POSTED BY Sundeep Dougal ON Nov 22, 2013 AT 21:29 IST ,  Edited At: Nov 22, 2013 21:29 IST


Ever since news came in that the Goa Police had registered a rape case against Tarun Tejpal in response to a young journalist's charges of sexual assault against him, there was a change of stance, instead of this being touted as an "internal matter" or counter questions about whether or not one was an aggrieved party, we now suddenly started hearing insinuations about there being different versions of what had actually happened, and whether what had earlier been dismissed as an "untoward incident" was, in the words of Tehelka managing editior, "consensual or non-consensual".

The following text from Tarun Tejpal, purportedly sent to his friends, also did the rounds today:

All my actions so far were out of an attempt to preserve the girl's dignity and on Shoma's adamantine feminist-principle insistence that I keep correct form by apologising. The truth is it was a fleeting, totally consensual encounter of less than a minute in a lift (of a two-storey building!) Now that a committee has been announced the truth will come out. As will the cctv footage. My life and work have been trashed on a total lie.

Earlier in the day, Tejpal himself put out a statement:

There have been serious allegations cast on me in this last week, and unfortunately as sometimes happens in life, the complete truth and the need to do the honorable thing can come into conflict. In this case this anguish was accentuated by the fact that very many intimate people, professional and personal, were involved.

For four days, as demanded by Shoma Chaudhury, the managing editor, and the recipient of the complaint, I have tried to do what was honorably demanded of me. On Tuesday I issued an apology for the alleged misconduct, as desired by the journalist through Shoma Chaudhury. On Wednesday I stepped down from the editorship of Tehelka and removed myself from the office premises. On Thursday I learnt of  the formation of the complaints committee.  

I offer my fullest cooperation to the police and all other authorities, and look to  presenting all the facts of this incident to it. I also urge the committee and the police to obtain, examine and release the cctv footage so that the accurate version of events stands clearly revealed. 

Tarun J Tejpal

Tehelka managing editor Shoma Chaudhury mentioned on NDTV that Tejpal and she were being judged solely on the "wrong tonality" of the earlier leaked emails, and that the unconditional apology that Tarun Tejpal had given the complainant could perhaps help place Tehelka's behaviour in context.

We have been able to get a copy of the "unconditional apology" that Tarun Tejpal wrote to the young journalist on Tuesday, November 19, which, inter alia, clearly states:

I apologise unconditionally for the shameful lapse of judgement that led me to attempt a sexual liaison with you on two occasions on 7 November and 8 November 2013, despite your clear reluctance that you did not want such attention from me.

That even this 'unconditional apology' itself was insincere becomes clear from the response to this email by the young journalist who writes categorically:

The use of the words “sexual liaison” is a clear misrepresentation of facts, and an attempt to obfuscate the truth — that he sexually molested me, on two separate occasions and that he violated my bodily integrity and trust.

Clearly, we need to see today's spin about a "totally consensual encounter" in the context of the whole sequnce of events -- -- the "recusal", the "atonement", the stated need for a "penance that lacerates", the "unqualified apology", the refusal to set up a committee, the refusal to lodge a complaint, the rush to hush up the case, the about-turn when it is established that the charge of rape actually is made out under the amended law, the flipflops in their emails, in their appearances on TV, and the committee that they finally announced, insisting all this while that they would not co-operate with the police, and then the convenient and sudden insinuations of how there are"two versions" but that it did not really matter whether it was "consensual or non-consensual[" and then eventually to how it was all about the dignity of the woman in question -- and the following emails that provide a pretty detailed account of what actually happened on the nights of Nov 7 and 8.

Postscript: Edited to add at 10:46 PM: the Indian Express is carrying a report by Ritu Sarin: It’s a lie, I am being framed, says Tarun Tejpal, blaming "political forces driving much of it":

"It is a totally mendacious account of what happened, in its details, in its tonalities, in its very suggestion of non-consensus." 

"In cold light of day, much of it will sound unsavoury, but now the inquiry will reveal it all" 

Tejpal also said that the allegation by the journalist that he told her the best way to keep her job was by not resisting his advances, was a "half-truth". "This is one of the half-truths she's voiced. Nothing of this, as she states, was said or intended," he said.

"My lawyers know I am being framed, and are also aware of the political forces driving much of it now," he added.

Full text of the email sent by Tarun Tejpal to the young journalist on November 19, 2013. The journalist's response of November 21 follows this email:


Dear XXX,

This is the hardest thing I will ever do in my life. You are a young woman I have been very proud of, as a colleague’s daughter, and then as a colleague in my own office. I have watched you grow and mature professionally into a journalist of great integrity and promise.

It wrenches me beyond describing, therefore, to accept that I have violated that long-standing relationship of trust and respect between us and I apologise unconditionally for the shameful lapse of judgement that led me to attempt a sexual liaison with you on two occasions on 7 November and 8 November 2013, despite your clear reluctance that you did not want such attention from me.

I understand the extreme distress you have been feeling and if regret could turn time back, the force of mine would surely place us all back in a space and time before this terrible lapse.

I know you feel I used my position as Editor, Tehelka to force my attention on you, and I acknowledge that I did at one point say to your contention that I was your boss, “That makes it simpler,” but I do want to put on record that the moment those words escaped my lips, I retracted them saying “I withdraw that straight away – no relationship of mine has anything at all, ever, to do with that”. I want to reiterate that again today: despite my colossal lapse, working and succeeding in Tehelka will never be predicated on anyone acquiescing to anything untoward. It never has and never will. Having said that though, I acknowledge that there is an inherent disbalance of power in my position as editor-in-chief and you as an employee of Tehelka and there is absolutely no ground or circumstance in which I should have violated the propriety and trust embedded in that relationship.

Tehelka has a proud legacy and body of work, to which you yourself and legions of other journalists have contributed. As the founder and editor-in-chief, I have helmed and nurtured this proud institution, and I cannot imagine what insanity drove me to compromise these long, proud years of trust and public work.

There are many, many reasons, therefore, why I am smothered with regret. But I want you to know that foremost among them is the fact that I have hurt you and broken your trust in me, and that of many others around me. I have often spoken for the absolute rights and freedoms of women, and it shames me beyond words, to find myself located in this awful context. I would say it was a moment of insanity, except that would mean evading responsibility for it, and that I will not do. I hold myself, first and last, accountable.

I know Shoma has urged you not to leave Tehelka, and even as I acknowledge that I have lost the right to say this to you, I would urge you not to leave either. At the very least, I would like to assure you that the space to do your work proudly and freely, without worrying about fear or favour, will always be available to you here.

For long years, you have known a different man, a man and editor you trusted and were proud to know. In extreme contrition, I would like you to know that but for this unconscionable lapse, that man still exists and holds you in highest regard.

If an apology can heal, please consider this an unconditional one.



In response to this email, the complainant responded on November 21, in an email to Tehelka managing editor Shoma Chaudhury that Tejpal's account of what happened on the 7th and 8th of November differed from hers on the following counts:

1. The use of the words “sexual liaison” is a clear misrepresentation of facts, and an attempt to obfuscate the truth — that he sexually molested me, on two separate occasions and that he violated my bodily integrity and trust.

2. He did not even once, utter the words “I withdraw that straight away – no relationship of mine has anything at all, ever, to do with that”. I have written this in my response to his ‘private’ email to me as well, which is cc’d to you and my colleagues who have known about him sexually molesting me from the 7th of November.

She went on to also point out:

In conversations with my colleagues you have said that you do not contest the facts of my testimony, which is why you do not see it necessary to constitute an anti sexual harassment cell as per the Vishakha guidelines in this case. However, given that his apology presents an entirely different version from my testimony, i.e. attempts to establish that a “sexual liaison” took place as opposed to him sexually molesting me, I insist once again in the spirit of justice, to constitute an anti sexual harassment cell in accordance with the Vishakha guidelines to investigate this matter. 

She also asked Chaudhury to:

publicly withdraw your statement that I or other Tehelka journalists are “satisfied”, since my colleagues do not know the full extent of what was done to me, and I am deeply hurt that as my mentor, you could suggest in any way that this blatant misrepresentation of facts would be satisfactory to me. 

POSTED BY Sundeep Dougal ON Nov 22, 2013 AT 21:29 IST ,  Edited At: Nov 22, 2013 21:29 IST
Follow us on Twitter for all updates, like us on Facebook for important and fun stuff

Post a Comment
Share your thoughts
You are not logged in, please log in or register
Must See
Daily Mail
Nov 28, 2013
11:27 AM


Even arch rivals in political viewpoints can be good friends. The best example from South India is the long friendship between Conservative Hindu Rajaji and the atheist, anti Hindu EV Ramaswamy. Their friendship extended to personal domain and the latter consulted rajaji during his decision to remarry, even as his(EVR's) own assocaite (annadurai) split and opposed. Right after this EVR launched his opposition to Rajaji's heriditary education policy and quite some mudslinging too, but Rajaji did not drop his friendship.

Closer in recent times, NaMo's tweet expressing concern on Sonia's health (after the FSB was passed) was in same spirit but failed since it was one sided - the hatred that the dynasty has towards this former tea seller is legendary .(Merchant of Death stuff)

JJ Vs KK (tamilnadu's present and former CM) rivalry is bitter, and well known but less known is that both have defined NO GO areas for their rivalry !!!!

Delhi, India
Nov 28, 2013
11:21 AM

 K Suresh >> hair or face ?

Neither hair or face loss matters, what matters is whether the Cult/Fan following that Tejpal had continues to remain. So long as Rapist Tejpal is found to be useful by the Queen Saint of our naton, he does remain relevant to his cult of fans.

Delhi, India
Nov 28, 2013
11:15 AM

"He seems to have lost a lot of hair."

hair or face ?

Bangalore, India
Nov 28, 2013
07:27 AM

 Is this a recent photograph of Tejpal? He seems to have lost a lot of hair.

Chennai, India
Nov 28, 2013
07:25 AM

 Saroja (24),

Someone please clarify this. Tarun Tejpal through his counsel Geeta Luthra claims that BJP is targetting him. Geeta Luthra and Pinky Anand are friends and associates. Pinky Anand is a BJP spokesperson..

What's to clarify? At the top, there are very few lawyers and all of them know each other and quite probably are friends. There is no problem with professional adversaries being friends out of court. Unless you choose your friends according to their political opinions, you must have some with whom you severely disagree. I know that I do.

A lawyer is paid to defend his client to the best of his/her abilities and need not necessarily believe in the guilt or innocence of the client. If the client wishes a particular argument, in this case - "This is a BJP conspiracy" - he must give his professional advice on whether it is a good ploy or not, but cannot refuse to argue that line in court. There is no conflict of interest unless the two friends share information. n this case Pinky Anand is not even a party to these judicial proceedings.

PS. There is an American legal soap called "The Practice" where the prosecutor (District Attorney) and the defence attorney are roommates and best friends who frequently face off in court.

Chennai, India
Order by
Order by
Short Takes
click for more
recent tags
Arts & Culture
Madhavi Tata
Moral Police
A. Sanzgiri
Boria Majumdar
Dr Mohammad Taqi
Freya Dasgupta
G. Rajaraman
K.V. Bapa Rao
Landing Lights
Maheshwer Peri
Namrata Joshi
Omar Ali
Our Readers Write Back
Outlook Web Desk
Outlook Web Desk
Prarthna Gahilote
Shefalee Vasudev
Srishti Gupta
Sundeep Dougal
Sunil Menon
recent comments
During the eighth edition of the Ramnath Goenka Excellence...
Poll Started on: Nov 24, 2015
Belgium may be famous for its chocolate, beer and for...
Srishti Gupta


OUTLOOK TOPICS:    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   
Or just type in a few initial letters of a topic: