Left, Right and Tejpal

The TOI-Tejpal episode exposes the hypocrisy of the very vocal Twitterati.

WrittenBy:Arunabh Saikia
Date:
Article image
  • Share this article on whatsapp

South Delhi is in turmoil.  An editor accused of rape was invited to a literary festival in Mumbai, which resulted in an outrage overdrive on social media over the weekend. On Monday, though, the organisers, evidently under pressure from social media (let’s discount conspiracy theories about it being a marketing gimmick), issued a statement saying that they have “regretfully withdrawn the invitation” to him.

subscription-appeal-image

Support Independent Media

The media must be free and fair, uninfluenced by corporate or state interests. That's why you, the public, need to pay to keep news free.

Contribute

The Twitterati is now patting itself on the back for managing to make the media house cower down to its demands. So is it all hunky-dory now? Not really, and for reasons more than one. Crucially, the least important of them has to do with Tarun Tejpal being guilty (or not).

First, while detractors said it was ironic that Tejpal was invited to speak at the Times Of India Literary Festival on the subject of “Tyranny of Power”, it could have, in fact, been a great opportunity for the public to get insights into the mind of someone who has allegedly used his power tyrannically, without the filter of lawyers or an editorial process. Also, if public opinion – which the liberal Twitter point of view does not always represent – is so heavily against him, why not let him face the music and be publicly lacerated? Nothing like publicly embarrassing a man of power.

Second, Twitter’s new avatar as judge and jury is based on the highly dangerous and fundamentally-flawed foundation of public opinion, which is rarely free of vested interests and biases.

In this case, for instance, the outrage is not only from the Left-Liberals but also from the Right-Wing, which views Tejpal as a natural adversary because of Tehelka’s journalism. While both sides have come together in their opposition to Tejpal, both sides seem to have conveniently forgotten that their real grounds of grouse are completely different.

If it is a question of a woman’s right of choice and personal space, why does the Right-Wing not see anything objectionable with the Gujarat government’s institutionalised snooping on a young woman? Would Swapan Dasgupta who took a moral high ground by deciding not to attend the lit-fest, call out the Bharatiya Janata Party for having a rape accused as a Cabinet minister?

This is not to say that two wrongs make a right, but it is important to point towards the fact that the Right-Wing’s outrage was more of a result of opportunism than heartfelt concern.

On the other hand, the Left’s lack of tolerance towards any outlook that doesn’t align with their worldview is well-known and Twitter is often the outlet for such outrage. The Left Liberals of our country are also equally guilty of vested interests as far as this episode is concerned – and much as they deny it, a lot of the indignation in this case stems from the professional and private rivalries that Tejpal seems to have inculcated.

If it was genuine rage about a woman being sexually violated, why then did a certain Goan author – very much part of the Left clique – continue to make appearances in literary festivals despite allegations of sexual misconduct? That too, while his contemporaries – male and female alike – who are very vocal in the case of Tejpal, maintained a convivial silence. Surely, there can’t be two yardsticks for friends and rivals?

The Left Liberals pretty much bulldozed their way through Twitter to pressure the Times Group to cancel Tejpal’s invitation. This, to put it bluntly, smacks of a desperate attempt to use a fallen man to project themselves as epitomes of morality and virtue.

As far as this case is concerned, they have been uncomfortable with the idea of a contesting view right from the start. It happened when Newslaundry published an article on the allegations against Tejpal just after the news broke that didn’t conform to the established social media narrative on it. Journalist and writer  Nilanjana Roy even stated that she would no longer read anything on the website. Why? Because amid the countless articles that Newslaundry has published on sexual violence, there was this one piece which didn’t happen to be in sync with her views on the subject.

Ms Roy  was invited for the TOI Literary Festival. Notably, this time, she couldn’t muster enough indignation to say she would not attend the event. Instead, she posted a meek Twitter status expressing “concerns” about TOI inviting an accused “in a #VAW case”. While she, like others, may now claim victory on getting TOI to uninvite Tejpal, it is important to mention here that the festival director has stood by her decision to invite a rape accused in the first place. Is that not reason enough for her and other outraged writers to boycott the festival? Or does boycotting a literary festival, as opposed to a website, have too much commercial implication?

For the record, Newslaundry was one of the first platforms to carry a piece condemning both Tejpal and Shoma Chaudhry’s reactions to the accusation of rape. In keeping with Newslaundry’s policy of bringing disparate opinions and views on a subject, Newslaundry published a variant view. In the black and white world of those who love simple answers, this was deemed as support for Tejpal, which it clearly was not.  In any case, if I were so convinced about the infallibility of my conviction on a subject, I’d hardly bother to take to the streets (Twitter in this case) to ask people to shun a conflicting point of view. The disdain for any opposing view on the subject was across platforms.

When a writer friend wrote a piece questioning the new rape laws in the context of this case, he was ostracised to the point of being called a misogynist rambler. When Manu Joseph reported on the incident, after having spoken to both sides involved in the story, he was accused of presenting a blinkered narrative because he pointed out certain inconsistencies.

Joseph followed his journalistic tenets and did what is expected from a journalist – present all the facts and sides to the story.  Yes, there is the question of whether he should have viewed the CCTV footage – as it was being placed as evidence. But there was nothing illegal in what he did. Unethical? Maybe. Speaking of which, did friends of the victim writing on the issue follow the basic journalistic principle of issuing full disclosures of their proximity and personal equations with the victim and Tejpal? I never noticed any such disclosure in the many pieces I’ve read on the entire episode.

The narrative on this case has been marred by serious double standards. When the story was first reported, several people objected to the graphic details being reported. Incidentally, the same set of people had gone all out – and rightly so – while reporting on the Delhi gang rape of 2012. It was the presence of the graphic details of the brutality in the reportage that resulted in so much public outrage. Why then should the rules be different for someone from our own profession and dare I say it, social class? In fact, Tejpal’s demeanour after the incident, which many people didn’t want to be revealed because it gave away too much graphic details, has been instrumental in shaping public opinion.

Let’s face it, Twitter’s reaction to the issue has to a large extent been personal-agenda driven. Tejpal, with his attempts at colouring public opinion following the incident (it has been related many times over that emails were leaked by his daughters, family members approached people with the CCTV footage asking them to write about it, he himself hid in journalist Vinod Mehta’s drawing room during a TV panel discussion and fed Mehta the right answers to the anchor’s questions), is a man most love to hate.

He is not exactly Mr Goody-Two-Shoes (as is evident from his treatment of Mathew Samuel, the man who actually made Tehelka the brand it is). But none of this is enough reason to ban him from appearing in public and demand he be socially ostracised.

Tejpal is as much a criminal as any other person who is accused of a crime, but yet to be convicted. He has as much right as an Amit Shah or even a Binayak Sen for that matter to attend public meetings and speak on any issue – even “Tyranny of Power”.

And did I mention that as far as the country’s legal system goes: he is innocent until proven guilty.

Update: Nilanjana Roy has communicated to us that she did in fact write to the organisers saying that she wouldn’t be able to attend the event if Tarun Tejpal was part of it.

subscription-appeal-image

Power NL-TNM Election Fund

General elections are around the corner, and Newslaundry and The News Minute have ambitious plans together to focus on the issues that really matter to the voter. From political funding to battleground states, media coverage to 10 years of Modi, choose a project you would like to support and power our journalism.

Ground reportage is central to public interest journalism. Only readers like you can make it possible. Will you?

Support now

You may also like