Who are opposing the Hindu initiative to end discrimination in California textbooks?
Many Hindu American parents have been dismayed by the negative and caricaturist description of our heritage that our school children in the United States are subjected to. A few Hindu organizations such as the Hindu Education Foundation (HEF) and the Vedic Foundation (VF), as well as many individual Hindus, have been working with the California Department of Education (CDE) to end the derogatory and discriminatory portrayal of Hinduism in textbooks.
Other ancient traditions such as Jainism are also ignored in textbooks. HEF has received letters of support from Jain groups, as well as Hindu American organizations representing immigrants from Nepal and the Carribbean. More than 100 world-class scholars of archaeology, history and academic study of religion have written to CDE in support of HEF/VF efforts.
A group of academics led by Professor Michael Witzel of Harvard, has been opposing these reasonable changes. Interestingly, Witzel's group admitted that they were unaware of the nature of the proposed changes when they wrote their protest letter to CDE on November 7, 2005'.
Who are they, and why did they oppose the changes? Steve Farmer, a non specialist who does not understand a single Indic language or genre of texts, initiated Witzel's petition, on which many Marxist ideologues signed. It seems that Michael Witzel, who sent the petition on behalf its signatories, has called Hindus immigrant to the USA, "lost or abandoned people." Reports also indicate that he has made fun of the most sacred Hindu chants such as "Om." Witzel indulged in clandestine activism, and urged his cosignatories to mobilize opposition to the Hindu initiative through fringe ultra-left Indian or South Asian groups in the United States.
Lars Martin Fosse, a cosignatory on Witzel's petition and writing on behalf of Witzel's petitioners, appealed to fundamentalist Christian missionaries and alleged Khalistanis to mobilize volunteers to oppose the Hindu initiative. Sikhs, who are a peace-loving, hard-working and enterprising community, have been rightly upset that textbooks that deal with medieval history ignore Sikhism.
During their subsequent intervention at the CDE, Witzel's group argued that proposed HEF/VF correction that 'Ramayana was composed before Mahabharata' (the textbook said the opposite) should be rejected because 'how does a 6th grader care which text was written first'!
When Hindu groups proposed replacing a textbook picture erroneously showing a bearded man with a skullcap with the caption 'Brahmin', Witzel's group proposed that the picture should be replaced with that of an untouchable scavenger! When HEF/VF proposed that ahistorical pictures of members of the four castes should be replaced with more accurate drawings, Witzel wrote that the existing pictures were no worse than those found in the 'Amar Chitra Katha'!
Whereas the descriptions of other religious traditions in the textbooks do not say anything about unequal treatment of slaves and women therein, Witzel wants to single out Hinduism and India for such negative treatment.
Predictably, the Witzel group has received strong support from Indian communists who have always borne an animus for Hindus. The very first articles by Nalini Taneja favoring his stance came out in the online newspaper of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). Further articles by Anjana Chatterjee, an Indian leftist in United States, appeared in some Leftist online magazines, as did articles by Vijay Prasad, founder of the Forum of Inquilabi Leftists (FOIL).
The online blitz was carried out by FOSA ('Friends of South Asia'), a front of FOIL. These articles did not have much academic or substantive content, and indulged in reckless calumny by association, even insinuating that the HEF and VF were somehow linked to the murder of 1000 Muslims in Gujarat! Prasad's article even had the conspiracy theory argument that the edits proposed by Hindu groups wanted to make India look good so that the country could attract more foreign investment.
There were shrill and abrasive appeals for campaigns against HEF/VF on lists of Indian communists residing in the US, followed by letter writing to Indian American newspapers. Surprisingly, FOSA did not attack edits of the Islamic community, as if Islam is not a 'South Asian' religion practiced in South Asia. These articles alleged that HEF/VF were male chauvinist, forgetting that a good chunk of the advisors and coordinators of these organizations were women.
All kinds of abuses in their standard lexicon ('fascists', casteists, Hindu nationalists, Nazis etc.) were hurled without any attempt to understand the issues academically. Another conspiracy theory stated by Leftists was that HEF/VF wanted to exclude the Aryan Invasion
Theory from textbooks because they wanted to declare that Hinduism alone is indigenous to India and all other faiths are foreign!
These same people argue that Hinduism was constructed in 19th century by the British. How is it possible simultaneously that Aryans brought Hinduism into India in 1500 BCE, and then the British invented Hinduism out of nothing 3000 years later?
A new twist in this controversy is the recent involvement of 'Dalit' groups, who showed up in strength at the Board office in Sacramento on January 12, 2006. They protested the edit that asked for exclusion of the word 'Dalit' from one of the eight textbooks. It seems that 'Dalit' word means "broken/oppressed" which might have a demeaning impact on any student of referred castes. The word 'Dalit' is being used only after 1950s that too mainly in one section of India while word 'Harijan' was most commonly used by Mahatma Gandhi in 20th century. Even Kabir used the same word few hundred of years back.
In modern India, the Government of India uses "scheduled caste" while popular political party covering these castes uses "Bahujan Samaj". Most importantly, the textbooks dealt with Hinduism and India before 600 AD, in this ancient period, untouchability was anyway a rare phenomenon according to standard scholarly works.
Moreover, ancient Buddhist texts also seemed to include similar treatment of Chandalas in ancient India, and true egalitarianism was absent in other religions as well. Therefore it was unfair to single out Hinduism. However, Witzel group and the Indian American Leftists played the 'Dalit' card, further muddying the situation to no one's benefit. Some reports indicate that many of the participants who showed up at the Board meeting might not be Hindu Dalits.
Lastly, some members of the Indian Muslim community (such as Khalid Azam of the Indian Muslim Council) have stepped in the fray although Islam was not present in ancient India. They justify their role on the pretext that they are supporting Dalits, and because they are concerned at the 'Hindutva' nature of the edits proposed by HEF/VF. Needless to say, their participation is only vitiating the relationships between Hindus and Muslims in the United States.
The reality is that HEF/VF have only one concern, that impressionable sixth-grade school-going children of CA can use factually and historically accurate education materials that also conform to the CA State Law [Education Code 60044(a) and Subsection (b)], the "Standards for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Social Content (2000 Edition):
"1. Adverse Reflection. No religious belief or practice may be held up to ridicule and no religious group may be portrayed as inferior."
2. Indoctrination. Any explanation or description of a religious belief or practice should be present in a manner that does not encourage or discourage belief or indoctrinate the student in any particular religious belief."
How will an excessively negative presentation of India and Hinduism help any student? It could only hinder the psychological development of Indian American and Hindu American children because their classmates will not help notice that only Hinduism has been depicted negatively and other faiths have been not. So Hindu parents appealed to various parties opposed to these edits to consider the welfare of little children, and not make them the battleground of their divisive politics imported from India.
In contrast to Hindu changes, the 500 changes of the Jewish community and a hundred changes proposed by the Muslims were accepted in toto by everyone without a single protest. But as many as 58 of the modest 95 odd Hindu group proposed edits were opposed by the same people. Why? Are Hindus children of a lesser 'god'? Why is that that 'scholars' who have never acted constructively in improving the coverage of India and Hinduism in textbooks are now trying to 'foil' constructive maiden attempts by HEF/VF? How come anti-Hinduism is common in all these groups?
Other ancient traditions such as Jainism are also ignored in textbooks. HEF has received letters of support from Jain groups, as well as Hindu American organizations representing immigrants from Nepal and the Carribbean. More than 100 world-class scholars of archaeology, history and academic study of religion have written to CDE in support of HEF/VF efforts.
A group of academics led by Professor Michael Witzel of Harvard, has been opposing these reasonable changes. Interestingly, Witzel's group admitted that they were unaware of the nature of the proposed changes when they wrote their protest letter to CDE on November 7, 2005'.
Who are they, and why did they oppose the changes? Steve Farmer, a non specialist who does not understand a single Indic language or genre of texts, initiated Witzel's petition, on which many Marxist ideologues signed. It seems that Michael Witzel, who sent the petition on behalf its signatories, has called Hindus immigrant to the USA, "lost or abandoned people." Reports also indicate that he has made fun of the most sacred Hindu chants such as "Om." Witzel indulged in clandestine activism, and urged his cosignatories to mobilize opposition to the Hindu initiative through fringe ultra-left Indian or South Asian groups in the United States.
Lars Martin Fosse, a cosignatory on Witzel's petition and writing on behalf of Witzel's petitioners, appealed to fundamentalist Christian missionaries and alleged Khalistanis to mobilize volunteers to oppose the Hindu initiative. Sikhs, who are a peace-loving, hard-working and enterprising community, have been rightly upset that textbooks that deal with medieval history ignore Sikhism.
During their subsequent intervention at the CDE, Witzel's group argued that proposed HEF/VF correction that 'Ramayana was composed before Mahabharata' (the textbook said the opposite) should be rejected because 'how does a 6th grader care which text was written first'!
When Hindu groups proposed replacing a textbook picture erroneously showing a bearded man with a skullcap with the caption 'Brahmin', Witzel's group proposed that the picture should be replaced with that of an untouchable scavenger! When HEF/VF proposed that ahistorical pictures of members of the four castes should be replaced with more accurate drawings, Witzel wrote that the existing pictures were no worse than those found in the 'Amar Chitra Katha'!
Whereas the descriptions of other religious traditions in the textbooks do not say anything about unequal treatment of slaves and women therein, Witzel wants to single out Hinduism and India for such negative treatment.
Predictably, the Witzel group has received strong support from Indian communists who have always borne an animus for Hindus. The very first articles by Nalini Taneja favoring his stance came out in the online newspaper of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). Further articles by Anjana Chatterjee, an Indian leftist in United States, appeared in some Leftist online magazines, as did articles by Vijay Prasad, founder of the Forum of Inquilabi Leftists (FOIL).
The online blitz was carried out by FOSA ('Friends of South Asia'), a front of FOIL. These articles did not have much academic or substantive content, and indulged in reckless calumny by association, even insinuating that the HEF and VF were somehow linked to the murder of 1000 Muslims in Gujarat! Prasad's article even had the conspiracy theory argument that the edits proposed by Hindu groups wanted to make India look good so that the country could attract more foreign investment.
There were shrill and abrasive appeals for campaigns against HEF/VF on lists of Indian communists residing in the US, followed by letter writing to Indian American newspapers. Surprisingly, FOSA did not attack edits of the Islamic community, as if Islam is not a 'South Asian' religion practiced in South Asia. These articles alleged that HEF/VF were male chauvinist, forgetting that a good chunk of the advisors and coordinators of these organizations were women.
All kinds of abuses in their standard lexicon ('fascists', casteists, Hindu nationalists, Nazis etc.) were hurled without any attempt to understand the issues academically. Another conspiracy theory stated by Leftists was that HEF/VF wanted to exclude the Aryan Invasion
Theory from textbooks because they wanted to declare that Hinduism alone is indigenous to India and all other faiths are foreign!
These same people argue that Hinduism was constructed in 19th century by the British. How is it possible simultaneously that Aryans brought Hinduism into India in 1500 BCE, and then the British invented Hinduism out of nothing 3000 years later?
A new twist in this controversy is the recent involvement of 'Dalit' groups, who showed up in strength at the Board office in Sacramento on January 12, 2006. They protested the edit that asked for exclusion of the word 'Dalit' from one of the eight textbooks. It seems that 'Dalit' word means "broken/oppressed" which might have a demeaning impact on any student of referred castes. The word 'Dalit' is being used only after 1950s that too mainly in one section of India while word 'Harijan' was most commonly used by Mahatma Gandhi in 20th century. Even Kabir used the same word few hundred of years back.
In modern India, the Government of India uses "scheduled caste" while popular political party covering these castes uses "Bahujan Samaj". Most importantly, the textbooks dealt with Hinduism and India before 600 AD, in this ancient period, untouchability was anyway a rare phenomenon according to standard scholarly works.
Moreover, ancient Buddhist texts also seemed to include similar treatment of Chandalas in ancient India, and true egalitarianism was absent in other religions as well. Therefore it was unfair to single out Hinduism. However, Witzel group and the Indian American Leftists played the 'Dalit' card, further muddying the situation to no one's benefit. Some reports indicate that many of the participants who showed up at the Board meeting might not be Hindu Dalits.
Lastly, some members of the Indian Muslim community (such as Khalid Azam of the Indian Muslim Council) have stepped in the fray although Islam was not present in ancient India. They justify their role on the pretext that they are supporting Dalits, and because they are concerned at the 'Hindutva' nature of the edits proposed by HEF/VF. Needless to say, their participation is only vitiating the relationships between Hindus and Muslims in the United States.
The reality is that HEF/VF have only one concern, that impressionable sixth-grade school-going children of CA can use factually and historically accurate education materials that also conform to the CA State Law [Education Code 60044(a) and Subsection (b)], the "Standards for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Social Content (2000 Edition):
"1. Adverse Reflection. No religious belief or practice may be held up to ridicule and no religious group may be portrayed as inferior."
2. Indoctrination. Any explanation or description of a religious belief or practice should be present in a manner that does not encourage or discourage belief or indoctrinate the student in any particular religious belief."
How will an excessively negative presentation of India and Hinduism help any student? It could only hinder the psychological development of Indian American and Hindu American children because their classmates will not help notice that only Hinduism has been depicted negatively and other faiths have been not. So Hindu parents appealed to various parties opposed to these edits to consider the welfare of little children, and not make them the battleground of their divisive politics imported from India.
In contrast to Hindu changes, the 500 changes of the Jewish community and a hundred changes proposed by the Muslims were accepted in toto by everyone without a single protest. But as many as 58 of the modest 95 odd Hindu group proposed edits were opposed by the same people. Why? Are Hindus children of a lesser 'god'? Why is that that 'scholars' who have never acted constructively in improving the coverage of India and Hinduism in textbooks are now trying to 'foil' constructive maiden attempts by HEF/VF? How come anti-Hinduism is common in all these groups?
posted by Prasad at
7:50 AM
