USA: Hindu Nationalists and California’s History Curriculum (Pepper Chongh)

kafila.org

Hindu Nationalists and California’s History Curriculum: Pepper Chongh

July 14, 2016

Guest Post by PEPPER CHONGH

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak once asked us to consider that the histories of people at the margins are constantly in competition with dominant histories– that when a marginal woman speaks in dissent, the narratives of more powerful social groups can silence or supplant others.[1] This concept is at the heart of controversies around the revision of history textbooks throughout the world. It’s at the heart of the current debates on South Asian history in the California public school curriculum, up for revision this year.

In 2005-6, U.S. wings of Hindu nationalist groups named together as the Sangh Parivar[2] (the Sangh) attempted to insert changes into California’s 6^th grade history textbooks. Rewriting history is one of the Sangh’s political projects toward the realization of a Hindu nation, where upper-caste Hindus dominate and benefit from all aspects of society to the exclusion and subordination of all other groups. The 2005-6 effort follows another in India in 2002-2003, when the successful insertion of Hindu nationalist histories into Indian textbooks resulted in a protest walkout by education ministers from 16 states and a scholar-led suit filed before India’s Supreme Court to block the new textbooks. In 2006, South Asian scholars and minority and other progressive activists defeated the U.S. Sangh in a public clash.[3] The California State Board of Education (SBE) rejected most of the Sangh’s edits, leading the Sangh to file two lawsuits against the SBE, both of which lost on claims of discrimination against Hindus.

Since 2006, Sangh groups have led anti-minority mass violence in India—against Christians in the state of Orissa (now Odisha)[4] in 2007-2008, and against Muslims in Uttar Pradesh (Muzaffarnagar) in 2013. These violent events echo the state- and police-supported pogroms[5]against Muslims in 2002 in Gujarat, where scholars and activists documented Hindu chauvinist and Nazi-inspired content in educational materials in the time period leading up to the mass sexual violence and killings. The concerns regarding textbook histories are transnational, linked to identity, belonging, and marginalization connected to gender, class, race, and caste.

This year, the SBE is updating the California History-Social Science Framework, a government-produced curriculum guidebook for educators and textbook publishers. Several Sangh groups have participated in the government’s public input process to suggest changes to Framework content. Similar to those from the 2005-6 campaign,[6]the Sangh’s recommendations this time include: excising the word “Dalit” (formerly “Untouchable” persons); devaluing the Aryan Migration Theory[7]; de-linking caste oppression from religion/Hinduism; diluting or erasing birth as the defining criterion of caste; removing the word “patriarchy” to describe ancient realities of South Asia;inserting the Saraswati River in connection with the Indus Valley Civilization; erasing Ravidassi and Sikh resistance to caste oppression; and inserting changes to support a historical narrative of foreign Muslim invaders vs. Hindu victims, among others.

People unfamiliar with India’s discursive and cultural worlds have expressed bewilderment at the tumult these suggestions sparked in South Asian diasporic communities. Many of the U.S. Sangh’s edit suggestions are coded to assert a Hindu nationalist version of South Asian history, energizing bigotries and anti-minority targeting. In addition to being historically inaccurate, many Sangh suggestions are also painful to those who have suffered and resisted Hindu nationalist and caste-based violence, including Christians, Dalits, Muslims, Ravidassias, Sikhs, progressive Hindus, and others opposing the Sangh’s nativist and supremacist politics.This explains the rise of South Asia scholars and the interfaith and inter-caste group South Asian Histories for All (SAHFA), composed of members from these communities,in opposition to the Sangh.

The U.S. Sangh made numerous changes in the first round of input in 2014, including the removal of the term “Dalit,” the self-chosen identity of those most intensely targeted by caste oppression.In the second round (December 2015-February 2016), a South Asia Faculty Group (SAFG)– comprising of academics from well-respected U.S. universities, mostly scholars of South Asian heritage– suggested changes to remove inaccurate information and nationalism-coded language from the Framework. The SAFG’s edits are supported by SAHFA and are consonant with the recommendations of an independent Dalit-Bahujan faculty group.These groups and their allies are now facing off against the U.S. Sangh.

The Sangh’s Many Faces

As the Sangh does in India, the U.S. Sangh seeks to represent all Hindus, taking form as multiple organizations that work in a coordinated fashion.In the Framework controversy, the Sangh groups include:the California Parents for the Equalization of Education Materials (CAPEEM), the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), the Hindu Education Foundation (HEF), and Uberoi Foundation.

All of them have made recommendations to revise the Framework to the Instructional Quality Commission (IQC), the curriculum advisory body to the SBE, and all of them are linked to the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (HSS), the U.S. wing of the India-based Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The RSS is known outside of India for its affiliation with Nathuram Godse, the assassin of M.K. Gandhi. It and its affiliates have been reported by the U.S. Commission on International Freedom, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch,India-based citizens groups, and Indian governmental bodies to have carried out mass and targeted physical and sexualized violence against their opponents and religious minorities. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has characterized the India-based Sangh as “extremist.” Sangh violence, including the use of rape against minority communities, is discursively underpinned by Hindu nationalist histories.

The Sangh’s political party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), rules India at this time. Shortly after coming to power in 2014, the BJP government appointed an RSS leader as the chair of a prestigious historical research institution, and in late 2015, 53 leading Indian scholars issued a public statement against the chilled atmosphere for intellectual freedom in India, where “differences of opinion are being sought to be settled by using physical violence” and “the [BJP] regime seems to want… a kind of legislated history, a manufactured image of the past, glorifying certain aspects of it and denigrating others.”In May 2016, it was reported that a newly revised textbook in the Indian state of Rajasthan omitted the assassination of M.K. Gandhi by Nathuram Godse.In the U.S., media attention has been directed away from such trajectories in India and toward the Sangh-led outcry over the replacement of a minority of the instances of the term “India” in the Framework with a selection of geographical terms, such as “South Asia.”

In the context of the California curriculum controversy, CAPEEM, HAF, HEF, and Uberoi Foundation submitted separate and overlapping recommendations, possibly giving the impression of multiple parties coming to similar ideas independently. Their overlapping suggestions include the deletion of the words “Dalit” and “patriarchy,” and the erasure of Sikhism’s challenge to caste authority.

These groups’  alignment with the HSS can also be inferred by examining their funding and leadership.The HEF is the education project of the HSS,[8] and CAPEEM received funding from the HSS in 2007.[9] The Uberoi Foundation’s Chair is Ved Nanda, the President of HSS.[10] And though in May 2016 Hindu American Foundation’s Samir Kalra stated on Diya TV that HAF is an “independent organization”[11] from other groups in the Framework controversy, Uberoi Foundation’s tax returns and annual reports from 2012-2014show that HAF has applied for and received at least$82,000 from the Uberoi Foundation in those three years.

In addition to submitting suggestions to the Framework, the Uberoi  to have connections at the California Department of Education. In this year’s March 24 and May 19 public IQC meetings, the IQC commissioners used the Uberoi Foundation’s documents as a reference for decision-making, a commissioner at times giving voice to Uberoi’s challenges to SAFG recommendations while SAFG members or progressive activists sat in the audience, their voices muted by procedure.

In contrast to the Uberoi Foundation, the presence of CAPEEM and HAF, the two groups that sued the SBE in the past, likely reminds the SBE of the possibility of legal action. In early May 2016, the law firm Olson, Hagel, and Fishburn contacted the SBE representing HAF’s interests, applying further litigious pressure

These U.S.-based ideological allies of the RSS are further supported by a network of others that conduct social and charitable work in the United States (see the 2014 report “Hindu Nationalism in the United States: A Report on Nonprofit Groups”), aided by online activists who harass or threaten scholars and activists critical of their work. These coordinated groups will continue to play a large role in the debates over California curriculum content in the coming years.

The next site of contention: Textbooks

On May 19, close to 100 SAHFA activists attended a public meeting on the Framework revision process before the IQC. Dozens of SAHFA activists gave public comments in opposition to the Sangh’s many edits, winning several changes: the word “Dalit” has been reinserted into the Framework, and sections on caste and patriarchy have remained. Due to the work of the U.S. Sangh, references to Indo-Aryans and many references to the term “South Asia” were removed, and the remaining text states that caste provided “social stability”—notions in alignment with Hindu nationalism and caste oppression. As well, there remains some historically inaccurate and polemical content regarding Islam and Muslims, making more difficult any intelligent and respectful engagements between Muslims and non-Muslims.

The Framework will now go to the State Board of Education for final approval on July 14. If the Framework is approved, the update process for California history textbooks will begin, and the next phase of contestations will come. The State Board of Education, whose procedures help to produce the “official history” of Californian classrooms, is no doubt preparing for a long fight, as this struggle over South Asian history is unlikely to dissipate very soon. Even if it did, there will always be other conflicts between marginal and dominant histories. This is a perennial issue of textbook writing in inequitable worlds, and one that needs careful reflection and structural response.

Pepper Chongh is a member of South Asian Histories for All.

[1] Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?,” In Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory : A Reader, edited by Patrick Williamsand Laura Chrisman, 66–111. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. Pg. 104.

[2] The Sangh Parivar is a set of sectarian groups committed to a Hindu nationalist worldview, all affiliated in varying waysto the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Groups include Bajrang Dal, Bharatiya Janata Party, Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation, Sewa International, Vidya Bharti, and Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

[3]Visweswaran, Kamala, Michael Witzel, Nandini Manjrekar, Dipta Bhog, and Uma Chakravarti. “The Hindutva View of History: Rewriting Textbooks in India and the United States.” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 10, no. 2 (2009): 101–12.

[4] Chatterji, Angana. Violent Gods: Hindu Nationalism in India’s Present/Narratives from Orissa. Gurgaon: Three Essays Collective, 2009. Pp. 288-339.

[5] Ghassem-Fachandi, Parvis. Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti- Muslim Violence in India. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012.

[6] Bose, Purnima. “Hindutva abroad: The California Textbook Controversy.” The Global South2, no. 1 (2008): 11-34.

[7] Edits 1312, 1342, 1343 from the first round of public comments.

[8]HEF’s website registration information is the same as the contact information on the HSS tax return for 2014.  The HSS’s 2014 tax return indicates that it is also “doing business as” Hindu Education Foundation.

[9] According to HSS’s 2007 tax return, pg. 19.

[10]According to the HSS’s 2014 tax return page 7.

[11] DiyaTV. “Hindu American Foundation’s Samir Kalra & South Asian Histories for All’s Anirvan Chatterjee.” May 19, 2016. https://www.facebook.com/DiyaTVusa/videos/10154204595788252/. @6:06.

USA: Hindutva Groups Fail to Push Caste Oppression Out of California Textbooks

Published on: Sabrang India - April 2, 2016

HINDUTVA GROUPS FAIL TO OMIT CASTE OPPRESSION - California Education Commission denies anti-Dalit revisions in favor of academic-backed positions on history of caste-based violence

“It is important to recognize the elements of creeping Hindu fundamentalist revisionism,” said Bhajan Singh, Director of the Stockton-based Sikh Information Centre. “We've experienced how these beliefs inspire people to view others as untouchable, deviant, and deserving of whatever suffering assigned to their birth caste, including death.” ...

California Education Commission denies anti-Dalit revisions in favor of academic-backed positions on history of caste-based violence

The California Department of Education’s Instructional Quality Commission’s History-Social Science Subject Matter Committee convened on March 24, 2016 in Sacramento for a public hearing on the state’s K-12 History and Social Science curriculum framework. The process determines the guidelines for California’s textbooks and instructional materials and through a multiyear series of hearings welcomes and assesses content submissions from the public. During the submission process, minority groups representing Dalit and other low-caste communities were alarmed to see revisions they claimed would lessen the historical significance of caste-based oppression and subsume minority religious identity under Hinduism. Dalit (meaning "oppressed”) is the name for members of the lowest-caste in the Hindu Varna system, often called the "untouchables.”

As the curriculum touches South Asian history in several grade levels, submissions ranged from geographical designations of South Asian landmarks to the accuracy of the information presented about the region’s religious heritage. Majoritarian Hindutva organizations like Hindu American Foundation (HAF), Vedic Foundation, and Uberoi Foundation submitted revisions to separate and disassociate the history and impact of the caste system from the religious teachings of Hinduism, as well as challenge the framework’s emphasis on the inequity between men and women in Hindu culture. “Denial of such a painful history is more disrespectful and only adds to the discrimination,” said Srikanth Jandhyala of the Association for India’s Development. “As a Hindu by birth I care to know the true history.”


“Our primary concerns are human dignity and academic integrity,” said Steve Macias, outreach coordinator for Organization for Minorities of India, “It would be a grave injustice to ignore the plight of the minorities and to downplay the violent segregationist history of Hindu caste. We are thankful that the committee has sided with evidence-based scholarship over religious and political agendas.”



The committee chaired by Bill Honig rejected a multitude of submissions from Hindutvawaadi groups including all eight of the submission from the Hindu America Foundation (HAF). The HAF has been involved in the curriculum battle in several U.S. states and is ideologically aligned with the right-wing, suprmeacist organisation the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Suhag Shukla, executive director for the HAF, also financially supported the congressional campaign of the 1984 Sikh Genocide denier Rep. Ami Bera (D-Elk Grove, CA). Past submissions from HAF included striking “Sikh” from the descriptions of America’s first Asian American Congressman Dalip Singh Saund. According to attendees, HAF’s submissions on Sikhism were the catalyst to involve several California Sikh organizations to take a more active role in the curriculum discussion.

“It is important to recognize the elements of creeping Hindu fundamentalist revisionism,” said Bhajan Singh, Director of the Stockton-based Sikh Information Centre. “We've experienced how these beliefs inspire people to view others as untouchable, deviant, and deserving of whatever suffering assigned to their birth caste, including death.” Singh was pleased with committee’s decision to reject the additions from HAF, but credited the success to the South Asian Faculty Group and the several Dalit-rights groups who attended the Sacramento hearing.

“The South Asian Faculty are not an advocacy group, but they are a committee of experts from California’s universities,” said Umar Malick with the Indian American Muslim Council. “Their work is now being targeted by Hindu fundamentalists who have a long track record of meddling with the history books to advance their views and spread hatred among minority communities.” Followers of Islam make up over one-sixth of India’s population, yet Malick sees the textbook battle as an attempt to malign the religion’s history in South Asia. “They are bent on propagating a negative portrayal of the Muslim rule in the subcontinent and have even tried to blame the caste structure inherent to Hinduism on Muslims,” added Malick.

He joins a growing coalition of South Asian minorities who were galvanized by the adamant attempts of the HAF to bring ideological battles about caste and Hinduism to America. Representatives from the Alliance of South Asians Taking Action, Association for India’s Development, Ambedkar Association of California, Friends for Education in India, Indian American Muslim Council, Organization for Minorities of India, Sikh Coalition and Sikh Information Centre testified before the subject matter committee.

Among the controversies in the curriculum was the use of the term India to identify ancient and historic regions that pre-date the modern Indian state. While Hindu groups lobbied for the absolute usage of the term India, the committee instead qualified definitions of India by recognizing the historic diversity of South Asian with the inclusion of other nations like Pakistan and Bangladesh. Despite this compromise, Hindu groups continued to claim that the curriculum would unfairly affect their Indian identity. Dalit groups lobbied for an understanding of Indian history that reflected the diversity of South Asian. “Much of the history of South Asian identity has been written by upper-caste [Hindu] academics,” said Thenmozhi Soundararajan of the Ambedkar Association of California. “They have written much about class, but omitted the vital organizing of Dalit Bahujans and the religious minority communities of Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims.”

The hearing also revealed the complicated relationship between sentiments and academic accuracy in California’s textbooks. Hindu groups claimed that the proposed depictions of the Hindu caste-system would encourage a negative view of Hinduism. While evaluating a submission about Hinduism’s relationship to religious diversity, committee chairman Bill Honig commented, “I don’t know if it is true, but it is a good sentiment.” It followed the trend of testimony from other Hindu organizations that claimed that the academic perspective could lead to “diminishing the dignity” of Hinduism. A revision was also submitted by Hindu groups to identify a river in Punjab as the Saraswati River, a sacred river which appears in ancient Hindu religious texts. “Punjab means land of five rivers, but Hindu activists want the mythological Saraswati to be the sixth,” said Bhajan Singh, who sees the addition as an attempt to anachronistically impose the Hindu religion into the curriculum.

“Our primary concerns are human dignity and academic integrity,” said Steve Macias, outreach coordinator for Organization for Minorities of India, “It would be a grave injustice to ignore the plight of the minorities and to downplay the violent segregationist history of Hindu caste. We are thankful that the committee has sided with evidence-based scholarship over religious and political agendas.”

USA: Online Petition Re South Asian History Textbooks in California under assault from Hindu fundamentalists

”This Thursday March 24, 2016, the California Board of Education will vote to change how the history of South Asia is taught in our schools. Every six years, the California Board of Education reviews its History and Social Science frameworks in a multi-year series of public hearings. These hearings are meant to be part of a transparent process where members of the academic and general community from across the state can weigh in on what the children of the State of California will learn in history and the social sciences, from kindergarten to twelfth grade.
This process has now become a battleground for Hindu fundamentalists. Since 2006, organizations like The Hindu American Foundation,the Hindu Education foundation, the Vedic Foundation, and the Uberoi Foundation, have been invested thousands of dollars into fact-obscuring campaigns to erase from our textbooks the Hindu religion's history of caste-based and gender-based inequities and violence. The stakes are extremely high in this process, as the California and Texas textbook markets set the standards for the rest of the US. [. . .] we urgently invite South Asians from across California, North America, and the world to sign our petition to the California Board of Education by March 24, 2016"

sign this petition: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/dont-erase-our-history

University of California, Irvine Should Reject Donations Driven by Hindutva Forces - statement by SAHMAT

http://sacw.net/article12384.html

Academics Open Letter to the University of California, Irvine regarding donors’ intentions to fund only certain kinds of religious practitioners

The Petition
(sign this petition here)

Open Letter to the University of California, Irvine



We write to you to express our concern regarding the initiative to establish four endowed chairs at the University of California, Irvine: the Thakkar Family-Dharma Civilization Foundation Presidential Chair in Vedic and Indic Civilization Studies, the Dhan Kaur Sahota Presidential Chair in Sikh Studies, Shri Parshvanath Presidential Chair in Jain Studies, and the Swami Vivekananda-Dharma Civilization Foundation Presidential Chair in Modern India Studies.

While such endowments have the potential to greatly enhance the study of South Asia, we are troubled by news reports that the Dharma Civilization Foundation (hereafter DCF) has put forward its own list of acceptable candidates based on race and religion. Further, we are concerned about reports that the DCF has already brought their favoured candidates to the UC Irvine campus, in the absence of any advertised search for these positions. According to Inside Higher Ed’s report on December 21, 2015, the DCF has proposed a list of possible candidates to fill the chairs, as well as a list of proscribed candidates, describing these lists as a “suggestion” to the University. Prevailing normative codes at public Universities and standard academic procedures require an advertised search where qualified candidates are vetted by established scholars selected from a wide pool of academic expertise. Reshaping academic selection via criteria based on ethnic origin or religious belief opens the door to discriminatory practices that are consequential for educators and students everywhere, not just at UCI.

Donors’ intentions to fund only certain kinds of religious practitioners, or only supporters of certain religiously-defined communities, contravenes not only anti-discrimination law but also standards of academic excellence. While it is possible that scholar-practitioners of a religion can enrich its study, it is widely accepted that being a practicing member of a religious group should not be a requirement for studying and teaching that religion. We fear the DCF’s efforts will lead to the appointment of scholars who do not represent the intellectual richness and rigour in religious studies and South Asian history. South Asia is a deeply heterogeneous multi-religious sub-continent, and its religious practices are highly decentralised, varying across region, class and caste. Academic study requires empathy, curiosity, and rigour, not a certificate of belonging or a methodology that is monitored by donors. We are particularly concerned about the specific ideological sympathies of DCF associates, and the commitment to compliance with donors’ intent currently embedded in the gift agreement (as published in the Orange County Register on December 16, 2015).

The DCF is part of a right-wing Hindu group of organisations that has been known to undermine Indian pluralism through an agenda that seeks to redefine true “Indianness” in terms of a historically-fabricated continuity in “Indic” religions (a list of religions that excludes the sub-continent’s traditions of Islam, Christianity and Zoroastrianism), and a privileging of upper-caste, “Vedic” Hindu identity. The DCF, although registered as a US non-profit organisation, is directly tied, through its office holders and its ideological roots, to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (hereafter RSS), an organization that is the main proponent of the political ideology of Hindu nationalism, or "Hindutva." DCF office holders have held, or continue to hold, positions within the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (hereafter HSS), which is a global partner organisation of the RSS (with an international program to extend RSS ideology, including raising money in the UK and US to be used for RSS schools).

The RSS and HSS misrepresent not only Hinduism’s relationship to other religions but also the historical fluidity and philosophical complexity within Hinduism itself. The RSS defines ‘Hindu-ness’ using an especially narrow interpretation of Sanatana Dharma and Vedic thought. The RSS is a militarist organization that has upheld violence as a means to reach political goals; it has used fatal force against religious minorities and political adversaries in the past. The RSS has been banned three times in India for its active participation in mass violence against Christian and Muslim minorities and its role in the 1948 assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. The HSS promotes a similar sectarian, exclusive, and xenophobic idea of Hinduism. Organisations linked to the DCF have been actively involved in hate campaigns and public smearing of diverse scholars of Hinduism who disagree with their interpretations of Indian history. Many members of the DCF board are office-holders and members of the HSS, and have tried to advance their ideological agenda in other educational settings. DCF affiliates have attempted to introduce factually inaccurate changes to California sixth-grade textbooks about Hinduism. The right-wing Hindu campaign to change California textbooks promoted a reductive idea of the religion, seeking to introduce elements that had been widely discredited by scholars of Hinduism. The Endowed Chair agreement between the DCF and UC Irvine, to our surprise, specifies that adherence to this intellectually discredited interpretation of Hinduism will serve as a litmus test for future faculty in the UC system. The candidates hired will be required to forge “partnerships with the Vedic and Indic heritage community in the Western diaspora,” and to fulfill the “Donors’ primary foundational intention” to uphold their vision of “Applied Dharma.” It is a matter of scholarly and financial concern that a gift agreement would specify that candidates prove alignment with Donor intent in order to be hired, and that certain faculty members of the UC system will be required to meet annually with private donors “to preserve a constructive collaboration with the Donors’ intent” in perpetuity.

We value the mission of the University of California and its commitment to robust faculty governance, public education and academic freedom. We support the diversification of research and pedagogy, but urge you to recognise the danger of privileging forms of expression which present themselves within the spectrum of “diversity,” while promoting or justifying religious or ethnic hatred, discrimination, or intolerance. Based on recent statements by the DCF and our understanding of the agreements that the School of Humanities signed, we are extremely concerned that it will be difficult to maintain a clear separation between “donor intent” and university processes. If UCI is unable to establish clear academic criteria for the vetting and hiring of candidates based on wide consultations with present faculty who teach South Asia-related courses, and if UCI is unable to ensure that there is no involvement of donors in academic decisions, we urge UCI to return the gifts and to end this relationship with the DCF and its associates.

Academic research and decision-making processes ought to evolve in the best traditions of independent thought and inquiry. At a time of State disinvestment from public education and the rising importance of private money in the growth of education, we understand the pressures on administrators to promote fundraising initiatives. However, the University of California has the responsibility to conduct due diligence, to protect its faculty, staff and students, and to follow ethical guidelines for broad democratic participation in our joint educational futures. We urge the University of California system to uphold the best ideals of academic freedom, and to reject partnerships with donor organisations or individuals who propagate narrow sectarian agendas that violate the very spirit and mission of a public university.

Sara Abraham

Researcher, Lahore University of Management Sciences

Meena Alexander

Distinguished Professor of English, Graduate Center/ Hunter College, City University of New York

Frederick M. Asher

Department of Art History,University of Minnesota

Jayadev Athreya

Director, Washington Experimental Mathematics Lab University of Washington

Gajendran Ayyathurai

Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Göttingen University, Germany

Paola Bacchetta

Associate Professor, University of California, Berkeley

Amit R. Baishya

Assistant Professor, Department of English, University of Oklahoma.

Sarada Balagopalan

Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Childhood Studies, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Sukanya Banerjee

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Srimati Basu

University of Kentucky

Dr. Rachel Berger

Associate Professor, History Department, Concordia University

Varuni Bhatia

Assistant Professor, Hindu Studies, Asian Languages and Cultures, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Nilanjana Bhattacharjya

Honors Faculty Fellow, Barrett, the Honors College, Arizona State University

Tithi Bhattacharya

Director, Global Studies, Associate Professor, History, Purdue University

Debjani Bhattacharyya

Assistant Professor, Drexel University, Department of History, 3250-60 Chestnut Street, Suite 3025 MacAlister Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104

Purnima Bose

Associate Professor, English and International Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington

Timothy Brennan

Professor, U of Minnesota

Laura C. Brown

Assistant Professor, University of Pittsburgh

Madhurima Chakraborty

Assistant Professor, Department of English, Columbia College Chicago.

Mrinalini Chakravorty

Associate Professor, English, University of Virginia

Shefali Chandra

Associate Professor of South Asian History, Washington University in St. Louis

S. Charusheela

Associate Professor, Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington, Bothell

Partha Chatterjee

Professor of Anthropology, Columbia University

Indrani Chatterjee

Professor, History, UT Austin

Angana Chatterji

Center for Race and Gender, University of California, Berkeley

Swati Chattopadhyay

Professor, History of Art and Architecture, University of California, Santa Barbara

Zahid Chaudhary

Princeton University

Preeti Chopra

Professor, Department of Art History, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Rohit Chopra

Associate Professor of Communication, Santa Clara University

David Clingingsmith

Dept. of Economics, Case Western Reserve University

Ananya Dasgupta

Assistant Professor, History, Case Western University

Veena Deo

Professor, English,CLA, Hamline University

Jigna Desai

Chair & Professor, Dept. of Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies, University of Minnesota 425 Ford Hall

Wendy Doniger

University of Chicago

Richard M. Eaton

Professor of History, University of Arizona

Mayanthi L. Fernando

Associate Professor of Anthropology, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Cruz

Keya Ganguly

Professor, Department of Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature, University of Minnesota

Toorjo Ghose

Associate Professor, Chair,School of Social Policy & Practice, University of Pennsylvania

Bishnupriya Ghosh

Professor, English, UC Santa Barbara

Jayati Ghosh

Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

Prof. David Gilmartin

North Carolina State University

Priyamvada Gopal

University of Cambridge

Inderpal Grewal

Yale University

Richard Grusin

Professor of English, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Charu Gupta

Associate Professor, Department of History, University of Delhi

Mary Hancock

Professor of Anthropology and History, University of California, Santa Barbara

Ziaul Hasan

Retired Professor, University of Illinois, Chicago

Qadri Ismail

Associate professor, University of Minnesota.

Dr.Chinnaiah Jangam,

Assistant Professor, Department of History, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

Pranav Jani

Associate Professor, English, Ohio State University

Vidya Kalaramadam

Assistant Professor, William Paterson University of New Jersey

Sangeeta Kamat

Associate Professor, Education, University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Suvir Kaul

A. M. Rosenthal Professor, Department of English, University of Pennsylvania

Prashant Keshavmurthy

Assistant Professor of Persian-Iranian Studies, Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University

Jesse Ross Knutson

Assistant Professor of Sanskrit and Bengali, Department of Indo-Pacific Languages and Literatures, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa

Sankaran Krishna

Professor of Political Science, University of Hawaii at Manoa

Aishwary Kumar

Stanford

Smita Lahiri

Visiting Lecturer, Anthropology, Harvard University

James W Laine

Professor of Religious Studies, Macalester College, Saint Paul. MN

Joy Laine

Philosophy Department, Macalester College

Vinay Lal

Professor of History, UCLA

Premesh Lalu

Director of the DST-NRF Flagship on Critical Thought, Centre for Humanities Research, University of the Western Cape.

Jean M Langford

Professor, Anthropology, U of Minnesota

David Lelyveld

Professor (retired), William Paterson University

Simon Leung

Professor, Department of Art UC Irvine

Ania Loomba

Catherine Bryson Professor of English, University of Pennsylvania

Kama Maclean

University of New South Wales, Australia

Sudhir Mahadevan

Associate Professor, Comparative Literature, Cinema and Media, University of Washington, Seattle

Saba Mahmood

Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of California at Berkeley

Sunaina Maira

Professor, Asian American Studies UC Davis

Neepa Majumdar

Associate Professor, Department of English, University of Pittsburgh,

Marc Matera

Assistant Professor, department of history, UC Santa Cruz

Biju Mathew

Associate Professor, College of Business , Rider University, New Jersey

Saloni Mathur

Associate Professor and Director, Graduate Studies, Chair, Art Journal Editorial Board, UCLA | Dept of Art History

Monika Mehta

Associate Professor of English, Binghamton University

Dilip M Menon

Director Centre for Indian Studies in Africa, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa

Raza Mir

Professor of Management, Cotsakos College of Business, William Paterson University

Madhuchhanda Mitra

Professor, English, College of Saint Benedict/St. John’s University

Durba Mitra

Assistant Professor of History, Fordham University

Megan Moodie

Associate Professor of Anthropology, UC Santa Cruz

Projit Bihari Mukharji

University of Pennsylvania

Sucharita Sinha Mukherjee

College of Saint Benedict/Saint John’s University, Minnesota, USA

Rahul Mukherjee

University of Pennsylvania

Richa Nagar

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Vijaya Nagarajan

Associate Professor, Dept. of Religious Studies, Program in Environmental Studies, University of San Francisco

Sandhya Devesan Nambiar

JMC, University of Delhi

Balmurli Natrajan

Associate Professor, Anthropology, William Paterson University of New Jersey

Britta Ohm

Institute of Social Anthropology, University of Bern, Switzerland

Goldie Osuri

Associate Professor, Sociology, University of Warwick

Shailaja Paik

Assistant Professor of South Asian History and Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Affiliate, University of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Joyojeet Pal

Assistant Professor, University of Michigan, School of Information

Gyan Pandey

Emory University

Vasudha Paramasivan

University of California, Berkeley

Andrea Marion Pinkney

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University

Sheldon Pollock

Arvind Raghunathan Professor of Sanskrit and South Asian Studies, Chairman, Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Africa Studies, Columbia University in the City of New York

Gyan Prakash

History, Princeton University

Shalini Puri

University of Pittsburgh

Neshat Quaiser

Associate Professor Department of Sociology, Jamia Millia Islamia, Central University New Delhi

Gloria Goodwin Raheja

Professor of Anthropology, University of Minnesota

Arvind Rajagopal

Professor, Dept of Media, Culture and Communication, New York University

Rajeswari Sunder Rajan

English, New York University

M. V. Ramana

Nuclear Futures Laboratory & Program on Science and Global Security, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University

Lucinda Ramberg

Cornell University

Maia Ramnath

Professor of History and Asian Studies, Pennsylvania State University.

Anupama Rao

History, Barnard College, Columbia University

Raka Ray

Professor, Department of Sociology, Department of South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley

Chandan Reddy

Associate Professor, English and Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies

Vanita Reddy

Assistant Professor, English, Texas A&M University

Marcus Rediker

University of Pittsburgh

Sharmila Roy

Attorney at Law, Laveen, Arizona 85339

Modhumita Roy

Associate Professor of English, Tufts University

Parama Roy

University of California, Professor of English, Davis

Poulomi Saha

Assistant Professor of English, University of California, Berkeley

G.S. Sahota

Assistant Professor, Literature, UC Santa Cruz

Yasmin Saikia

Hardt-Nickachos Chair of Peace Studies & Professor of History, Arizona State University

Laila Shereen Sakr

Assistant Professor , Department of Film and Media Studies, UC Santa Barbara

Bhaskar Sarkar

Associate Professor, UC Santa Barbara

Priya Satia

Associate Professor, Department of History, Stanford University

Freya Schiwy

Associate Professor, University of California, Riverside

J. Barton Scott

Assistant Professor, University of Toronto

Arijit Sen

Associate Professor of Architecture, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

Nayan Shah

Professor, American Studies & Ethnicity and History, University of Southern California

Svati P. Shah

Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

S. Shankar

Professor and Director of Creative Writing, Department of English, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa

Aradhana (Anu) Sharma

Chair and Associate Professor, Anthropology, Wesleyan University

Jenny Sharpe

Professor of English, Comparative Literature, and Gender Studies , Department of English, University of California, Los Angeles, CA

Elora Shehabuddin

Rice University

Dr. Zoe C. Sherinian

Associate Professor of Ethnomusicology, Women and Gender Studies (Affiliate Faculty), University of Oklahoma

Greg Siegel

Associate Professor, Department of Film and Media Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA

Pritam Singh

Professor of Economics, Faculty of Business, Oxford Brookes University

Shana Sippy

Religion Department, Carleton College

Ajay Skaria

Professor, Department of History/Institute for Global Studies, University of Minnesota

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

University Professor, Columbia University, New York, USA.

Mytheli Sreenivas

Associate Professor of History and Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies, Ohio State University

Tulasi Srinivas

Associate Professor, Emerson College.

Banu Subramaniam

Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies Program, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Ajantha Subramanian

Professor of Anthropology and of South Asian Studies, Harvard University

Abha Sur

Program in Women's & Gender Studies, MIT

Raja Swamy

Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee

Ratnakar Tripathy

Senior Research Fellow, Asian Development Research Institute (ADRI)

Siva Vaidhyanathan

Director, Center for Media and Citizenship, Robertson Professor, University of Virginia, Department of Media Studies

Vamsi Vakulabharanam

Associate Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Peter van der Veer

Director Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen, Germany

A.R. Vasavi

Social Anthropologist, Bengaluru, India

Gowri Vijayakumar

UC Berkeley

Rupa Viswanath

Professor of Indian Religions, University of Goettingen, Germany.

Gauri Viswanathan

Class of 1933 Professor in the Humanities, Columbia University

David Gordon White

J. F. Rowny Professor of Comparative Religion, University of California, Santa Barbara

Michael Witzel

Wales Professor of Sanskrit, Harvard University

Benjamin Zachariah

University of Trier, Germany

to sign the petition go here:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/open-letter-UCI

Final California Ruling in the Textbook Case

Final California Ruling in the Textbook Case
Posted by: "Steve Farmer"
Date: Fri Sep 1, 2006 8:56 pm (PDT)

Dear List,

I just returned from Sacramento, where I attended the whole of the
latest hearing on the California textbook case. I drove up with one of
the many Hindu activists and one of the volunteer attorneys who
have been instrumental at every step in helping defeat the Hindutva-backed Vedic Foundation (VF), Hindu Education Foundation (HEF), and most importantly the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), who filed the legal case.

As in previous legal hearings we've attended, there were oddly enough
no VF, HEF, or HAF supporters in the courtroom, so far as we could tell
-- only their non-Hindu attorneys. (One person whom we couldn't
identify was there taking notes; he may possibly have been a reporter
or someone from their camp.)

The day before, California Superior Court Judge Marlette had issued a
tentative ruling on the case, which on all issues involving textbook
contents supported the State of California's position and rejected
HAF's. The Judge ruled for HAF on one strictly procedural issue; but as
noted below, this finding does not pertain to the contents of the
textbooks but only to updating written administrative procedures
relevant to future adoption hearings.

The purpose of the hearing today was to hear oral arguments from both
sides on the tentative ruling before making it final. Both sides talked
about 1/2 hour. At the end, the tentative ruling was upheld by Judge
Marlette without change.

Michael's earlier report, based on my quick telephone call to him when
the hearing ending some hours ago, is essentially correct. Here is a
little more detail on what actually happened in the courtroom:

- On one procedural issue unrelated to textbook contents, Judge
Marlette found that the State Board of Education and Department of
Education had failed to update its written regulations for textbook
adoption procedures under the current California Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) but had instead followed earlier written
guidelines. He therefore ordered SBE/CDE to update these regulations
for future adoption hearings, but also ruled against HAF's request that
the current textbooks be set aside.

In the oral arguments today, the HAF attorney, Deborah Caplan, argued
that due to that procedural failure that the current textbooks should
be set aside while the written regulations were updated. The Judge
ruled against her. The result is that the Judge ruled that SBE/CDE must
update their written regulations to conform with the current APA, but
that will have no effect on the current textbook case.

- On all substantial issues involving the contents of the textbooks --
the only issue of real interest so far as we're concerned -- Judge
Marlette ruled against HAF and for the State. His judgment on the
historical issues is quite clear and detailed. Rather than just giving
highlights of this part of the ruling, I quote it below in full,
without any omissions.

As Michael noted earlier in his briefer post, on every single
historical issue that VF, HEF, and later HAF raised -- The Aryan
question, caste issues, representations of women or Hindu theology in
the textbooks -- the Judge ruled against HAF's contentions. His ruling
should eventually as well have a major impact on the CAPEEM Federal
case, which was far more amateurish than the HAF case to start with.

I can note that Judge Marlette was so clear on this part of the ruling
-- as you can see for yourself below -- that Deborah Caplan (the HAF
attorney) didn't challenge the Judge on even one part of this ruling.
She even apologized to the Judge at one point for inadvertently
misrepresenting some of the edits in the textbooks.

Many hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent over the last year by
Hindutva groups to try to push their political agenda on California,
with an eye on future textbooks in India. It should be noted that we
defeated them purely using volunteers.

The substantial part of the Judge's ruling follows.

Best,
Steve

****************

The Court has reviewed the content of the challenged textbooks by
reading in their entirety the excerpts of the texts that the parties
have submitted in their requests for judicial notice. On the basis of
that review, the Court finds that the challenged texts comply with the
applicable legal standards as set forth above.

Petitioners claim that there are a number of significant inaccuracies
in the challenged texts, such as the listing of the "Major Hindu
Deities", the identification of a particular Hindu deity in a picture
caption, and the translation of certain words, among others.
(Petitioners' description of the claimed inaccuracies is found in their
opening brief at page 38:10-39:20.) The Court finds that petitioners
have not demonstrated that respondent's approval of the challenged
texts should be invalidated on this basis. A review of the evidence
submitted by respondent in its request for judicial notice and
supporting declarations demonstrates that that there is substantial
evidence to show that where actual errors were involved (for example,
in the description of how the Hindi language is written, or in the
statement that a person with bad karma may be reborn as an insect), the
inaccuracies have been corrected in the final versions of the texts.
In other cases, such as the list of major Hindu deities, the
description of a certain text as the "most sacred" in the Hindu
tradition, or the translation of the word "namaste", there is not any
gross inaccuracy, but at most a difference of emphasis or opinion. And
in some cases, such as the claimed failure to describe the overlap
between Hindu and Buddhist teachings, the textbooks in general appear
to acknowledge this overlap sufficiently to prevent any gross
inaccuracy from being found.

More generally, petitioners argue that the texts are inaccurate in
their description of Hindu theology. The argument focuses on the use
in some of the texts of the terminology "gods and goddesses" instead of
terms such as the actual Hindu terms "devi" and "devata" or even
"various forms of the Divine", which petitioners contend is a more
accurate way to describe Hindu religious belief. Beyond that,
petitioners charge that some of the texts do not adequately state that
a significant current of Hindu belief sees all deities as
manifestations of a single absolute divinity, or recognize that there
are many forms of Hindu belief. Petitioners' contentions on this point
are not persuasive. At most, they have demonstrated that there may be
differing English words that could be used to describe the
manifestations of the divine in Hindu religious belief, but not that
the words chosen in any particular textbook are grossly inaccurate. On
the remaining points, petitioners similarly have not demonstrated that
the textbooks' description of Hindu theology are grossly inaccurate.
Indeed, a review of the content of the books demonstrates that several
of the books explicitly acknowledge that most Hindus see the various
deities as manifestations of the absolute divinity, and recognize the
diversity of belief in the Hindu religious tradition. It is true that
the books do not explore these topics in great scholarly detail, but
there is no legal requirement that such a level of detail be contained
in grade-school school textbooks. In the Court's view, the books
broadly and accurately describe the outlines of Hindu religious belief,
which is all the law requires.

Petitioners also argue that the books are inaccurate in their
treatment of the so-called "Aryan invasion" or "Aryan migration"
theories, which are cited in the descriptions of the history of
civilization in India, and, in particular, in the description of the
origins of Hindu culture and religion. Petitioners argue that the
Aryan invasion or migration theories are the subject of debate among
scholars in the field, and that such debate should be acknowledged
explicitly in the books. This argument is not persuasive, at least not
in terms of demonstrating that the textbooks are grossly inaccurate on
this point. First, it appears from the evidence submitted by
respondent that the publishers of the challenged textbooks have in fact
been directed to recognize the ultimate uncertainty of these theories,
at least in general terms.

More fundamentally, even if such direction had not been given, the
texts would not be invalid for that reason. While some scholars may
question the Aryan invasion or migration theories, there is no showing
that such theories are not widely or even generally accepted at this
point, such that presenting them without significant qualification
would be grossly inaccurate. The law does not appear to require
sixth-grade textbooks to include disclaimers or outline the scope of
scholarly debate on historical issues. Moreover, as respondents have
pointed out, the History-Social Science Content Standards for
California Public Schools specifically require sixth-grade students to
study and recognize the significance of the Aryan invasions of India.
Those standards are not challenged in this action. At some point, the
state of historical research and the scholarly consensus in the field
may change to the point where it would no longer be accurate to refer
to a viable Aryan invasion or migration theory in a discussion of
ancient Indian culture. Petitioners have not demonstrated that such a
condition exists now. The Court therefore does not find that the
references to Aryan invasions or migrations make the textbooks grossly
inaccurate or otherwise in violation of law.

Going beyond areas of alleged inaccuracy in the texts, petitioners
argue that the texts violate legal requirements because their
descriptions and depictions of the Hindu religion are not neutral, but
tend to portray the Hindu religion in a negative light or even as
inferior to other religions. This argument is based on several
different charges, for example, that many of the texts unfairly or even
improperly highlight certain features of Hindu religious belief, such
as the belief in numerous deities; or that the texts give undue
emphasis to features of ancient Indian social structure, such as the
caste system and the status of women relative to men; or that the texts
do not utilize illustrative material such as pictures or selections
from texts in as positive a manner for the Hindu religion as they do
for other religions. In this area, petitioners' argument is not based
on alleged inaccuracies in specific facts, but on the overall "read" of
the passages regarding the Hindu religion, evaluated in their entire
context by themselves and in comparison with those on other religions.

As noted above, the applicable standard states that materials on
religious subject matter must remain neutral, must not advocate one
religion over another, and must not include derogatory language about a
religion or use examples from sacred texts or other religious
literature that are derogatory, accusatory or instill prejudice against
other religions or those who believe in other religions. Having
reviewed all of the selections from the challenged textbooks that have
been put before it by the parties, the Court finds that the manner in
which the books treat the Hindu religion does not violate this
standard. The various texts appear to the Court on their face to be
dispassionate and neutral with regard to religion, objectively
describing the features of the Hindu religion and others without
overtly or covertly "taking sides" with one over another. Moreover,
the Court finds nothing in the way of derogatory language or examples
from sacred texts or other religious literature that could be
classified as derogatory, accusatory or that would instill prejudice
against the Hindu religion or its faithful.

It is true, of course, that the texts do include significant
discussion of the caste system. Such discussion does not, however, by
itself cause any of the texts to violate the law. The caste system is
a historical reality, and indisputably was a significant feature of
ancient Indian society. 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. Indeed, it appears to the Court that to omit
treatment of the caste system from the teaching of ancient Indian
history would itself be grossly inaccurate.

The real issue, therefore, is whether the caste system is presented as
such a central or essential feature of Hindu religious belief, or in
some way as the creation of Hindu religious belief, such that the texts
become, in effect, derogatory or even accusatory, or instill prejudice
against Hindu religion and believers. The Court finds that none of the
challenged texts have descended to such a level. While the texts do
state, in one way or another, that Hindu religion generally accepted
the caste system (a claim that petitioner have not demonstrated to be
grossly inaccurate, even if it was not true for all Hindu people at all
times), the texts also seem to take pains to describe the origins of
the caste system in terms of a social construct that developed as the
result of the Aryan invasions or migrations, rather than as primarily a
Hindu religious belief per se. Indeed, passages can be found within
the texts that attempt to present a measured, balanced view of the
caste system, some going so far as to suggest that it may have had
certain benefits at certain times. Even in the passages that imply
criticism of the caste system (such as the passage in the MacMillan
McGraw/Hill text in which the girl reflects on the „unfairness of it
all‰), the focus is not overtly on the Hindu religion as bearing the
responsibility for the caste system, but on the effects of that system
on the people of India, which even petitioners apparently would concede
were not generally positive, especially for those in less-favored
castes. Just as the regulation does not require textbooks to ignore
unpleasant historical realities, it does not require them to present
such realities in an unnaturally positive light. Moreover, nothing in
the challenged texts uses the discussion of the caste system as a
take-off point for comparing Hinduism unfavorably with other religions,
or for advocating other religions over Hinduism. In this respect, the
texts therefore have satisfied the requirement of neutrality.

The Court reaches a similar conclusion with regard to the texts'
discussion of the status of women in ancient Indian society, and their
description of Hindu religious belief in numerous deities as multiple
aspects of the absolute divinity. These discussions appear on their
face 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. Such passages are
descriptive and do not advocate certain religions over others. On all
of these points, the possibility, or even probability, that some
students might react negatively, based on their own religious,
political or social beliefs, to what they read in these books does not
make the books legally invalid. The law does not insure against
negative reactions or prejudices, it merely requires that the textbooks
not instill them. The challenged books meet that requirement.

Petitioners' contention that the textbooks have the effect of
comparing the Hindu religion unfavorably to other religions is also
unpersuasive. Where the books describe the development of Buddhism,
for example, as in part a reaction against certain Hindu beliefs and
practices, they do so in an objective and dispassionate manner that has
not been demonstrated to be historically inaccurate. Moreover, the
books also appear to accept the idea that Buddhist teachings reflected
and accepted many Hindu ideas. Nothing in this discussion appears to
the Court to violate the applicable standard discussed above.
Similarly, petitioners have not persuaded the Court that the textbooks
tend to favor religions such as Christianity or Judaism over Hinduism
based on the content of the texts themselves, or on the choice of
illustrative materials such as pictures and selections from sacred
writings. The fact that the discussion of Christianity and Judaism is
longer than that of Hinduism, or that one religion or another is
illustrated by more pictures (or, allegedly, more attractive pictures)
or by an allegedly more appealing choice of textual excerpts, by itself
does not establish a violation of the applicable legal standards. As
noted above, the essential inquiry is whether the texts appear to be
neutral. In this case, the Court finds that they are, and thus do not
violate the applicable standards.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that petitioners have not
demonstrated that the challenged textbooks violate applicable legal
standards. The relief that will be granted in this matter therefore
shall not include an order that a writ of mandate issue requiring
respondent to rescind its approval of the challenged texts or take
steps to remove them from use.

*************

End of verbatim transcript of this part of the ruling.

Communalism: A saffron assault abroad

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2301/stories/20060127000807700.htm

Frontline
Volume 23 - Issue 01, Jan. 14 - 27, 2006

COMMUNALISM

A saffron assault abroad

NALINI TANEJA

The Hindu Right's attempts to rewrite school textbooks on India and Hinduism in California meet with stiff resistance from renowned historians and scholars in the U.S. and
abroad.

THE connections between communalist political strategies and textbook revisions were explored in detail in the media when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) went about changing the syllabus of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and getting school history textbooks rewritten while in government. But few would imagine that the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS)-linked organisations were in a position to put their stamp on school textbooks in California in the United States. The partial success of the "education" wings of the Hindu Swayamsewak Sangh in getting many of their revisions approved by the Curriculum Commission (CC) of the California State Board of Education has caused a virtual "international scandal".

The State Board of Education, California, is currently engaged in approving the history/social science textbooks for grades six to eight in schools, an exercise undertaken periodically. The Hindu Education Foundation and the Vedic Foundation (based in the U.S.) have used the occasion to push through "corrections" in the textbooks approved. Shiva Bajpai, who constituted the one-member ad hoc committee set up by the Board, succeeded in getting virtually all the changes requested by these organisations incorporated into the textbooks. Professor Emeritus at California State University, Northridge, and a Hindutva-leaning adviser to the Board, Bajpai was proposed as expert by the Vedic Foundation. That the Hindutva groups have not had a walkover is thanks to the vigilance and commitment of the many academics involved in Indian studies all over the world. Intervention by Professors Michael Witzel and Steve Farmer in the form of a letter, signed by 50 other scholars, presented at a public
hearing on November 9, resulted in the Board reversing its initial approval of the pro-Hindutva changes. Prof. Witzel is a well-known Indologist and has often taken up the cudgels against Hindutva ideologues such as David Frawley, N.S. Rajaram and Konrad Elst in the West.

Witzel's letter, endorsed among others by renowned Indian historians Romila Thapar, D.N. Jha and Shereen Ratnagar, to Ruth Green, President, State Board of Education, California, on behalf of "world specialists on ancient India", voicing "mainstream academic opinion in India, Pakistan, the United States, Europe, Australia, Taiwan and Japan" on the issue, is now part of a concerted campaign encompassing well-known scholars and hundreds of teachers and parents in California.

These scholars make the important point that the "corrections" proposed by the Hindu Right in the U.S. reflect political agendas discriminatory to millions of people in India, especially the minorities, `lower' castes, and women; and that such revisions have already been debated thoroughly and rejected by academics and progressive political opinion in India. Besides, they "do not reflect the views of majority of the specialists on ancient Indian history, nor of majority of the Hindus".

Asserting that "the proposed revisions are not of a scholarly, but of a religious-political nature and are primarily promoted by Hindutva supporters and non-specialist academics writing about issues far outside their areas of expertise", the scholars have called on the Board to "reject the demands by nationalist Hindu (Hindutva) groups". From India, 12 historians have written to the CC to reject the changes proposed by the RSS-linked organisations in the U.S.

Signatures opposing the sectarian changes have been pouring in by the day and the Board, now alert to the issue, has constituted a new Content Review Committee (among its members are Professors Witzel, James Heitzman and Stanley Wolpert), which has put together a list of recommendations that "allow for only such changes as meet the standards of objective scholarship".

On the other side, the Hindu Education Foundation and the Vedic Foundation protested the constitution of the Content Review Committee and the inclusion of Witzel on it. They launched a campaign that the "corrections" were incorporated through a proper procedure and claimed that Witzel knew little about Hinduism and ancient Indian history. They also asserted their right to represent Hindus in the U.S. and their authority to decide what is the `authentic' depiction of Hinduism and ancient Indian history.

Frantic mobilisation by Pranawa C. Deshmukh, a professor of physics at the Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, in support of the changes suggested by the Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Foundation, and the pressure of a host of organisations that constitute the `parivar' in the U.S. resulted in many of the proposed changes in textbooks getting the approval despite scholarly opinion being heavily weighted against it.

The details of how this was achieved remind one of the way in which RSS-sponsored revisions of textbooks were pushed through during the BJP's tenure in power at the Centre. During the meeting for the adoption of the recommendations of the Board by the CC in the course of a public hearing on December 1 and 2, 2005, the members of the Commission actually flouted the mandate of the Education Board. Of the total 156 edits requested, the CC accepted 97 that conformed to what the Hindutva organisations had proposed.

According to Witzel, "the proceedings of the CC meetings were highly skewed, irregular and contravened the mandate given by the Board". The Board had directed that the Commission approve only edits that "improve the factual accuracy of materials". Instead, matters were so arranged that several Commissioners had already left in the afternoon of December 2, by the time this was voted on. Others abstained as they did not know about the matter at hand (but with stacks of related papers in front of them which they apparently had not read, including the letter by more than 100 U.S. professors of Indian background and others by groups of concerned Indian Americans). All were tired, and one Commissioner, Stan Metzenberg, Professor of Biology at California State University, Northridge, took the chance to push through aggressively the Vedic Foundation's agenda. "The CC redefined their mandate repeatedly, contravening the mandate of the Board that the Commission should approve only ed
its that
`improve the factual accuracy of materials'; they allowed additional changes made from the floor by Hindutvavadins to be inserted; they pushed through a sectarian agenda that redefines Indian history and Hinduism," Witzel said.

The Hindu Education Foundation appreciatively quotes Metzenburg as saying: "I've read the DNA research and there was no Aryan migration. I believe the hard evidence of DNA more than I believe historians." However, finally it had to be agreed as: "Some historians believe in the theory of an Aryan migration." He insisted that "Hindus should at least be able to recognise their own religion when they read these textbooks". In short, the textbooks must reflect popular common sense rather than strive to mould/challenge popular common sense on the basis of objective historical facts or the gains of scientific enquiry.

Witzel puts it thus: "California has been hijacked by a saffron agenda, worse by a sectarian saffron agenda. In this case, a strident Vaishnava one that excludes Shaiva, Devi, Tantric, Lingayat and other forms of Hindu worship and Darshana... The new CA [California] history textbooks will reflect that."

Going by the "corrections" approved, the word "murti" means "God" (the CC agreed to the Hindu request to change "statue" to "deity"), the translation of "brahman" is "God", and all Hindus believe in God whose name is Bhagwan.

The "corrections" demanded by the Hindutva organisations are integral to the Sangh Parivar's political agenda in India, and similar to what the BJP government was trying to do with the NCERT syllabus and textbooks in social sciences, particularly history.

For example, among the "corrections" suggested is a clear attempt to deny the integrality of the caste system in ancient India; it was proposed to delete the reference altogether in one textbook. In another, it was proposed that the picture of an untouchable be removed. In yet another book, a reference to caste system as part of Aryan society was replaced by: "During Vedic times, people were divided into different social groups (varnas) based on their capacity to undertake a particular profession." Another reference to caste is to read as: "A late hymn of the Rg Veda describes the interrelationship and interdependence of the four social classes."

On women, it was suggested that the references to gender bias in ancient India were incorrect and insulting to Hindu society. Therefore the line, "Men had many more rights than women" was to be replaced by, "Men had different duties (dharma) and rights than women. Many women were among the sages to whom the Vedas were revealed."

In another textbook, the changes included a specific addition that "the recent archaeological proofs are negating the Aryan invasion theory. The new theory suggests that Aryans were not the outsiders". Elsewhere: "They [Aryans] were part of a larger group of people historians refer to as the Indo-Europeans" is replaced with the statement: "Some historians believe the Aryans were part of a larger group of people known as the Indo-Europeans." "The Vedas came to form the major beliefs of the religion called Brahmanism" is replaced with: "The Vedas constitute the source of Hinduism." Early Aryan religion is to be replaced with references to early Hindu religion.

Still other corrections follow the familiar pattern of ante-dating the Rg Veda, confusing dates of Indus and Harappa city-based civilisations with the Vedic civilisation, conflating Brahmanical practices with Hinduism, describing the Vedas as the source and basic texts of Hinduism, denying the plurality of gods worshipped through history in favour of one God in different forms, depicting sudras as "serving all classes" and doing "labour-intensive work" rather than serving `upper' castes and so on. The current Hindutva preoccupations such as asserting the sacredness of cows, vegetarianism and the Saraswati civilisation myth have also found their way into the textbooks.

Tolerance is shown as "usual" for the time of Asoka in ancient India; the references to technology, science and mathematics in ancient India have been modified to enable suitable glorification; and negative aspects of society are either deleted or presented as cultural specificities rather than as oppressive ones.

THE moves by the Hindu Right in the U.S. are no flash in the pan. The web sites of two of the organisations spearheading the Hindutva campaign - the Hindu Education Foundation and the Vedic Foundation - expressly state the revision of school textbooks in the U.S. as part of their political agenda. They regularly "interact" with State Education Committees that define school curriculum, conduct seminars and training programmes for teachers and "create resources" for parents who "wish to provide such opportunities for educators in their own areas". There are fora of all kinds offering entertainment, educational services and social support to youth. Alternative social networks through bhajan mandalis, yoga centres, discussion groups, special programmes and publications devoted to children, answer the yearnings for roots and culture among immigrants. The RSS-linked organisations have penetrated all these and are creating new ones all the time. The entire effort is part of the RSS' larger goal to "educate" Hindu children brought up in the U.S. to be "good Hindus" and to "learn the truth about Indian history and culture", and ultimately to finance their "social work" in India.

Not long ago, citizens' groups in India and North America exposed the nexus between funding of charities in the West and the hate campaigns and the expansion of communal networks of the Sangh Parivar in India. Infusing hatred directly or through the educational set-up is not as easy in the U.S. as it is through the Vidya Bharati schools and the Ekal Vidyalayas in India. The strategy of the Hindu Right is different in the U.S. It does the next best thing: it creates innumerable social networks where prejudices are nurtured and fascist solutions to problems legitimised, and glories of ancient India and Hinduism rule the roost.

Now, Hindu Nationalists Rewriting California Textbooks

(India-West January 6, 2006, A4-A6, Op-ed)

Now, Hindu Nationalists Rewriting California Textbooks
By Angana Chatterji

The attempts of diasporic Hindu nationalist organizations in the United States to intervene in revising segments on India, Indian history, and Hinduism in 6th grade textbooks in California State schools is disturbing. On December 2, 2005, the Curriculum Commission, an advisory body to the California State Board of Education accepted 131 of the 153 revisions proposed by Hindu Education Foundation (HEF) and Vedic Foundation (VF), two groups affiliated with Hindutva, militant Hindu nationalist ideology. The edits offered by these groups were adopted amid intense lobbying and the misrepresentation that their views represent those of 'ALL HINDUS' in the diaspora. This bears testimony to the power and resources of long-distance Hindu nationalism, and its organizing capabilities in the United States.

The changes proposed by HEF, VF, and the Ad Hoc Committee, on the basis of recommendations made by Professor Shiva Bajpai, who too is affiliated with the World Association for Vedic Studies, a Hindu nationalist organization, assert a nationalistic and mythic history of India as 'social fact'. Contrary to reputable scholarship, the revisions refute the migration of Aryans, associated by historians with the emergence of Hinduism, from Central Asia into India. The revisions posit Hinduism as indigenous to India and ascribed with its origins, rendering mute the histories of adivasis (tribal, first peoples) and their subjugation by Hindus. On page 238, the Ad Hoc Committee proposed, and the Curriculum Commission accepted, that the current text, 'The Aryans created a caste system…', be replaced with: 'During Vedic times, people were divided into different social groups (varnas) based on their capacity to undertake a particular profession.' Such storying dissociates the caste system from Hinduism, and discounts and neutralizes the oppressive structure and politics via which the caste system was constituted. It presents the caste system as a fluid arrangement, not restricted by ancestry. On page 245, the Ad Hoc Committee proposed, and the Curriculum Commission accepted, that the current text, 'Men had many more rights than women', be replaced with: 'Men had different duties (dharma) as well as rights than women. Many women were among the sages to whom the Vedas were revealed.' The inequity of women's rights is legitimated and discoursed as 'different rights', invisibilizing women's subordinated role in a patriarchal society, and the Vedas posed as 'revealed' doctrines. The revisions highlight Hindutva's misogyny and bigotry, and assert a non-reflective gaze at power that justifies Hindu dominance and cultural nationalism. Their history makes Hinduism uniform, monotheistic, and monolithic, dismissing the disenfranchisement of women, dalits, adivasis, and religious minorities under centuries of Hindu ascendancy in what is today India, and therefore their ongoing struggles for justice and self-determination. What message are we sending children?

The positions taken by HEF and VF are deliberate, and consistent with the attempts of Hindutva groups toward rewriting history in India, where sectarian education campaigns undertaken by Hindu extremist groups demonize minorities through the teaching of fundamentalist curricula. The Hindu right-wing has instituted an educational network for rural and disenfranchised peoples in India, building on a mandate that validates the paramountcy of a 'Hindu worldview' and the assembling of a Hindu state. Such corruption of education incites political and social fires, cultivating a culture of hatred toward non-Hindus and those that refuse to submit to Hindutva's tyranny. Hindu nationalist organizations, such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), have spearheaded this movement in India, successfully penetrating into educational systems and centralized regulatory commissions. The RSS has fashioned an institutional umbrella that has had damaging impact on education at the local level. Created by the RSS in 1977, the Vidya Bharati Akhil Bharatiya Shiksha Sansthan network focuses on moral, extracurricular and physical education for 'mind, body, and spirit'. The Vidya Bharati system supervises over 18,000 schools in India, with a shared curriculum across the country. The RSS has established a network of schools, such as the Vanvasi Kalyan Parishads, Vivekananda Kendras, Sewa Bharatis, Ekal Vidyalayas, to advance the ideological agenda of Hindu nationalism. For adivasis (referred derogatorily by Hindu nationalists as 'vanavasis' or 'forest dwellers') and dalits (erstwhile 'untouchable' castes), this ongoing reality of Hinduization forces their coercive incorporation into Brahmanical Hinduism. Hindu nationalists have utilized such educational networks as mechanisms through which to recruit and mobilize women, adivasis, and dalits in campaigns against religious minorities. The participation of Hinduized women, adivasi, and dalit communities in the genocide of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 exemplifies this pattern.

Following the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) accession to power at the centre in 1998, Hindu nationalist educators were inducted into the National Council for Education and Research Training (NCERT), the national curriculum development and review body, to make changes to school curricula. With the defeat of the BJP at the centre in 2004, processes to reverse these changes have been instated. The United States Department of State, in its International Religious Freedom reports of 2002, 2003, and 2004, stated that attempts at Hinduizing education endangered religious freedom in India. Now it appears that this same strategy is insinuating itself in California.

Hindu nationalist curricula must not masquerade as 'standard education' in California. The California State Board of Education must note that that the VF and HEF and their supporters are closely connected to Hindu nationalist organizations. The HEF, its coordinators and advisors, for example, include members of the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (HSS, the US counterpart of the RSS) and Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America (VHP-A), another key Hindutva organization. The Hindu American Foundation has threatened legal action against the California Board of Education in regard to the textbook changes. Its president, Dr. Mihir Meghani, has been a member of both the HSS and VHP-A.

Hindu nationalists in the US have been targeting Professors Michael Witzel (Harvard University), James Heitzman (UC, Davis), and Stanley Wolpert (UCLA). These scholars reviewed the edits proposed by Hindu nationalists and suggested responsible changes premised on credible histories. Mr. Gaurang Desai of the HSS derogatorily equated Professor Witzel to Hitler in speaking to the Curriculum Commission. This is ironic criticism given Hindutva's professed admiration for Hitler and the Nazi Party, as Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, an early RSS ideologue, expressed in 1938, in 'We or Our Nation Defined': ‘Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races -- the Jews. National pride at its highest has been manifested here.’ He continued: ‘The non-Hindu people in Hindustan [homeland of Hindus] .... may stay in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment, not even citizen's rights’ After being nominated Chief Minister of Gujarat in October 2001, Mr. Narendra Modi incorporated the teachings of Hindutva in his governance of Gujarat. According to a Times of India article, entitled, 'In Modi’s Gujarat, Hitler is a textbook hero', tenth grade school texts: 'present a frighteningly uncritical picture of Fascism and Nazism. The strong national pride that both these phenomena generated, the efficiency in the bureaucracy and the administration and other "achievements" are detailed, but the exterminations of Jews and atrocities against trade unionists, migrant laborers, and any section of people who did not fit into Mussolini or Hitler's definition of rightful citizen do not find mention.'

Hate mail directed at Professor Witzel has accused him of being a 'racist'. This is a despicable example of slander, and, in the name of a high moral principle, makes a mockery of the seriousness of racism. Respected and credentialed scholars such as Professor Witzel and others who served on the review panel must be judged by the merits of their scholarship. Instead, Hindu nationalists, such as Mr. Desai and Dr. Yvette Rosser, who ambiguously refers to Professor Witzel as 'a professor from Harvard University' (India-West), systematically fabricate libelous and defamatory allegations to discredit individuals, rather than engage with integrity the issues raised by those who oppose them.

Issues of racism and ethnocentrism that diasporic communities are confronted with in the United States are of critical concern and prompt us to seek curricular changes, hoping that a respectful curriculum will further facilitate a multicultural society. In proposing curricular changes, we must however make distinctions between national pride that wishes to put forward a uniform and glorifying version of history and the scholarship of history, which seeks to present the complexities within. Fiction as history does not benefit Indian-American and other California school-goers, for whom engagement with the past must facilitate a deep questioning of how things come to be, of what constitutes knowledge, of how knowledge is contested, so that the study of history informs the work of citizenship.

(The author is associate professor of Social and Cultural Anthropology at the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco, California.)

Hindutva attempt to distort California School Textbooks on India & Hinduism

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Dear Fellow Californian,

The State of California is currently in the final stage of approving the
history/social science textbooks for grades 6-8 in California schools.
Textbooks have been submitted by multiple publishers for possible approval and
selection by the California Department of Education. Two Hindu fundamentalist
(Hindutva) organizations, Hindu Education Foundation and Vedic Foundation, have
submitted corrections to the textbooks with a view to hide the true history of
India and present a sanitized and glorified view of Indian history and culture.
In the process, they have attempted to sweep under the rug the oppression
suffered by the lower castes and women.

Surprisingly, Shiva Bajpai, a Hindutva-leaning advisor to the California Board
of Education, approved virtually all the changes requested by the Hindu
fundamentalists. (See some of the Hindutva-recommended changes approved by
Shiva Bajpai at http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/snippets.pdf ) However,
in the public hearing held on November 9, 2005, a letter from Prof. Michael
Witzel of Harvard University was submitted to the Board of Education informing
them of the motivations of the Hindutva efforts and requesting them to reject
the Hindutva-recommended changes. (See
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/witzelletter.pdf ) About 50
international scholars specializing in the study of Indian history and culture
endorsed the letter of Prof. Witzel. The Board accepted the recommendations of
the scholars and has been working with a panel of reputed scholars of South
Asia to incorporate those changes that are required to meet the standards of
objective scholarship.

The next step in the process is the adoption of the recommendation of the Board
of Education by the Curriculum Commission on December 1-2, 2005. Now Pranawa C.
Deshmukh, a professor of physics at Indian Institute of Technology has called
for Hindutva forces to rally to the support of the changes suggested by the
Vedic Foundation and the RSS-inspired Hindu Education Foundation. We expect a
number of Hindutva supporters will either write to the Curriculum Commission or
show up at the public hearing. If you believe in teaching California's children
true history and culture of India, it is very important for you to attend the
public hearing on December 1 and 2 in Sacramento and voice your opinion
rejecting the Hindutva-recommended changes. Also, please sign the following
petition or something similar with your added comments and send them to Dr.
Norma Baker, Curriculum Commission at: norma.baker@lausd.net and cc to the
following:
joconnell@cde.ca.gov ; tadams@cde.ca.gov ; Deborah.Keys@comcast.net;


***PLEASE COPY and EMAIL ONLY THE PETITION PORTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS
EMAIL****

For details regarding the public hearing see
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/cc/cd/ccagenda120105.asp .

For details of the addresses of Curriculum Commission members, see:

http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/cc/cd/members.asp

Petition
======================================

sub: Reject Hindu Fundamentalist attempt to distort India History

To:

Dr. Norma Baker, Ed.D. norma.baker@lausd.net
Chair, Curriculum Commission
1430 N Street, Suite 3207
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Dr. Baker,

Re: Edits and Corrections for 2005 History-Social Science - India culture and
history

We have learned that the Curriculum Commission is reviewing the Ad Hoc
Committee Edits and Corrections for History-Social Science Instructional
Materials and welcomes public comments on these before it submits its
recommendation report to the State Board of Education on December 2, 2005.

While we agree that India history is not just Cows and Caste, we are dismayed
by the Hindu Education Foundation and CRP recommended edits approved by the ad
hoc committee on November 2, 2005. Based on the version of the document that
is available to the public at
http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/snippets.pdf , it is obvious that these
recommendations have gone far beyond correcting errors and this is an attempt
to rewrite history with a Hindu fundamentalist perspective.

However, we take heart in the decision of the Board of Education on November 9,
2005 to work with a panel of reputed scholars of South Asia to incorporate
those changes that are required to meet the standards of objective scholarship.
We believe that the Children of California should have the opportunity to learn
of the great contributions of India to the world history and culture. However,
the children also should learn that like all great civilizations of antiquity,
India also had its dark side. This is particularly important since millions of
Indians continue to suffer under an oppressive system that has its roots in
ancient India. In the name of political correctness, one should not sweep
under the rug such oppressions and present a sanitized and glorified view of
Indian history.

We request the California Department of Education to reject the changes to the
India sections of the history/social science textbooks of California
recommended by any organization other than the panel of scholars with whom the
Board of Education has been working since November 10, 2005.

Sincerely,

Name:
Address:

Email address:
cc:

Mr. Jack O' Connell joconnell@cde.ca.gov
State Superintendent of Public Instruction and Director of Education
Thomas Adams tadams@cde.ca.gov
Executive Director to the Curriculum Commission and Director of the Curriculum
Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division (CFIR)

Dr. Deborah Keys, Ed.D. Deborah.Keys@comcast.net
Vice Chair, Curriculum Commission