No, Tehelka, that is no way to deal with a sexual crime

First, a few disclosures. As an independent journalist, I write for Tehelka and my name features in the magazine as a consulting editor. But I am not privy to any more information on this issue than outsiders are. And I was not in Goa during the Think Fest. Tarun Tejpal has admitted to a “mistake” – a sexual offence for which he should be punished. For me, the “mistake” itself does not diminish Tejpal the journalist. Of course, it exposes Tejpal the person, but as a professional he was not preaching high standards of sexual morality. A corruption case, on the other hand, would certainly have demolished the kind of moral ground he occupied as a journalist. What damages the credibility of Tejpal the journalist is the arbitrary and non-transparent (and pompous) way in which he dealt with the crime he has already admitted to. And it is not merely about deciding one’s own punishment. [caption id=“attachment_1242563” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Tarun Tejpal. AFP.[/caption] Shoma Chaudhury is being criticized for terming the issue “an internal matter” of the organisation. Perhaps, it was the wrong choice of a word because, like it or not, “internal settlement” is routinely the preferred means of dealing with such issues for both the accused and the accuser. Not too long ago, one of the industry’s mightiest editors apparently settled a sexual harassment case by paying his colleague an “eight-digit compensation”. Frankly, I would not have been scandalized if this case was also “settled” to the satisfaction of the complainant. She wanted an internal probe as per norms. She has not got it yet. But Tejpal has already pleaded guilty. Unless there is a disagreement between the complainant and the accused on the crime and its extent, the purpose of an organizational probe has already been served (Tehelka does needs the statutory panel for the future and is admittedly in the process of setting one up). The problem, therefore, is in Tehelka’s claim that the complainant was “satisfied” with the steps taken – Tejpal’s unconditional apology and so-called leave of atonement for six months. I would have no problem with such a “settlement” as long as the complainant was satisfied with it. It turns out, she is not. Was there a settlement? Was Tehelka given to understand that the complainant was satisfied? Did Tehelka push her to accept the settlement? Did she change her mind afterwards? We do not know the answers. It would be easier for all if the complainant spoke out and cleared the air. But because she did not, it becomes more important for Tehelka to spell out how the issue was dealt with internally. By not doing so yet, it has already risked its high standards of transparency and probity. This afternoon, Chaudhury sought some time to “act correctly”. Apart from setting up an in-house cell, she must ensure that the complainant is, for want of a better word, “satisfied”. As for Tejpal, due process of law must follow to determine the gravity of the crime he has already admitted to. And then, the due punishment. This is an extraordinary development and I do not envy Chaudhury’s situation. But there is still time for Tehelka to deal with it the right way, the difficult way. It may take a lot of her but the young complainant, and the profession, deserves much better. I, for one, will have no issues engaging with Tejpal the journalist, if he faces the consequence of his “mistake”. If he does not, he will end up discrediting the professional integrity and the institution he built.