10-28-2006, 07:20 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Comments
Anu Mandivali's interview confuses a lot of issues. First, as a south asian group that denies its Indian and Hindu identity, they have no right to judge chapters dealing with India or Hinduism. Anyone who sees these textbooks cannot fail to note that the issue is indeed teaching ancient Hinduism (and Buddhism and Jainism) and not just ancient India. There is a lot of whitewashing of roles of women in Islamic societies but FOSA has kept quiet on all this. Worse yet, they took the assistance of fetna and similar organizations who have a documented record of raising funds for terrorist organizations. Anu quibbles a lot about the deletion of Dalit from one textbook, ignoring that this word is used only by ex-Hindu activists and Hindu baiters, if we are to believe all studies appearing in scholarly journals (and not communist party organs). Yes, inter-religious participation is a reality in India. But then why do the textbooks have no picture showing Muslims praying in front of a temple, or Christians praying in front of mosques or temples? Anu claims that the books talk about male patriarchy in the context of Greece etc., but does not point out that the board officials actually deleted such sentences from the final versions, and that such demeaning statements are absent in chapters on christianity and islam. Yet, they retained such statements for Hinduism. Why? Also, her claim that Aryan migration was a historical fact is totally rubbish. There exists no proof for this. Anu claims that the 200 professors who signed FOSA petitions had read all the HEF and VF edits. But this is a lie. The edits were NOT available on the SBE website when the 47 academics led by Witzel sent their letter to the Board. They were not available even to the 140 Leftist South Asian professors who sent their letters in November. In any way, most of the leftist South Asian professors who sent these letters belonged to totally irrelevant areas such as telecommunications, english literature. Therefore, their signature is of no worth and is motivated by communist politics, hatred for Hinduism and blind grou-think. FOSA supporters called Hinduism a 'cancer that has to be eradicated' during Sacramento hearings. Their faculty supporters have written apologias for the Taliban in the past, and fetna's 'Director' has just been arrested by the department of justice (see website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of...f_North_America ) Why has FOSA not reacted so far to the fact that Michael Witzel who lead the charge used the acronymn 'hiina' meaning degraded, mean, inferior, for Hindus in north American? This shows that FOSA is a phony human rights group, and just hates Hindus. Plain and simple.
How come FOSA had the support of only fringe anti Hindu and communist groups and of no major Indian or Hindu organization? Why is it that to counter Hindu organizations, FOSA had no qualms in using support from Christian evangelist and Islamist organizations?
Anu's ignorance of Hinduism is evident from her statement that vegetarianism and non-violence were absent in ancient Hinduism. She just has to read the accounts of Greek and Chinese travellers to inform herself that these were indeed considered virtues although just as now, a large section of the Hindu population may not have adhered to them. Your readers may enlighten themselves further by seeing many relevant details that counter Mandivali's propaganda at http://letindiadevelop.org/irochtc/
The fact that Anu conveniently forgets to mention that the judge Patrick Marlette refused to consider their first amicus curiae and outrightly rejected the second one (even while Anu waxes eloquent on the judgment) shows that double speak and half truths are the halmarks of FOSA strategy.
Posted by: Namrata Bose | October 27, 2006 at 06:30 PM
I find it strange that FOSA should even be allowed to talk about the subject. Apparently the judge thought so, when he threw out the "amicus curiae" brief this amorphous group of nitwits presented - so why is SAJAForum seeking their persuasion? Will the "other side of the debate" not be the Board of Education itself?
Posted by: Robin | October 27, 2006 at 12:50 PM
It was an informative piece.
Both sides are right.Hinduism is the most liberal religion.We can have Naga sects and also dogmatic priests staying together..We can have different rituals in different langauges.This is what Dr.Radhakrishanan defined as,"Hindu way of Life"
However, does that mean any one misusing religious icons for commercial,sectarian and political purposes.If such things can happen in the most powerful nation what about other parts of the world.
However, I will request AHF to first stop many stupid things in Indian TV soaps.
You may watch mothers in law and daughters in law having a cat fight with religious hymns as back grounds.Even in movies, one find gross misuse of many sacred hymns.
May I appeal to both sides to plug these loop holes before having a next round of bickering!
Hope you will try to go to the roots
Posted by: ashishdimri | October 08, 2006 at 01:16 AM
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
Anu Mandivali's interview confuses a lot of issues. First, as a south asian group that denies its Indian and Hindu identity, they have no right to judge chapters dealing with India or Hinduism. Anyone who sees these textbooks cannot fail to note that the issue is indeed teaching ancient Hinduism (and Buddhism and Jainism) and not just ancient India. There is a lot of whitewashing of roles of women in Islamic societies but FOSA has kept quiet on all this. Worse yet, they took the assistance of fetna and similar organizations who have a documented record of raising funds for terrorist organizations. Anu quibbles a lot about the deletion of Dalit from one textbook, ignoring that this word is used only by ex-Hindu activists and Hindu baiters, if we are to believe all studies appearing in scholarly journals (and not communist party organs). Yes, inter-religious participation is a reality in India. But then why do the textbooks have no picture showing Muslims praying in front of a temple, or Christians praying in front of mosques or temples? Anu claims that the books talk about male patriarchy in the context of Greece etc., but does not point out that the board officials actually deleted such sentences from the final versions, and that such demeaning statements are absent in chapters on christianity and islam. Yet, they retained such statements for Hinduism. Why? Also, her claim that Aryan migration was a historical fact is totally rubbish. There exists no proof for this. Anu claims that the 200 professors who signed FOSA petitions had read all the HEF and VF edits. But this is a lie. The edits were NOT available on the SBE website when the 47 academics led by Witzel sent their letter to the Board. They were not available even to the 140 Leftist South Asian professors who sent their letters in November. In any way, most of the leftist South Asian professors who sent these letters belonged to totally irrelevant areas such as telecommunications, english literature. Therefore, their signature is of no worth and is motivated by communist politics, hatred for Hinduism and blind grou-think. FOSA supporters called Hinduism a 'cancer that has to be eradicated' during Sacramento hearings. Their faculty supporters have written apologias for the Taliban in the past, and fetna's 'Director' has just been arrested by the department of justice (see website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of...f_North_America ) Why has FOSA not reacted so far to the fact that Michael Witzel who lead the charge used the acronymn 'hiina' meaning degraded, mean, inferior, for Hindus in north American? This shows that FOSA is a phony human rights group, and just hates Hindus. Plain and simple.
How come FOSA had the support of only fringe anti Hindu and communist groups and of no major Indian or Hindu organization? Why is it that to counter Hindu organizations, FOSA had no qualms in using support from Christian evangelist and Islamist organizations?
Anu's ignorance of Hinduism is evident from her statement that vegetarianism and non-violence were absent in ancient Hinduism. She just has to read the accounts of Greek and Chinese travellers to inform herself that these were indeed considered virtues although just as now, a large section of the Hindu population may not have adhered to them. Your readers may enlighten themselves further by seeing many relevant details that counter Mandivali's propaganda at http://letindiadevelop.org/irochtc/
The fact that Anu conveniently forgets to mention that the judge Patrick Marlette refused to consider their first amicus curiae and outrightly rejected the second one (even while Anu waxes eloquent on the judgment) shows that double speak and half truths are the halmarks of FOSA strategy.
Posted by: Namrata Bose | October 27, 2006 at 06:30 PM
I find it strange that FOSA should even be allowed to talk about the subject. Apparently the judge thought so, when he threw out the "amicus curiae" brief this amorphous group of nitwits presented - so why is SAJAForum seeking their persuasion? Will the "other side of the debate" not be the Board of Education itself?
Posted by: Robin | October 27, 2006 at 12:50 PM
It was an informative piece.
Both sides are right.Hinduism is the most liberal religion.We can have Naga sects and also dogmatic priests staying together..We can have different rituals in different langauges.This is what Dr.Radhakrishanan defined as,"Hindu way of Life"
However, does that mean any one misusing religious icons for commercial,sectarian and political purposes.If such things can happen in the most powerful nation what about other parts of the world.
However, I will request AHF to first stop many stupid things in Indian TV soaps.
You may watch mothers in law and daughters in law having a cat fight with religious hymns as back grounds.Even in movies, one find gross misuse of many sacred hymns.
May I appeal to both sides to plug these loop holes before having a next round of bickering!
Hope you will try to go to the roots
Posted by: ashishdimri | October 08, 2006 at 01:16 AM
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->