I have always been critical of the whole “fake news” rhetoric. What else can the common man rely on if not the media reporting things that matter, giving everyone an unbiased account of words and events that shape our world. If there is a reputable media outlet reporting something, surely they are to be believed, right? It is essential to believe; what else does our political identity and social outlook get influenced by other than what news and op-eds tell us?
Only this morning did I see the truth. Only this morning did I realise how ugly this entire charade of unbiased accounts is. I chanced upon an article from Scroll, a leading online magazine that covered Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s speech at an event at JNU. The full speech is covered in a YouTube video (included at the end). The first thing that struck me was the headline… “Being homosexual is a tendency and not permanent, says Sri Sri Ravi Shankar…”. As of writing this post, the headline has been changed, but you can be sure I have proof of the earlier post. I took a screenshot myself. Here it is below. I’ve cropped it a bit to exclude the page that shared it, for purposes of maintaining suspense.
Now to show you just how malicious that is, here is a screenshot from the text of the very same article taken by the same device.
Now to break the suspense… Why am I getting so worked up? My friends have been telling me all sorts of things about all media channels and publications; why this rage to see it all right in front of my eyes? Full disclosure; I did attend AOL’s Yes Plus course at college and I found it amazing (I disagreed with the philosophy they preached and so I detached from their practices within a month, but that isn’t important right now). It has more to do with than taking the person as my own guru. Here is a Facebook page I love to read and follow which shared the post. Note the caption.
Did they change their caption? Nope. I mean there were likes, comments and shares at stake… Just note how many too…
Is Sri Sri really “making claims” about homosexuality? The Advocate would perhaps disagree. A few quotes from the article linked above that discusses sexual fluidity…
an increasing body of social science research posits that a sizable number of people experience some degree of fluidity in their sexual and romantic attractions: being drawn to the same gender at one point in their life, the opposite gender at another. Researchers emphasize that this is not something that can be imposed from without, as “ex-gay” therapy would attempt to do, but something that occurs from within.
Interesting?
Reliable data has only emerged in recent years, but there are now several studies that have found that 10 to 14 percent of American women describe themselves as mostly, but not completely heterosexual, and 6 to 9 percent of American men who self-identify the same way, says Lisa Diamond, a professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah. Studies in other countries have found the same general range, she says.
We all know gay people who identified as straight at one point, but is homosexuality a black hole one cannot find themselves out of once they find themselves “in” it?
If you consider the people who might be mostly gay or lesbian, but at some point attracted are to the opposite gender, the total number of people with a fluid sexuality will be significantly greater, says Ritch Savin-Williams, a professor of developmental psychology at Cornell University. While there has been less study of this population, “I wouldn’t want to constrain sexual fluidity only to ‘mostly straight,’” he says.
So I wonder why Sri Sri becomes “Another Baba” and gets linked to Ramdev who has been known to be patently homophobic, even though on previous occasions the magazine has compared and contrasted the two and proclaimed Sri Sri more LGBT friendly…
A big part of yoga and (post?)vedantic philosophy is the idea that one’s identity is not to be clung to. We define ourselves as belonging to one community, one region in the world, one religion and one gender, among a hundred such identifiers. Have you ever tried identifying yourself without being in relation with a sect of society, or belonging to someone, or believing in a particular ideology?.
Is Sri Sri an authoritative source of knowledge on matters of yoga or (post)vedanta? Even if one identifies him as lying miles away from the entirety of truth contained in those systems, he is certainly more learned than the lay person writing Facebook posts or framing a click-bait title to get the most reactions on social media.
Why is the voice “empowering eXpressions” from the LGBTQ+ community so stung by these words? Why is even the possibility of not being LGBTQ so revolting to these voices?
Pigeonholes are attractive. Your world is the neat label you take up; wiggle around and proclaim you’re a homosexual male who’s into a girl at the moment, and you face the ugliest retorts. You proclaimed that label, and it is now your duty to forever subscribe to it. God forbid if one Lesbian or Gay person feel attracted to someone not of the same gender. And Sri Sri’s talking about many? How dare he?!
As of now, I’m unsure whether this is to be ascribed to a political agenda (the event took place in JNU, the site of perhaps the most politically charged conversations in recent times). One thing stands. There are very obvious biases at work in the news industry. I guess it is called an industry for a reason; you have to incentivise consumers to eat from your pile of goop. Who can resist soda at 10 rupees a bottle? Water costs 20. Milk is around 30.
“Well, people can read the article and check the quote for themselves”, someone might say. Manufacturers of cancer-causing cigarettes wish that argument worked for them. We’re trapped in our own little identities, eager to submit to ugly intent that unfortunately sits as a tint to our windows to the world.
