contract between Kerala government and US-based data analytics company Sprinklr.

Assistant Solicitor General P Vijayakumar filed the statement on behalf of the central government, which is the second respondent in the case.

The statement said that the contract between the Kerala government and Sprinklr dilutes the rights of the people. It stated the contract does not specify the amount of compensation that individuals should receive in case of breach of privacy or misuse of information.

It also said that it was not clear whether the information was collected and handed over to the data analytics firm with full consent of the patients (suspected and otherwise).

''It is always preferable to utilise the services available in the government sector for sharing sensitive data required for analytical purposes.

The Government of India has introduced the 'Aarogya Setu' application for collection of health data and about seven crore Indian citizens have already downloaded the same. All the state governments are advised to promote the said application for fighting the pandemic," the statement said.

It was further submitted that the "Government of India with the support of NIC is capable of providing all the requirements relating to data storage, processing and application which are being offered the third respondent, if a request to that effect comes from the state government."

Kerala Congress leader Ramesh Chennithala and BJP state president K Surendran had earlier approached the Kerala High Court seeking cancellation of the state government's agreement with Sprinklr for processing of data related to COVID-19 patients.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.