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?
