Teesta Setalvad

Teesta Setalvad

Teesta Setalvad in 2015
Born (1962-02-09) 9 February 1962
Mumbai, Maharashtra
Nationality Indian
Occupation Civil rights activist and journalist

Teesta Setalvad (born 9 February 1962)[1] is an Indian civil rights activist and journalist. She is the secretary of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), an organisation formed for fighting for justice for the victims of communal violence in the state of Gujarat in 2002. CJP is a co-petitioner seeking a criminal trial of Narendra Modi, the then Chief Minister of Gujarat and the current Prime minister of India and sixty-two other politicians and government officials for complicity in the Gujarat violence of 2002 and whose names did not figure in any of the FIRs /charge sheets that formed the subject matter of the various Session Trials regarding the riots at that point of time.[2][3][4] Four of the accused since then were charge-sheeted, of whom Maya Kodnani and Babu Bajrangi have already been convicted.[5][6]

Personal life

Born in 1962 into a Gujarati Hindu family, Setalvad is the daughter of Atul Setalvad, a Mumbai-based lawyer, and his wife Sita Setalvad. Her paternal grandfather was M. C. Setalvad, India's first Attorney General.[7][8] Setalvad is married to Javed Anand, a journalist turned minority rights activist. They have two children, daughter Tamara and son Jibran.[9]

Career

Teesta graduated with a bachelor's degree in Philosophy from Bombay University in 1983 and started work as a journalist.[10] She reported for the Mumbai editions of The Daily (India) and The Indian Express newspapers, and later for Business India magazine.

Setalvad's career as a mainstream journalist was brief. She and her husband quit their regular jobs to start Communalism Combat, an advocacy magazine. According to Javed Anand (Setalvad's husband and co-founder of Communalism Combat), the decision to break from mainstream journalism was motivated by their desire to engage in legal advocacy along with journalism.[11]

Setalvad and her husband, along with such secular stalwarts as Father Cedric Prakash (a catholic priest), Anil Dharker (a journalist), Alyque Padamsee, Javed Akhtar, Vijay Tendulkar and Rahul Bose (all film & theatre personalities) set up an NGO named "Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP)" on 1 April 2002.[12] The NGO forthwith began to litigate in various courts against the alleged complicity of the Chief Minister and government of Gujarat state in the riots that had broken out shortly before. Their efforts met with partial success in April 2004, when the Supreme Court of India transferred the "Best Bakery case" case to the neighbouring state of Maharashtra. At the same time, the court also overturned the recent acquittal of 21 accused and ordered that the investigation and trial be conducted afresh.[13] By 2013, all the cases filed by CPJ had been dismissed at three levels of the judiciary (trial court, state High Court and the Indian Supreme Court) and only one appeal is pending. This is an appeal to the Supreme Court against a conviction handed out by the High Court to Maya Kodnani, a former minister in the government of Gujarat.

Teesta has authored the chapter When Guardians Betray:The Role of the Police in the book Gujarat:The making of a tragedy, edited by Siddharth Varadarajan and published by Penguin (ISBN 978-0143029014). The book is about the 2002 Gujarat riots.

Activism

Zakia Jafri-CJP petition

Zakia Jafri-CJP Special leave petition[18] seeks a criminal trial of Narendra Modi, the then Chief Minister of Gujarat and the current Prime minister of India and 62 other politicians and government officials for complicity in the Gujarat violence of 2002. The criminal conspiracy complaint alleges that in a meeting of senior police officers and officials convened by the then Chief minister Mr Modi on 27 February 2002 following the Godhra tragedy, he issued his "let Hindus give vent to their anger" directive. In all, there are 30 interrelated and closely interlocked allegations including[19]

In response to the petition, the Supreme Court on 27 April 2009 ordered the Special Investigation Team (SIT) they appointed to undertake the investigation.[20] The SIT under the Chairmanship of R. K. Raghavan was originally formed to investigate nine major cases of riots in Gujarat in 2002.

The SIT submitted a preliminary report in May 2010.[21] Chairman R. K. Raghavan submitted his comments to the report for perusal of the Supreme Court on 14 May 2010[22] Further investigation report was filed in November 2010. The Supreme Court in November 2010 appointed Raju Ramachandran as amicus curiae to assist the court in this case. The amicus curiae submitted a note dated 20 January 2011 to the Supreme Court.[23]

On 15 March 2011, the Supreme Court directed SIT to examine the observations of the amicus curiae, to re-examine the entire evidence recorded and if some more evidence is required to be recorded, to do so. It observed that the SIT chairman's inferences did not match with the findings of the SIT probe.[24] Thereafter the SIT examined more witnesses and recorded their statements and submitted a further investigation report on 24 April 2011. On 5 May 2011, during a hearing in the Supreme Court, Shanti Bhushan, the counsel for Zakia Jafri, alleged that SIT was a doing cover-up job and sought copies of the investigation reports. The amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran informed the court that he had received a copy of an affidavit filed by Sanjiv Bhatt that he was present at a 27 February 2002 meeting convened by the chief minister where instructions were given to teach Muslims a lesson.[25] The Supreme Court ordered "The copies of the report, along with the comments of the chairman, be given to the amicus curiae, who shall analyse them in the light of evidence, statements of witnesses, and have his independent assessment of the entire evidence which has come on record". The court further said,"If the amicus curiae, on the basis of evidence on record, finds that any offence is made out against any person, he shall mention the same in the report".[25] The amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran submitted his final report[26] where he found sufficient evidence to make Mr Modi stand trial.[27]

Thereafter, the Court directed the SIT to submit the final report along with the entire material collected by them to the trial court. The SIT was also given access to the reports of the amicus curiae submitted earlier to the court.[28] The SIT did not agree with his conclusion[29] and filed the closure report on 8 February 2012.[30] The trial court on 10 April 2012 observed that SIT had not found any evidence for the prosecution of Modi or any of the top bureaucrats or police officials and had recommended that the investigation be closed.

The court gave the complainant, Zakia Jafri, the option of filing a protest petition[31] However SIT raised various objections to giving all the investigation papers to the petitioner and finally on 7 February 2013, the Supreme Court asked the SIT to hand over copies of all the reports and investigation papers to the petitioners.[32] The protest petition[33][34] was filed on 15 April 2013[35]

In April 2013, the SIT while opposing the protest petition filed by Zakia Jafri and CJP against SIT's closure report submitted before a local court that "Teesta Setalvad and others have falsified the complaint targeting the chief minister who had never said that go and kill people." Their lawyer further submitted that the so-called incident of Chief Minister (Narendra Modi) giving instructions (in the meeting) to high-level police officers not to take action against the rioters is a sole creation of Teesta Setalvad. There is no evidence to the same and that Setalvad was not present during the incident.[36][37][38][39]

In their argument that sufficient grounds existed for ordering criminal prosecution of Modi, Zakia Jafri's counsel told the court that SIT which gave Modi a clean chit, itself behaved like a conspirator and glossed over a wealth of official evidence which suggested State complicity in the incidents [40]

Controversies

Allegations of witness tampering

In November 2010, Setalvad was accused of pressuring Zaheera Sheikh, the key witness in the Best Bakery case, to make certain statements, leading to the unprecedented transferral of the case outside Gujarat. In August 2005, the Supreme Court of India committee absolved her of the charges of inducement levelled against her by Zaheera and awarded a one-year jail sentence to Zaheera for perjury.[41] In 2013 Tehelka in an undercover investigation discovered that Zaheera had been paid to alter her testimony. Tehelka recorded BJP member Madhu Srivastava, described by Tehelka as a "close associate of Narendra Modi" and Batthoo Srivastava describing how they had paid Rs 1.8 million to Zaheera.[42]

Teesta Setalvad's former aide Rais Khan Pathan has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court alleging manipulation of evidence, which were in the form of statements of witnesses, by her in five sensitive post-Godhra riot cases.[43]

In April 2009, the Times of India ran a story claiming that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) set up by the Supreme Court of India to investigate and expedite the Gujarat riot cases had submitted before the Court that Teesta Setalvad had cooked up cases of violence to spice up the incidents. The SIT which is headed by former CBI director, R K Raghavan has said that false witnesses were tutored to give evidence about imaginary incidents by Teesta Setalvad and other NGOs.[44] The SIT charged her of "cooking up macabre tales of killings".[45]

The court was told that 22 witnesses, who had submitted identical affidavits before various courts relating to riot incidents, were questioned by SIT and it was found that the witnesses had not actually witnessed the incidents and they were tutored and the affidavits were handed over to them by Setalvad.[45] The report which was brought to the notice of the bench consisting of Justices Arijit Pasayat, P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam, noted that the much publicised case of a pregnant Muslim woman Kausar Bano being gangraped by a mob and foetus being removed with sharp weapons, was also fabricated, and false.[44][46] However, Kausar Bano's husband states alleges the doctors falsified the post-mortem despite his wife's uterus having been removed from her body.[47] The court that was trying the issue found beyond reasonable doubt that Babu Bajarangi killed Kausar Bano and her nine-month-old foetus by stabbing her in the stomach with a sword, but did not find sufficient evidence to prove that he removed the foetus from the uterus.<[48]

A day later, the Times of India published a letter from Citizens for Justice and Peace claiming that the report in question was not SIT report but a report by the Gujarat Government.[49] The author of the Times article responded saying "My report was based on the SIT report and not any document circulated by the Gujarat government, as suggested by CJP. Whether any section of the media has the report or not is irrelevant as TOI has access to the report.[50]

R.K. Raghavan, the chairman of the SIT criticised the report leakage, saying, "The alleged reported leaks appear to be inspired by dubious motives. I cannot confirm such claims. The act is highly condemnable". However, he refused to deny or confirm whether the leaked contents were true.[51] The Supreme Court itself condemned the leaking of the SIT report as a 'betrayal of trust' but did not deny the report itself.[52] Raghvan noted that "many incidents were cooked up, false witnesses were tutored to give evidence about imaginary incidents, and false charges levelled against the then Ahmedabad police chief P C Pandey".[53]

Reception

Pratap Bhanu Mehta, President of the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi and the former member of National Knowledge Commission has criticised Teesta Setalvad, saying that if the charges against her were true then she had done the cause of justice irreparable harm. He observed that her actions, as described, will undermine the capability of civil society to have any imprimatur of impartiality in investigating riot cases.[54] However, subsequently Mehta backtracked on his earlier article, stating that, "My intention was not to expose Teesta. I have no competence and desire to do so. I was just stuck by the fact that this seemed to be an important story, carried by a "credible" newspaper, the Economic Times, followed by TOI and a slightly different version by IBN."[55] An article in Pragati stated that her grandstanding has undermined the foundations of the beliefs of the Indian republic[56]

Allegations of misappropriation of funds

In 2013, twelve residents of the Gulbarg Society who were the victim of Gujarat riots, accused Setalvad of collecting donations in the name of riot victims but failing to use them for their benefit and sent a legal notice to her. They claimed that she had collected huge donations from national and international organisations in the name of providing financial assistance for reconstruction of houses or developing the society into a museum but it was not passed to the members of the society. They also sought to ban her organisation "Citizens for Justice and Peace" and prevent them entering the society to organise programmes.[57][58][59] The Ahmedabad Crime Branch is conducting an inquiry into the matter.[60]

On 13 March 2013, the official representatives including the secretary and chairman of the Gulbarg Cooperative Housing Society in a letter[61] to the joint commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad, informed him that the letter-head of the society had been misused by some residents and the claims being made by them were patently false since nothing had been parted from them.[61] A similar letter was also released to the media.[62] In a press release CJP and Sabrang clarified[63] that CJP never sought nor received any money for the museum. Sabrang Trust had raised an amount of Rs 460,285 nationally and internationally from donors for the purpose of the museum and since the plan has been abandoned because of the spiralling real estate prices, the matter is between the trust and the donors which they will address when final decision is taken. All other funds, nationally and internationally raised, have been funds legitimately collected for activities that they publicly engage in. Their accounts are audited and submitted to the relevant authorities.[63] Subsequent to the letter written by the Gulbarg Society members to the police, the police sent them a letter asking for the status quo to be maintained while investigations were in progress.[64] Later, the Crime Branch claimed that the complaint did not have any substance and instead filed an FIR against Setalvad.[65]

After a First Information Report was filed by the Ahmedabad police on 4 January 2014 Teesta Setalvad and Javed Anand were granted interim bail. According to the judge, similar relief has been provided in the past when false allegations were raised. The bail application stated that "The FIR is a mala fide action of the Crime Branch, Ahmedabad, to intimidate a human rights defender. This is the fifth time that a false criminal case has been lodged since 2004 because of me and my organization's consistent legal support to the victims of 2002 riots ... Gulbarga cooperative housing society had been totally burnt down by politically motivated anti-social elements and 68 people had lost their lives in the massacre." It also said the accusation was brought by "powerful forces in Gujarat who wish(ed) to stymie the appeal in the Zakia Jafri case".[66]

On finding that the Crime Branch, Ahmedabad instead of acting on his complaint had filed an FIR against Setalvad and others, the Secretary of the Gulbarg Housing Society, Firoz Gulzar Pathan moved the court complaining against Gujarat police's biased approach. The court sought a report from the Crime Branch. The Police responded by claiming that the complaint did not have any substance. This was countered by the complainant's advocate who maintained that the Crime Branch had not even bothered to question the complainant before shelving the complaint. This led the magisterial court on 15 February 2014 to direct the city crime branch to lodge an FIR and start investigation against former residents of Gulbarg Society who had made the complaint against Setalvad last year.[65] On 28 November 2014, local court rejected pleas filed by activist Teesta Setalvad, her husband Javed Anand and their two NGOs seeking to de-freeze their bank accounts attached earlier by police in connection with the embezzlement case.[67] On 12 February 2015, Gujarat High Court rejected Setalvad's anticipatory bail plea regarding the case.[68][69] However she was given an interim protection by the Supreme Court of India and on 19 March 2015, a two-judge bench of the Court referred the issue involved in her case to a large three-judge bench.[70][71]

Alleged violation of the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act

A private organisation in India can accept donations from abroad only if it is registered under the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act. Teesta's Sabrang Communications and Publishing (not registered under FCRA) had between 2004 and 2014 accepted $290,000 from the US-based Ford Foundation without the government approval .The Ford Foundation, one of the largest international donors, was put on the watch-list following a Gujarat government complaint that it was interfering in India's "internal affairs" and encouraging Teesta's NGOs to promote "communal disharmony".[72] Ford Foundation has been accused of such allegations in another country also.[73] It is also alleged that Ford Foundation had a deep penetration into Nehru Government[74]

Allegation that Teesta is being framed and hounded

Though cases against Teesta are still in courts it has been suggested by some journalists that Teesta is being framed and hounded by Gujarat Police because of her criticism of Narendra Modi, It is alleged that allegations of corruption against Teesta are concocted .[75][76][77][78] In a signed article in Outlook magazine, published in March 2015, Indira Jaising wrote that Teesta's organization Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) did creditable work in obtaining convictions for 119 people (including a Minister) for participating in the Gujarat riots. Jaising goes on to say that :

The case against Teesta smacks of a plan to deter her from assisting victims of the Gujarat 2002 riots. The financial dealings of Teesta and CJP can be probed, but the disproportionality of the legal process, the timing, and the insistence of the prosecution on custodial interrogation, smack of vendetta.[79]

Recognition

References

  1. ↑ "Teesta Setalvad". Human Rights office of the city of Nuremberg.
  2. ↑ us, About. "About us". Citizens for Justice and Peace.
  3. ↑ Dutta, Bhaskar (2009). New and enduring themes in development economic. World Scientific Publishing. p. 149. ISBN 978-9812839411.
  4. ↑ "Zakia Jafri-CJP Special Leave Petition"
  5. ↑ "SIT Closure Report"
  6. ↑
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Nürnberger Menschenrechtspreisträger 2003" (in German).
  8. ↑ "India THE NEXT DECADE".
  9. ↑ Nuremberg Speech
  10. 1 2 Archived 3 September 2006 at the Wayback Machine
  11. ↑ Punwani, Jyoti (14 September 2003). "Communalism combat completes a decade". countercurrents.org. Retrieved 26 March 2013.
  12. ↑ Anonymous (n.d.). "About Us". Citizens for Justice and Peace. Retrieved 27 April 2013.
  13. ↑ "Minorities still living in fear in Gujarat: Setalvad". The Hindu (Chennai, India). 26 April 2004. Retrieved 26 March 2013.
  14. ↑ Teesta's US testimony
  15. ↑ Google Archive School Textbook change
  16. 1 2 http://www.nuernberg.de/internet/menschenrechte_e/setalvad_e.html
  17. 1 2 3 "Die Verantwortung der Medien – Journalisten zwischen Krieg und Frieden" (in German).
  18. ↑ Zakia Jafri-CJP Special Leave Petition Retrieved on 29 July 2013
  19. ↑ Fiction and Fact The Asian Age 19 May 2012, Retrieved on 11 August 2013
  20. ↑ "Court to SIT: probe plea against Modi". The Hindu (Chennai, India). 28 April 2009.
  21. ↑ AK Malhotra Preliminary report Retrieved on 29 July 2013
  22. ↑ Chairman Raghavan's Comments
  23. ↑ Interim Report – Raju Ramachandran
  24. ↑ Your Inferences don't Match SIT Report The Hindu 16 March 2011
  25. 1 2 Go Beyond SIT Report on Jafri Case Court tells Amicus Curiae The Hindu 6 May 2011 retrieved on 12 August 2013
  26. ↑ Final Report – Raju Ramachandran Retrieved on 12 August 2013
  27. ↑ Proceed against Modi for Gujarat riots: amicus The Hindu 7 May 2012 Retrieved on 12 August 2013
  28. ↑ Trial Court Must Hear Charge Against Modi: Supreme Court The Hindu 13 September 2011 Retrieved on 12 August 2013
  29. ↑ SIT rejects amicus curiae's observations against Modi The Hindu 10 May 2012
  30. ↑ SIT Submits Final Report on Gujarat riots The Hindu 9 February 2012
  31. ↑ SIT Finds No Proof Ahainst Modi Says Court The Hindu 11 April 2012
  32. ↑ SC Allows Zakia to Access All Documents The Hindu 8 February 2013 Retrieved on 12 August 2013
  33. ↑ Protest Petition Part I
  34. ↑ Protest Petition Part II
  35. ↑ 2002: Zakia Jafri Challenges SIT Clean Chit to Modi Outlook 15 April 2013 Retrieved on 12 August 2013
  36. ↑ "Teesta Setalvad & others made false claims against Narendra Modi". Daily News and Analysis. 26 April 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
  37. ↑ "Modi did not incite riots: SIT". Hindustan Times. 25 April 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
  38. ↑ "Gujarat riots: Narendra Modi never said go and kill people, SIT says". Times of India. 25 April 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
  39. ↑ "2002 Gujarat riots: No evidence that Narendra Modi incited rioters or pressured police, says SIT". India Today. 26 April 2013. Retrieved 16 May 2013.
  40. ↑ SIT Turned Blind Eye to Damaging Evidence: Zakia The Hindu 29 July 2013
  41. ↑ "SC awards one year imprisonment to Zaheera for flip flops". OutlookIndial.com. 8 March 2006.
  42. ↑ Newspaper, Tehelka (24 July 2013). "The Shame of Gujarat "I Paid Zaheera Sheikh Rs 18 Lakh"". Tehelka.
  43. ↑ Teesta doctored evidence: Ex-aide to SC
  44. 1 2 NGOs, Teesta spiced up Gujarat riot incidents: SIT
  45. 1 2 Setalvad in dock for 'cooking up killings'
  46. ↑ Abraham Thomas. "Gujarat riot myths busted". Archived from the original on 23 December 2009.
  47. ↑ Manas Dasgupta. "Judge rejects theory that Bajrangi killed foetus".
  48. ↑ Ujjwala Nayudu. "Even demons have shame: Kausar’s husband".
  49. ↑ "Guj govt's, not an SIT report". The Times of India (India). 16 April 2009.
  50. ↑ "Report based on SIT findings". The Times of India (India). 16 April 2009.
  51. ↑ Nagender Sharma, Gujarat riots witnesses not tutored: SIT, Apr 22, 2009, Hindustan Times
  52. ↑ SC deplores leakage of SIT report on Gujarat riots:PTI
  53. ↑ Guj Riots: Activist accused of 'cooking up tales' – Oneindia News. News.oneindia.in (14 April 2009). Retrieved on 18 July 2013.
  54. ↑ Bhanu Pratap Mehta, An Unconscionable Act, 15 April 2009, Indian Express,
  55. ↑ Law and Other Things: Expose of activism and the truth. Lawandotherthings.blogspot.com (19 April 2009). Retrieved on 18 July 2013.
  56. ↑ Tampering with evidence Pragati – May 2009
  57. ↑ "'Teesta Setalvad minting money in riot victims' name'". Zee News. PTI. 1 March 2013. Retrieved 15 May 2013.
  58. ↑ "Distribute funds collected for museum development: Gulberg residents to Teesta". Indian Express. 28 February 2013. Retrieved 15 May 2013.
  59. ↑ "Gulberg residents warn Teesta : Distribute funds collected for riot museum". News Bharati English. 28 February 2013. Retrieved 15 May 2013.
  60. ↑ "2002 Gujarat riots: Ahmedabad Crime Branch to probe Teesta Setalvad's collection of funds". IBN Live. 13 March 2013. Retrieved 15 May 2013.
  61. 1 2 Letter to Jt commissioner of police by official members of Gulbarg Society
  62. ↑ Official members of Gulbarg Society decry "False and Forged letter by some residents of Gulbarg"
  63. 1 2 "CJP Press release"
  64. ↑ Police probe complaint against Teesta, write to Gulbarg Society members
  65. 1 2 Probe ordered into alleged forgery by Gulbarg residents
  66. ↑ Deshpanda, Swati (11 January 2014). "Teesta Setalvad gets interim bail in misappropriation of funds case". Times of India. Retrieved 17 February 2014.
  67. ↑ http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-court-rejects-teesta-setalvad-s-plea-to-de-freeze-bank-accounts-2039290
  68. ↑ "Gujarat High Court rejects Teesta Setalvad's anticipatory bail plea in riot fund embezzlement case". The Economic Times. 12 February 2014. Retrieved 2015-02-12.
  69. ↑ "Gujarat HC Judgment rejecting anticipatory bail to Teesta Setalvad". 1, Law Street. Retrieved 5 July 2015.
  70. ↑ "Teesta Atul Setalvad and Anr. v.State of Gujarat [Judgment – 19 March 2015]". 1, Law Street. 19 March 2015. Retrieved 9 July 2015.
  71. ↑ "Teesta Setalvad - Gujarat riots fund embezzlement - Bail case - 1, Law Street". Retrieved 2015-07-09.
  72. ↑ http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150715/jsp/nation/story_31670.jsp#.VaYjBfmqqzl
  73. ↑ http://www.thenation.com/article/target-ford
  74. ↑ http://www.newindianexpress.com/thesundaystandard/Ford-Foundation-Had-Infiltrated-Nehru-Government-to-the-Core/2015/07/05/article2902513.ece
  75. ↑ "Hounding Of Teesta Setalvad: Attempts to arrest her and subject her to "custodial interrogation" are uncalled for". Times of India. 18 February 2015. Retrieved 6 July 2015.
  76. ↑ "Teesta Setalvad is being framed by the Gujarat govt but why is there no outrage?". Firstpost. 19 February 2015. Retrieved 6 July 2015.
  77. ↑ "The real story behind the corruption charges against activist Teesta Setalvad". Scroll. 21 March 2014. Retrieved 6 July 2015.
  78. ↑ "Teesta Setalvad ‘hounded for speaking up’, feel scribes". Times of India. 17 February 2015. Retrieved 6 July 2015.
  79. ↑ "Why I Stand By Her:Support for Teesta is support for access to justice for victims of a pogrom". Outlook. 2 March 2015. Retrieved 12 July 2015.
  80. ↑ Archived 31 January 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  81. ↑ Civil Liberties In India By Teesta Setalvad
  82. ↑ Harvard
  83. ↑ Parliamentarians for Global Action
  84. ↑ Sabrang Alternative News Network
  85. ↑ Teesta Setalvad Award Acceptance Speech
  86. ↑ "Federation of Indian Muslim Associations honors six". Times of India. 24 August 2012. Retrieved 24 August 2012.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Teesta Setalvad.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Sunday, February 14, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.