California Textbooks - 2

[Guest]

email that came in
(emphasis are mine)

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> In recent emails, Mr. Witzel and Mr. Rajagopal have sought to
characterize the recent court ruling on the California textbook issue as
a "crushing defeat" for "hindutva forces". In truth, neither was it a
"crushing defeat" for Hindus nor is the Hindu American Foundation (HAF),
which filed the lawsuit against the California State Board of Education
(SBE), a "hindutva force". But before I explain, full disclosure is
necessary. I did my B.Tech from IIT Madras (batch of 1995). I am also a
member of the Executive Council of the Hindu American Foundation. So
what is the full truth about the ruling? It certainly represented a
mixed victory for HAF but there are several nuances to note. The judge's
words have been underlined throughout.

1. The court ruled that the textbook adoption process was illegal, which
was the heart of HAF's lawsuit
2. The decision to continue with the current textbook factored the
impact on other approved textbooks
3. The reading of the contents on Hinduism adopts the "gross inaccuracy"
standard
4. The Curriculum Framework and Content Standards (not up for evaluation
now) are biased
5. HAF and the Hindutva Bogey

Let me elaborate on each of these points:

1. The court ruled that the textbook adoption process was illegal, which
was the heart of HAF's lawsuit
The textbook review process was troubling from the start. While other
religious groups submitted, and won, hundreds of edits without
opposition, changes requested by Hindu groups, rather than being
addressed on the merits, <b>were opposed by a variety of anti-Hindu and
communist groups, as well as U.S. academics, many of whom are not even
members of the Hinduism Unit of the American Academy of Religion, the
official body of Hinduism Studies. These groups, including Mr. Witzel,
did not follow established procedures and inserted themselves very late
in the process.</b> <b>Nevertheless, the SBE admitted them as "impartial" experts and had several private communications and closed-door meetings with them while denying Hindu groups notice or access. These are in
violation of California's Administrative Procedures Act(APA) and the
Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (OMA), and were at the heart of HAF's
lawsuit against the Board. </b>

The judge completely agreed with HAF, finding that the Board "at all
times relevant to this matter has been conducting its textbook approval
process under invalid 'underground regulations' ." He withheld an
opinion on the violation of the OMA deciding that since the entire
process was already "invalid", a specific ruling would be redundant.

2. The decision to continue with the current textbook factored the
impact on other approved textbooks

In a conflicted ruling, however, Judge Marlette ruled that the "relief"
demanded by HAF—that is to reject the textbooks adopted under an
illegal process—would be disruptive not only to those affected sixth
graders, but potentially every California public school student using
any and every textbook (hundreds of them) adopted under the SBE's
unlawful policies. Judge Marlette wrote, "<b>The Court therefore
determines…that respondent [SBE] should be permitted a reasonable
opportunity to correct the deficiencies in its regulatory framework
governing the textbook approval process…while maintaining the
current system in the interim.</b>"

3. The reading of the contents on Hinduism adopts the "gross inaccuracy"
standard

Despite stating that he considered the declarations and correspondences
attesting to the inaccuracies and discrepancies in the Hinduism section
of adopted textbooks from several scholars that actually teach Hinduism,
including a past president of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) and
current co-chairs of the Hinduism Unit of the AAR, Judge Marlette held
that the textbooks were not necessarily illegal in terms of the
standards set forth by the education code because they was not "any
gross inaccuracy, but at most a difference of emphasis or opinion."

We believe that judges in general are far better suited to evaluate
violations of laws and procedures than they are in commenting about the
content of the Hinduism section. Even so, it is significant that the
judge let the textbooks stand based on the potential impact on hundreds
of other textbooks and because the contents on Hinduism were not
"grossly inaccurate." HAF neither claimed that the texts were 'grossly
inaccurate' nor did HAF attempt to "whitewash", as has been alleged, the
history of Hinduism – on issues such as the status of women,
treatment of "untouchables", and the Aryan migration theory. Women and
"lower" castes have and continue to face discrimination in India. HAF is
only acutely aware of the fact that all religions, Hinduism included,
have, all too often in history, not lived up to the high ideals espoused
by their saints and sacred texts. However, can Hindus expect that their
religion be accorded the same respect as other religions in sixth-grade
history textbooks? Reasonable observers would answer with a clear 'yes'.
However, this basic principle has been violated in these textbooks and
manifests itself in two ways: in the very different standards employed
for the treatment of Hinduism vis-à-vis other religions, and in the
baffling silence about the many positive and uplifting aspects of
Hinduism.

With respect to the discussion of women in ancient India the judge
mentions that, "These discussions appear on their face (italics ours) to
be neutral, objective, dispassionate, factually accurate, not derogatory
or accusatory in their tone, and not such as would instill prejudice
against the Hindu religion or believers." Did other religions and
societies never oppress women? Moreover, the concept of shakti, so
central to mainstream Hindu thought and belief, is limited to perhaps a
small picture of an obscure sculpture; the historical and contemporary
existence of female saints finds no mention, while "sati" and "dowry"
are prominently discussed. <b>This is all the more troubling since Hinduism
is unique among world religions in explicitly worshipping God in male,
female and nirguna (attributeless) forms -- a concept that would surely
provide a grand alternate vision to children raised to believe in a
purely anthropomorphic, male God.</b>

Also absent is the concept of pluralism, or acceptance of many paths to
the Divine, which is a prominent Hindu concept and can serve as a
foundation for avoiding conflict in modern, multi-religious societies.
For many non-Hindu students, the glimpses into Hinduism in their school
textbooks could be their first and last, and if they did not gain
insights into Hinduism's message of tolerance and pluralism that
inspired Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., they would be worse
off.

The caste system has been another bone of contention. Judge Marlette
says "Nothing in the applicable standards requires textbook writers to
ignore a historical reality of such significant dimension, even if
studying it might engender certain negative reactions in students."
While caste is an undeniable feature of Indian society, and caste
discrimination a despicable social evil, the texts do not balance the
presentation by providing analogies from other religions nor do they
mention that, despite caste, some of the holiest Hindu scriptures have
been authored by members of the "low" castes. <b>The Vedas, for example,
were compiled and the Mahabharata written by Veda Vyasa, son of a
fisherwoman who would not be a "Brahmin" under the accepted caste rules.
The Ramayana was written by Valmiki who was originally a bandit
belonging to one of the lowest castes. Even Lord Krishna, who inspired
the Bhagavad Gita, was not born a "Brahmin". The textbooks don't even
mention the existence of numerous "low" caste saints, revered by all,
over millennia down to the present day, such as Mata Amritanandamayi of
Kerala.</b>

To reiterate, HAF's stance on the coverage of various social problems of
ancient India is not to deny the existence of those problems but to
simply demand both balance in the presentation and parity with other
religions. <b>Why talk only about sati but omit the burning of "witches" in Europe and America, for instance?</b>

The textbooks' teachings on the origins of Hinduism fail to address
a major area of controversy among Indic scholars in the textbooks'
rote description of the Aryan Invasion Theory. This racist
theory—created by foreign historians when India was under colonial
rule, held that nomadic fair-skinned "Aryans" invaded ancient
India, subjugated the dark indigenous population, and imposed a foreign
language (Sanskrit) and foreign religion (Brahmanism)—now stands
entirely repudiated by most practicing Hindus and many scholars
including Professor Witzel himself (see the recent book, The Indo-Aryan
Controversy, edited by Edwin Bryant and Laurie Patton, where Dr. Witzel
himself in his chapter refers to, "The old-nineteenth-century idea
of a massive invasion of outsiders... Presently we do not know how large
this particular influx of ... outsiders was. It can have been relatively
small..."). The texts also fail to acknowledge that many Hindu
practices that are attested to by archaeological findings from the
Harappan sites predate the supposed arrival of Aryans at 1500 BC.

The textbooks also fail to acknowledge or expound the more recent view
(post late nineteenth century) of competing historians that Hinduism
emerged from an indigenous civilization rather than having been brought
by the invasion or migration of Indo-Europeans. In fact, the same
evidence that has been used to support the Aryan Invasion Theory is also
being used to disprove it. Further, it is also wholly unattested in
Hindu traditions and sacred texts. In contrast, an analysis of the
textbook treatment of the other major religions demonstrates that the
textbooks do not discuss existent theories that external, non-indigenous
influences may have played a role in the development or evolution of
Christianity, Judaism or Islam

4. The Curriculum Framework and Content Standards (not up for evaluation
now) are biased

In a way, textbook publishers are not to blame. Hindus in California and
other states should shift their focus to changing the standards and
framework that set the criteria that must be covered in any textbook
covering Hinduism. The current Curriculum Framework and Content
Standards developed by the Board is striking for the absence of any
significant discussion of Hindu theology and beliefs when compared to
other religions.

For instance, sections on Judaism must describe "…the origins and
significance of Judaism as the first monotheistic religion based on the
concept of one God who sets down moral laws for humanity; identify the
sources of the ethical teachings and central beliefs of Judaism…;
describe how the ideas of Hebrew traditions are reflected in the moral
and ethical traditions of Western civilization; and explain the
significance of Abraham, Moses, Naomi, Ruth, David, and Yohanan ben
Zaccai in the development of the Jewish tradition. Similarly, for
Christianity, students should learn about the rise and spread of
Christianity throughout the Mediterranean world and of its origins in
the life and teachings of Jesus. . .through selections from Biblical
literature, such as the Sermon on the Mount, the lost sheep, and the
Prodigal Son, the students will learn about those teachings of Jesus
that advocate compassion, justice, and love for others. For Islam, the
religious ideas of Mohammed, the founder of Islam, should be discussed
both for their ethical teachings and as a way of life. Mohammed should
be seen as a major historical figure who helped establish the Islamic
way of life, its code of ethics and justice, and its rule of law.
Students should examine the position of Christians and Jews in the
Islamic world who, as "People of the Book," were allowed to practice
their religious beliefs…"

However, for Hinduism the texts must "Discuss the significance of the
Aryan invasions; Explain the major beliefs and practices of "Brahmanism"
in India and how they evolved into early Hinduism; Outline the social
structure of the caste system". Note the focus on social issues absent
for other religions. Also, Buddhism is given more importance than
Hinduism and is presented as an improvement over Hinduism.
"…Buddhism, a great civilizing force that emerged in the sixth
century B.C. in the life and moral teachings of The Buddha . . . Through
the story of Buddha's life, his Hindu background, and his search for
enlightenment, students can be introduced to the Buddha's central
beliefs and moral teachings: unselfishness; compassion …; tolerance
and nonviolence; and the prohibition of lying, stealing, killing,
finding fault with others and gossiping. While Buddhism did not survive
on Indian soil, Jainism, which introduced the idea ahimsa, or
nonviolence, has continued to play a role in modern India, especially
through Gandhi's idea of nonviolent civil disobedience. Students should
also study the development of Hinduism and the role of one of its most
revered texts, the Bhagavad Gita."

Hinduism and the Gita comes in almost as an afterthought. What about the
uniquely Hindu concept that divinity exists in all living beings and
that the role of religion is to help manifest that divinity? What about
the notion of pluralism, or multiple paths leading to the divine? Is not
a mention of various philosophies such as Advaita, Dvaita and
Vishishtadvaita, and of the various Bhakti schools warranted? What about
the various great saints and philosophers in the history of Hinduism?
Don't Americans deserve an accurate and balanced understanding of a
faith that inspires over a billion people worldwide and underpins the
culture of a country that is a growing partner of America is every sense
of the word? If those standards accurately reflect the Hinduism that
most Hindus practice, then the textbooks will necessarily comply.

5. HAF and the Hindutva Bogey

Witzel and Rajagopal also invoke the hindutva bogey. This also needs to
be firmly laid to rest. HAF is a human rights group that provides a
public voice for Hindu Americans. HAF has pro-actively worked with
Buddhist, Christian, Jain, Jewish, Muslim and Wiccan organizations
through interfaith seminars and legal cases, including last year's U.S.
Supreme Court hearing on public displays of the Ten Commandments in
Texas. In fact, our amicus curiae, or friend of the court, brief was
cited by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissenting opinion in that
case. HAF's track record in promoting tolerance and pluralism speaks for
itself. HAF has built strong relationships with such progressive groups
as the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the
Separation of Church and State and the Coalition for the Free Exercise
of Religion. <b>We note with satisfaction that an amicus curiae brief filed
by several anti-Hindu groups, led by the "Friends of South Asia" (FOSA),
was rejected outright by Judge Marlette as having no merit or relevance.
These are the very groups that Witzel and Rajagopal fervently supported,
and were supported by, in this debate. In the end, despite their
repeated efforts, FOSA and its collaborators were completely shut out of
the entire textbook adoption process—they neither submitted edits to
textbooks, nor was their shrill, anti-Hindu vitriol even considered by
the Judge.
By continually labeling every organization that stands up for Hindus as
"Hindutva-inspired", these anti-Hindu groups are in effect showing their
true colors. Skirting discussion of issues by launching attacks on
organizations and individuals or trying to tie every Hindu effort here
with events in India only brings a halt to civil dialogue.</b>

6. Conclusion

The California textbook issue is as much about textbooks as it is about
setting a place for Hindus at the table. Two organizations -- the Vedic
Foundation (VF) and the Hindu Education Foundation (HEF) -- submitted
edits to the Board. HAF took no position on individual edits suggested
by HEF or VF. HAF got involved formally only when the process being
followed for the textbook adoption violated legal rules and we now stand
vindicated. <b>The lack of complete victory should not diminish the fact
that Hindus, for the first time, managed to have their voice heard with
regard to the depiction of their own faith in textbooks and achieved
several very important changes. For instance, Hindu Gods will now be
referred to in upper case "G" reserved for the God of other religions
rather than in lower case "g"; the word "deity" will rightly be used to
refer to specific temple images; Aryan migration will be called "a
controversial theory that is not accepted by many scholars"; and Hindus
will no longer be teased with: "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?" Finally, the textbooks, though far
from perfect, are in much better shape than previously, as close to 75%
of the edits and corrections submitted by HEF and VF were accepted</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->