Letter from India: A 40-year old prince from one of western India's prominent royal families has been disowned and dispossessed of his rich legacy after he emerged from the closet and declared himself a homosexual in a newspaper interview.
"I knew they [ my family] would never accept me for who I truly am. But I also knew that I could no longer live a lie. I wanted to come out because I had gotten involved with activism and I felt it was no longer right to live in the closet," said Manvendrasinh Gohil, a scion of the former Rajpipla state in Gujarat state.
The dispossessed royal was responding to two public notices issued by his parents in a leading local newspaper in the industrial city of Vadodara, 100km (62 miles) from Rajpipla, that foreclosed his claims to all dynastic property in the 806-year-old kingdom founded by the macho and warring Rajput Gohil tribe in 1200.
Gohil is the only son and heir to what is estimated to be a vast fortune that includes palaces, shooting lodges, real estate and priceless antiques and artefacts.
Under colonial rule Rajpipla was a 13-gun salute state - the optimum being 21 guns - and counted among the most modern and prosperous of India's 600-odd princely states because of its long line of progressive rulers who stressed the importance of education, modern agriculture and commerce.
One of the notices, a legal requirement in all cases of dispossession in India, declared that "Manvendra is not in the control of his mother and is involved in activities unacceptable to society."
"Hence, he ceases to have rights as a son over the family property and the power of attorney issued to him also stands cancelled. Henceforth, no one must refer to my name as mother of Manvendra. If any individual or organisation dares to do so, it will invite contempt proceedings against them."
The notice issued by Gohil's father, Raghuvirsinh, states: "The power of attorney given to Manvendrasinh on December 19th, 2002, about family properties in Gujarat and [ neighbouring] Maharashtra [ state] stands rejected. No one must deal with him about these properties."
"They were afraid to even use the word gay," said the prince who is involved with a local non-governmental organisation which works to stem the spread of HIV/Aids among the state's proliferating, but largely closeted gay community.
He accepted his family's decision to disown him and would not stake claim to his ancestral property. He said his family had tried "converting" him to heterosexuality, in a society in which homosexuality remains taboo, by marrying him off. But he was emphatic, he was a committed homosexual and unafraid to admit it. "All I want to do is to ensure there is a discussion in society about homosexuality and that we get some sort of social status," the prince said.
Indian society frowns on homosexuality, despite its explicit and widespread depiction in the Hindu sexual guide the Kama Sutra. The 152-year-old section 377 of the Indian penal code framed under the colonial government prohibits "carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal". It is an offence that carries a 14-year life sentence and hefty fines.
The government's attitude towards homosexuality remains intransigent despite the proliferation of gay people across urban India.
Last year, in response to a Supreme Court petition seeking to amend the law banning homosexuality, the federal government declared that "public opinion and the current societal context in India does not favour the deletion of the said offence". Public morality must prevail over the exercise of any private right, it added.
The Naz Foundation that brought the legal suit said the government's response was inconsistent with its own efforts to stem the spread of Aids.
With 5.7 million people living with HIV/Aids, India today has the largest number of infected cases of any country, surpassing South Africa's 5.5 million, the UN said last month.
"It's bizarre. On the one hand the government is saying this and on the other hand the National Aids Control Organisation talks about funding programmes for men who have sex with men," said Anjali Gopalan of Naz.
The planning commission that makes policy recommendations to the Indian government, also says that the criminal status of homosexuals and sex workers is slowing Aids prevention efforts and should be changed.
Other groups working on Aids prevention agree.
"The benefit of a law is that they would be saved from blackmail by the police. People wouldn't be so secretive, so it would be easier to reach out to them," said Henry Francis, a field worker with Development Advocacy and Research Trust, which works primarily with male sex workers.
But changing the law would not necessarily change Indian society's attitude to homosexuality. It remains an unrealistic combination of denial, shock and intolerance.
