India

Familiar byline, new location and a complicated Hindu-temple-and-state puzzle

Familiar byline, new location and a complicated Hindu-temple-and-state puzzle

Under normal circumstances, readers of The New York Times can click on a byline and learn more about the reporter behind a story.

At the moment, there is no URL embedded with the Times byline “Sarah Pulliam Bailey.”

However, faithful religion-news readers will recognize that byline after years of seeing it in The Washington Post (and several other familiar locations before that). Is this step one in a contributing writer role? Readers can only hope.

Now, what about the story under the byline? The double-decker headline is certainly dramatic and readers will discover, in this complicated feature, a story with some familiar church-state law overtones. How does one handle a Hindu-Temple-and-state reference in Associated Press Style? Oh, that headline:

A $96 Million Hindu Temple Opens Amid Accusations of Forced Labor

The temple in Robbinsville, N.J., about 15 years in the making, is believed to be the largest in the Western Hemisphere. But its construction has also been clouded in controversy.

This is a read-it-all story, for several reasons. It’s clear that this story is a door into more coverage of the legal and financial wrangling that are ahead.

Readers can see the essential DNA in this summary material near the top:

The recent opening of Akshardham Mahamandir in Robbinsville, N.J., was a historic moment for Hindus in New Jersey and beyond. The temple, about 15 years in the making, is believed to be the largest in the Western Hemisphere and is expected to draw religious pilgrims and tourists from all over the world.

It has also been clouded in controversy.

Federal law enforcement agents raided the temple construction site in 2021 after workers accused the builders, a prominent Hindu sect with ties to Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India and his ruling party, of forced labor, low wages and poor working conditions.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Doctrine and discrimination: Is the California anti-'caste' bill unfair to Hindu believers?

Doctrine and discrimination: Is the California anti-'caste' bill unfair to Hindu believers?

QUESTION:

Is California’s anti-“caste” effort unfair to Hindus?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

A bill sponsored by a Muslim legislator and passed by California’s Senate May 11 would make this the first U,S. state to add “caste” to the categories of illegal discrimination under civil rights laws.

The bill defines caste as “a system of social stratification on the basis of inherited status” that involves “socially enforced restrictions on marriage, private and public segregation” and “social exclusion on the basis of perceived status.” Action on the bill by California’s state Assembly is pending. Earlier this year, Seattle became the first U.S. city to enact a parallel statute.

As of 2022, the 23 campuses of the California State University system likewise banned caste discrimination.  Other campuses with such policies include the University of California campus at Davis and California’s Claremont colleges as well as Brandeis University, Brown University, Carleton University, Colby College, Colorado College, and Harvard University, with others expected to join this new movement.

Caste is well-known for close association with Hinduism, whose billion followers make it the world’s third-largest religion behind Christianity and Islam. California’s actions have roused intense divisions among immigrants from India, with some telling legislators about incidents when they suffered from caste bias. A 2018 report by the anti-caste Equality Labs found 67% of Indian-Americans from low-status groups felt they were treated unfairly at work.

But groups such as the Hindu American Foundation contend that the bill itself “will perpetuate racist European stereotypes and misconceptions” and rouse discrimination against Hindus. Some deny that caste is any core tenet of the Hindu religion, if properly understood, or say that British colonial rule exaggerated and exploited the system.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Buried story of 2022? The persecution of Christians keeps surging around the world

Buried story of 2022? The persecution of Christians keeps surging around the world

You want news?

The 2022 report from the Open Doors organization (CLICK HERE) says “persecution of Christians has reached the highest levels” since it began accumulating data for its annual “World Watch List” three decades ago. Hostile incidents have increased by 20% since just 2014, and some 360 million Christians, or 14% of the worldwide total, are said to have faced persecution, harassment, or discrimination.

Open Doors reports that it has documented the murders in one year’s time of 5,898 Christians for their faith (up 24% from the prior year); attacks on 5,110 local churches (up 14%); 3,829 abductions (a new high, up 124%); 6,175 victims held without trial; 24,678 subjected to beatings, death threats and other abuse; 6,449 with homes or businesses attacked; and 3,147 women targeted for rape or sexual harassment. 

Since that report was issued, the Nigeria-based civil rights group Intersociety reports that in just that one nation 4,020 additional killings and 2,315 abductions occurred from January through October, 2022.

The Memo therefore proclaims this international upsurge the Buried Story of the Year, a major, newsworthy global scourge widely featured by religious media — yet all but ignored by much of the “Mainstream Media.”

Journalists will have another peg for remedying this sin of omission when Open Doors issues its 2023 report early in the new year.

One noteworthy media exception, timed for Christmas a year ago, was a thorough New York Times survey of widespread harassment of Christians in India. Also, Reuters this month produced a massive investigation of 10,000 forced abortions conducted by the military in chaotic Nigeria, indicating rape is a widespread tactic used to terrorize Christian women.

On a broader time frame, the Center for the Study of Global Christianity estimates that 1 million Christian martyrs were killed in the first 10 years of the 21st Century.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Role of religion in Leicestershire riots? BBC journalists fell prey to 'word salad' logic

Role of religion in Leicestershire riots? BBC journalists fell prey to 'word salad' logic

I apologize for repeating this sobering anecdote, but — alas — it’s relevant again.

When “Blind Spot: When Journalists Don’t Get Religion” was released in 2008, several of the authors took part in a circle-the-globe trip for events linked to the issues covered in the book. One interesting — or disturbing — forum took place with journalism students at the multi-faith Convergence Institute of Media in Bangalore, India.

The topic, of course, was how to improve religion-news coverage in print and broadcast media. In a previous post — “Life and death (and faith) in India” — I noted:

I was struck by one consistent response from the audience, which I would estimate was about 50 percent Hindu, 25 percent Muslim and 25 percent Christian. When asked what was the greatest obstacle to accurate, mainstream coverage of events and trends in religion, the response of one young Muslim male was blunt. When our media cover religion news, he said, more people end up dead. Other students repeated this theme during our meetings.

In other words, when journalists cover religion stories, this only makes the conflicts worse. It is better to either ignore them or to downplay them, masking the nature of the conflicts behind phrases such as "community conflicts" or saying that the events are caused by disputes about "culture" or "Indian values."

Cover the story WRONG and more people die, they said. But if you cover the story ACCURATELY, even more people will die. As a rule, editors and producers resorted to vague terms — “community violence” was common — to hide bloody sectarian divides. Journalism is not an option when covering religious divides in India.

With that in mind, consider the foggy “word salad” language at the top of this recent BBC report about what were clearly sectarian riots in East Leicester. This is from a web archive, since the story was updated later without explanation. The bottom line: The religion angles in this story were too hot to mention.

Police and community leaders have called for calm after large numbers of people became involved in disorder in parts of East Leicester. Footage online shows hundreds of people, mainly men, filling the streets. …

It is the latest in a series of disturbances to have broken out following an India and Pakistan cricket match on 28 August.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

What responsibility do journalists have when covering incendiary wars about religion and culture?

What responsibility do journalists have when covering incendiary wars about religion and culture?

We tend to pay attention to news that impacts us most directly. So for Americans, the culture war playing out between religious (and some non-religious) traditionalists and social progressives is most compelling.

Half-way around the world, however, another ongoing war about religion and culture has heated up yet again. This one has direct international ramifications and has the potential to negatively impact global religious-political alignments perhaps as much or more than America’s nasty cultural war.

It also contains an important lesson about the possible consequences of governments employing divisive culture war tactics for political gain (more on this theme below.) I do not think it absurd to fear that our homegrown culture war could become just as bad, or worse.

I’m referring to India, a constitutionally secular nation wracked by inter-religious conflict between majority Hindus and minority Muslims (Christians have been caught in this imbroglio, too, but put that aside for the duration of this post).

Here’s a recent overview of India’s situation from The Washington Post. And here’s the top of that report:

NEW DELHI — After a spokeswoman for India’s ruling party made disparaging remarks about the prophet Muhammad during a recent televised debate, rioters took to the streets in the northern city of Kanpur, throwing rocks and clashing with police.

It was only the beginning of a controversy that would have global repercussions.

Indian products were soon taken off shelves in the Persian Gulf after a high-ranking Muslim cleric called for boycotts. Hashtags expressing anger at Prime Minister Narendra Modi began trending on Arabic-language Twitter. Three Muslim-majority countries — Qatar, Kuwait and Iran — summoned their Indian ambassadors to convey their displeasure. The governments of Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Afghanistan on Monday condemned the spokeswoman, Nupur Sharma, as did the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

Inflammatory comments by right-wing activists and political leaders in India often make headlines and spark outrage on social media. But rarely do they elicit the kind of attention that Sharma drew in [early June], which sent her political party — and India’s diplomats — scrambling to contain an international public relations crisis.

Let’s step back from the news coverage for a moment to consider some underlying dynamics and their impact on journalism.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Step back from digital news blitz with deeply layered religion pieces about China and India

Step back from digital news blitz with deeply layered religion pieces about China and India

The web has seduced us — and by us I mean me — into a life of 24-7 journalistic overload. For me, that can mean running out of bandwidth before getting to a story that actually deserves close attention. My limited brain can digest only so much before it shorts out.

Even a strung-out news junkie such as myself needs to log off every so often. Self-styled media literacy is as addictive as blissful ignorance.

Religion coverage has suffered greatly in this new journalistic reality. We’re provided an abundance of attention-grabbing stories about clergy hypocrisy, largely involving sexual, material or political excess. We get too few stories that connect the data points of everyday religious complexity that allows us to understand issues more deeply.

Here are two recent stories that struck me as worthy of the attention that’s too often withheld. One involves China, the other India. The only connection between them is that they both reveal deep truths about the religious reality of the societies they report on.

Let’s start with China, the more straightforward of the two stories.

It comes from Foreign Policy and ran under the intriguing, but incomplete, headline: “The Chinese Communist Party Is Scared of Christianity.”

Why incomplete? Because as the writer notes, it’s not just Christianity that scares China’s totalitarians rulers. It’s all unauthorized official thinking, religious or otherwise.

Did the headline mention Christianity alone because editors figured that would play best with their mostly western readership? Is this another example of algorithmic journalism?


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Stunning AP photos of mass cremations in India: But what about religious traditions?

Stunning AP photos of mass cremations in India: But what about religious traditions?

Draw up a list of the world’s most religious nations and India (population 1.4 billion) will almost always be somewhere near the top — especially if you focus on the world’s largest nations, in terms of population.

What makes India unique, however, is its incredible religious complexity. While Hindu believers make up about 80% of the population, 15% of the population is Muslim. In terms of sheer numbers, India has the world’s second largest Muslim population (after Indonesia). India has small, but historically important, Christian communities, mostly Catholic and Anglican.

The tensions between India’s various traditions are quite stunning and complex. But so are they way that the major faith groups overlap and blend into a larger whole. The bottom line: There are very few issues in this amazing land that are not, to some degree, touched by religious traditions — even if people struggle to describe the details.

This brings me to a stunning Associated Press photo feature that ran with this headline: “Mass funeral pyres reflect India’s COVID crisis.

Pause for a minute and ponder this question: How many story angles — some of them quite controversial — can you imagine that are linked to funeral pyres and Hindu traditions? Now, imagine the complex issues that waves of COVID-19 deaths would create in India’s faith communities, with their unique traditions linked to death and dying.

Now imagine dedicating a mere one sentence to only one of those angles. Here is the overture, describing the larger crisis:

NEW DELHI (AP) — Delhi has been cremating so many bodies of COVID-19 victims that authorities are getting requests to start cutting down trees in city parks for kindling, as a record surge of illness is collapsing India’s tattered health care system.

Outside graveyards in cities like Delhi, which currently has the highest daily cases, ambulance after ambulance waits in line to cremate the dead. Burial grounds are running out of space in many cities as glowing funeral pyres blaze through the night.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

India's 'love jihad' interfaith marriage story may be political spin -- but its effects are real

I don’t recall ever watching it but I do remember the brouhaha that erupted within the Jewish community when the short-lived TV sitcom “Bridget Loves Bernie” debuted in 1972.

Despite the show’s audience popularity it was cancelled after just one season because of the high-profile flak it drew from establishment American Jewish community leaders who objected to the show’s premise — an interfaith romance between Bridget, a Catholic, and Bernie, a Jew. (Neither of its stars, Meredith Baxter and David Birney, were Jews.)

Given the entertainment media’s level of religious, racial, and gender mixing and matching today, “Bridget and Bernie” probably strikes you as pretty tame. However, the show’s timing couldn’t have been worse; the American Jewish community was just starting to publicly debate, with alarm, its growing intermarriage rate.

Leading Orthodox, Conservative and even theologically liberal Reform rabbis lambasted the show as an insult to one of Judaism’s most sacrosanct values, marrying within the tribe, which was particularly strong in the decades after the Holocaust. Boycotts were organized and meetings were held with the TV execs who backed the show. The radical, and sometimes violent, Jewish Defense League issued threats.

Yet in the end, “Bridget Loves Bernie” turned out to be a Jewish-American harbinger. Today, an estimated 50 percent-plus of American Jews marry non-Jews, though it’s still relatively rare within traditionalist Orthodox circles..

But as scandalous as “Bridget Loves Bernie” was in its day, it pales in comparison to the controversy now engulfing the contemporary Indian TV drama “A Suitable Boy.”

That’s because the show — which became available to American audiences via the streaming service AcornTV today (Monday, Dec. 7) — features a love story between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman. For India’s fervent Hindu nationalist politicians, that constitutes “love jihad” — a calculated attack by Muslims on the nation’s Hindu heritage.

In India, “A Suitable Boy,” a BBC production, was broadcast by Netflix. And even though the platform has a relatively small subscription base there it was enough to create quite a stir.

Here’s the top of the New York Times piece that alerted me to this story just before Thanksgiving.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New York Times offers update on India's gay prince: Yes, there are big religion ghosts

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.


Please respect our Commenting Policy