Live-in relationship no sin: SC

The Supreme Court has ruled that a live-in relationship not sanctified by marriage is neither a crime nor a sin. The judgment came while the bench was adjudicating dispute between a live-in couple, wherein a lady sought maintenance from a man after the relationship came to an end.

On the back of this ruling, the apex court bench headed by Justice K S Radhakrishnan regretted that there are no statutes to regulate live-in relationships, and has has asked Parliament to frame laws that will protect women in such relationships, and also the children born outside of wedlock.

"Live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country," the apex court ruled. "The decision to marry or not to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship is intensely personal."

Arguing that when such relationships break down, it is invariably the women who suffer, the SC said however that it was not asking the Legislature to promote pre-marital sex. However, the bench said, it was time to take cognizance of the fact that such relationships are increasingly prevalent, and in many cases long-standing. The bench, however, added that an adulterous relationship did not come within the ambit of this ruling.

"Polygamy, that is a relationship or practice of having more than one wife or husband at the same time, or a relationship by way of a bigamous marriage that is marrying someone while already married to another and/or maintaining an adulterous relationship that is having voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person who is not one's husband or wife, cannot be said to be a relationship in the nature of marriage," it said.

Pointing out that such live-in relationships were increasingly prevalent in society across the world, the bench said "Courts and legislatures of various countries have now begun to think that denying certain benefits to a certain class of persons on the basis of their marital status is unjust where the need of those benefits is felt by both unmarried and married cohabitants. Courts in various countries have extended certain benefits to heterosexual unmarried cohabitants. Legislatures too, of late, through legislations started giving benefits to heterosexual cohabitants."

While asking Parliament to draft appropriate laws, the apex court laid down certain guard rails. It said the duration of period of relationship, shared household, pooling of resources and financial and domestic arrangements, entrusting the responsibility, sexual relationship, bearing children, and intention and conduct of the parties are some of the criteria to be considered while determining the nature of a relationship between two parties.

While delineating the characteristics of such a relationship, the bench said socializing as a couple, having children and sharing the responsibility of their upbringing, entrusting responsibilities to the woman to run the home, acquiring property and assets jointly or in the name of the woman are all strong indications of a live-in relationship as recognized by law. 

http://in.news.yahoo.com/live-in-relationship-no-sin--sc-033801702.html

Why the Aarushi Talwar case is a rape of justice

Tuesday , November 26

At the heart of the CBI's case in the Aarushi Talwar-Hemraj Banjade double murder is a perverted patriarchal fantasy. The CBI and Noida police are convinced that 14-year-old Aarushi was having an "affair" with 45-year-old domestic help, Hemraj. It was, after all, because of this "affair" that father Rajesh in a fit of rage, on seeing Aarushi and Hemraj in an "objectionable intimate position" killed them both due to grave provocation. Ah, the lurid fantasies of the porn-suffused brain! The deadly mix of lascivious prejudice and moral puritanism that grips our mind when we think of "young women" these days. The automatic suspicion of endless orgies and extravagant nudity with which a brutally patriarchal society gazes at a "modern" young woman's bare arms, clothes and lifestyle. How excitingly value-less these young are, whisper the puritan-pornographers in vicarious glee.

How have the police reached this conclusion of an "affair" between Aarushi and Hemraj? After all this is THE fulcrum of the case, this is THE fundamental pivot on which the entire case turns. Is there any evidence of this fundamentally important "affair"? None whatsoever. Has the CBI in these last five years been able to produce any neighbour, friend, family, observer, and local domestic to help corroborate their story of this so-called affair? No. Do the local chowkidars or maids say Aarushi was having this "affair"? No. Do any of Aarushi's friends believe she was having this "affair"? No. Has any local help caught a glimpse of this "affair"? No.

What an efficiently well-hidden affair it was indeed! The 14-year-old girl was wicked, fallen and obviously very clever too! Must be those T-shirts she used to wear - never trust young girls who wear those tight-fitting T-shirts and smile invitingly into the camera! And since she was below the age of consent it wasn't an affair either, Hemraj was in fact committing an act of rape.

The police, CBI, courts and media remain convinced of this "affair" because in the khap panchayat of our minds, where sexual fantasy combines with misogynist prejudice, minds in which lustful males perpetually couple with nubile young things, where a growing young woman is first and foremost a sexual, promiscuous object, in this prejudiced mind, Aarushi is the 14-year-old Lolita who is defined primarily by her sexuality. Male journalists covering the story drool at the subtext of the story - there is such sinfully exciting frisson in the newsroom from the saga about sex-and-a-14-year-old schoolgirl!

At a notorious press conference - and I used this word advisedly, as that press conference was nothing short of notorious - held by IG Meerut Range Gurudarshan Singh on 12 July 2008, IG Singh simply could not remember Aarushi's name. Sometimes he called her Anupama, sometimes he called her Anuradha. Yet he announced in ringing tones to the public that the-girl-whose-name-I-can't-remember was having an affair with Hemraj and this is why her father killed her in an "honour killing". IG Singh provided a verdict before even the evidence had been properly collected. In the policeman's mind Aarushi is not 14-year-old Aarushi, she is a Sexually Oriented Young Woman of The Modern Era. She Wears Jeans. She Wears Sleeveless Tops. Thus she has affairs. Who cares what her name is and what the facts of the case are? Who cares what the evidence is? This is how it is in the world of "posh" and "influential" people.

The media, which functioned as the trumpeting cheerleading B team of the police and CBI throughout in his case, excitedly bought the police version, male journalists privately sniggering about the posters on Aarushi's walls.

Post Nirbhaya, as we confront the violent narrow-mindedness and hatred that exists in our society towards "modern young women", the attitudes and prejudices of police, courts and media towards Aarushi have been nothing short of revolting, downright nauseating.

Read the Aarushi-Hemraj case in detail and you will see that the police and CBI have absolutely no case. There is not a shred of evidence against the Talwars. There is not a shred of evidence that Aarushi was having an "affair" with Hemraj. In fact, her friends have suggested that on the contrary, Hemraj was a father figure to Aarushi. Throughout the case, while CBI has brought 39 witnesses, the Talwars have not been allowed to call their the 14 other witnesses they wanted, they have not been allowed to call for forensic slides, narco test details or post-mortem reports.

The CBI refused to provide Touch DNA tests to the Talwars because they were apparently too expensive. It's almost as if CBI and courts are hell-bent on convicting the Talwars, even without evidence, in some crazy cuckoo-land-protective zeal for the dead Aarushi who, over-sexy and promiscuous as she was, unfortunately earned the wrath of that bearded bulldog dad. In an earlier article I had written about the stereotypes about the Talwars that have been created by the media.

Why are the courts and police and media so eager to hunt down the Talwars?

Because in the khap panchayat mentality of our law enforcement agencies, the Talwars and Aarushi have become symbols of the so called value-less society which we crave and condemn by turn. An unassuming hard-working dentist couple, who after long hours of work, slept like logs through that hot May night like so many exhausted professionals do, living in a small flat in the suburbs have become symbols of an "upscale" "elitist" society dominated by alcohol, sex, and "wife swapping"" lifestyles. Anyone who defends the Talwars, in the eyes of the police, instantly become identified as members of a society where "posh", "influential" people run homes of dark depravity, where scantily- clad daughters prance about with domestic help where a frivolous "party circuit" seeks to protect each other through expensive lawyers and well-connected friends. Dominated by crime serials and Bollywood images, today investigative agencies are liable to see even a bottle of whisky in a house as nothing less than a mark of a House Of Sin!

In the Talwar case, this caricature has led the CBI to imagine that is fighting a people's war for morality. The CBI and courts, in their own self-image are thus idealistic revolutionaries, up against this privileged class, fighting the war of the public against a depraved aristocracy, this is CBI and courts cast in the role of peoples messiah!

May god save us from such messiahs? Question the CBI about the Aarushi case and you get immediate statements about lifestyle, influential people and shady goings on involving bottles of Ballantine's and Sula. Incidentally, the CBI court which convicted the Talwars believed that after the double murders, Rajesh Talwar drank a bottle of Ballantine's whisky, a bottle of Sula wine, a bottle of beer as well as two litres of Sprite and remained none the worse for wear. Nobody got even a whiff of all the booze on him the next morning!

In fact, Rajesh, for the CBI, is an ogre of monumental proportions who slays his daughter, slays Hemraj, drags Hemraj to the terrace with superhuman strength and then consumes vast amounts of alcohol. What on earth is such a man doing being a dentist? He should be a mafia don!

Read the court judgements on the Talwars and you will find lengthy, flatulent sermons on the depravity of society and value-lessness of the freaks of nature who inhabit the world these days. Our law enforcement agencies are clearly watching far too much TV.

The emphasis is always on moral and social perceptions, rarely on facts and evidence. The television coverage, the frenzied pictures and the crazy headlines have transformed the Aarushi-Hemraj case from one that should be based on fact and evidence, to one based on perception, moral judgement and bloodthirsty public opinion baying for punishment of those "elitist" people seen to be polluting our society. The highly coloured, distorted copy produced by newspapers is primarily responsible for this murder by perception, this rape of truth.

I have followed this case since it broke five-and-a-half years ago. I write this piece in self-reflection and in introspection at what the salacious and sensationalist media coverage has done and the manner in which a media witch hunt has served up to the gallows, two people who, I believe are innocent. All of us in the media need to introspect at the manner in which we have covered the Aarushi story. We need to ask where the gloating glee over the sexcapades of 14-year-olds, feverish whisperings about enraged fathers and "cold-as-ice killer mothers", has led us. In the race for TRPs, and sensationalist headlines, we are all part of a massive and scandalous miscarriage of justice simply because of the preconceptions we have chosen to revel in.

The first team of the CBI gave a clean chit to the Talwars and instead seemed to be accusing the domestic help. In the polygraph, brain mapping and lie detector tests, the Talwars showed no deception and no knowledge of the crime. Krishna and Rajkumar showed deception. The first team described Krishna as aggressive, disloyal prone to lies and deception.

The first team proved, on basis of sound reconstruction tests that you could not hear what was going on in Aarushi's room from the parents' room particularly if the noisy air-conditioner was on. It was proved that neither of the Talwars woke up to switch off the internet at night as the internet router goes off and on through the night, and the CBI did not include router activity in its closure report. But for some inexplicable reason, in September 2009, the first team of the CBI was suddenly changed. Why?

Consider this: In 2008, a CBI investigation officer, Anuj Arya approached veteran journalist Nalini Singh. Nalini runs a Nepali channel. Arya asked Singh if songs were playing on her channel between 11.44 pm and 11.55 pm on the intervening night of May 15-16 2008, the night Aarushi was killed. Nalini checked her FPC and found that indeed songs were playing at the time.

Arya then provided the name of the song and asked if this was the song that was playing. Nalini once again checked with her producer and confirmed yes, it was the very same Nepali song that was playing at the time. This was the same song the CBI officer had heard being hummed by Krishna and the other helps in the narco tests. If all three were humming the same song, was it not logical to assume they were watching the same song together on TV and thus were present in the room where there was a TV, namely Hemraj's room? Does this not support the conclusion that there were more people in the flat other than the Talwars, Aarushi and Hemraj, given that Hemraj's room which had access to the flat has an entry from the outside too, so there was no need for a forced entry?

A crucial bit of evidence was suppressed by the CBI. The blood and DNA of Hemraj was found on the pillow of Krishna, recovered by the police. Why did the second team of the CBI describe this entire finding as a typographical error?

The Noida police say they were forced by Dr Talwar to look for Hemraj in Nepal. The police said Talwar refused to give them the keys to the roof, a "refusal" later cited as an attempt to mislead the investigation. Why could the police not simply have broken down the roof door if they had been determined to search the premises in a professional manner?

The first CBI team found no evidence of the so called "surgical weapon" that had supposedly been used to slit Aarushi and Hemraj's throat. The first team of the CBI recovered a khukri from the house of Krishna. The first team claimed that if there is one weapon that can inflict both a sharp injury and a blunt injury, that weapon is the khukri.

An energised public opinion and a crusading media are in the mood to take on the high and mighty. These are times when abuse of domestic help and tortures inflicted by the rich employers on poor staff are chronicled every day. Who hasn't seen those shocking sights of middle class family parties at restaurants while a skinny maid stands by the door struggling with the spoilt-brat infant?

Too often the rich get away, employers get away, and poor servants are left carrying the can for the misdeeds of powerful employers. This is often the truth. But it is also often NOT the truth. We have to honour the truth by not letting the truth become a formula. We must honour the truth by not letting the truth become a lie. The truth is not a morality of play of rich vs poor. The truth is not a street theatre about evil employers vs vulnerable domestic helps when both are media creations rather than real people. The truth is to be established, case by case, irrespective of class, creed, caste or community. The truth is not reliant on who belongs to which social strata. The truth must be supported by evidence. The truth sometimes goes against public opinion. The law must uphold the truth even if it goes against public opinion and the prevailing climate.

Today Tarun Tejpal stands charged with sexual assault because nobody can refute the glaring evidence of the letters, emails and apology. But the Talwars have been sent to jail on no evidence, on cover-ups and on suppression of facts. They have been carried to jail on a swelling tide of media frenzy, public opinion, and the khap-panchayat mentality of pornography-suffused puritanism which is the hallmark of our law enforcement today.

It's time to switch off our pornography-suffused puritanical gaze in the Talwar case. It's time to stop fantasizing about the "affairs" of 14-year-old schoolgirls. It's time to stop demonising busy working parents as homicidal representatives of a "swinging" lifestyle. It's time to stop attacking those who defend the Talwars as English-speaking Marie Antoinettes who oppress servants. Social class and caste are not determinants of legal guilt. Moral judgements are no substitute for facts and evidence. The Talwars themselves re-opened the CBI closure report as they wanted a fair investigation to find their daughter's killers.

As a society we owe the dead 14-year-old and the dutiful Hemraj our commitment to the truth. Three words must animate the courts and media now as the case goes forward: evidence, evidence, and evidence.

http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/sagarikaghose/223/64959/why-the-aarushi-talwar-case-is-a-rape-of-justice.html

Pichha krti parchhaiyan

http://epaper.jansatta.com/189356/Jansatta.com/24112013#page/6/2

apology have no value?

http://epaper.jansatta.com/189356/Jansatta.com/24112013#page/6/2

'Intimidation, Character Assassination And Slander'

The aggrieved journalist resigns from Tehelka: 'It is not just Mr Tejpal who has failed me as an employer — but Tehelka that has failed women, employees, journalists and feminists collectively.

Full text of the letter of resignation letter by the young journalist, who had accused Tehelkaeditor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal of sexually assaulting her, addressed to the magazine's managing editor, Shoma Chaudhuri:
Ms. Chaudhury,

I am resigning from my position as ****** at Tehelka magazine, with immediate effect, because Tehelka's Editor-in-Chief Tarun Tejpal sexually molested me on two occasions in November this year.
I am deeply traumatized by the lack of support offered by the organization.
In such circumstances, it is untenable for me to continue to work for this organization.
At this moment, I would like to present the following facts to support my claim:
1. I was sexually molested by Tarun Tejpal on two occasions, the 7th and 8th of November 2013 at the annual Think festival in Goa this year. In the emails of apology that followed my complaint to you about Mr Tejpal’s grievous sexual misconduct, he admitted to the fact, andapologized unconditionally.
2. I requested, at the very least, for Mr Tejpal to acknowledge this apology publicly to the staff and bureau of Tehelka. While I did not want this acknowledgement to have graphic details, I asked that the words “sexual misconduct” be included. In a phone conversation with me, you asked that he be recused from doing so because he had already admitted to sexual molestation in his emails, and because we needed to “protect the institution”. In this conversation, I said, “I trust you to do the right thing”.
3. In the public acknowledgement sent to the bureau, Mr Tejpal and you referred to his act of sexual violation as “an untoward incident”— this was not an attempt to “protect the institution” but in fact, an attempt to cover up what had really occurred—the act of sexual molestation, an admission of the facts that Mr Tejpal had “attempted sexual liaison” with me (to quote his email) on two occasions despite my “reluctance to receive such attention”. Further, in conversations with my colleagues, you admitted to them that you did not see the need to set up an anti-sexual harassment cell as per the Vishaka guidelines, because you did not contest my version of what had occurred on the nights of 7th and 8th of November.
4. In your appearances on national news channels, you first attempted to establish that I was “satisfied” with Tehelka’s actions, when only one of my immediate demands from the organization had been met—namely, that Mr Tejpal had unconditionally apologized for sexually molesting me in private emails to you and I. His public acknowledgement of the apology did not include any reference to his grievous sexual misconduct, and you had still failed to set up an anti-sexual harassment cell as per Vishaka guidelines. This could, in no way, have left me “satisfied”. Further, I had responded to both of Mr Tejpal’s emails (cc'd to you and the three colleagues I had confided everything to since the 7th of November) clarifying:

1. that his behaviour could not be described as “sexual liaison”, and that was in fact an act of sexual molestation and a violation of bodily integrity and trust, since it occurred (by his own admission) despite my refusal.
2. A sexual act carried out without consent cannot be justified on any basis.
3. That after Mr Tejpal (by his own admission) had referred to his position of power over me in the organization, he did not withdraw this statement as his emails allege.

You continued to ignore my rebuttals to these emails, while insisting, in public, that I was satisfied.
5. You are now attempting to establish that Mr Tejpal has “another version” of events (as surely, any sexual predator does), and that the “encounter” may have been consensual or non-consensual. Meanwhile, on the night of the 22nd of November, an immediate member of Mr Tejpal’s family went to my mother’s house to ask her the details of my legal counsel, and what I “wanted” as a result of my complaint about being sexually molested by Mr Tejpal. In emails and text messages sent to his friends, read out on national news channels, Mr Tejpal is now claiming that what occurred was a “fleeting, consensual encounter”; and that he wrote his apologies to me because of your “adamantine feminist principles”.
Over the past years, we have collectively defended the rights of women, written about custodial rape, sexual molestation at the workplace, spoken out harshly against the culture of victim blame and the tactical emotional intimidation and character assassination of those who dare to speak out against sexual violence.
At a time when I find myself victim to such a crime, I am shattered to find the Editor in Chief ofTehelka, and you— in your capacity as Managing Editor— resorting to precisely these tactics of intimidation, character assassination and slander.
Given the sequence of events since the 7th of November, it is not just Mr Tejpal who has failed me as an employer—but Tehelka that has failed women, employees, journalists and feminists collectively.
Please consider my resignation effective immediately.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288651

'A Self-Styled Messiah'

Tarun Tejpal is a victim of his own façade, fantasies and greed. He is trapped in a skin not his own. The current scandal is not just about him. It is about abuse of power, by a journalist, an editor and a man.

MAHESHWER PERI

The stupidity of our nation gets greatly exposed with the extreme reactions to Tarun J. Tejpal—the cult following of his journalism at one end, and the lynch mobs baying for his blood, following the outing of his sexual escapades, at the other.

Tarun comes across as a sexual predator, on the prowl, in search of his next victim. He used his power and influence over young women half his age.

However, this should not take away some of the most seminal work that the journalists ofTehelka have done over the years.

Tarun’ s story in itself is an alchemy of desire. He was like most of us: chirpy, fun-loving, naughty. However, post Tehelka, he donned the robe of a saint. He became preachy and started espousing causes that he never stood for and never could.

He was nothing that the nation started acknowledging him for.

He was a normal guy with all the flaws and weaknesses.

It was a facade he had to put on for the survival of Tehelka, which was losing money, each year. Only the power exuded by Tehelka could make it viable.

He glorified himself when not due. He “owned” the company when the money came from others. He acted the hero while he was just a team member. The existence of Tehelka is not just because of Tarun.

Tehelka exists because of:

1. The financial contributions of many citizens, celebrities and most importantly [the banker] Shankar Sharma, and,
2. The work of Aniruddha Bahal and Ashish Khetan.

If Tarun’s lofty objective was to start a not-for-profit free and aggressive media enterprise, he could have made all contributors as shareholders. He crowd-funded Tehelka but did not part with ownership. The new shareholders include K.D. Singh, a Trinamul Congress MP, who bought his way into Rajya Sabha.

Any intelligent person should have cried foul then.

It is too late now.

***

Sometime in 2009 when my fledgling publication wrote against an educational institution with doubtful credentials, we got into a lot of trouble.

Editors like Aditya Sinha (New Indian Express), Vir Sanghvi (Hindustan Times), Shekhar Gupta (Indian Express) personally supported us.

We were going through multiple cases and draining all our resources.

When Tehelka decided to do a story to the subject, we were too happy. Who can espouse the cause of investigative journalism better? Only till we got the questions from the journalist. We realised that it was a story being done on behalf of the institution to throw insinuations at us.

I was very upset because I knew Tarun personally but for him, it didn’t matter. We responded professionally, sticking to facts. I dared them to do a story despite the facts. It was no coincidence that the dubious institution is Tehelka‘s biggest advertiser taking all its back covers.

The story never appeared, because our response didn’t leave any gaps. And the owner of the institution was at the THiNK fest in Goa, rubbing shoulders with the then HRD minister Kapil Sibal and gained access to a ministry that should have punished him.

Kapil Sibal later attended a special screening of a movie produced by this institution, and the picture was advertised/showcased all over to unsuspecting parents and students. For me, THiNK became a place which conducted an orgy over social issues.

I stopped following it.

***

This is not just about Tarun.

It is about abuse of power, by a journalist, an editor and a man. A self-styled messiah. Each time, they believe they can get away with unfair demands, they push the envelope further.

People in power with no humility can destroy like nothing else. The desires, fantasies and a coterie is a very potent combination. Tarun is a victim of his own facade, fantasies and greed. He was never what he was portrayed as, then and now.

He is trapped in a skin not his own. We couldn’t stop people from hailing him as God, as much as we cannot stop them from calling him a devil.

Alas. It is too late now.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288650

Sexualized Workplaces, Predatory Men And The Rage Of Women

The case of the gutsy young Tehelka journalist, who has blown the cover on the sexual assault she faced from Tarun Tejpal, underlines the need to respect the victim’s views on how she wants to deal with the situation

NIVEDITA MENON

Listen. Can you hear it? That low growl on the horizon, coming closer, growing louder? It’s the dam bursting its bounds. It’s the quiet shriek of convivial silence being ripped apart.

The silence around the normalizing of a range of behaviour from the apparently casual to the outrightly violent. The laughing sexual innuendo; the misogynist jokes; the well-known ‘displaced squeeze’ of the upper arm, the shoulders; the repeated, relentless expression of romantic or sexual interest despite clear NOs; the grabbing of the breast, the unwanted kiss, the out-of-town work trip ending in physical assault, presented as flattering interest; and through it all, the clear invocation of the power relationship.

You look great, Sir, retirement suits you, says a younger female colleague to a Professor visiting his former institution. Really, he smirks. Two other people told me this, and they are both women. What do you think it means? She smiles uncomfortably and hurries out of the office of the male head of the institution in whose presence this comment is made.

A professor in his 60s writes romantic poems to his MA student, one after the other, until she leaves the institution, never to be heard of again in academics.

A mid-level woman academic is greeted at a formal committee meeting by a former male teacher of hers, ignoring her outstretched hand, with a close hug and a kiss on her forehead. Having never been on any terms of intimacy with him, she can only…smile uncomfortably while the rest of the people at the meeting look on impassively.

A young woman journalist is told to ‘seduce’ someone to come to a high profile event by her female boss. When she protests at this terminology, the boss tells her not to be so sensitive. To have a sense of humour.

The male teacher says to a woman student entering late—please be on time. It distracts me when you enter late. You shouldn’t be so beautiful.

The woman IAS officer gets her bottom pinched by a senior police officer. Years of courtroom wrangling and his indictment later, he retires, full of years and honours.

The workplace— from the classroom to the court to the newsroom, every single workplace in short—is utterly sexualised. It is sexualised in a masculinist and misogynistic power-laden way. The continuous invocation of the possibility of sex and of women as sexual objects is the very air of the workplace. Women learn to take most of it with that uncomfortable smile, or to join in so as not to appear strait laced, or of course, to protest, knowing full well the price they will pay.

There are consensual affairs too, of course, but there is never any clear delineation of conflicts of interest—the boss sleeps with his employees, the professor sleeps with his students, or with younger colleagues dependent on him for jobs and promotions, and since this can never be publicly talked about, the ways in which these liaisons vitiate the professionalism of the workplace can never be addressed. These men assume that every woman will say yes given the right amount of pressure, it’s just a matter of upping the ante. Many women say yes because the rewards are great. The women who say no pay another kind of price.

And these are just the upper class professionals. The routine sexual violence faced by women on construction sites and inside middle class homes where they work as domestic servants, and in every other kind of working class location is of course, even more normalized.

But that charming convivial silence is being shattered by the growing rage of women. And it’s happening everywhere.

The gutsy young Tehelka journalist who has blown the cover on the sexual assault she faced from Tarun Tejpal, and the principled and unambiguous support she has received from fellow staffers in the face of the (officiating) Editor’s attempts to ‘manage’ the crisis. (We haven’t heard the last of that incident yet).

The legal student who blogged about the retired Supreme Court judge who physically molested her. The other young lawyers who are speaking up.

The student at a university in Delhi who demanded and got the public humiliation of her supervisor who molested her—he had to tender a written and oral apology to her before the entire gathered department.

The Dalit school-girls in Haryana raped by upper caste men in connivance with the police, who have lodged formal complaints and named their rapists. And yes, they continue to go to school.

The male establishment is all aflutter with anxiety. Senior advocates, the Times of Indiareports, are “getting wary about employing women juniors because they don’t want to run the risk of being accused in the future.” That’s a nice clear signal to send out to women—put up with it if you want a job. Especially in the judiciary that can invoke confidentiality with grave seriousness.

The need to enforce the implementation of the Vishaka guidelines has never been more starkly evident. Men in the workplace need to know this now and with certainty—their sexualised behaviour is not charming or harmless, but a criminal offence.

Oh these feminazis, they sigh over their single malts, do they want to end all spontaneous interaction among men and women? Not a bad thing, says this feminazi,  if the workplace is not characterized by spontaneity but by well considered and utterly professional behaviour. Why should spontaneity of all qualities, be the hall mark of a workplace? Especially if spontaneous behaviour for men is simply to grab and squeeze? Or to joke about breast size and oral sex?

Above all, we say—respect the victim’s views on how she wants to deal with the situation. Let her decide whether to take the legal route, go to the police, invoke Vishaka, call for a public acknowledgement and apology. All we need to do is back her. So that she is no longer the victim, but the agent and the survivor.

The time has come. It is now.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288601

'A Clear Case Of Rape'

Perhaps it was inevitable that the distressing charges of sexual assault and the ordeal of a young journalist would became fodder in the BJP-Congress war of words as well

ARUN JAITLEY

The full text of the statement made by the BJP leader of opposition in Rajya Sabha on hisFacebook page, which was also distributed through the party's website
The ingredients of an offence of rape as amended by Parliament are squarely made out in the victims e-mail. Why was the offence not allowed to be reported forthwith?
The Indian media is on trial. A young intern alleged that a retired Judge had made an improper advance towards her. The media reported it extensively. The Chief Justice of India appointed a three Judge inquiry to examine the issue and report its finding. A section of the media is outraged that the police in Gujarat was protecting or allegedly keeping an eye on a young lady even with her and her family's consent.
The Goa incident involving Tarun Tejpal and a young journalist is in a different league altogether. The victim's complaint makes out a clear case of rape. The definition of rape was amended by the parliament subsequent to the Justice Verma Committees recommendations. The ingredients of an offence of rape as amended by Parliament are squarely made out in the victim's e-mail. Why was the offence not allowed to be reported forthwith? Were any pressures brought on the victim not to lodge a complaint? How can an offence of rape be compromised by an atonement that the guilty will not attend office for six month?
It is unheard of that a private treaty between Tarun Tejpal and Shoma Choudhary wipes out the penal consequence of rape. How can Shoma Choudhary so definitely say that the victim will not depose before the police? Is she not guilty of tampering with evidence in a rape case by pressuring a young employee to conceal the offence?

The grievance of the of the citizens' movement after the gang rape of Nirbhaya in Delhi was that sexual assaults are always under- reported. Is this what is happening in this case? Just because the assailant has connections in the Congress party, the nation is deprived of the sage advice of P Chidambram, the caustic comments of Kapil Sibal and the exaggerated tweets of Manish Tewari.

Manish Tewai was in Goa recently. He discovered Hitler there. What a pity that he could not discover a serial rapist in Goa. Additionally, we will all await if the outrage in the media is proportionate to the offence. Or will journalistic pressures b e brought on the young journalist to conceal the truth?
May be secular philandering is to be dealt with a different standard. We all wait to see if the young lady testifies to the truth or not.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288615

Why women remain silent

MYTHILI SUNDAR
November 26, 2013

Tarun Tejpal resorted to the most common defence against the charge of sexual crime — that it was a ‘consensual’ encounter. This file picture shows him at the launch of his book, “The Valley of Masks”.

The pressure to furnish proof, the fear of fighting a superior, the likely impact on career, and adverse publicity prevent women from reporting sexual harassment

An employee of Tehelka accuses Tarun Tejpal, founder and editor-in-chief of the weekly magazine, of sexually assaulting her during an event organised in Goa, and the police file a first information report. A law intern claims she was sexually harassed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court in 2012. A student of Jawaharlal Nehru University complains to the Director of the International Film Festival of India that a senior government official harassed her ahead of the festival. The three incidents have brought sharply to the fore the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace.

Sexual exploitation of women has existed for ages and cuts across societies, rich and poor. It is only in recent times that modern states have started taking harassment at the workplace seriously, putting in place laws that seek to provide a safer work environment for women.

In India, the Supreme Court recognised the need for a law when it laid down the Vishaka Guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace in 1997. Sixteen years later, Parliament enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

The law describes sexual harassment as unwelcome acts or behaviour (directly or by implication) which include physical contact and advances; a demand or request for sexual favours; making sexually coloured remarks; showing pornography; or any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature.

COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE

The law stipulates that employers should, “by an order in writing,” constitute an Internal Complaints Committee, the Presiding Officer of which should be a senior woman employee; the committee should consist of at least two employees “committed to the cause of women” or have legal knowledge and experience in social work; and one member from an NGO or association committed to the cause of women or a “person familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment.” At least one-half of the committee should consist of women. Section 6 of the law says Local Complaints Committees should be constituted in districts to receive complaints from women working in establishments that have fewer than 10 employees and cannot constitute an internal committee, or when the complaint is against the employer himself.

Thus, women working in both the organised and unorganised sectors are safer now at the workplace, at least on paper. Why, then, did the law intern not muster the courage to complain when she was allegedly harassed by a judge? Why do many women like her suffer in silence, most of them forever? Surely, for every case reported there must be hundreds of cases that go unreported. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

To answer the question, it is important to understand how society perceives a working woman. Women employed in the unorganised sector and single women are economically vulnerable. Many of them are not aware of the law. Their male colleagues and employers know that they cannot risk their livelihood. The plight of women employed in shops, supermarkets, private schools, hospitals, and as sales girls is no different. If and when the situation becomes intolerable, they leave their jobs. Those who cannot do so try to remove themselves from the situation by opting for a transfer, or learn to live with the harassment. Ironically, the threshold of tolerance increases with need and many women cope by suggesting to themselves that these are the ways of the world and they have no choice.

In rare instances when women do complain, they find support from co-workers hard to come by. Employers are not comfortable with a ‘difficult’ woman. They encourage her to leave as the perception that a man needs the job more than a woman is deep-rooted.

The belief that a man works to earn his livelihood whereas a woman does so to supplement the family income is widespread. Since a majority of workers in most corporate offices are men, they protect their turf zealously. Even if they know that a fellow worker’s behaviour towards his woman colleague is inappropriate, they hesitate to say so openly. They close ranks, isolating the woman.

In a society where a woman’s safety is her own responsibility — she has been ‘taught’ that she must dress modestly so that men are not ‘provoked’ and ‘ignore’ lewd comments — sexually coloured remarks or verbal sexual advances are hardly seen as acts of harassment. A woman who complains is accused of making a mountain out of a molehill. No surprise, then, that Mr. Tejpal alleged that his colleague had taken amiss a “drunken banter” — as though somehow it is all right for a man to misbehave when he is drunk.

Obviously, nothing has changed much since 1988 when an IAS officer took police officer K.P.S. Gill to court for misbehaving with her. Mr. Gill was convicted under Sections 354 (outraging the modesty of a woman) and 509 (word, gesture or act insulting a woman) of the IPC but his sentence was reduced to probation and a fine. The woman, on the other hand, was criticised by sections of the media for being in the “wrong place at the wrong time.”

When a woman complains of sexual harassment, the first thing most employers do is to try and settle the issue amicably, by transferring out one of the employees or getting the man to apologise. The IFFI incident, in which the officer was moved back to Delhi after he tendered an “unconditional apology,” reinforces this. In most instances, it is difficult for women to prove the charges, which is the reason many do not go to the police and are “satisfied” with the decision of the Internal Committee.

According to the Act, it is the duty of the employer to help the woman if she chooses to file a complaint for an offence under the Indian Penal Code or any other law and “cause to initiate action under the law against the perpetrator.” Tehelka Managing Editor Shoma Chaudhury’s argument that she had to respect the privacy of the victim is nothing but escapism typical of an employer who wants to avoid adverse publicity for her organisation.

SOCIAL STIGMA

The pressure to furnish proof, the fear of the consequences of fighting a superior, pressure from colleagues to “forgive,” uncertainty over future prospects in the office, possible impact of the move on their career (employers prefer not to hire women who have created ‘trouble’ in their previous jobs), and adverse publicity among colleagues prevent women from complaining. This perhaps explains why the law intern spoke up a year after she was harassed and is reluctant to press charges.

A common accusation against a victim of sexual harassment is that she consented to the alleged acts. Mr. Tejpal has claimed it was an “incredibly fleeting, consensual encounter of less than a minute.” The law clearly says that an implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment in employment (“it is the easiest way to keep your job”), a threat of detrimental treatment or creating a hostile environment amount to sexual harassment.

The social stigma a woman faces when she complains of sexual harassment is immense. Suddenly, her attire, behaviour and interpersonal relationships come under the scanner. She becomes a topic of discussion both inside and outside office. The Tejpal episode has already become a talking point in drawing rooms. The victim undergoes immense trauma as she lives the harrowing experience every time TV panellists debate the ‘genuineness’ of the complaint, colleagues whisper behind her back and ‘well-wishers’ tell her she would have saved herself a lot of trouble had she kept quiet and left at the earliest opportunity.

Section 14 of the Act says the Internal Committee or the Local Committee can recommend punishment for a woman who makes a false or malicious complaint. It is very easy to accuse a woman belonging to the lower or middle income group of making false charges and get rid of her. Members on the Internal Committee are appointed by the employer and they are well aware of the culture that prevails in their office.

What is the way forward? As a first step, follow the law in letter and in spirit. Employers should display the provisions of the Act conspicuously; appoint an Internal Committee; conduct awareness programmes; treat sexual harassment as misconduct under their service rules and assist women who file a complaint. They should be alive to the reality that in an office where men and women work, sexual harassment is a possibility and put in place formal and informal mechanisms to deal with it.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/why-women-remain-silent/article5390636.ece?homepage=true

'This is Rape Number Two'

The rape of the values and the politics that Tehelka claims it stands for, and an affront to those who work there and who have supported it in the past. It is the hollowing out of the last vestiges of integrity, political as well as personal'

ARUNDHATI ROY

Tarun Tejpal was one of the partners in India Ink, the publishing house that initially published my novel The God of Small Things. I have been asked by a number of journalists for my reaction to the recent events. I have been hesitant to say anything because of the howling media circus. It seemed vile to kick a man when he was down, especially when it seemed pretty clear that he would not get off lightly and that punishment for what he had done was coming his way. But now I am not so sure. The lawyers have moved in, and the big political wheels have begun to spin. My silence is liable to be vested with all sorts of absurd meaning.

Tarun was a friend for many years. With me he was always generous and always supportive. I have been an admirer of Tehelka too, albeit on an issue to issue basis. To me Tehelka’s great moments were when it published Ashish Khetan’s sting operation on some of the perpetrators of the 2002 Gujarat pogrom and Ajit Sahi’s work on the SIMI trials. However, Tarun and I inhabited very different worlds and our views (on politics as well as literature) far from bringing us together, caused us to drift apart. What has happened now has not shocked me, but it has broken my heart.

The evidence against Tarun suggests that he has grievously sexually assaulted a young colleague of his during the 'ThinkFest', an 'intellectual' carnival run by him in Goa. The ThinkFest was sponsored by a consortium of Mining Corporations, some who are themselves accused of misdeeds on a gargantuan scale. Ironically, in other parts of the country the sponsors of ThinkFest have contributed to creating a climate in which scores of adivasi women have been raped and murdered, and thousands of people have been imprisoned as well as killed. Several lawyers have said that according to the new law, the nature of Tarun’s sexual assault amounts to rape. Tarun himself has admitted to his crime in his own emails and text messages to the woman he assaulted. From his position of uncontested power as her boss, he then loftily apologized to her, and then in an act that can only be described as delusionary, announced his own punishment—six months of leave in order to "lacerate" himself. Now that it has become a police matter, on the advice of fat cat lawyers whose services only the very rich can afford, Tarun begun to do what many men accused of rape do—vilify the woman he preyed on and call her a liar. Outrageously, it is being suggested that Tarun is being 'framed' for political reasons—presumably by the Right-wing Hindutva brigade. So now a young woman who he very recently saw fit to employ, is not just a loose woman, but an agent of the fascists? This is Rape Number Two: the rape of the values and the politics that Tehelka claims it stands for, and an affront to those who work there and who have supported it in the past.

It is the hollowing out of the last vestiges of integrity, political as well as personal.

Free, fair, fearless. That is Tehelka’s definition of itself. Where is courage now?
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288640

women empowerment and women banks

http://epaper.jansatta.com/187972/Jansatta.com/Jansatta-Hindi-21112013#page/6/2

Open letter to the Chief Justice of India

Indira Jaising | Nov 22, 2013

While you have constituted a committee of three judges to look into the allegation that a former judge of the Supreme Court sexually harassed an intern, we have not been made aware of the terms of reference to the committee. 

As you may know, she may not be the only one to be harassed. 

Transparency in the functioning of such committees must be assured. Failure to do so has led to motivated rumours that the intern has not named the judge in question. It has also done a great disservice to the committee by giving rise to the suggestion that the judges threatened her to withdraw from the case. 

All this has led to vitiating the atmosphere for a fair enquiry into her allegations. 

It is therefore necessary that the Supreme Court as an institution and in full court take a decision on the procedure to be adopted while dealing with such complaints or enquiries. After all, there are two incumbent chief justices on this committee and the procedure they follow, matters for how they would approach the issue judicially when called upon to do so

A full court decision would enhance the credibility of the decision-making process and the profile of the court as an institution which is interested in addressing the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace not only of interns but also of lawyers and staff. An outside member on the committee would remove the impression that a bias was in operation when judging one of your own. 

Junior women lawyers face sexual harassment by senior lawyers and thanks to the conspiracy of silence around the issue among peers, senior lawyers enjoy impunity. This issue needs to be dealt with by treating such behaviour as an interference with the course of justice and dealt with as contempt of court. Senior lawyers who sexually harass women juniors or any lawyer at the bar must be stripped of their seniority. The message must go that the institution does not tolerate sexual harassment of women. 

To be honest, the architecture of the court is not women friendly. The corridors are breeding places for sexual harassment, the courtrooms too small to ensure the dignity of women who have to navigate their way through a human wall of male lawyers. The atmosphere is sexualized. Perhaps we need a new Supreme Court with spaces where we can interact with each other as equal human beings, not as sexual beings. 

Women have to face sexist remarks from male lawyers and the patronizing attitudes of judges. 

Sexist remarks in petitions, judgments and statements of judges on public platforms are not considered with the seriousness they deserve by the Court as an institution. There is no standing committee on gender justice of judges, as there is in most important constitutional courts around the world, to look at the use of sexist language and practices or laws and judgments that need systemic elimination and correction and not just in individual cases by the appeal process. 

The suggested solution -- not to take women interns --- is worse than the disease. The court must affirmatively demonstrate equal opportunity for women to make progress in the profession by guaranteeing them a safe working environment. Those who do not sexually harass have nothing to fear from women interns and lawyers. 

Unless the Court as an institution rises to the occasion and takes corrective action, it is in danger of losing its moral legitimacy, a fate too terrible to imagine. It is, after all, the only institution we have to seek justice in the true sense of the word. 

As a first step, the report of the committee of three judges must be made public as soon as possible so that the impression is not created that the Supreme Court is shielding the brotherhood of judges. After all, unless that is done, all judges will be suspect, those who are gender sensitive and those who are not, and that is not in anyone's interest. We as women lawyers respect judges who are respectful of us but disrespect judges who disrespect us and other women in words or action. It is our constitutional duty, under Article 51A of the Constitution of India, to renounce practices derogatory of women. 

At this point of time, the Supreme Court must play a leadership role. To remain silent is to be complicit. 

(The writer is Additional Solicitor General and the views expressed are her own) 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Open-letter-to-the-Chief-Justice-of-India/articleshow/26170500.cms

http://epaper.jagran.com/epaper/14-nov-2013-261-Chandigarh-Page-1.html

Separate law against honour killings sought

NEW DELHI: A UNFPA study on gender laws has recommended a separate law against honour killings to ensure that khap panchayats and families victimizing couples are brought to book. The move has been supported by Planning Commission member Sayeeda Hameed who said it should be made an election issue.

The UNFPA report — 'Laws and Son Preference in India: A Reality Check' — has evaluated gender laws to find that legislations meant to protect women may be doing the opposite. Authored by senior advocate Kirti Singh, the report also recommended a new anti-discrimination legal framework to guide laws and policies for women and girls.

The study found that some legal provisions were not just inadequate in checking son preference, but also promoted the practice and ended up being discriminatory for women, such as the Goa law on polygamy that permits second marriage for the husband where there is no son from the first marriage. The study strongly recommended removing such blatantly discriminatory provisions.

"A deeply entrenched preference for sons exists for various reasons including that a son inherits property, whereas a daughter is perceived as more of a burden due to factors such as dowry — a practice that continues to prevail despite being illegal. Laws and their implementation are the backbone of social change. They hold the potential to change mindsets and stem generations of gender discrimination,'' Frederika Meijer, UNFPA representative for India and Bhutan, said.

Advocating a strong law against honour killings, author Kirti Singh said, "Violent, abusive, barbaric acts occur even before killing. There is no law to address this. It is urgently required."

Agreeing to this, Hameed said, "This should be made an election issue. There has to be a separate law to address honour killings."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Separate-law-against-honour-killings-sought/articleshow/25785687.cms