California textbook controversy over Hindu history

From Dharmapedia Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Part of a series on
Hinduism

A controversy in the US state of California concerning the portrayal of Hinduism in history textbooks began in 2005. The Texas-based Vedic Foundation (VF) and the American Hindu Education Foundation (HEF), both Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) groups,[1] complained to California's Curriculum Commission, saying the coverage in sixth grade history textbooks of Indian history and Hinduism was biased against Hinduism;[2] points of contention included a textbook's portrayal of the caste system, the Indo-Aryan migration theory, and the status of women in Indian society.[1]

The California Department of Education (CDE) initially sought to resolve the controversy by appointing Shiva Bajpai, Professor Emeritus at California State University Northridge, as a one-man committee to review revisions proposed by the groups. Bajpai, who was selected by the Vedic Foundation for the task, approved nearly all the changes;[3] while presented by the VF as an independent scholar, it later came out that he was a member of a closely affiliated organization.[4]

Michael Witzel, Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University, got word of the affair and organized fellow Indologists against the Hindutva campaign, sending a letter with some fifty signatories to the CDE to protest changes of a "religious-political nature"[1].[5]

Witzel, Stanley Wolpert and a third Indologist then revisited the proposed changed on behalf of the State Board of Education and suggested reverting some of the approved changes.[6] According to the CDE, these scholars came to either an agreement or a compromise on the majority of the edits and corrections to the textbooks in 2006, with some proposed changes accepted and others rejected.[7] In early 2006, the Hindu American Foundation sued the State Board over matters of process;[6] the case was settled in 2009.[8]

Background[edit]

Christian, Jewish (led by ICS, the Institute for Curriculum Services), Islamic (led by businessman Shabir Mansuri and founding Director of the Council on Islamic Education) and Hindu groups submitted their edits in autumn 2005. Some textbooks were objected by Jewish groups [5] [archive] and were rejected in September 2005. Over 500 changes proposed by Jewish groups and 100 changes proposed by Muslims were accepted by the CDE and SBE. [9][6] [archive] The changes proposed by Christian groups were also accepted. Only the Hindu edits, which were submitted for the first time, were opposed by the Witzel-Wolpert-Heitzman group.[10] The Christian, Muslim and Jewish groups didn't submit their edits to the textbooks for the first time in 2005.

The Jewish group (ICS) objected "to the use of the word "story" in reference to the Hebrew Bible, as they allege it conveys the idea that the events described are fictitious."[7] [archive] Some of the edits by Jewish groups were also objected by Shabir Mansuri, the founding Director of the Council on Islamic Education. [8] [archive] [9] [archive]

The Californian Standards for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Social Content [11] contain the guiding principles for the textbooks.

They say: "The standards will be achieved by depicting, when appropriate, the diversity of religious beliefs held in the United States and California, as well as in other societies, without displaying bias toward or prejudice against any of those beliefs or religious beliefs in general." [12]
They also say: "No religious belief or practice may be held up to ridicule and no religious group may be portrayed as inferior.", and "Any explanation or description of a religious belief or practice should be presented in a manner that does not encourage or discourage belief or indoctrinate the student in any particular religious belief." [13]

Christian, Muslim and Jewish demands are granted , modest Hindu demands for correction are denied[edit]

Whereas the many edits of Jewish and Islamic communities have been accepted by the California Department of Education (CDE) and State Board of Education (SBE) without any opposition, the modest Hindu edits (to very badly written textbooks) submitted for the first time were facing a lot of opposition from a group of Academics.

There is an incessant and even anachronistic dwelling on the negatives of Hinduism, which seems to have been singled out as a religion for unfair treatment, when one reads the contrasting glowi ng narratives about Abrahamic faiths (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) in these and corresponding texts from other grades. In contrast to other faiths, it appears that only Hinduism oppressed women, and that there is nothing good in Hinduism relating to women. The oppression of lower castes is continuously discussed, whereas corresponding treatment of non-believers (or even believers with a different skin color) in traditional Christian and Islamic societies is left out. Hindu sacred narratives are referred to as stories or myths, whereas Biblical and Koranic narratives are presented as historical facts. Most textbooks also describe the subtle Karma and rebirth related principles of Indic faiths in a minimal and essentially caricaturist manner (“according to this theory, if you do bad deeds, you will be reborn as an insect or a pig”). Whereas the Abrahamic religions are predominantly described from an ‘insider’s’ (emic) perspective, Hinduism is described from an outsider’s (etic) perspective. The misuse of AIT and its euphemistic versions to discuss the origins of Hinduism is a case in the point.

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. similarly, all edits pertaining to Christianity were accepted. but as many as 58 of the modest 95 odd Hindu group proposed edits were opposed by the same people...

edits of other traditions were reviewed by experts who follow the tradition. however, CDE has engaged academicians who are not experts in Indian history or Hinduism, are are not practicing Hindus, on the contrary , who ridicule Hindus and Hinduism, ....

Opposition to the edits of the two Hindu foundations[edit]

Late in the process, Michael E. J. Witzel, a Harvard Sanskrit professor "unexpectedly intervened" [10] [archive]. Witzel, along with his collaborator Steve Farmer, was informed about the edits proposed by VF and HEF by a graduate student of Indian origin at a California university. Witzel wrote a letter to the California Board of Education, protesting against the changes. He suggested that the matter be discussed publicly, and that professional advice be taken by the Board. The letter was supported by the signatures of 47 academics in the field of Asian Studies from all over the world.

Dan Golden of the Wall Street Journal described the developments as follows: [11] [archive]

"The game wasn't over. Other Hindu groups — including members of the 'untouchables' caste — entered the fray on Mr. Witzel's behalf. The Dalit Freedom Network, an advocacy group for untouchables, wrote to the education board that the proposed Vedic and Hindu Education Foundation changes reflected "a view of Indian history that softens...the violent truth of caste-based discrimination in India.... Do not allow politically-minded revisionists to change Indian history."

The Dalit Freedom Network is not, in fact, a "Hindu group" but part of a Colorado based Christian organization run by Dr. Joseph D'Souza, leader of the "All India Christian Council." He later sent a letter to the Board of Education on behalf of the Dalit Freedom Network. It was co-signed by Udit Raj and Kancha Ilaiah,([12] [archive]) both prominent critics of Hinduism [13] [archive] [14] [archive]. Further letters of support came from other Christian Dalit groups, ([15] [archive]) including the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, the Dalit Shakti Kendra, and the Dalit Solidarity Forum in the USA.

Other Dalit groups that testified, and are on public record in California, include those with Buddhist Ambedkarite backgrounds, such as the Ambedkar Centre for Justice and Peace [archive], Indian Buddhist Association of America [archive], New Republic India, and Californian Dalit Sikh temples such as the Guru Ravi Dass Gurdwara [16] [archive].

The edits proposed by the VF and HEF were also opposed by a group of organizations that included the Friends of South Asia (FOSA), the Coalition against Communalism (CAC), the Federation of Tamil Sangams in North America [17] [archive], Non Resident Indians for a Secular and Harmonious India, the Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment, and the Indian American Public Education Advisory Council (IPAC).

Forty-seven professional South Asian scholars from universities all over the world and some major American Departments of South Asian Studies [18] [archive] co-signed the original letter of opposition to the proposals of the two Foundations. Seventeen members of the California Legislature wrote a letter of support for the scholars.[19] [archive] These documents have been made available on the website of the South Asia Faculty Network.[20] [archive]

Soon after Witzel's intervention, Viji Sundaram, a reporter for India-West [21] [archive], wrote that the scholarly consensus behind Prof. Witzel's petition was likely to have influenced the Board of Education's decision to review the changes suggested by the Hindu groups. Another reporter, Rachel McMurdie of the Milpitas Post, pointed out the parentage and close links between the VF and HEF and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh as well as the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, the American branch of the RSS. [22] [archive] [23] [archive]

The State Board of Education decides[edit]

On 27 February 2006, after listening to 3 hours of public comment and after receiving 1500 pages of written comment, a five member of panel of the Board adopted a recommendation of accepting the actions on the edits proposed by the staff of the California Department of Education (CDE).[24] [archive] The subcommittee approved some 70 changes but it rejected proposed revisions from VF and HEF on monotheism, women's rights, the caste system[citation needed] and migration theories.[25] [archive][citation needed]

On 8 March 2006, the full Board agreed with the February 27 decision, voting (9 to zero, 2 abstentions) to reaffirm only the changes approved on February 27, and to overturn the rest of the changes suggested by the HEF and VF, with two exceptions: the Aryan Migration Theory would be mentioned as disputed by scholars, and the Vedas would be referred to as sacred texts, rather than songs or poems. Most parties expressed qualified satisfaction with the decision; however, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), that had not participated in the revisions, threatened the board with a lawsuit [26] [archive] [27] [archive] [28] [archive]. [29] [archive].

Ruth Green, past president of the SBE, said that the ruling "represents our best efforts. Many ideological fault lines have played out here. These beliefs are deeply held."[30] [archive].

A PR firm hired by the VF and the HEF alleged that, "What is at stake here is the embarrassment and humiliation that these Hindu children (in America) continue to face because of the way textbooks portray their faith and culture."[31] [archive] Janeshwari Devi of VF said that "The two foundations submitted about 500 proposed changes, and more than 80 percent were not approved." [32] [archive].

Examples of changes[edit]

Edits by HEF/VF (Hindu) CRP Action/ CFIR Recommendation/ Comments
Omit the following: “The Vedic peoples discriminated against the Dasa, a group of people who spoke a different language that did not sound at all like Sanskrit. The Brahmins sometimes made fun of the Dasa and said that they spoke as if they had no noses. (Pinch your nose and see what you would sound like.)[14][15] The Witzel-Wolpert-Heitzman group advised to delete the second part, noting that the first sentence was necessary for the last sentence of the second paragraph to make sense. Shiva Bajpai, a retired CSU historian hired on the recommendation of one of the groups [16] opposed the edit, saying that the issue in question was "contentious," and claiming further that "[t]he proponents of Dasa identity have tortured the Vedic text to extract a meager evidence [sic]. The Dasas probably spoke a corrupt language and had different beliefs than the Vedic Aryans did. (see Trautmann: Aryans and British India for a sober evaluation.)"[17]

The HEF also took issue with the Indo-Aryan migration theory, and regarded the invitations to students to talk like a Dasa or to pinch their noses as "frivolous" and the text "horrific." They also contended that the sentence referring to Brahmins making fun of the dark skin of the Dasas reflected 19th century racialist and colonialist views. [18]

Omit the first three words and the last sentence: “The monkey king Hanuman loved Rama so much that it is said that he is present every time the Ramayana is told. So look around — see any monkeys?”[19] The Witzel-Wolpert-Heitzman group approved the edit.
“Modern Hindus continue to visit temples to express their love of the gods.” Replace with “...visit temples to worship and express their love for God.”[20] The Witzel-Wolpert-Heitzman group advised not to change the original text.[21]
Replace "The language and traditions of the Indo-Aryan speakers replaced the old ways of the Harappans…” with "People from elsewhere in India replaced..." The Witzel-Wolpert-Heitzman group supported keeping the original text, based on the Indo-Aryan migration theory. Bajpai disagreed on the grounds that the text "perpetuates the AI/migration Theory and the Vedic-Harappan dichotomy while the edit takes a neutral stance on the issue," referring to the disagreement between proponents of an Indo-Aryan migration and of the Out of India theory[22].
“The Ramayana, written later than the Mahabharata…” Replace with, “The Ramayana, written prior to the Mahabharata…”[23] The Witzel-Wolpert-Heitzman group commented: "Who in Sixth Grade cares which epic was “written” first?", and proposed to use the following phrase: “The Ramayana tells about...”[24] Bajpai replied: "It is not the question of who cares but who cares for historical accuracy. One can be silent about many issues, but if one mentions something it better be historically accurate." [33] [archive]

Friends of South Asia, a group opposing the HEF and the VF, took issue with several of the edits. [34] [archive], including the removal of sentences from the textbooks that claimed that men had more rights than women, and the editing of other sentences dealing with the caste system. The Hindu Education Foundation responded by pointing out that several of the edits relating to untouchability — though not all of the ones FOSA objected to — were approved by the Witzel group. [35] [archive]. They also pointed out that the HEF and VF did not object to several sections referring to untouchability in all the textbooks. [25]

Lawsuits[edit]

On March 10, 2006, the HAF declared it would sue.[36] [archive]. It did so at Sacramento on March 16, and a previously unknown group, California Parents for Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM) [archive], filed a separate lawsuit in Seattle on March 14.

An emergency hearing to consider a temporary restraining order applied for by HAF was set for March 21; it was dismissed by the judge. A motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the HAF against the California State Board of Education (SBE) to stop the printing and distribution of several textbooks was heard and dismissed on April 21, 2006 in the California Superior Court.[37] [archive] According to a scanned copy of the court transcript distributed by FOSA, Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette stated that "I am not convinced that Petitioner HAF has carried their burden to show the likelihood that they would succeed on the merits, particularly on the issue of content."[38] [archive] The HAF responded to reports of the dismissal with a press release critical of "errors in media coverage," reaffirming their "commitment to their legal action to ensure that California school textbooks accurately and equitably depict Hinduism," and explaining that "this particular denial has no bearing on the ultimate outcome of the case."[39] [archive]. The court hearing is scheduled for September.

On August 11, 2006, Judge Frank C. Damrell of the US District Court in the Eastern District Court of California gave his judgement allowed CAPEEM's lawsuit to go forward.[40] [archive] The complaint was filed by Venkat Balasubhramani, an attorney who has worked in the past with public interest groups, including ACLU, on civil rights matters[41] [archive].

Judgement in the HAF case[edit]

As of September 1 2006, the HAF case has been resolved. The court has ruled in favour of retaining the textbooks while also noting that the approval process adopted by the board was flawed.[42] [archive] HAF has launched a circular confirming the decision by the courts and expressing a certain measure of satisfaction at the recognition of the illegality of the proceedings[43] [archive]. The brief published by HAF reports that the judge ruled in favor of retaining the edits on the grounds that he did not wish to disrupt the process of disseminating the revised editions at this stage. The legal team of HAF has posted an assessment of the result[44] [archive].

Mihir Meghani, President of the Hindu American Foundation, described the judgement as a "mixed victory". He says:

"This ruling now forces the California Board of Education to comply with the law — to have a fair and open public process to benefit all California students."[45] [archive]

as well as:

"The (foundation) is disappointed that ... (the judge) has not ordered the textbooks on hand to be modified to be more accurate ... and a flawed and illegal procedure leads to flawed textbooks"[46] [archive]

Shalini Gara, a member of the Friends of South Asia Organization, which opposed the lawsuit, also claimed victory Friday evening.

"The judge has upheld that the texts will stay as they are, and that is good news for us because we thought they were historically accurate and we were bothered that the (Hindu American Foundation) wanted less importance to be given to negative aspects of Hinduism."[47] [archive]

Background[edit]

California textbooks' guiding principles[edit]

The Californian Standards for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Social Content contain the guiding principles for the textbooks.[26] They say: "The standards will be achieved by depicting, when appropriate, the diversity of religious beliefs held in the United States and California, as well as in other societies, without displaying bias toward or prejudice against any of those beliefs or religious beliefs in general."[27]

They also say: "No religious belief or practice may be held up to ridicule and no religious group may be portrayed as inferior.", and "Any explanation or description of a religious belief or practice should be presented in a manner that does not encourage or discourage belief or indoctrinate the student in any particular religious belief."[27]

Textbooks are reviewed regularly in California, and civic organizations participate in the revision process. Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups have done this for years, but the 2005 review was the first time Hindu groups participated.[4]

Response to draft textbook[edit]

Upon release of a draft of the textbook, Christian, Jewish, Islamic and the two Hindu groups submitted their edits in autumn 2005. After intensive scholarly discussions, over 500 changes proposed by Jewish and Christian groups and around 100 changes proposed by Muslims were accepted by the California Department of Education (CDE) and the State Board of Education (SBE); these scholarly discussions extended to January 6, 2006. Some 170 edits proposed by two Hindu foundations were initially accepted, supported by the reviewer, appointed by the California's Board of Education, Dr. Shiva Bajpai, Professor Emeritus of History, California State University Northridge.[28] However, 58 of the proposed edits by Hindu groups were challenged by various groups, including Professor Michael Witzel of Harvard University.[29] The challenge created a procedural and legal conflict.[16]

Accepted changes[edit]

According to the State Board of California, some accepted changes were:

Accepted edits and corrections
Proposed Edit/Correction
(by Hindu groups)		 Ad hoc committee action Final SBE/CDE recommendation
Prof Bajpai and Prof. Witzel		 Reference
Original textbook draft: "The monkey king Hanuman loved Rama so much that it is said that he is present every time the Ramayana is told. So look around—see any monkeys?"
Proposed correction: Delete "The monkey king" from the first sentence, and the entirety of the second sentence.		 Approve edit as written. Confirm Ad Hoc action. [30]:107
Original textbook draft: On page 149, a mosque was shown inside text about Hinduism.
Proposed correction: Replace photograph with one having a temple in the background. This photo is of a mosque.		 Replace photo or crop out the mosque in the background. Remove the picture. [30]:125
Original textbook draft: "Hindus believed...dharma of their class, society would be in harmony."
Proposed correction: Replace class with varna.		 Approve edit as written. Confirm Ad Hoc action. [30]:124
Original textbook draft: "A group of people known as the Indo-Aryans arrived in the Indus Valley about 1500 B.C. These people developed a social structure called a caste system."
Proposed correction: Add a sentence informing students that there is a lot of controversy concerning the category of people known as "Indo-Aryans" and their origin.		 Approve edit as written. Confirm Ad Hoc action. Add sentence, "There is controversy concerning the category of people known as the Indo- Aryans and their origins." [30]:108
Original textbook draft: A picture showed a Muslim offering prayer, was wrongly captioned as "A Brahman"
Proposed correction: Replace picture, then correct caption to "A Brahmin."		 If the picture indeed depicts a Muslim, replace the illustration with an appropriate picture of a Brahmin. Confirm Ad Hoc action. Publisher should replace the illustration. [30]:112–113

Opposed changes[edit]

According to the State Board of California, some opposed changes were:

Rejected edits and corrections
Proposed Edit/Correction
(by Hindu groups)		 Ad hoc committee action Final SBE/CDE recommendation
Prof Bajpai and Prof. Witzel		 Reference
Original textbook draft: "Men had many more rights than women."
Proposed correction: "Men had different duties (dharma) as well as rights than women. Many women were among the sages to whom the Vedas were revealed."		 Approve edit as written. Defer to the original text. [30]:94
Original textbook draft: "Once their society had merged with the local population, a late hymn of the Rig Veda described the four castes."
Proposed correction: Replace with, "A late hymn of the Rig Veda describes the interrelationship and interdependence of the four social classes."		 Approve edit as written. Defer to the original text. [30]:109
Original textbook draft: A table was titled, "The Caste System"
Proposed correction: Replace table header with, "The Varnas".		 Approve edit as written. Replace "Caste" with "Class". [30]:109
Original textbook draft: "...you'll learn about dharma and the other basic Hindu beliefs: Brahman, multiple gods, karma, and samsara.”
Proposed correction: Replace with “...Hindu beliefs: Bhagwan, Forms of God, karma and maya.”		 CDE: are Bhagwan and maya explained in the text? If group’s edit introduces new terminology without context, this may be confusing for students. Defer to the original text. [30]:121
Original textbook draft: "Around 1500 B.C.E., invaders called Aryans conquered northern India."
Proposed correction: Replace with, "Around 1500 B.C.E., invaders called Aryans came to northern India."		 Publisher is directed to add a clarifying note that the "Aryan invasion theory" has been contradicted by scholarly evidence. Change to, "In the second millennium B.C.E., invaders called Aryans came to northern India." [30]:111

Claimants[edit]

Both the Vedic Foundation (VF) and the American Hindu Education Foundation (HEF) are ideologically aligned with the Hindutva (Hindu nationalism) movement in India, specifically the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). The HEF operates under the auspices of the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, which professes adherence to the RSS's ideological principles; the VF does not claim affiliation with other groups, but cooperates closely with the VHP.[31] Legal services for the textbook case were provided by the Hindu American Foundation.[31]

Opposition to the edits of the two Hindu foundations[edit]

California's Curriculum Commission endorsed most of the changes pushed by Hindu groups, moving the matter along to the state board of education, which usually follows its advice. But then a strong objection to such changes arrived from a group of U.S. scholars, led by Michael Witzel, the Wales Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University.[16] Witzel, along with his colleague Steve Farmer, was informed about the edits proposed by VF and HEF by a person claiming to be a graduate student of Indian origin at a California university. Witzel wrote a letter to the California Board of Education, protesting against the changes.[29] He suggested that the matter be discussed publicly, and that professional advice be taken by the Board.[29] The letter was supported by the signatures of 47 academics in the field of Asian Studies from various countries.[29]

Dan Golden of the Wall Street Journal described the effort of the two Hindu foundations, as similar to those by Jewish, Islamic and Christian foundations. Each group, claims Dan Golden, vie for changes in texts for elementary and secondary schools to cast their faiths in a better light or in sensitive manner before children.[16] In case of Hindu groups, The Wall Street Journal article described part of the motivation and response to be:

Some Hindu students say they're humiliated in school because texts dwell on customs such as ostracism of untouchables and an old tradition, rarely observed today, of "sati" – widows immolating themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres. Trisha Pasricha, a high-school junior in a Houston suburb, says she used to deny being Hindu to classmates because she was tired of refuting stereotypes perpetuated by textbooks and teachers. "The textbooks bring up all these obscure practices, like bride burning, and act like they happen every day," she says.

...

(On December 2) the Curriculum Commission voted to support most of the changes sought by the Hindu foundations. "We have to err on the side of sensitivity toward religion," a commission member, Stan Metzenberg, said at the time. The game wasn't over. Other Hindu groups – including members of the "untouchables" caste – entered the fray on Mr. Witzel's behalf. The Dalit Freedom Network, an advocacy group for untouchables, wrote to the education board that the proposed Vedic and Hindu Education Foundation changes reflect "a view of Indian history that softens...the violent truth of caste-based discrimination in India.... Do not allow politically-minded revisionists to change Indian history.

— Dan Golden[16]

In addition to this foundation, a number of other organizations took up the matter. The President of the Dalit Freedom Network[32] at the time was Dr. Joseph D'Souza. D'Souza was also the President of the All India Christian Council.[33] D'Souza wrote a letter to the Board of Education on behalf of the Dalit Freedom Network.[citation needed] According to the Friends of South Asia (FOSA), further letters of support came from other Christian organizations like National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, the Dalit Shakti Kendra, and the Dalit Solidarity Forum in the USA.[34] FOSA also writes that further Dalit groups that testified before the SBE in January and February 2006, and are on public record in California, include those with Buddhist backgrounds, such as the Ambedkar Centre for Justice and Peace, Indian Buddhist Association of America, New Republic India, as well as Californian Dalit Sikh temples such as the Guru Ravi Dass Gurdwara.[35]

The edits proposed by the VF and HEF were also opposed by a group of organizations that included the FOSA, the Coalition against Communalism (CAC), the Federation of Tamil Sangams in North America,[36] Non Resident Indians for a Secular and Harmonious India (NRI-SAHI), the Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment, and the Indian American Public Education Advisory Council (IPAC).

Forty-seven professional South Asian scholars from universities all over the world and some major American Departments of South Asian Studies[37] as well as some 150 Indian American professors signed the original letter of opposition to the proposals of the two Foundations. Seventeen members of the California Legislature wrote a letter of support for the scholars.[38]

Soon after Witzel's intervention, Viji Sundaram, a reporter for India-West, wrote that the scholarly consensus behind Prof. Witzel's petition was likely to have influenced the Board of Education's decision to review the changes suggested by the Hindu groups.[39] Another reporter, Rachel McMurdie of the Milpitas Post, the largest newspaper publisher in the San Francisco Bay Area, pointed out the parentage and close links between the VF and HEF and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh as well as the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, the American branch of the Indian organization RSS.[40][41]

  • It is not surprising then that the letter from the anonymous ‘Arun Vajpayee’ exhorting Professor Witzel and ‘Professor’ Steve Farmer to write to the California state board of education (SBE) to reject proposed textbook edits was rapidly reproduced on the discussion lists of ‘Federation of Inquilabi 84 (earlier ‘Indian’) Leftists’ (FOIL) and appeals were made to support Witzel 85 . And then, as soon as Witzel and his cohorts wrote to the SBE urging them to reject the edits proposed by Hindu groups in California [42] , an article 87 in support of his efforts by Nalini Taneja, a Marxist professor at the Delhi University, appeared on the web on the internet magazine of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)! Finally, as revealed by his assistant Steve Farmer 88 , Witzel was also instrumental in exhorting a group of 100 Indian American professors of presumably Marxist and Leftist persuasion (Yankee Comrades such as Anjana Chatterjee, Vijay Pershad etc., as evident from articles in India Abroad etc.) to send a supporting petition to SBE during the CA textbook controversy. One wonders why Witzel supports Marxist and Leftist Professors on such Indian and Hindu matters when these folks have absolutely no use of Hindus or Hinduism except when they need a whipping boy. (also quoted in Vigil, 'Thus Spake Professor Michael Witzel A Harvard University Case Study in Prejudice?' (2006))
  • “The Witzel group is trying to maintain the status quo by showing India as a backward, cultural inferior civilisation by taking refuge behind the anti-Hindutva facade.” [48] [archive]

The State Board of Education decision[edit]

After extensive further discussion of the Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Hindu edits by specialized scholars on January 6, 2006, and after several public SBE meetings, a decision was reached on February 27, 2006. After listening to 3 hours of public comment and after receiving 1500 pages of written comment, a five-member panel of the Board adopted a recommendation of accepting the actions on the edits proposed by the staff of the California Department of Education (CDE).[43] The subcommittee approved some 70 changes but it rejected proposed major revisions from VF and HEF on monotheism, women's rights, the caste system and migration theories.[44]

On March 8, 2006, the full Board agreed with the February 27 decision, voting (9 to zero, 2 abstentions) to reaffirm only the changes approved on February 27, and to overturn the rest of the changes suggested by the HEF and VF, with two exceptions: the Aryan Migration Theory would be mentioned as "disputed", and the Vedas would be referred to as sacred texts, rather than songs or poems. Most parties expressed qualified satisfaction with the decision; however, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), which had not participated in the revisions, threatened the board with a lawsuit.[45][46]

Ruth Green, past president of the SBE, said that the ruling "represents our best efforts. Many ideological fault lines have played out here. These beliefs are deeply held."[47]

A public relations firm hired by the VF and the HEF stated that, "What is at stake here is the embarrassment and humiliation that these Hindu children (in America) continue to face because of the way textbooks portray their faith and culture."[47] Janeshwari Devi of VF said that "The two foundations submitted about 500 proposed changes, and more than 80 percent were not approved."[47] This refers to the initial changes proposed by VF that envisioned the complete rewriting of chapters, which is not allowed per California procedures.[48]

Lawsuits[edit]

CAPEEM case[edit]

The California Parents for Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM), a group founded specifically for the California schoolbook case after SBE's March 8 decision, filed the first lawsuit in Federal Court in Sacramento on March 14. The complaint was filed by Venkat Balasubramani, a Seattle attorney, who has worked in the past with public interest groups such as ACLU.[49] Michael Newdow, an atheist attorney who is known for filing cases related to the deletion of the word 'God' from the Pledge of Allegiance, later joined CAPEEM's legal team.[50]

The Court subsequently removed CDE and SBE as Defendants, because of existing legal rules, however, Judge Frank C. Damrell of the US District Court in the Eastern District Court of California allowed CAPEEM to amend the complaint on August 11/September 28, 2006, and go ahead against individual members of SBE and CDE.[51][52]

The case then proceeded with the Discovery phase, and CAPEEM requested documents from the SBE and CDE, and issued subpoenas to various persons involved in this case, including CDE officials, SBE, publishers, Christian groups such as the Dalit Freedom Network, the Council on Islamic Education, Curriculum Commission member Charles Munger, Jr., and the review committee members S. Wolpert, J. Heitzman and M. Witzel.

The subpoena to Charles Munger, Jr., and Rae Belisle resulted in emails that showed connections between them and members of churches.[53][54]

Among other subpoenas, CAPEEM issued an extensive subpoena [55] to Witzel to support their law case of March 2006 against members of CBE/SBE. Witzel turned over several CDs containing emails but CAPEEM followed up with a motion to compel him to deliver additional documents.

A hearing in Massachusetts District Court was held on July 3, 2007. As per court documents (see No. 07-2286), the court granted Witzel's motion for a protective order and denied CAPEEM's motion to compel "because it sought documents and communications that were not relevant and, therefore, not discoverable." CAPEEM appealed that ruling. On July 7, 2008, a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (No. 07-2286) denied an appeal by CAPEEM and decided that "CAPEEM has not shown that the Massachusetts district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to compel."

CAPEEM's subpoena to Witzel also resulted in Witzel's deposition at which his lawyer pleaded with CAPEEM to not publicize the deposition transcript and sought an agreement that CAPEEM would not publicize the transcript of the deposition. CAPEEM agreed to enter into such an agreement and has not publicized the deposition transcript of Witzel.

The subpoena to Dalit Freedom Network resulted in exposing the fact that it was not a Dalit group but a group that operated out of a church. Emails obtained from the group also showed that Witzel coordinated his activities with the church group and even erased the information that they were a religious group from Wikipedia's description of the group.[56]

CAPEEM also had several experts on its side including the noted biblical scholar Professor Joe Barnhart who pointed out that the textbooks indulged in indoctrination.

On February 25, 2009, the California Federal Court ruled that CAPEEM's claim was viable with respect to the actual process of adoption but denied the plaintiff CAPEEM motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the Establishment Clause as they lacked standing,[57] and partly granted and partly denied the defendant Members of the California State Board of Education's motion.

[58] On June 2, 2009, the Court ruled that good cause having been shown, and pursuant to United States' Rule of Civil Procedures, it accepts the Plaintiff's and Defendant's Settlement and General Release Agreement.[59] Concurrently, the Attorney General of California reached a settlement with CAPEEM where CAPEEM received $175,000 from the California State Board of Education, and both parties agreed to release each other from all claims and both parties agreed not to appeal.[8]

Hindu American Foundation case[edit]

A second lawsuit was filed by HAF in March 2006 against the Board of Education over the procedures used for reviewing the textbooks. HAF contended that the procedures did not satisfy the applicable laws.[60][61] The HAF also sought a temporary injunction against the publication of the textbooks, which was denied by the judge.[60][62]

Given the gravity of the charges and the potential disruption to the state textbooks, the court moved expeditiously and made its ruling in September 2006. Regarding the HAF claim that the Board of Education failed "in some instances" to follow the State laws regarding public meetings, the court agreed and directed the Board to update its procedures. However, the court did not find these "deficiencies in the regulatory framework" of the Board egregious enough to warrant the withdrawal of the textbooks. The procedures could be corrected while "maintaining the current [adoption] system."[60]

After addressing the procedural illegalities, the court turned its attention to the claim that the textbooks did not "conform to the applicable legal standards". The HAF claimed that the textbooks "portray[ed] the Hindu religion in their discussion of the history, culture and religious traditions of ancient India in a negative light". It also claimed that "the texts contain[ed] factual inaccuracies and [were] generally ... not neutral".[60] However, the court ruled that "the challenged texts comply with the applicable legal standards".[63] It said that the portrayal of the Aryan invasion or migration was not grossly inaccurate, the treatment of Hinduism in the textbooks did not violate the standard set by the state, and it said that the caste system, being a historical reality, had to be discussed even if it engered a certain negative reaction in students. The contested textbooks, providing discussion and justification of the most contended issues (women's rights, dalits, Aryan invasion or migration, Hinduism as a monotheistic religion) stayed.[64][65] Subsequent to the ruling, the HAF and the Board of Education reached a settlement, whereby the Board agreed to pay part of the legal expenses incurred by the HAF.[61] Both the HAF and the opposing groups claimed victory.[63]

Educationist LaSpina comments that the lawsuits were filed after the State Board made "extraordinary efforts" to reach a compromise with the Hindu groups The HAF did not regard the adopted changes as sufficient.[60] LaSpina recommends that the educators need to become "prudently aware" of the Hindu-American community's concerns over the portrayal of their history, religion and culture.[66]

Aftermath[edit]

In 2014, California State Senate majority leader Ellen Corbett spearheaded a bill (SB 1057) in the state legislature calling for a complete overhaul of its history and social studies curriculum to accurately portray Hinduism and other religions. The bill passed through both houses of the legislature with "unanimous support." However it was vetoed by the Governor Jerry Brown, ostensibly because it would slow down the curriculum revision process then underway. Corbett called it a "temporary set-back."[67][68]

In California, textbooks and teaching guidelines are reviewed every six years. In 2016, with a new review coming up, the HAF launched a new campaign against suggested textbook revisions, calling for "correction of inaccuracies".[5] A particular focus of the protests by the HAF and other Hindu groups was the proposed change from "India" to "South Asia" in various places, which was advocated by a "multidisciplinary committee of scholars", apparently to accommodate for the current political situation in the region.[5] However, the proposed change was opposed by American sociologist and Harvard emeritus Nathan Glazer, who, in a letter to the New York Times, criticized the term "South Asia" as revisionist and clumsy, since the region has been identified as "India", and part of a cohesive and continuous civilization, since the time of ancient Greece and Rome.[69] The change was also opposed by other academics like Vamsee Juluri, professor of media studies at the University of San Francisco,[70] and religious studies scholar Diana L. Eck, who criticized the proposal to change the name as politically motivated, anachronistic, ahistorical, and demeaning to Indians.[71][not in citation given] The California Department of Education's Instructional Quality Commission concluded, on May 19, 2016, to retain the term "India" in their textbooks, and not replace it with "South Asia".[72]

Wikipedia[edit]

The wikipedia article was edited by Michael Witzel and other involved people, in blatant Conflict of interest manner.

Plenty of bias, edit warring, pov editing in the edit history [49] [archive] and On talkpage [50] [archive] [51] [archive]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 "The Hindutva deluge in California" [archive]. Hindustan Times. January 11, 2006. Archived from the original [archive] on January 13, 2006.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  2. ↑ "Textbook Reform Initiative: Problem statement" [archive]. Vedic Foundation. Retrieved 2014-09-16.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  3. ↑ "A saffron assault abroad" [archive]. Frontline. January 14, 2006. Archived from the original [archive] on February 20, 2012.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Guichard, Sylvie (2010). The Construction of History and Nationalism in India [archive]. Routledge. pp. 82–85. ISBN 1136949313.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Punit, Itika Sharma (April 25, 2016). "Hindu groups in California oppose the proposed revisions to school textbooks" [archive]. Quartz. Retrieved 2016-04-26.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Suman Guha Mozumder (March 19, 2006). "Hindu groups sue California Board of Education" [archive]. Rediff.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  7. ↑ Edits and Corrections List (2006), pp. 96–126.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Case 2:06-cv-00532-FCD-KJM,Document 220, Filed 06/02/2009 [archive], see clause 1, 3, and 6–20
  9. ↑ Second CRP Analysis, Hindu Education Foundation, 01-15-2006
  10. ↑ Second CRP Analysis, Hindu Education Foundation, 01-15-2006
  11. ↑ Developed by the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division California Department of Education Adopted by the California State Board of Education Published by the California Department of Education (2001)
  12. ↑ Standards for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Social Content Developed by the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division California Department of Education Adopted by the California State Board of Education Published by the California Department of Education (2001)
  13. ↑ Standards for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Social Content Developed by the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division California Department of Education Adopted by the California State Board of Education Published by the California Department of Education (2001)
  14. ↑ The Ancient South Asian World Oxford University Press
  15. ↑ Second CRP Analysis, Hindu Education Foundation, 01-15-2006
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 "New Battleground In Textbook Wars: Religion in History" [archive]. The Wall Street Journal. January 25, 2006. Retrieved September 27. Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "wsj" defined multiple times with different content
  17. ↑ Second CRP Analysis, Hindu Education Foundation, 01-15-2006
  18. ↑ HEF Second CRP analysis P39 [archive]
  19. ↑ Second CRP Analysis, Hindu Education Foundation, 01-15-2006
  20. ↑ Second CRP Analysis, Hindu Education Foundation, 01-15-2006
  21. ↑ Second CRP Analysis, Hindu Education Foundation, 01-15-2006
  22. ↑ HEF Second CRP analysis p38 [archive]
  23. ↑ Second CRP Analysis, Hindu Education Foundation, 01-15-2006
  24. ↑ Second CRP Analysis, Hindu Education Foundation, 01-15-2006
  25. ↑ “California Vistas, Ancient Civilizations”, by Macmillan/McGraw Hill – , “Ancient Civilizations” by Harcourt School Publishers, “Ancient Civilizations” by Holt, “Ancient Civilizations” by McGraw Hill, Glencoe., “History Alive, the Ancient World” by Teachers’ Curriculum Institute, Houghton Mifflin and McDougel Littell, “The Ancient South Asian World” by Oxford University Press- [1] [archive].
  26. ↑ Developed by the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division California Department of Education Adopted by the California State Board of Education Published by the California Department of Education (2001)
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Standards for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Social Content Developed by the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division California Department of Education Adopted by the California State Board of Education Published by the California Department of Education (2001)
  28. ↑ California Curriculum Commission Accepts Most Hindu Changes to Sixth Grade Textbooks [archive] Hindu Press International
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 Witzel, Michael. Letter to California Board of Education [archive] (November 8, 2005).
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 30.2 30.3 30.4 30.5 30.6 30.7 30.8 30.9 Edits and Corrections List (2006).
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 Bose, Purnima (2008). "Hindutva Abroad: The California Textbook Controversy" [archive] (PDF). The Global South. 2 (1): 11–34. JSTOR 40339280 [archive].<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  32. ↑ "The Dalit Freedom Network (www.dalitnetwork.org) was formed in 2003 to assist the Dalits in the areas of education, social justice, economic development, and healthcare" , On the Side of the Angels: Justice, Human Rights, and Kingdom Mission, pp 89, Biblica, 2007-06-01
  33. ↑ The DFN website explicitly notes that "DFN partners only with All India Christian Council (AICC) members who are actively involved in the transformation and emancipation of the Dalit-Bahujan people, not with the AICC as a whole."[2] [archive][dead link]
  34. ↑ Letters supporting FOSA/CAC's position on the California textbook controversy [archive] Friends of South Asia
  35. ↑ [3] [archive] Friends of South Asia
  36. ↑ Letter to California State Board [archive] Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America
  37. ↑ South Asia Area Center Title VI Report on California Textbooks [archive][dead link] Unknown
  38. ↑ "Vote on textbooks upsets some Hindus" [archive]. Archived from the original [archive] on July 12, 2006.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  39. ↑ "Textbooks And Hinduism – Why Accuracy Matters" [archive]. Archived from the original [archive] on February 19, 2006.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  40. ↑ "Overseas Hindu body says Hinduism under threat" [archive]. Archived from the original [archive] on January 11, 2006.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  41. ↑ About the Hindu Education Foundation and the Vedic Foundation [archive], Friends of South Asia, retrieved 2015-10-25
  42. ↑ To get an idea of exactly what Witzel and his team were opposing, see the copious extracts from these textbooks available at http://www.india-forum.com/articles/60/1 [archive]
  43. ↑ "March 2005 Agenda Item 19 Addendum – Meeting Agendas (CA State Board of Education)" [archive] (PDF). Retrieved 2014-06-23.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  44. ↑ "Committee sends textbook edits to state board" [archive]. Inside Bay Area. Retrieved 2014-06-23.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  45. ↑ "Board of Education approves some Hindu changes to textbooks" [archive]. Archived from the original [archive] on June 29, 2007.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> "Ed Board OK's changes in texts about Hinduism" [archive]. Archived from the original [archive] on December 1, 2007.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  46. ↑ "Vote on textbooks upsets some Hindus" [archive]. Archived from the original [archive] on July 12, 2006.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 47.2 Charles Burress (March 10, 2006). "SACRAMENTO / Hindu groups lose fight to change textbooks / But decision by state Board of Education is supported by some Hindu Americans" [archive]. Sfgate.com. Retrieved 2014-06-23.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  48. ↑ Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission, document CC-003 (03/04/04), dated November 22, 2005.
  49. ↑ http://www.slideshare.net/RobertoBonaccorso/acluwaannual-report-200506 [archive]
  50. ↑ http://www.capeem.org/pressroom.php?item2=1 [archive]
  51. ↑ "Press Room" [archive]. Capeem.org. August 11, 2006. Retrieved 2014-06-23.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  52. ↑ "Press Room" [archive] (PDF). Retrieved 2014-06-23.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  53. ↑ http://www.capeem.org/docs/2016/Exhibit01-NOONAN015606.pdf [archive]
  54. ↑ http://www.capeem.org/docs/2016/Exhibit08-CAPEEM00253.pdf [archive]
  55. ↑ "Legal Documents" [archive]. Capeem.org. Retrieved 2014-06-23.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  56. ↑ http://www.capeem.org/docs/2016/Exh-100-CAPEEM00199.pdf [archive]
  57. ↑ http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=rrgc [archive]
  58. ↑ (Case 2:06-cv-00532-FCD-KJM, Document 212, Filed February 26, 2009) can be found at: [4] [archive], see conclusion p. 62-63
  59. ↑ "Case 2:06-cv-00532-FCD-KJM, Document 221, Filed 06/03/2009" [archive] (PDF). Retrieved 2014-06-23.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  60. ↑ 60.0 60.1 60.2 60.3 60.4 LaSpina, A Clash of Chariots (2007), p. 46.
  61. ↑ 61.0 61.1 Hindu body, California educ board reach agreement over textbooks [archive], Rediff News, June 25, 2007.
  62. ↑ Jonathan Jones, Hindu group's motion to block texts denied [archive], East Bay Times (Oakland Tribune), 26 April 2006.
  63. ↑ 63.0 63.1 Kurien, A Place at the Multicultural Table (2007), p. 205.
  64. ↑ "US text row resolved by Indian" [archive]. The Times of India. September 9, 2006. Retrieved 2014-06-23.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  65. ↑ Hindu American Foundation, et al., v. California State Board of Education, et al., Case No. 06 CS 00386 [archive], Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, 2006.
  66. ↑ LaSpina, A Clash of Chariots (2007), p. 48.
  67. ↑ HAF Gala: Miss America Reveals Childhood of Isolation [archive], India West, September 24, 2014.
  68. ↑ Brown shoots down history curriculum update [archive], Cabinet Report, October 28, 2014.
  69. ↑ Glazer, Nathan (May 12, 2016). "Call it India" [archive]. New York Times. New York Times.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  70. ↑ Juluri, Vamsee (April 24, 2016). "Why South Asia Studies Faculty Are Wrong about Hindu "Revisionism" and Indian History in California's Schools" [archive]. Huffington Post. Huffington Post.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  71. ↑ "India textbook change decried" [archive]. The Telegraph. May 17, 2016.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  72. ↑ Press Trust of India (May 20, 2016). "'India' Will Not be Replaced with 'South Asia' in California Texbooks: Commission" [archive]. India-West. India-West.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>

Bibliography[edit]

Primary sources


California textbook anti-Hindu bias

See also[edit]

People
Topics

External links[edit]


Coverage by the Indian-American Press[edit]

Media coverage in India[edit]











https://www.hinduismtoday.com/blogs-news/hindu-press-international/claims-of-anti-hindu-bias-in-california-school-curriculum-debated-at-ninth-circuit/17283.html [archive]


Coverage by the Indian-American Press[edit]

Press coverage in India[edit]

https://web.archive.org/web/20070423085628/http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/asian/education_academia_study/pns_textbooks_hinduism_0106.asp [archive]

https://yvetterosser.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/the-california-textbook-tamasha-contested-academic-paradigms-and-the-study-of-india/ [archive]

https://web.archive.org/web/20070429124807/http://www.india-forum.com/categories/California-Textbook-Episode/ [archive]

https://web.archive.org/web/20070425154833/http://www.india-forum.com/articles/91/1/Critical-Observations-on-the-Michael-Witzel-Petition [archive]

Retrieved from "https://en.dharmapedia.net/w/index.php?title=California_textbook_controversy_over_Hindu_history&oldid=74238"