Anyone who makes a list of nations in which religion plays a major role in public life would have to include India, land of a stunningly complex tapestry of faiths.
Visitors to India who seek answers to questions about the role of religion in modern India will find their heads spinning as they try to follow all the plots and subplots in the answers.
Hinduism is everywhere, of course, both in terms of religion and secular culture that remains haunted by Hindu traditions.
Right now, the “conservative” Bharatiya Janata Party offers a confusing mix of religion and politics that attempts to make Hinduism the crucial element of what it means to be a citizen in India. Then again, Islam is a powerful force that cannot be ignored and Pakistan looms in the background. In terms of history, it’s also impossible to forget the Church of England and generations of missionary work.
So, would you assume that religion would play some kind of role when the New York Times international desk covers a story with this double-decker headline?
In India, a Gay Prince’s Coming Out Earns Accolades, and Enemies
Prince Manvendra’s journey from an excruciatingly lonely child to a global L.G.B.T.Q. advocate included death threats and disinheritance
So let’s search this story for a few key words. How about “Hindu”? Nothing. Well, then Islam? No. So religion played no role in this man’s story or in the passions of those who wanted to kill him?
As it turns out, religion did play an important role at a crucial moment in his life. The Times team just isn’t interested in the details. That’s strange, when dealing with international coverage — where GetReligion often praise the Times. But, apparently, LGBTQ content trumps all other concerns.
To set the stage, here is the overture for this long feature:
NEW DELHI — Born into a royal family that once ruled the kingdom of Rajpipla in India, he was raised in the family’s palaces and mansions and was being groomed to take over a dynasty that goes back 600 years.
But then he gave an interview that prompted his mother to disown him and set off protests in his hometown, where he was burned in effigy.
Since coming out as gay in that 2006 interview, Prince Manvendra Singh Gohil has faced a torrent of bullying and threats, and was disinherited by his family for a period. But he has also earned global accolades for his L.G.B.T.Q. advocacy, becoming one of the few gay-rights activists in the world with such royal ties.
As part of his efforts, Prince Manvendra, 55, has appeared on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” three times, swapped life stories with Kris Jenner on “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” and is working to establish a shelter for L.G.B.T.Q. people on his property in the Indian state of Gujarat. He is also working with several aid agencies to prevent the spread of H.I.V. among gay men.
Prince Manvendra and his husband, deAndre Richardson, have spent the last few months in lockdown getting the shelter ready. They envision a safe space where those who have been disowned by their families can get back on their feet and learn job skills.
Frequently, the complex details of religious life in India get jammed into a single word — “conservative.” Basically, that’s anything that is old and bad and who needs to know the details?
Not Times readers, since it is already clear that this is a hero story.
Here’s a typical use of that “conservative” catch-all trick:
When the prince shared that he was gay in that front-page newspaper interview 14 years ago, it created a storm of mostly negative publicity. It was shocking for a member of an Indian royal family, especially one from the rigidly conservative Rajput warrior clan that once ruled over large parts of northern and central India, to come out so publicly. Being gay was a criminal offense in India under the archaic British law in effect at the time. The law was struck down in 2018.
So then you have the faceless, doctrine-free death threats to his life, with some folks doing public demonstrations to burn him in effigy.
The prince’s parents — who have some kind of bad religion, it seems — think he needs surgery or shock therapy. There was a friendly, but loveless, marriage along the way.
Then some kind of religion shows up, again.
After he suffered a nervous breakdown in 2002, his psychiatrist convinced him the first step in his recovery was to come out to his parents.
It was the beginning of a long and bitter ordeal. … Every doctor his parents consulted told them the same thing — homosexuality was not a disease or a mental disorder. His parents finally gave up on medical science and decided to try religion instead. For three years, they took him to dozens of religious leaders around the country.
“Ashok told me to cooperate with them completely,” the prince said. “To let them be satisfied that they’d tried their best.”
Any particular kind of religious leaders? Generic ones?
I guess we are not talking about evangelical missionaries or traditional Catholics, because I think those details would make it into the Times text.
So what is going on here? Are there divisions inside Hinduism here that the Times team simply does not, for some reason, want to explore?
You can see hints that this might be the case in this piece of a background paper by the Human Rights Campaign, a major LGBTQ activist organization.
Because there is no central Hindu authority, attitudes to LGBTQ issues vary at different temples and ashrams. The Hindu American Foundation, in its policy brief on Hindus and Homosexuality, notes that Hinduism does not provide a fundamental spiritual reason to reject or ostracize LGBTQ individuals. …
The Vedas refer to a "third sex," roughly defined as people for whom sex is not procreative, either through impotence or a lack of desire for the opposite sex. Members of the third sex are not ostracized, however, and are sometimes recognized for having divine powers or insights. The Kama Sutra, a Hindu text detailing the pleasures of sexuality, states that same-sex experience is "to be engaged in and enjoyed for its own sake as one of the arts."
Nevertheless, some Hindu communities continue to be unwelcoming of LGBTQ people, often reflecting attitudes imported from conquering nations, such as the British Empire in India.
Ah, the Brits. So what does the BBC have to say on this issue?
Homosexuality is unacceptable to some Hindus. Hinduism teaches that the 'natural' thing to do is for men and women to marry and have children. Those who go against this natural relationship are violating their own dharma. …
Some Hindus believe that the Kama Sutra permits homosexuality though the Kama Sutra is not a scripture, and is not widely known by Hindus.
So, once again, we have an old journalism question: It’s clear that, in this personal drama in one of the world’s most intensely religious cultures, that there are religious ideas, beliefs and traditions linked to pivotal events in this man’s life.
Why ignore the facts? Why leave this massive hole in this feature?
Just asking.