<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>Â Â ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Â Â From: Steve Farmer <saf@...>
>Â Â Date: Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 11:01 AM
>Â Â Subject: [Indo-Eurasia] Effective End of the California Textbook
Case: The Summary Judgment
>
>Â Â I've uploaded to our server the full 63-page judgment that
effectively
>Â Â ends the California textbook case.Â
>Â Â Actually, after reading all of it, I find it eloquently speaks
for
>Â Â itself and needs little technical analysis. In brief, the Court
>Â Â summarily dismisses EVERY substantial claim of prejudice made on
>Â Â Constitutional grounds by the Hindutva plaintiffs (who currently
>Â Â go by the name CAPEEM -- a Hindutva group invented just to
>Â Â pursue this case).
>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"N.S.Rajaram"
<nsrajaram@...> wrote:
>Â Â Â Don't believe any of Steve's interpretations, and they are his
interpretations only. He has been known to play fast and loose with facts before.
>Â Â Â Just wait for legal opinion.
><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From: Koenraad Elst <koenraad.elst@>
Sent: 3/2/2009 11:16:00 PM
Dear comrades,
Cassandra wasn't liked much when her predictions of doom, that nobody had believed, came true. So I won't expect applause either. But you can go to the IndianCivilization yahoo list archive and see for yourselves that in early November 2005, immediately after the proposed edits for the CA textbooks became known, I diagnosed some crucial ones among them as wrong and as not having a chance to pass. (You can check it while I cannot because I've been banned from that list and still remain so.)
From my own archive I may now reproduce two comments I wrote on the matter after the CBE ruling. I don't remember where or when, and it doesn't matter, for the outcome was continually certain and the diagnosis self-evident from day one till today. So, for a little reflection in this hour of defeat:
>In the textbook battle, there was no need for a defeat if the small
mistakes that querulous little me had pointed out from the beginning had not been made. All it took was to use the opportunities provided by the system, viz. to propose edits that were historically and philosophically *impeccable* and then focus the attention on the dimension of equal treatment in the textbooks for all religions. The enemy can get away with lies, but the power equation is such that Hindus cannot. The smallest mistake you make will be fully and cruelly exploited by the enemy. The enemy was mobilized, and the Hindu proposals doomed, by a mere handful of less-than-impeccable edits:<
>1) To pretend that the AIT has been discarded, was simply
untruthful; the Hindu foundations could simply have stated that it is disputed. (I'm afraid that they had been misinformed by OIT triumphalists, whose "little knowledge is a dangerous thing".) More importantly, they could have delinked the origins of Hinduism from any theory regarding any "Aryans", for, as Talageri has convincingly argued, even the AIT itself accepts that a large part of Hinduism is of "indigenous, non-Aryan" origin.<
>2) To insist on presenting temple worship as "monotheistic"
(not "gods" but "God") was untruthful, or at least an unwarranted generalization. While I have learned in the ensuing discussions that there is such a thing as Vaishnava monotheism, fact remains that many Hindu temple-goers worship plural gods and experience them as plural rather than as faces of a single "God".<
>3) To resort to weasel expressions like "different but equal" to
deny the inequality of men and women in Vedic and later Hindu society was silly. And likewise for any hushing of caste inequality.Â
Instead, it would have been more correct to acknowledge that deliberate inequality was a feature of every single premodern society. A certain rewording of the existing text in this latter sense would have been justified. But anything that even smelled of caste negationism was sure to backfire. Or have NRIs in all their years in the West somehow managed not to learn that caste is the one thing that most Westerners know and *hate* about Hinduism? Moreover, while Muslims are known as violent, Hindus are likewise stereotyped to be hypocritical, and articles about caste never fail to mention upper-caste hypocrisy (sweet-talking "brahmins and sweepers are different but equal", politicians inviting Harijans for dinner and then having the whole house cleaned with cow-dung to remove the taint of their presence, etc., all standard fare in Western texts about living Hinduism), so being caught as whitewashing the Hindu record on caste is fatal. Again, certain corrections were possible, but plumply denying caste inequality was inviting trouble.<
>4) To use the Hindiwallah form "Buddh" instead of the proper
Sanskrit form "Buddha", accepted in English and in most languages including most Indian languages, was boorish, fully living up to the stereotype of the backward Hindi belt. While not important in itself, this spelling betrayed the lack of alertness to the public's standards, and the limited horizon, nay the wilful self-centredness of certain Hindutva circles.<
>5)Â In a later stage, irresponsible ranters rushed in with their
counterproductive contributions, gleefully exhibited on the Indo- Eurasian Research list as evidence of the moron quality of the Hindu position. This included crass lies e.g. about Steve Farmer being a "creationist", and in the last few days even misrepresenting a Pico della Mirandola quotation from his PhD thesis as his own words.Â
Whatever the 19th-century associations of the AIT with creationism, every US observer could tell that Farmer *is* not a creationist (nor even a Christian), and hence that those who made this allegation were liars. Again, the enemy could have gotten away with such lies, but in the Hindu case these were bound to be exposed and to taint the whole Hindu position. Brave and capable contributors like Vishal and Kalavai Venkat found themselves tainted and deprived of credibility purely by association with those hotheads. (On this list too, we've had hotheads argue in favour of the right to use lies, regardless of its moral wrongness and its strategic counterproductiveness.)<
>Those who took the initiative to propose the edits were religious
people with limited knowledge of the way of the world, esp. of contemporary American sensibilities. They surely meant well, but if they had applied their minds to the question of how the American authorities would react, could they not have foreseen this opposition? Whoever will take similar initiatives in the future will need to impress upon himself and on all his supporters that good intentions are not enough. The hostile power equation imposes serious constraints, which were ignored this time by the naive Hindu religionists who took the initiative, and later by foolish Hindu polemicists who joined the fray with their own two cents' worth. But it is not all-suffocating and leaves room for manoeuvre to those who know how to play by the rules.<
And another comment:
> After the defeat of the Hindu side in the textbook controversy,
some list members have called for a frank discussion to diagnose the causes of this failure. So, I have offered my diagnosis: the Hindu proposals were thrown out because
(1) a few were conspicuously inaccurate and invited the charge of "history falsification", which in the present power equation was bound to be fatal;
(2) a few people involved had connections with the RSS, which attracted charges of complicity in communal riots in India and in everything the RSS is notorious for,-- often unfairly, but then it is the RSS's long-standing policy to ignore the media, as if the media aren't very consequential in this day and age, not just for the RSS's own reputation but for the reputation of Hinduism as such, of which the RSS claims to be the guardian;
(3) by mishandling the textbook reform process in India, the RSS/BJP had set a precedent and associated Hindu advocacy with history falsification in the minds of the public, a mental impression that could easily be spoonfed to ignorant outsiders like the California education board.<
>
After the Hindu defeat at the CA Board of Education, I was asked not to comment in public on the emerging CAPEEM litigation initiative, so I've kept mum while the court case was developing. But at no point did I come across any information that indicated I might be proven wrong in the end. And so the latest is that Witzel and Farmer are crowing victory over the CAPEEM verdict, which puts an end to the attempt at rewriting the textbooks in a less anti-Hindu sense.
Regardless of their own comments, the actual quotations from the verdict, though of course selective, are simply incompatible with any claim of Hindu/CAPEEM victory. Now, 36 hours after Dr. Rajaram's cheer-up message, I still see no good news coming in. Let's just agree that the Hindu side has suffered a smashing defeat, right?
It's not the first time. In Delhi too, the textbook overhaul under MM Joshi ca. 2002 ended in embarassment, ridicule and an subsequent massive strengthening of the Marxist hold on the textbooks. At the conference in Delhi IIC last January, the usual wailing could be heard about the anti-Hindu bias in the textbooks. No mention was made of the fact that the BJP had been in charge for six years and that the textbooks had been changed already, only so miserably that the Congress-Communist combine had no problem at all justifying a return to the anti-Hindu textbooks. The conference had no session on: "What did we do wrong?" This time around, I suggest that all those involved in or cheering for the CA textbook edit proposals face their own failure and do some honest soul-searching.
In the 1990s, under SR Goel's guidance, an alternative Hindu school of history was emerging. Today, most people involved (Harsh Narain, AK Chatterjee, KS Lal, BR Grover, Goel himself) have left this world, and their precious legacy has been mismanaged and squandered. MM Joshi and his acolytes in India and the USA carry a heavy burden of guilt. I'd like to say something more constructive and future- oriented than this, but for now it is best to let the realization of utter defeat fully sink in.
Kind regards,
KE<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
>Â Â From: Steve Farmer <saf@...>
>Â Â Date: Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 11:01 AM
>Â Â Subject: [Indo-Eurasia] Effective End of the California Textbook
Case: The Summary Judgment
>
>Â Â I've uploaded to our server the full 63-page judgment that
effectively
>Â Â ends the California textbook case.Â
>Â Â Actually, after reading all of it, I find it eloquently speaks
for
>Â Â itself and needs little technical analysis. In brief, the Court
>Â Â summarily dismisses EVERY substantial claim of prejudice made on
>Â Â Constitutional grounds by the Hindutva plaintiffs (who currently
>Â Â go by the name CAPEEM -- a Hindutva group invented just to
>Â Â pursue this case).
>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"N.S.Rajaram"
<nsrajaram@...> wrote:
>Â Â Â Don't believe any of Steve's interpretations, and they are his
interpretations only. He has been known to play fast and loose with facts before.
>Â Â Â Just wait for legal opinion.
><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From: Koenraad Elst <koenraad.elst@>
Sent: 3/2/2009 11:16:00 PM
Dear comrades,
Cassandra wasn't liked much when her predictions of doom, that nobody had believed, came true. So I won't expect applause either. But you can go to the IndianCivilization yahoo list archive and see for yourselves that in early November 2005, immediately after the proposed edits for the CA textbooks became known, I diagnosed some crucial ones among them as wrong and as not having a chance to pass. (You can check it while I cannot because I've been banned from that list and still remain so.)
From my own archive I may now reproduce two comments I wrote on the matter after the CBE ruling. I don't remember where or when, and it doesn't matter, for the outcome was continually certain and the diagnosis self-evident from day one till today. So, for a little reflection in this hour of defeat:
>In the textbook battle, there was no need for a defeat if the small
mistakes that querulous little me had pointed out from the beginning had not been made. All it took was to use the opportunities provided by the system, viz. to propose edits that were historically and philosophically *impeccable* and then focus the attention on the dimension of equal treatment in the textbooks for all religions. The enemy can get away with lies, but the power equation is such that Hindus cannot. The smallest mistake you make will be fully and cruelly exploited by the enemy. The enemy was mobilized, and the Hindu proposals doomed, by a mere handful of less-than-impeccable edits:<
>1) To pretend that the AIT has been discarded, was simply
untruthful; the Hindu foundations could simply have stated that it is disputed. (I'm afraid that they had been misinformed by OIT triumphalists, whose "little knowledge is a dangerous thing".) More importantly, they could have delinked the origins of Hinduism from any theory regarding any "Aryans", for, as Talageri has convincingly argued, even the AIT itself accepts that a large part of Hinduism is of "indigenous, non-Aryan" origin.<
>2) To insist on presenting temple worship as "monotheistic"
(not "gods" but "God") was untruthful, or at least an unwarranted generalization. While I have learned in the ensuing discussions that there is such a thing as Vaishnava monotheism, fact remains that many Hindu temple-goers worship plural gods and experience them as plural rather than as faces of a single "God".<
>3) To resort to weasel expressions like "different but equal" to
deny the inequality of men and women in Vedic and later Hindu society was silly. And likewise for any hushing of caste inequality.Â
Instead, it would have been more correct to acknowledge that deliberate inequality was a feature of every single premodern society. A certain rewording of the existing text in this latter sense would have been justified. But anything that even smelled of caste negationism was sure to backfire. Or have NRIs in all their years in the West somehow managed not to learn that caste is the one thing that most Westerners know and *hate* about Hinduism? Moreover, while Muslims are known as violent, Hindus are likewise stereotyped to be hypocritical, and articles about caste never fail to mention upper-caste hypocrisy (sweet-talking "brahmins and sweepers are different but equal", politicians inviting Harijans for dinner and then having the whole house cleaned with cow-dung to remove the taint of their presence, etc., all standard fare in Western texts about living Hinduism), so being caught as whitewashing the Hindu record on caste is fatal. Again, certain corrections were possible, but plumply denying caste inequality was inviting trouble.<
>4) To use the Hindiwallah form "Buddh" instead of the proper
Sanskrit form "Buddha", accepted in English and in most languages including most Indian languages, was boorish, fully living up to the stereotype of the backward Hindi belt. While not important in itself, this spelling betrayed the lack of alertness to the public's standards, and the limited horizon, nay the wilful self-centredness of certain Hindutva circles.<
>5)Â In a later stage, irresponsible ranters rushed in with their
counterproductive contributions, gleefully exhibited on the Indo- Eurasian Research list as evidence of the moron quality of the Hindu position. This included crass lies e.g. about Steve Farmer being a "creationist", and in the last few days even misrepresenting a Pico della Mirandola quotation from his PhD thesis as his own words.Â
Whatever the 19th-century associations of the AIT with creationism, every US observer could tell that Farmer *is* not a creationist (nor even a Christian), and hence that those who made this allegation were liars. Again, the enemy could have gotten away with such lies, but in the Hindu case these were bound to be exposed and to taint the whole Hindu position. Brave and capable contributors like Vishal and Kalavai Venkat found themselves tainted and deprived of credibility purely by association with those hotheads. (On this list too, we've had hotheads argue in favour of the right to use lies, regardless of its moral wrongness and its strategic counterproductiveness.)<
>Those who took the initiative to propose the edits were religious
people with limited knowledge of the way of the world, esp. of contemporary American sensibilities. They surely meant well, but if they had applied their minds to the question of how the American authorities would react, could they not have foreseen this opposition? Whoever will take similar initiatives in the future will need to impress upon himself and on all his supporters that good intentions are not enough. The hostile power equation imposes serious constraints, which were ignored this time by the naive Hindu religionists who took the initiative, and later by foolish Hindu polemicists who joined the fray with their own two cents' worth. But it is not all-suffocating and leaves room for manoeuvre to those who know how to play by the rules.<
And another comment:
> After the defeat of the Hindu side in the textbook controversy,
some list members have called for a frank discussion to diagnose the causes of this failure. So, I have offered my diagnosis: the Hindu proposals were thrown out because
(1) a few were conspicuously inaccurate and invited the charge of "history falsification", which in the present power equation was bound to be fatal;
(2) a few people involved had connections with the RSS, which attracted charges of complicity in communal riots in India and in everything the RSS is notorious for,-- often unfairly, but then it is the RSS's long-standing policy to ignore the media, as if the media aren't very consequential in this day and age, not just for the RSS's own reputation but for the reputation of Hinduism as such, of which the RSS claims to be the guardian;
(3) by mishandling the textbook reform process in India, the RSS/BJP had set a precedent and associated Hindu advocacy with history falsification in the minds of the public, a mental impression that could easily be spoonfed to ignorant outsiders like the California education board.<
>
After the Hindu defeat at the CA Board of Education, I was asked not to comment in public on the emerging CAPEEM litigation initiative, so I've kept mum while the court case was developing. But at no point did I come across any information that indicated I might be proven wrong in the end. And so the latest is that Witzel and Farmer are crowing victory over the CAPEEM verdict, which puts an end to the attempt at rewriting the textbooks in a less anti-Hindu sense.
Regardless of their own comments, the actual quotations from the verdict, though of course selective, are simply incompatible with any claim of Hindu/CAPEEM victory. Now, 36 hours after Dr. Rajaram's cheer-up message, I still see no good news coming in. Let's just agree that the Hindu side has suffered a smashing defeat, right?
It's not the first time. In Delhi too, the textbook overhaul under MM Joshi ca. 2002 ended in embarassment, ridicule and an subsequent massive strengthening of the Marxist hold on the textbooks. At the conference in Delhi IIC last January, the usual wailing could be heard about the anti-Hindu bias in the textbooks. No mention was made of the fact that the BJP had been in charge for six years and that the textbooks had been changed already, only so miserably that the Congress-Communist combine had no problem at all justifying a return to the anti-Hindu textbooks. The conference had no session on: "What did we do wrong?" This time around, I suggest that all those involved in or cheering for the CA textbook edit proposals face their own failure and do some honest soul-searching.
In the 1990s, under SR Goel's guidance, an alternative Hindu school of history was emerging. Today, most people involved (Harsh Narain, AK Chatterjee, KS Lal, BR Grover, Goel himself) have left this world, and their precious legacy has been mismanaged and squandered. MM Joshi and his acolytes in India and the USA carry a heavy burden of guilt. I'd like to say something more constructive and future- oriented than this, but for now it is best to let the realization of utter defeat fully sink in.
Kind regards,
KE<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->