The Curious Case of Shoma Chowdhry

The details of the Tehelka sexual harassment case have been the public domain too long and have been repeated too often to bear repetition.  While mostly it appears to be an open-and-shut case of molestation at the workplace, there is one very curious aspect in the case: reading all the media reports, one would almost think of Shoma as a perpetrator in this shameful episode, as much as Tejpal himself.  Isn’t that surprising?

Consider what Shoma has said or done.

a)      She overrode any explanations Tejpal tried to offer, and forced him to issue a direct and specific apology in writing. Tejpal’s email is the single most crucial piece of evidence, an admission of guilt that validates the accusation. Shoma actually nailed Tejpal, in fact more vitally than the injured girl’s horrific description. How many sexual harassment case investigations have begun with this sort of acceptance on record?

 

 

 

b)       She got him to remove himself from his position of authority. Despite all the fun made in the media of the word “recuse,” about this recusal being nothing more than a paid holiday or sabbatical, what Shoma achieved was procedurally vital. As an accused in a molestation case, Tejpal’s position as the head of the institution was untenable. This is even more remarkable, considering that the ownership details tumbling out clearly establish that Tejpal is Tehelka.

 

 

 

c)      One of Shoma’s justifications for overruling Tejpal’s version, she says, is that even if the encounter was consensual, given their unequal status in the publication’s hierarchy, the junior colleague and the rest of the organization’s sense of betrayal is justified. This shows a very clear and nuanced understanding of issues surrounding inappropriate relationships at the workplace.

 

 

 

d)      Shoma has been dragged over hot coals for not having lodged a police complaint right away. She says it is the victim’s prerogative. As yet it is not clear why the victim or her family and friends have not lodged a police complaint (the current investigation commenced on the basis of Goa administration taking suo moto cognizance). The legal obligations of the employer – whether you need to go to the police after an internal inquiry or before, whether you respect the victim’s choice of privacy – are all matters still being discussed in the media. What is absolutely clear, though, is that there was no attempt to hide this or brush this under the carpet. An email to all employees, worded in a way that respected the privacy of the aggrieved, yet laid the responsibility at the door of the perpetrator, can’t be projected as a “hush up.”

 

 

 

e)      It also appears, prima facie, that the victim said to Shoma that she wasn’t seeking vengeance and wanted quiet time to heal. This, apparently, was said before Shoma sent out the mail regarding Tejpal stepping down. As soon as she did that, media seems to have got wind of it. It is not clear that the girl communicated her sense of dissatisfaction and disappointment to Shoma before letting the media know of the same. Shoma did set up the investigation when she heard the girl wanted more.

 

It is no one’s case that Shoma couldn’t have handled this better, managerially. She has herself readily accepted an error in tonality, a lack of context that did not give the full picture either to employees or to the media, as well as a less-than-firm grip of events as they snow-balled beyond her control. But why question her intent? Why is the media deliberately showing her to be against the victim, on the side of Tejpal? The editorial slant is puzzling, to say the least.

 

Does this have anything to do with professional rivalry getting way too personal?

 

 

This ain't funny no more

I am part of a few groups on social networking sites  –  not as many as several other people I know, just the usual ones – a group of school batch mates, college friends, business schoolmates. The members  are not all people I would call “friends” –  I haven’t met most of them in two decades, and I really don’t know how several of them turned out as “people” – what they believe, what they read, what’s their view of the world. But having sat in the same classroom binds us, as do memories of shared lunchboxes, pranks on the school bus or the juvenile competition for more marks.

As is common in such groups, most posts are about insightful takes on life, as well as jokes, no doubt downloaded from another source and forwarded. In one of my groups, a group of former classmates, that has both, women and male members, the dominant topic of jokes was hen-pecked husbands and dominating wives.  Most jokes were witty and brought a smile to the lips.

Then, one weekend, I read a joke posted in this group that went like this.

Wife is like a TV & Girlfriend is like a MOBILE.

At home u watch TV, but when u go out u take ur MOBILE .

Sometimes u enjoy TV, but most of the time u play with ur MOBILE.

TV is free for life, but for the MOBILE, if you don't pay, the services will be terminated.

TV is big, bulky and most of the time old!

But the MOBILE is cute, slim, curvy and very portable.

Operational cost for TV is often acceptable, but for the MOBILE it is often high and demanding.

TV has a remote, MOBILE doesn't.

Most importantly, MOBILE is a two-way communication (u talk and listen), but with the TV you MUST only listen (whether you want to or not) .

Last but not least! TVs don't have viruses, but MOBILEs often do.

Take Care. Issued in Public Interest!

I protested. The joke appeared blatantly sexist. If this was not “commodification” and “objectification” of women, I don’t know what was. I found it very difficult to ignore this or laugh it off. To post it in a group of former classmates, when nearly half the class was female, seemed to take for granted that the dominant voice and the principal narrative in the group would be male-oriented, and women were the cheerleaders, present in the group only to applaud the witticisms and the implied “exploits” by posting smileys and “ha ha” promptly after every jewel. A man’s voice has been dominant in our society, and women have most often supported these voices, even to their own detriment. Would a thinking woman feel comfortable in a group where men appeared to be laughing “at” them, rather than “with” them?  Am I supposed to decide whether I am a TV or a mobile?  As a wife, am I free for life, to be taken at will?  All the references about “play with your mobile,” “operational cost,” “viruses” – what is one to make of them?

Why has woman-bashing become such an accepted form of humor that we don’t even realize how offensive it is?  Most people will not even relate with the outrage that I feel. They will not understand what there is in this “harmless” joke to get so upset about. They will read this as an over-reaction, a rant of a “feminist” with too much angst on her mind, and too much time on her hands. “Such jokes are common,” “Don’t take it personally,” I have been told. And that’s precisely the problem, I reckon.

When Sriprakash Jaiswal, a cabinet minister, says, “Like an old victory, wives lose charm as time goes by," he is literally dragged over hot coals, cases are filed against him in courts and media makes a big issue of it. But when our own friends in our social network groups post remarks that are several times more offensive, we must laugh them off, to earn our right to be equal members of what is essentially a men’s club? Unless a woman enjoys and laughs at cheap male humor, she is not progressive enough?

The response within the group to my protest has been interesting. A male friend who works in the corporate world, who had a very fair temperament even in our school days, and has no doubt been the peer and mentor of several very capable women in his work and social life, was the first one to step forward very promptly. To his credit, he apologized on behalf of the entire group, to all women on the group for something HE had NOT posted, and requested others to desist from posting such sexist comments. Others have been more circumspect, posting messages extolling the virtues of women, or have gone back to lamenting the plight of hen-pecked husbands. Yet others have been cautiously watchful as the situation unfolds. All very funny. But I am not sure most people have understood the root of my disagreement.

Someone said– there is no definition of pornography. But I know it when I see it. The same goes for humor. There is a fine line, beyond which jokes stop being funny. They start to reinforce stereotypes of women as objects and commodities, "things to be played with." Today, social networks play a very important role in reflecting how the society is thinking. Men have to realize that the onus is on them to create workspaces and fun-spaces where women feel respected and welcome to collaborate and enjoy. Women have to realize that the onus is on them to draw the line, and make clear what is not acceptable. Quiet withdrawal would be a poor option.

Tragedy, Drama, Emotion, Action…In a Jungle near You

At five pm, the August Kranti express leaves Nizamuddin station, and brings you to Sawai Madhopur at 8:30 the same evening. Barely four hours away from Delhi is a jungle that is teeming with tales of intrigue.  Ranthambhore has never had it better. Read on, get to know the residents and all the juice from some recent sightings (with a heavy dash of spice and gossip)!

•  

Zalim is a fierce tiger with a reputation for chasing and scaring motorcycle riders. He sired two female cubs with the Kachchida female. Now, tigers are supposed to be the solitary types. The mother has the responsibility of bringing up the cubs and teaching them the ways of the jungle, but once they are old enough, they part ways. The father is not known to bear such maternal instincts and the male cub would be lucky to not be killed by dad.

In this particular instance though, tragedy struck. The Kachchida female died due to some illness, and the little cubs were left to fend for themselves. Defying his name, and surprising the tiger experts, Zalim took the two little cubs under his wing, took care of them and protected them till they were old enough. Metrosexual male?

•  

Sultan, the naughty little cub of Noor and Ustad doesn’t yet know the ways of the jungle. Playing by his mother’s side, he ventured into the bushes, and troubled a sleeping bear. The bear would have scolded the little cub, because the poor little dear came scampering back and hid behind mama and cried. So off went mama into the bushes, and had a word with the bear. A lot of roaring and growling was heard from behind the bushes, and when Noor came back, Sultan clung to her. The mother licked him all over to soothe his frayed nerves, and off they went to play some more!

•  

Noor and Ustad were seen sharing a neelgai kill. Their full tummies were hanging low. In the spirit of putting leftover food in the fridge, Ustad was seen dragging the neelgai’s head to the Futa Kot pond and dropping it in the water to keep it cool. He then bared his teeth to warn everyone else to stay away and settled down in the pond for a nap.

•  

The Rani of Ranthambhore, Machhli, who has given numerous litters and a glorious reputation to the jungle, ruled over Rajbagh and Padam Talao for several years. She is now old and has retired to Lakardah. The dominant female from her last litter, Sundari, seemed to have inherited the Rajbagh territory from her, and tiger watchers had very nearly anointed her the new queen of the jungle. Then cupid struck, and Sundari found love with Star. However, Sundari was also seen in the company of Zalim. This must have angered Star, because Sundari and Star reportedly had a serious tiff (both were seen injured afterwards). The disagreement turned so serious that Sundari left Rajbagh to deliver her litter (the paternity of which was uncertain). Then last week, Sundari’s  three cubs were seen in the company of Zalim, fuelling suspicion that he was in fact the real father! Star, meanwhile, is lording it over Rajbagh, the prime territory in Ranthambhore.

History repeats itself. Sundari’s sister, Krishna, whose three cubs Suraj, Chanda and Akash are now reasonably grown, is available once more on the dating scene, and was going out with Zalim, until one fine morning two weeks ago, when she ditched him and was seen in the arms of Star. The sisters have the two guys running a merry dance around them. Zalim was seen moping around with a long face. Raees, the local guide is convinced that unless Krishna mates with Zalim, to buy peace, the safety of her future litter would be in serious jeopardy!

•  

Meantime, all eyes are peeled for Sundari, who has kept a remarkably low profile the past three months. The forest officers are desperately looking for her at the time of writing this story. Will she live up to the early potential she demonstrated, and inherit the mantle of the Queen from her mother? Her sister Krishna has cosied up to Star and has the run of Rajbagh for now. Will Sundari return to reclaim the prime territory, and earn the title of the Lady of the Lakes, by which her mother was known? Will she oust Star in battle, or will she offer him the delights of heaven to seal a political alliance? Or will she meekly retire to another territory, disappointing the thousands of Machhli fans? Will she be found at all, or has a tragedy struck Ranthambhore again? Watch this space as the drama unfolds.

Rape and the Objectification of Women - Keep the Two Discussions Separate

Several times in the last few weeks, the discourse against rape has run into lambasting the deplorable way in which women are often depicted in popular media, be it in films or in advertisements. I recommend that we pick our battles. Discussions on the objectification of women, important though they are, will distract from the very simple argument that all rapes are criminal and have no justification.

The discussion about objectification enters areas that are often subjective and open to arguments and counter-arguments. Silk Smitha's career could be seen by some as an example of exploitation and objectification. When Vidya Balan replays the same life on screen, she is celebrated as an example of empowerment through choice. We rail against item girls, but Malaika Arora Khan is laughing all the way to the bank. She would, I am sure, fiercely defend her right to practice her perfectly legitimate profession.

The "objectification" debate may even be misused, to place some of the blame for men behaving like beasts, at the door of women. It may support, in a wierd sense, a rapist's defence that he was conditioned into thinking of women as "bodies," or that he was "provoked" into raping. The case against rape is open and shut, black and white. Let us not go looking for grey areas.

Take the example of the most extreme form of objectification - prostitution. A customer puts a value on a human body and pays to use it for a certain period of time. Does this mean that a prostitute is not entitled, by law, to protection against rape?

There is indeed a difference between the argument against the objectification of women, and moral policing. But it will take a considerably evolved mind to understand the difference. In the currently charged atmosphere when everyone and their grandfathers have jumped in with both feet, one argument will very quickly run into another. The fine line between aesthetic sensuality and objectification will be, and indeed, has been, quickly and conveniently misinterpreted as the 'Lakhman rekha' that women must stay within. At this stage of the battle, when an unprecedented momentum has built up in society to demand change in the way it deals with rape, let us keep the arguments clear, and culpability focussed. Let us not allow anyone to fudge the issue.

This does not mean that we must let popular media get away with the harassment it legitimizes on screen. The greatest superstars of the day have harassed women on screen, and been rewarded with the lady's eventual acquiescence. The censor board that pushes the argument of 'role model' to insert warnings against smoking, must give greater priority to warning people against emulating such offensive behaviour.

Let us, at this point, keep the battle simple and focussed. No woman, objectified or not, may be raped. Full stop.