Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Marriage Equality: Looking Gri... | "The Base" My Ass »

Tuesday, January 2, 2007

Prince Comes Out

posted by on January 2 at 18:45 PM

Not that Prince. A prince in India—and he’s coming out swinging.

As a maharajah’s son, Manvendra Singh Gohil grew up in a bubble of prestige and privilege, surrounded by hangers-on who treated him so reverentially that he was 15 before he crossed a street by himself. So the public snubs and rejection of the last nine months have been a new experience. Yet the mild-mannered Gohil couldn’t be more content.

At last, he says, he is living an honest life—albeit one that has touched off a scandal in the royal house of Rajpipla, one of India’s former princely states. Last March, he revealed a lifelong secret to a local newspaper, which promptly splashed it on the front page.

“The headline was: ‘The Prince of Rajpipla Declares That He’s a Homosexual,’ ” Gohil said with a rueful chuckle. “The newspaper sold like hotcakes.”

In the uproar that followed, disgusted residents in Gohil’s hometown flung his photograph onto a bonfire. His parents publicly disowned their only son, printing notices in the press that he was cut off as heir because of his involvement in “activities unacceptable to society.” Gohil’s mother has threatened contempt proceedings against anyone who refers to him as her son.

For scandal-mongers, the tale of India’s gay prince is an irresistibly juicy affair full of details worthy of a tabloid tell-all: his teenage affair with a servant boy, a sexless marriage to a minor princess, a nervous breakdown.

For Gohil, his very public unmasking has brought him a bully pulpit from which to speak out against a law that makes him not just a pariah of noble birth but also a common criminal.

Good for Gohil. And a timely reminder to American gays and lesbians—things could, after all, be worse. At least we’re not “common criminals” anymore, and the parents that freak out and rejects a gay or lesbian child seem to be the exception in the West these days. Once upon a time they were very much the rule.

I only wish I could sic my mother on Gohil’s, the way I once set her on the parents of a good friend.

RSS icon Comments

1

Yes, it could be worse. But that, of course, is no reason to be satisfied, right?

Posted by Mike in MO | January 2, 2007 8:00 PM
2

Dan, I know you're personally dedicated to advocating gay rights and I completely respect that, but did it ever occur to you that that's all you ever write about? Diversification might become you. You're an editor now big boy, recognize your responsibility and engage us.

Posted by M | January 2, 2007 8:23 PM
3

Not much gay about Savage's school board post. Or his Segway post. Or his highway funding post. Or his Saddam post.

Posted by Stalker of Celery | January 2, 2007 8:26 PM
4

M, he writes about politics of all stripes, including transit.

But, anyways, it's a shame everyone's mom isn't as ecstatic about having a gay son as mine was. Every time I dressed as a girl for Halloween, she was ecstatic. When I came out, she practically glowed (after she figured out what it was my dad was freaking out about). She loves drag queens because she says they're the only people nowadays who bother to take care of their appearance. She's crazy in most other respects, but if every gay boy had a mom as accepting, no gay boy would have any coming out trauma at all.

Posted by Gitai | January 2, 2007 8:28 PM
5

OK, Fine.

The Santorum Campaign was enough to make me a dedicated fan of Savage's gay agenda, I'm just hoping that he'll focus his sharp wit toward a comprehensive left agenda. The Urban Archepelego was so forward thinking - let us have more.

Posted by M | January 2, 2007 8:46 PM
6

I can't blame Dan, and I don't want him to lose his focus on gay issues. There's too much work to be done, too many arguments to be made, too many hearts to be won. We and our lovers and our friends are still too much at risk and still too diminished in this society, not to mention the rest of the world.

Have at it Dan!

Posted by Sachi | January 2, 2007 8:54 PM
7

And yes, all my respect to you and yours, and yet can we please reserve the gay right revolution for mid-term elections? I know that makes me appear as a selfish leftist with no regard for gay rights but the reality stands that without democratic control you guys are screwed, and not pleasantly - up the ass.

Posted by M | January 2, 2007 9:04 PM
8

I meant to say that we're all screwed. I make out with women on a regular basis so I definitely qualify as queer. Just want you to understand that we're all working toward a common agenda.

Posted by M | January 2, 2007 9:10 PM
9

Achoo.

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | January 2, 2007 9:44 PM
10

So my point is to expedite political efficacy. Can we focus on that yet?

XO YO!

Posted by M | January 2, 2007 10:01 PM
11

And let's allow Dan the privilage of citing his own writers and commentators, especially when it comes to squirrels. And particularly when commentators want to assign credit to Dan for non-gay comments written by other writers.

Posted by M | January 2, 2007 10:08 PM
12

On a completely unrelated note, I love the little headings on the top left of every post, you know, "News", "Politics", "City", and then there's "HOMO". I hope that sticks around in the new Slog.

Posted by SeattleExile | January 3, 2007 8:36 AM
13

I dunno, I like it when Dan writes gay. Where else would we hear about this stuff? Certainly not from the right-wing-puppet mainstream media.

Posted by frederick r | January 3, 2007 8:59 AM
14

So who will play Gohil when this is turned into a Bollywood film? Amir Khan perhaps?

As for the reaction, what else would you expect from a country where they still arrange marriages and still burn brides:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_burning

Posted by kinaidos | January 3, 2007 9:14 AM
15

KINAIDOS, I take offense at your "what else would you expect from a country where they still arrange marriages and still burn brides" both as an Indian-American and as someone who is not an asshole. I had been checking this post for a bit waiting for someone to say someone stupid.

It is clear to me that you do not know how arranged marriage works for much of India now. There are obviously still cases where women have little or no choice in the matter and do what their parents say. However, this is changing with the times and arranged marriage for millions of people is an agreement between a man, a woman and their families to get married. Not necessarily my way of doing it, but it is a way that gives both men and women a choice in the matter. If a woman is not into the guy, it doesn't happen. It's essentially a short dating period that leads to marriage...as opposed to dating, being called a boy/girlfriend, moving in together, and then getting married. Once again, not how I would do it, but I've seen it work for a bunch of my friends. Some will stay married and some will get divorced...just like here.

The burning brides comment irks me too since there were about 7000 cases of this in India in 2005. 7000 out of a billion is not that high a percentage. There are some fucked up things that happen in this country as a result of poverty and ignorance as well. To damn a whole country because you hear about two things that happen, without knowing how often they happen and what form they take place in is remarkable. But hey, my parents and relatives are mudpeople and don't know any better, I suppose. Idiot.

Posted by IndianDude | January 3, 2007 9:39 AM
16

"7000 cases of this in India in 2005"..

Percentage wise that is not high out of a billion but DAMN 7000 !!! That's twice the number of people died in the world trade center.

Posted by AsianDude | January 3, 2007 9:59 AM
17

Percentage wise that is not high out of a billion but DAMN 7000 !!! That's twice the number of people died in the world trade center

Yeah, that kind of freaks me out too. What's the rate of all gendered murders in India? I'm guessing a lot more than 7,000.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 3, 2007 10:44 AM
18

I just want to clarify my comments. I do not condone or think 7000 murders is a small number, nor do I justify the patriarchy that leads to such acts. I just think it is wrong for a whole nation of people to be damned by some American dude who has no clue what he's talking about.

Posted by IndianDude | January 3, 2007 1:14 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).