Academic Hinduphobia

COUNTERPOINT
Academic Hinduphobia
The sixth-grade classroom in America has become the battle ground for geo-politically charged fights where the anti-Hindu biases of the academicians are ruling the roost. Is the sixth-grade classroom the right place to prosecute an American minority culture or a foreign nation?

RAJIV MALHOTRA AND VIDHI JHUNJHUNWALA

The recent California Department of Education's hearings on sixth-grade textbook portrayals of religions and cultures have triggered conflicts between the Hindu Diaspora and a group of academicians claiming to be "the experts" on Hinduism. Every religion has good sides and bad sides, its "enemies" and its "victims." However, eleven-year olds are too young and naïve, and most of their teachers are too ignorant, to be subject to incoherent scholarly controversies on foreign politics. Most sixth graders are unlikely to study these religions ever again in their lives. Hence, the impressions created by these textbooks will have a lasting effect in shaping the future of American society.  

The table below compares how California textbooks treat Hinduism and other major religions. 

How religions are treated  in California textbooks
Topic	I	J	C	H
Women are shown equal to men?	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Oppression of certain groups is discussed?	No	No	No	Yes
Beliefs are considered as historical fact?	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Own leaders' interpretations are emphasized?	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Treated as a world religion without social/political issues of any foreign country?	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
I: Islam J: Judaism C: Christianity H: Hinduism

For example, take the current 'cartoon controversy'. The Danish media claims to be exercising its "intellectual freedom," but their cartoons, it could justifiably be argued, have hurt the sentiments of Muslims worldwide. The sentiments and actual hurt have been hijacked by cynical local and global politics and this has played into the hands of Islamic radicals: violent world-wide protests are on, embassies have been burnt and death threats given. All this has further exacerbated what many call the "clash of civilizations " between Islam and the West. This is not the first time it has happened either. But do the discussions on Islam, in these sixth grade text-books, for example, talk about such violent deeds committed in the name of Islam? No, and that is the way it should be.

Likewise, when Hindus' sentiments are routinely hurt in far worse ways, especially as a part of America's formal education system, it naturally adds fuel to religious politics. Since liberal intellectuals - rightfully - respect Muslim sentiments and do not demand "scientific proof" for Islamic beliefs, does it not follow that they should apply the same approach towards Hinduism?

This article merely argues for equal treatment of Hinduism, no more and no less, and shows that this is presently lacking due to a double standard. 

Intellectual honesty demands that we ask whether one religion's aggression against "idols" devastates another religion's respect for its murtis. Does canonized condemnation of "infidels" and "false religions" not then qualify as hate speech? Surely it is reasonable to demand that the same standards be applied to all religions when discussing textual references that are against women, persons of lower socioeconomic strata, non-believers of the given faith, and other faiths' symbols and practices as well? Either such textual references should be included for all religions or none. Why should Hinduism be singled out?

Selective condemnations of religion X while appeasing religion Y is a dangerous political game. One must courageously confront the fashionable academic bandwagons and expose their facile politics

It is also essential for all religions to be presented on an equal footing using the same pedagogy and standards. Therefore, someone has to choose the information that is to be taught to sixth-graders, and there must be transparent rules on how this is to be achieved. 

California's official educational standards contain specific policies on this, which assert, 

"No religious belief or practice may be held up to ridicule and no religious group may be portrayed as inferior,"  

and that, 

"Textbooks should instill a sense of pride in every child in his or her heritage."  

As the above table demonstrates, the textbooks do not comply with the California standards in the case of Hinduism.  

For instance, the textbooks say that Hinduism considers women to be inferior to men, but ignore biases against women in Islam, Christianity and Judaism. The textbooks focus on "Hindu atrocities" against certain groups, but do not point out that Islamic, Christian and Jewish societies have similar issues. The clergy in Islam, Christianity and Judaism are treated as credible experts and their religious texts are assumed to be stating historical facts, while Hindu texts are depicted through the pejorative lenses of critics and called "myths." 
 
The California Board of Education conducts a public review of its textbooks every six years with a goal to remove unfair and biased representations. Islamic, Christian, and Jewish groups have been successfully involved in this review process for many years, constantly removing any negative portrayals of their respective religions. Surprisingly, the recent involvement of Hindu American groups to participate in the public hearings with the educational authorities is being fiercely condemned by academicians who gracefully accept the changes proposed by other religious groups. American academicians who are known for their Hinduphobia have launched a vicious attack. They rallied instant support from many Indian academicians to do the dirty work, in a manner similar to the way in which British colonizers used Indian sepoys to shoot at their fellow Indians. Interestingly, most of the academicians who joined are not experts in the academic field of religion, and are not even members of the Hinduism Unit of the American Academy of Religion, which is the official academic body of Hinduism Studies. 

The attack has relied upon maligning Hindu groups and branding them as "fascists," "extremists," "fundamentalists," "chauvinists," etc. The attackers allege links between overseas violence and Hindu Americans, and use sensationalized warnings that accepting the Hindus on par with the Islamic and Christian groups would encourage international terrorism. In an educational review the subject of discussion should be the content of the textbooks, California's published educational standards, and the effects of religious representation on America's next generation. But in this case, an American religious minority is being labeled as a threat to international security just because it wants an equitable depiction of its religion. The scholars involved have failed both as defenders of intellectual freedom and as practitioners of independent critical inquiry.  

Furthermore, the California authorities, in a move which is now being challenged legally, heard a parade of anti-Hindu voices as "expert witness," while there were no similar dissenting voices invited to criticize Islam, Christianity or Judaism. The academicians fighting the Hindu Diaspora frantically arranged to fly in witnesses from far away places to testify about the horrors of Hinduism, while no similar witnesses were summoned to testify against the horrors of Islam, Christianity or Judaism.- such as, for example, Kashmiri Pandits, Hindus raped in Pakistan, Muslim women complaining against forced burqas, or the innocent children who have been victims of pedophile Christian priests.

Only in the case of Hinduism was the politics from the mother country dragged into the California proceedings What they overlooked is that Hinduism is a world religion with followers in many parts of the planet besides India. India's social-political problems do not reflect on the second-generation Indian Americans, the millions of Euro-Americans practicing yoga/meditation who claim Hindu or quasi-Hindu identities, or on millions of overseas Hindus living elsewhere. The scholars failed to decouple Hinduism from Indian politics, while no other religion got coupled to geopolitics.  
 

How the California process has worked
Public Process	I	J	C	H
Organized community groups are lobbying for change?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Have academics protested against the community's activism?	No	No	No	Yes
Did Education Board bring hostile academics as advisors?	No	No	No	Yes
Are advocates of the religion being branded as "chauvinists", "fundamentalists", "nationalists"…?	No	No	No	Yes
Is politics from the mother country driving the academic scholars?	No	No	N/A	Yes
I: Islam J: Judaism C: Christianity H: Hinduism

The academicians should first confront the mandate of California's Social Studies Standards which requires that, "Textbooks should instill a sense of pride in every child in his or her heritage." In this regard, textbooks should also include Hinduism's major contributions to America: yoga, vegetarianism, the transcendentalist literary movement in the 19th century, and the many positive influences on American pop music, cuisine, film, dance, etc. 

While attempts are being made to teach about "Hindu horrors" against minorities, the same academicians are not lobbying to add textbook sections on "Islamic genocides," in South Asia, "Islamic terrorism" worldwide, or "Christian holocausts" of Native Americans: The non-Hindu religions are coddled with political correctness and "sensitivity." In order to be true to their field of study, academicians should apply the same "human rights" criteria to all religions equally. 

The academicians are approaching Indian society as a patient waiting to be cured of maladies in the hands of America. But they have not addressed the following issues: Does America have a superior human rights record? Are American institutions accountable as doctors and qualified to "cure" Indian society? What is the past track record of American powers intervening in third-world domestic issues and curing them of their societal maladies? Are American agendas constructing categories of "cultural crimes"? 

The sixth-grade classroom has become the battle ground for these geopolitically charged fights. Is the sixth-grade classroom the right place to prosecute an American minority culture or a foreign nation? Among these California children, less than one percent will pursue careers as Christian evangelists slandering Hindus to convert, or as US government officials using "human rights" as a weapon to gain leverage against India. For this tiny number of potential specialists, there will be other opportunities in higher studies to embark upon a comprehensive study of India's positive and negative social qualities. 

The political activism of a cartel of elitist academicians is invading the psyche of innocent children: It harasses the Indian students in class, making them feel embarrassed and ashamed of their ancestry. Challenging history is one thing, but intentionally undermining self-respect at an impressionable age is a form of psychological child abuse. It handicaps the non-Indian students who will grow up to work in a world in which India must be taken seriously and not dismissed as a patient to be exposed, subjected to licensed condescension, or "cured" by the West. 

The controversy of the Mohammed cartoons should compel concerned citizens everywhere to balance intellectual freedom with intellectual responsibility. Whatever may be one's position in this debate, it must be equally applied to all religions or else it would be hypocrisy. 

---

Rajiv Malhotra is a public intellectual living in Princeton, New Jersey, who runs his own non-profit Infinity Foundation on a full-time basis.  Some of his on-line writings are available at Sulekha.com  

Vidhi Jhunjhunwala is a student at Boston University:

Hindu American Youth debates with Prof. Witzel on California Textbook Reforms

http://www.lokvani.com/lokvani/article.php?article_id=3050

California School Text Issues: Students Debate With Prof. Michael Witzel At Harvard University
Special Correspondent

On Friday, Feb. 3rd, the Dharma Club, Harvard's Hindu students' organization, held a public forum to discuss the controversy over recent attempts to correct the presentation of Hinduism in textbooks in California. The forum featured presentations by two speakers. The first was Prof. Michael Witzel, Wales Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard, who opposes many of the corrections of the contents on Ancient India proposed for the CA textbooks . The other speaker was Krishna Maheshwari, a student at the Harvard Business School and co-founder of the Cornell chapter of Hindu Students Council (HSC). While Mr. Maheshwari is not a member of either the Vedic Foundation (VF) or the Hindu Education Foundation (HEF), he agrees with the bulk of the proposed changes and volunteered to speak in favor of the corrections at this forum.

Prof. Witzel began by outlining his reasons for opposing the specific corrections proposed by the VF and HEF. He stated that while he understood the Hindu community's concerns about the often negative portrayal of Hinduism in textbooks, he and his supporters felt that many of the proposed corrections were historically inaccurate and thus should not be accepted by the California Department of Education. The Professor attempted to question the motivations of the VF and HEF. He alleged that these organizations have links to groups having Hindu fundamentalist leanings in India. Mr Maheshwari pointed out that Prof. Witzel's attempt in connecting the CA textbook issue of coverage of Ancient India to the current political situation in India is completely uncalled for.

 

Mr Maheshwari in his presentation eloquently brought out the issues with the textbooks, not just California textbooks, but books from all states. His statement that textbooks are wrong was agreed to by Michael Witzel. He shared his experience in the classroom while he was growing up. Few members from the audience also shared their experiences suggesting that correcting the textbooks is a necessity and is largely agreed upon.

Mr. Maheshwari responded to Prof. Witzel's call for historical accuracy by pointing out that the positions adopted by the VF and HEF are supported by archaeological and genetic evidence and pointed to arguments presented by some of Prof. Witzel's colleagues at Harvard. Mr. Maheshwari also pointed out that due to the complexity of Sanskrit, there are many plausible interpretations of the Vedas and other scriptures concerning issues such as caste and the role of women. The issue in California is about the fair, just and appropriate treatment of Hinduism.  He repeatedly asserted that the presentation of Hinduism should be on par with that of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.   Mr. Maheshwari also responded to Prof. Witzel's allegations of links between the VF/HEF and Hindu fundamentalism by pointing out that one of Prof Witzel's supporters, Steven Farmer, tried to enlist the support of Christian fundamentalists and other anti-Hindu elements to block the efforts of the Hindu community to change the textbooks; just as it would be unfair to attack Prof. Witzel�s motives because of the activities of his supporters, Mr. Maheshwari argued, it is equally wrong to try to dismiss the VF's and HEF's edits by questioning their motives.


Mr. Maheshwari agreed with Prof. Witzel that in general, it can be difficult to find a balance between sensitivity to religion and historical accuracy.  He pointed out, however, that it is fairly straight forward in the case of elementary school textbooks because the state of California has very clear guidelines for how this issue should be resolved. For example, the guidelines state that no religion can be portrayed as inferior to any other, that no religion can be portrayed as an improvement on another religion, and that the curriculum should instill pride in his or her religion in each student. The fundamental problem in California, said Mr. Maheshwari, is that the guidelines are both not followed and not enforced in the case of Hinduism. Some of the texts trivialize Hindu beliefs, such as one book that tells students to look around for monkeys when discussing the Ramayana. Extensive space is devoted to presenting Hindu theology in terms of social problems such as caste while little space is devoted to actual Hindu philosophy or any achievements of Hindu civilization in areas such as mathematics and medicine. Finally, many books treat problems such as caste and gender discrimination as part of Hindu theology, whereas the Crusades, the Inquisition, and jihad are portrayed as historical events that may not reflect the beliefs of American Christians or Muslims.

Prof. Witzels�s motive in getting involved in the textbooks issue was questioned in the meeting. One person from the audience asked if he read the edits submitted by Hindu groups and also the textbooks before sending the letter to the board citing �it may ead to an international educational scandal�. Prof. Witzel refused to answer it citing that the matter was in court. It is not known however, if there is any court case. Another comment came from the audience that though his letter to the CBE on Harvard letterhead listed about 50 signatories as �world specialists on ancient India', many of them are not in academics, and majority of them are linguists, non-Hindus and many of them have nothing to do with Hinduism or Indian history. In addition, few historians listed are also questionable, including some with Marxists affiliations. Prof. Witzel had no comments.

Overall, the audience seemed very interested in hearing both sides of the debate. There was general agreement among all present, including Prof. Witzel, that there are serious problems with the way in which Hinduism is presented in American textbooks. However, it is clear that even after this forum, there is still considerable debate within the Harvard community about how the issue should be addressed. There is still a considerable disconnect between the two sides on this issue. Prof. Witzel and his supporters continue to focus on narrowly defined notions of historical accuracy which itself is under considerable debate in academic circles, while the VF, HEF and their supporters are concerned primarily with the ensuring that California state Government's guidelines are followed. It is also expected that just and fair representation of Hinduism and ancient India is ensured in all school textbooks.

Indo-Americans Protest Indian History in California Textbooks

Indo-Americans Protest Indian History in California Textbooks

INDOlink News Bureau

San Jose, California - A new controversy about Indian history is brewing in the halls of California schools and the state's board of education.

This high-profile debate between religion and scholarship - is yet another sign of the growing political muscle of Indian immigrants and the rising American interest in Asia. California is now home to more than 300,000 people of Indian descent, with nearly 40,000 Indo-American students attending California schools in grades K-8. Over the next six years, they and millions of their peers will read the standardized sixth-grade textbooks on world cultures including Hinduism and ancient India. The chapters they will study are currently being reviewed by the California State Board of Education. California mandates the study of world religions in its public schools. The debate flared last November, when the state Board of Education held a public meeting to discuss the revisions, one of the final steps in the state's adoption process which takes place every six years. Madhulika Singh, an Indian-born Yale graduate who has lived in the United States for 23 years, was one of those who raised concerns with the text during the hearing. She told the committee her 11-year-old son was so embarrassed by what he read that he became ashamed of being Hindu. "There are many children, non-Hindu children, who didn't know much about Hinduism or India until they were exposed to it in the sixth grade. When they learn what they read in textbooks, they are shocked or hate India and Hinduism," she said. "Before they may have been neutral or ignorant of it; that's better than hating it. I don't want my children's co-students to learn all these negative things and make remarks to my children." The books that Madhulika's son uses in school describe the Goddess Kali, revered by Hindus for her cosmic power, as "bloodthirsty." They call Hanuman, a god worshipped for his loyalty and protection, the "monkey king." One exercise tells students that Hanuman loved Rama (a Hindu god) so much that some believe he appears every time the Ramayana (ancient Sanskrit epic) is read. "So look around � see any monkeys?" the passage taunts. While several groups, including Jewish and Islamic advocates also requested changes, the majority of the debate came over the Hindu groups' position which has led to ongoing review meetings. The Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Foundation, proposed 153 changes, 131 of which were initially accepted by the committee. In one example, the current text read: "The Aryans created a caste system." The proposed revision is: "During Vedic Times, people were divided into different social groups (varnas) based on their capacity to undertake a particular profession." The committee, advised by Professor Shiva Bajpai, a professor emeritus in the History Department at California State University at Northridge, approved the majority of the decisions. But a group of professors, led by Harvard Professor Michael Witzel, denounced the revisions in a letter to the Board of Education. In his letter, Witzel alleged the proposed changes "would trigger an immediate international scandal." The board appointed Witzel and two colleagues to a special committee, outraging the Hindu groups who believed Hinduism should be described by Hindus. In January, the board decided that both groups would discuss point by point which changes could be made based on historical facts. In response, The Hindu American Foundation led by Fremont physician Mihir Meghani, has hired a law firm to consider legal action should the state decide to modify the recommendations of the curriculum committee. HAF has retained Olson, Hagel and Fishburn, LLP, of Sacramento, CA, to represent the Foundation in its dialogue with the California State Board of Education, and to ensure that the concerns of the Hindu American community regarding textbook portrayals of Hinduism are conveyed.

HAF Legal Counsel Suhag Shukla wrote "While attacks from non-Hindu academics with no expertise in Hinduism, and whose careers have been consumed by advocating pre-modern theories now engulfed by debate, were expected, I have personally been shocked by the unshakable obsession of so many Indian-Americans to view every effort in this country through the prism of their own political ideologies from India. Almost playing right along a colonialist paradigm, Professor Witzel and his ilk, with one letter to the California School Board of Education (SBE) using the word, "Hindutva-inspired," have effectively divided fellow Indian Americans into an antagonistic, contentious and dithering populace�divided and conquered we remain"

Dr. Mihir Meghani, president of the HAF commented, "Hindus throughout the United States are watching the process with concern since the results have broad implications for all Hindus".

"For many years, Hinduism was taught from a non-Hindu perspective. All that we are asking is that Hinduism be taught as per state law, which asks that the education 'Instill in each child a sense of pride in his or her heritage; develop a feeling of self-worth�; eradicate the roots of prejudice... and enable all students to become aware and accepting of religious diversity while being allowed to remain secure in any religious beliefs they may already have."

http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=020106091558

Bigotry and Prejudice: the Depiction of Hinduism in the West

http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/feb/01rajeev.htm?q=tp&file=.htm

Bigotry and Prejudice: the Depiction of Hinduism in the West

February 01, 2006

For the past few months, an obscure debate has been raging on about California school textbooks, which actually boils down to a vexed and important issue: Do Hindus have the right to be treated as equals with followers of other religions, or are Hindus and Hinduism to be deemed, ipso facto, inferior and objects of scorn?

'I am not for rewriting Hinduism'

The proverbial unbiased observer would, on considering the facts, suggest it is a fundamental right of a major world religion to be treated on par with other major world religions. This would stand to reason, as rational people have long since ceased to believe in the superiority of certain races, or languages, or cultures.

'I am not a Hindu hater'

However, it turns out that in the case of Hinduism, ancient prejudices are still at work. It appears that religion is the one area in which it is perfectly acceptable to be an extreme bigot. Interestingly enough, Buddhism, which in many of its basic beliefs is almost identical to Hinduism, fares much better in the respect sweepstakes.

Hindus in India live in a fools' paradise: there is constant official propaganda that 'all religions are equal', and yet, paradoxically, that so-called 'minority religions' and their followers need to be given extra consideration, state largesse and patronage as they are fragile creatures under threat. In reality, they are powerful, rich and muscular State-sponsored religions.

Saudi Arabia's holy intolerance is the most obvious (yet a recent British Midlands airline edict is an example of how this is accepted in dhimmitude), but Europe and the US provide official patronage to their faiths too.

And this extends to the citizenry as well. There are cases of pictures of Hindu deities adorning toilet covers, shoes, underwear and so forth on a regular basis; film-maker Stanley Kubrick felt free to use one of the most sacred stanzas in the Bhagavad Gita as guttural background chanting for a sexual orgy in Eyes Wide Shut I never hear of Jesus or Abraham or Semitic texts being abused with such callous abandon.

In a recent incident in Malaysia, a Hindu soldier, an Everest mountaineer and national hero, was buried as a Muslim overruling the objections of his Hindu wife, who strenuously denied claims that he had converted to Islam. The court refused to even hear the wife's views, ruling that since she was not Muslim, she could not testify in a case involving Islam! The decimation of the Hindu populations of Pakistan and Bangladesh since 1947, including the recent massacre of small Hindu children in a temple in Balochistan, (see my column on that topic) are further instances of ill-treatment.

The paradox is that religious minorities are treated shamefully in white and/or Christist countries, and Arab and/or Muslim countries. This may stem from the beliefs of these faiths and ethnicities in explicit imperialism and world conquest. In India, the numerical minorities (Christians and Muslims) are treated as minor royalty and are the ones oppressing Hindus. Yet, all the propaganda would have you believe the exact opposite.

To put it bluntly, Hindus are despised and treated as second-class citizens outside India, and they are brainwashed into believing they deserve the second-class treatment they get in India, especially under the current dispensation, which has set all-time records for mindless pandering under the stewardship of a remarkably vigorous minister. The Indian government has as its official State religion something called 'secularism'. In plain English, that means endemic State hostility towards Hindus, but tenderness for Christians, Muslims and Marxists.

On the other hand, Christian belief has a special place in the West. Although that has typically been of the nature of primus inter pares, first among equals, it is worth noting that the God in whom we trust, according to US currency notes, is very much the Christian God. With evangelical millennialists rampant, the US now sees 'intelligent design' (belief masquerading as science) and diminishing separation of Church and State.

In the UK, the sovereign apparently is the protector of the Christian faith, or to be precise, the sub-sect that is prevalent in that nation. British rule in India was indistinguishable from fervent and chauvinistic Christian rule, as has been amply documented in Subhash Chakravarthy's incisive The Raj Syndrome.

Judaism, after centuries of oppression, pogroms, genocide, and hate-crimes against its adherents, has now reached a point (partly through their wealth and clout; partly through their willingness to seek legal redress) where nobody dares to denigrate Jews or their faith. The great crimes committed against them by Christians in Germany has also created a guilt complex which means that Christians are doubly careful about not offending Jewish sentiments.

Islam, paradoxically after 9/11, has now attained the same level of kid-glove treatment in the West. This is because of three reasons: one, Leftists in Western media have bullied all would-be dissenters into censoring themselves. Two, Muslim spokespersons in the West aggressively shame or threaten would-be accusers into politically-correct speech. Three, Muslims have deliberately emphasised the commonalities between these three West Asian faiths.

In this context of respectful treatment, it is amazing how differently Hinduism is treated in the West. In several countries, Hinduism is not even recognised as a religion. In determinedly secular France, Hinduism is not officially a religion, and is therefore treated on par with various bizarre cults that speak in tongues or handle rattlesnakes. I believe this is more or less the case in others like Spain and Italy, as well.

Hinduism, like Judaism, can reasonably induce guilt because Christian colonialism has directly caused the deaths of 30 million Indians, mostly Hindus (see Mike Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino and the Creation of the Third World), and the transfer of at least $10 trillion to Western coffers, in the process beggaring the nation. Yet, instead of tender treatment, Hindus get more oppression.

The only Hindu temple in Moscow was recently demolished, with the promise that alternate land would be provided for its reconstruction. But this promise has been reneged on: the temple is demolished and no land has been provided. And there was a broadside by one Archbishop Nikon of the Russian Orthodox Christian Church, which, among other unparliamentary things, refers to Hindu deities as devils.

It may be noted that the Indian government's -- and Parliament's -- response to this outrage was: absolutely nothing. No diplomatic letter, no _expression of concern, no apology extracted, despite Indo-Russian coziness. A group of British MPs, strangely enough, are the only ones to raise their voice. http://www.hinduforum.org/

Comments welcome at Rajeev.srinivasan@gmail.com

To be continued