When Karat questions Shoma, one wonders why these arguments did not lead the CPM to file police complaints when scandals exposed the risks of sexual abuse that women, including the wife of a young comrade, faced within the party.

CPM politburo member Brinda Karat has rightfully criticised the Tehelka managing editor Shoma Chaudhury for her conduct, as well as those who cited the victim’s “agency” to support the magazine’s management.

She was perfectly right in her stand. What stood out, however, was the apparent absence of such indignation when her party, the CPM, did almost the same in two major sex scandals involving its top leaders in Kerala in the last three years. Instead of reporting to police and subjecting the accused to the due process of law, the party chose internal enquiries and expelled them.

Two standards in public life? One for the party, and another for others?

In a well-argued editorial article in The Hindu on Monday, Karat eloquently wrote about Shoma’s conduct in the Tehelka case: “If other rapists locked up in the jails of India had been beneficiaries of such an approach, they would all be lining up at the doors of their victims, offering their apologies, promising months of atonement. It is easier after all to atone in the circle of loving friends and families than to face the law and the consequences of your crime.”

Criticising the supporters of the “agency” argument, she wrote: “In cases such as Tehelka, it is essential for the organisation and management to advise the victim to file a case with the police and to provide all legal help, which would better help her make an informed choice. In fact, the employer herself under the Vishaka judgment had a duty to report the offence to the police. Men in positions of power, who use that position to exploit women employees for sexual gratification cannot be allowed to get away with it.”

It’s hard to question Karat’s sincerity and sensitivity on the issue of violence against women since she has been at the forefront of many agitations; but what’s disturbing is her selective silence when similar scandals erupted within the CPM in Kerala.

In the first case that happened in 2010, the accused was the district secretary of the CPM in Kannur, the party’s impenetrable fortress. He was close to the party’s leadership in the state and was the political secretary of the former chief minister EK Nayanar. The charges against him came from within the party, a lot of powerful comrades tried to side with him, and finally the CPM threw him out after a year-long investigation.

Women’s rights activists, the media, and opposition in the state had asked the same question that Brinda raises now. Why didn’t the CPM go to the police when its enquiry found out that he indeed had indulged in sexual abuse? The party, like Tehelka, chose to close the issue within its iron walls. Tehelka’s efforts failed because there were leaks from within and the complainant was not under the threat from a powerful apparatus.

The second case happened a year later and involved another powerful district secretary - Gopi Kottamurikkal from Ernakulam. He was a state committee member and also a strong loyalist of the party state leadership. His colleagues did a Tehelka (sting) on him and sent the evidence to the party. Another year-long enquiry within the CPM ensued and the leader was expelled in 2012. This time too, the party chose not to file an FIR even while admitting, by its action of expulsion, that there was sexual misconduct.

Not that the media and rights activists didn’t raise the question again as to why the party didn’t report the matter to police and subject the culprit to the law of the land. In fact there were repeated demands, but the party stonewalled all of them.

Today, when Brinda Karat questions Shoma and the supporters of the “agency” argument, one really wonders where she was when these major scandals exposed the risks of sexual abuse that women, including the wife of a young comrade, faced within the party.