This has been a
unique experience. i daresay that no member of an other faith has
had to endure the ignominy of being told how their faith should be
portrayed to their children by self proclaimed experts. Something tells
me that this may be in violation of the US constitution. The state has
no business portraying (or misportraying as the case maybe) the
religious faith of any of its citizens using taxpayer money. It does not
matter whether they choose to worship monkeys or 10000 androids, it
should not be a matter for others to comment on much less deride
in a tax payer subsidized textbook.
That is the
fundamental issue that should be taken up by HAF/HEF in their
legal suit. Just because there is no central authority directing what
should or should not be said about Hinduism does not give anybody the
right to throw rocks at others, especially if you happen to live
in a glass house. Unfortunately people who have nothing better to do
with their time starting from Abbe Dubois to Katherine Mayo to the Wendy
Donnigers and Michael Witzel have taken on this mendacious task of
deriding our ancient faith and are now somewhat aghast that somebody is
hitting back. 100 years after the
famous speech by Swami Vivekananda at the world conference of
Religions in Chicago, where he electrified his audience with a
passionate plea that Hinduism be regarded as a major Dharma,
nothing much has changed. The beloved Swamiji said at the end of his
speech and I quote
"Sectarianism,
bigotry, and it's horrible descendant, fanaticism, have long possessed
this beautiful Earth. They have filled the earth with violence, drenched
it often and often with human blood, destroyed civilization, and sent
whole nations to despair. Had it not been for these horrible demons,
human society would be far more advanced than it is now.
"But their
time is come; and I fervently hope that the bell that tolled this
morning in honor of this convention may be the death-knell of all
fanaticism, of all persecutions with the sword or with the pen, and of
all uncharitable feelings between persons wending their way to the same
goal."
Every 6
years the State of California selects text books for 6 to
8th graders. In the past years egregious errors in the way
Hinduism was portrayed were not challenged. Some examples of
such errors: see for instance
Is there discrimination
against Hindus in the way their religion is depicted.
Read the above, compare with the guidelines of other
religions and you decide.
Who is
Michael Witzel and why is he saying terrible things
about Hindus ?
MW is a congenital Hindu hater who in his day job
masquerades as a Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard
University. But I suppose it is better to adopt a charitable
explanation and invoke Napoleon's dictum 'Attribute not to
malice that which can be ascribed to incompetency.
He claims to know of Indic traditions, but has rarely if
ever been to India. His only claim to familiarity with the
subcontinent is some time he spent in Nepal. Here is a
compilation of
Aphorisms attributed to Herr Prof Witzel
What was
Michael Witzel Objecting to ?
We have
taken the liberty of reproducing the Hindu American
Foundation summary of the major issues
What was
the purpose of the February 27,2006 meeting
It was
mainly a meeting to legitimize decisions already made. see
for instance
The Hindu
American Foundation needs the support of every one of its members at
this critical time. The efforts of Hindus in California to improve
6th grade textbooks so that these books actually reflect their
beliefs and their religious practices have been hijacked by Michael
Witzel, a Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University and a few
like-minded colleagues with demonstrable anti-Hindu links. Below,
just some of the acrimonious, cynical and dismissive comments of
Professors Witzel, Wolpert and Heitzman (Witzel, et al) are seen
(For a full viewing of comments made by Witzel, et al on the
specific edits and changes recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee and
CRPE Bajpai,
click here)
We believe these
comments clearly relay the urgency with which Hindus must counter
this insidious Hinduphobia. With your support, we can ensure that
Hinduism is represented in a fair and appropriate manner.
The Ad Hoc
Committee (AHC) and Content Review Panel Expert (CRPE) Bajpai
recommended a correction stating that the Indian epic Ramayana
was written before the Indian epic, Mahabharata.
Witzel, et al respond with, “Who in sixth grade cares which epic
was “written” first?”
AHC and
CRPE Bajpai recommended capitalizing ‘g’ in the words God or
Gods to better describe Hinduism as a tradition that is not
polytheistic but instead one that propounds a theology of
panentheistic monotheism, recognizing that god is immanent in
all of creation and yet transcendent. Also, since the letter “G”
is capitalized when referring to God in Christianity, the same
respect, with use of a capital “G” should be given to Hindu
Divinity.
Witzel, et al want to retain the text “Many gods exist …”
AHC and
CRPE Bajpai recommended that textbooks state that women enjoyed
different rights than men and received some education. There is
also little or no discussion of the concept of shakti
or feminine divinity and the historical existence of brahmacarinis,
sanyasinis and female saints.
(Noteworthy: the textbooks portray the status of women in Islam
sympathetically. They state that even though women had fewer
rights than men, Islam conferred on women several rights that
pre-Islamic Arab society had denied)
Witzel, et al want to retain text that said, “Hinduism also
taught that women were inferior to men.” They did not want to
mention the fact that women were saints and composers of the
Vedas, Hinduism’s ancient texts.
Textbooks, while discussing
other religions, do not present the historic misuses of religion
to perpetuate social evils such as slavery, anti-Semitism or
holy wars, all of which are part of the history of other world
religions. In contrast, social practices like untouchability and
caste discrimination are presented as central tenets of
Hinduism. The textbooks fail to mention that these are social
customs also prevalent in non-Hindu communities throughout South
Asia. They also fail to mention that many Hindu sacred texts
were authored by “lower castes.”
Witzel, et al and their
supporters want to stress that caste discrimination is a
central part of Hinduism and do not want to acknowledge the
contributions of ‘untouchables’ to Hinduism.
AHC and CRPE Bajpai suggested
that Hinduism be portrayed as a natural internal development of
a composite Indian society, which also included the Aryans. This
suggestion reflects an alternative theory based on the latest
archeological, genetic and astronomical developments.
Witzel, et al suggest that
no mention of newer theories that conflict with the Aryan
Invasion Theory (which Witzel, et al propound) be made. They
also allege that mentioning that Aryans were part of the
ancient Indus Valley Civilization was a crude Hindu attempt
at creating linkage with that civilization. (Noteworthy: For
the portion on Islamic history, mention of converts to Islam
through conquest has been eliminated)
Witzel, et al object to a well-written explanation of ayurveda
and yoga as systems developed by ancient Indians for spiritual
and medical well being.
Dangerously, a
coalition of anti-Hindu academics, Indian Marxist activists,
Christian missionaries representing themselves as Dalits, and others
who are ignorant about California’s educational guidelines and
Hinduism are working to have the SBE overturn the original
recommendations made by the AHC on November 8, 2005 as well as the
latest corrections and edits accepted by the CC on December 2, 2005.
Significantly, these individuals
and groups want to maintain the textbooks as written, which as
demonstrated above, misrepresent Hindu belief and focus on the "dark
side" of Hinduism. They especially would like to see Hinduism
portrayed as a religion of oppression and a religion foreign to
India. Their main motivation: political, social and religious
agendas: Marxists with their inclination to consider religion an
"opiate of the masses" and to interpret history in terms of class
struggle and Christian missionaries with their interest in the
untouchables for targeted conversion.
The current textbooks, we
believe, violate SBE guidelines because they do not leave a student
with respect for Hinduism, and in fact adversely reflect on the
child’s creed and ancestry. If anti-Hindu groups are successful,
sixth graders in California public schools, and in following
California’s lead, children in public schools across the U.S., will
learn a warped, outdated version of Hinduism which is not on par
with the portrayal of other religions.
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, April 21,
2006: The California Superior Court
ordered an expedited schedule be
determined in the lawsuit of the
Hindu American Foundation against
the California State Board of
Education over the adoption of sixth
grade social studies' books for next
school year. The lawsuit was brought
when Hindus were dissatisfied with
the book review process which left
in place inaccuracies, distortions
and an unbalanced presentation of
Hinduism vis-a-vis other religions.
See HPI, March 18, for a summary of
the lawsuit issues:
here.
In his ruling, Superior court Judge
Patrick Marlette stated twice that
he was "troubled" by the SBE review
process in adopting the books. HAF
had charged that what is supposed to
be a documented and transparent
system of review actually progressed
through 2005 and 2006 in a haphazard
manner. Parts of the review, HAF
contends, were contrary to
California State law.
The preliminary injunction was
rejected by Marlette in favor of a
speedy schedule to resolve the
complex case prior to the school
year. It would be rare for a
preliminary injunction to be issued
against a state government. He could
have dismissed the case, if he felt
it had no merit, but did not. He has
instead ordered the SBE and HAF to
confer and provide a schedule for
hearing the case expeditiously,
before the textbooks in question are
distributed this fall. He also
recommended the two parties explore
any possible resolution of the
issues between them.
One surprising testimony in the case
is that of Stan Metzenberg, a member
of the Curriculum Commission whose
December 2 decision on the Hindu
issues with the textbooks -- and
supposed to be the final
recommendation -- was tossed out by
subsequent SBE actions. The SBE
contended the Curriculum Commission
failed to follow the guidelines laid
out for it in reviewing the proposed
Hindu "edits" (as the changes are
called). As a result, the SBE held a
separate, closed door meeting on
January 6 to again review the edits,
and arrived at a different set of
recommendations less acceptable to
Hindus.
Metzenberg, a professor at
Northridge University in the
California system argues in his
testimony that the Commission did
indeed follow the Board's
instructions. He is no stranger to
textbook issues, having been
involved in improving the science
curriculum in California and
testifying before the US Congress on
the same issue. During the December
2 meeting, Metzenberg, a molecular
biologist, took issue with the
claims that there was an "Aryan
Invasion" in ancient times in India
-- one of the main points of dispute
with the texts. He took it upon
himself to read the studies that had
been done on the genetic makeup of
individuals of the Indian
subcontinent, and reviewed them with
his wife, also a professor at
Northridge and an expert in human
genetics. At the meeting, he sided
with the Hindus against the
recommendation of several Western
non-Hindu Indologists. In his
testimony, he states, "My opinion as
a scientist, and what I recommended
to my fellow commissioners on
December 2, was that Aryan Invasion
Theory is not easily supported by
genetic evidence, and in fact the
preponderance of more recent genetic
evidence would tend to rule out a
major invasion of Europeans. This is
why I believe that it would be
inaccurate to portray Aryan Invasion
Theory as a fact in California
textbooks. Our [the Commission's]
addition of a qualified statement,
'Aryan invasion theory has been
contradicted by some scholarly
evidence,' is a sensible solution."
Metzenberg's testimony carries
special weight as he was part of the
process of textbook adoption and is
supporting the Hindu contention that
the Curriculum Commission had
followed proper procedure in
considering the edits. The Board's
contention that the Commission did
not proper procedure is a major part
of their defense.
Another declaration submitted is
that of Dr. Shiva Bajpai, who was
hired by the Board as an expert in
Indian history to review the
proposed edits. Upon the entry of
the non-Hindu Indologists in
December, he was sidelined in the
process. At the critical January 6
meeting in which all contested edits
were reviewed again, he was told
that changes would only be made if
he and Dr. Witzel of Harvard, leader
of the non-Hindu Indologist group,
agreed. This effectively gave veto
power over the edits to Dr. Witzel,
with the result that significant
edits Hindus sought were not made.
Bajpai concludes in his testimony,
"It is my view and opinion that if
the textbooks reflect only the edits
recommended by the subcommittee
[mostly the results of the January 6
meeting], those texts will portray
Hinduism and Indian history
inaccurately and in a manner that
puts Hinduism in a rather
unfavorable light. It is my view and
opinion that the texts continue to
require changes to make them comply
with the Standards imposed by law
for textbooks in California."
Also of interest in the court
documents is an Amici Curiae Brief
submitted by a group of political
and social activist organization
including The Ambedkar Center for
Justice and Peace and the Friends of
South Asia. An Amici Curiae Brief is
one filed by persons or
organizations not directly part of
the court case, but who wish to
provide input. Most of the Brief is
spent critiquing the edits still
sought by the Hindu groups,
attacking the same groups as
"politically motivated," including a
flow chart connecting all of them to
the RSS in India, even though HAF
and the Vedic Foundation -- two key
players -- have no organization ties
with the RSS, and the association of
most others in the chart is tenuous
as best.
Toward the end, their Brief states,
"Indeed, 126 south Asia faculty and
scholars have unequivocally stated
that the edits approved by the SBE
are an 'important and positive step
in providing California school
children with more accurate
information on Hinduism and Indian
history than in the current
textbooks.' These faculty and
scholars have reached consensus that
the textbook edits approved by the
SBE are 'a sizeable improvement over
the earlier texts in attempting to
present responsible scholarship that
is sensitive to and respectful of
religious and cultural difference.'
"
The irony here is that the praised
"edits approved by the SBE" are
those 75% or so of the edits
proposed by the Hindu groups and
accepted. There was no input to the
edit process by the groups
submitting the brief.
The judge at the April 21 hearing
requested the groups explore a
possibility of settlement. The
charges brought against the Board by
HAF are fairly extensive, ranging
from improper process to the
specifics of five issues: women's
rights, caste and untouchability,
theology, comparison with other
faiths and Aryan Invasion. Toward
the end of January, prior to the
final Board decision on the edits,
HAF submitted a document with their
recommendation on two dozen or so
critical edits related these five
issues. This proposal was rejected
by the Board, which led to HAF
filing the lawsuit. The possibility
remains that the Board and HAF could
revisit this list of edits and try
to work out a solution that does not
hold up the entire textbook printing
process, as a trial might. A
solution based on these specific
edits would not address the larger
problems with the texts, but it
would establish the rights of Hindus
to at least an equal part in the
process with Western non-Hindu
Indologist, many of whom appear to
regard Hinduism with contempt. If,
however, HAF prevails at trial, then
court-ordered changes to the books
to bring the treatment of Hinduism
on par with the other religious
would necessarily be quite
extensive, as the court would not be
limited to the relatively small
corrections allowed in the Board's
review process.
Final California Board of Education
Decision on Hinduism in Textbooks Better Than Expected Hinduism Today
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, March 9, 2006: The California State
Board of Education approved a few additional changes to the proposed textbooks for
social studies at the conclusion of its meeting today. They took public
testimony on a proposed slate of change, or "edits," which was the result of a committee
meeting of February 27 (see HPI, here for the complete background). An
excellent presentation by Janeshwari Devi of the Vedic Foundation, which
had spearheaded the effort to revise the books along with the Hindu Education
Foundation, resulted in 14 additional corrections of contradictions and
outright errors in the list of edits approved February 27. These included,
significantly, changes regarding the Aryan Invasion theory. According to InsideBayArea.
com (here), "The board also instructed the commission to add lines in the
textbooks stating that the Aryan invasion -- the controversial theory that traces
the roots of Hinduism to a migration of people from Central Asia -- is
disputed." In all, most of the edits Hindus sought were granted, while
controversial ones regarding caste, women's rights and other issues were not. These edits
were opposed by a group of Indian leftists and non-Hindu American academics. The
Hindu American Foundation testified at the meeting that the process of
consideration of the edits by the Board failed to follow State guidelines and that
they were considering suing the Board over these lapses. A lawsuit could
hold up production of $300 million worth of social studies books by a
dozen publishers for California schools.
HAF Legal Team Assesses Victory
and Comments on Failed Brief From Anti-Hindu South Asian Group
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Sept. 8, 2006) - The Hindu American
Foundation (HAF) legal team continued to receive wide acclaim for
the landmark ruling last week that upheld its contention that the
California State Board of Education (SBE) followed an illegal
process in adopting sixth grade social studies textbooks. The mixed
ruling in California Superior Court, however, denied HAF's demand
that if the process followed in adopting the Hinduism section of
textbooks was illegal, then all of those texts already published
must be thrown out and the adoption process revisited. In a
statement released today, HAF highlighted sections of the ruling
that they felt had not adequately been covered in press reports thus
far and responded to comments from a group that tried to oppose
HAF's efforts.
"It's important to reiterate that HAF at no time submitted any edits
or revisions in the textbook adoption process, and HAF only entered
this controversy when the SBE acted ar bitrarily and behind closed
doors, depriving Hindus of a fair and open process, said Suhag
Shukla, Esq., legal counsel for HAF. "We knew going into the lawsuit
that a good number of revisions suggested by Hindu groups had
already been accepted and the books had been improved--though far
from perfect--but our focus was on proving the illegality of SBE
actions vis-a-vis Hindus. "
In his extensive ruling covering the illegalities of the SBE and the
merits of the texts, Judge Patrick Marlette's first decision was to
reject outright an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, brief that
a coalition led by Friends of South Asia (FOSA) attempted to
introduce. According to its website
here, FOSA sponsors activities that seek to "build Indian
communism and fight the agenda of the global ruling class." The
group worked with some non-Hindu and avowedly anti-Hindu groups to
file the brief together.
A six-page rebuttal from the HAF legal team to the FOSA led effort
argued that the amicus brief did not provide "any substantive legal
nor adequate factual support for the assertions contained in their
proposed brief, relying instead on materials that are not properly
subject to judicial notice, as well as several irrelevant and highly
objectionable declarations."
Judge Marlette agreed with HAF and refused to consider the brief.
With that ruling, FOSA and other anti-Hindu groups were effectively
shut out of the entire legal process and their allegations played no
part in the judge's ultimate ruling. HAF leaders expressed surprise
that some journalists sought out FOSA members to comment on the
ruling when their anti-Hindu stance was ignored in the judge's
ruling.
"Hindu parents worked hard in California to bring on par the
representation of the religion they practice with the presentation
of other major world religions in the textbooks," said Swaminathan
Venkataraman, a member of the HAF Executive Council. "While FOSA's
devotion to communism may force it to repudiate all religion, it is
ironic that they reflexively opposed only Hindu efforts in the name
of 'secularism'--completely ignoring major revisions to sections
covering other faiths prevalent in South Asia including
Christianity, Islam and Judaism--and tragic that it also ran an ugly
communal campaign by co-opting non-Hindu groups to openly oppose
Hindu parents and students." Sections of the texts on the other
three religions were significantly modified in response to comments
from the Institute for Curr iculum Services, the Anti-Defamation
League and the National Council of Jewish Women, and the Council on
Islamic Education.
HAF leaders also criticized again the SBE process that illegally
allowed Michael Witzel, a professor at Harvard University who
teaches linguistics, to accuse only Hindus of sectarianism and act
as a reviewer even after Professor Shiva Bajpai, Professor Emeritus
of religion and history from California State University-Northridge
had already reviewed the proposed edits and corrections to the
textbooks.
"Allowing Prof. Witzel to poison the process with his ugly
accusations of sectarianism was only the first error in an illegal
SBE process," said Shukla. "With this ruling, Hindu Americans have
collectively demonstrated that we will never again accept unequal or
discriminatory treatment instigated by the overt hostility of a
cabal of anti-Hindu academics. Hindus must insist that a panel of
professors who actually teach, and in many case s even practice
Hinduism, such as those that supported HAF in the lawsuit, must be
included in the process over those that are antagonistic to
practicing Hindus."
Academics who supported HAF's contention that there are significant
inaccuracies and discrepancies in the Hinduism section of the
textbooks included a past president of the American Academy of
Religion (AAR) and current co-chairs of the Hinduism Unit of the AAR.
The first four URLs, listed below, provide a
fair report on the CA Superior Court's
judgment on sixth grade textbooks. The
report is unanimous: The process adopted was
illegal and the textbooks are flawed. The
judge recommends that HAF and CDE/SBE should
work out a fair procedure to redress the
illegalities.
There are two key issues:
1. Curriculum content
2. Who decides?
While the deliberations will be ongoing
related to the curriculum content and the
guidelines or procedures related to
determination of the content of the school
textbooks, the CA Superior Court judgment
should be seen as an episode in the ongoing
Hindu Civil Rights movement. Civil Rights
movement it is, because, it involves the 1
st amendment (Freedom of
expression and religion), 14th
Amendment (Non-discrimination on the basis
of religion or ancestry) and Article 42
Association Clause of the US Constitution
(Non-discrimination on the basis of
association). Using 'hindutva' as a
derogatory term is a direct violation of
Art. 42 Association Clause. The movement has
thus to be proceed through many systems:
legal, and political systems and also by
involving the society of American parents
concerned about the transmission of values
to the younger generation through the
education system consistent with the
practices and traditions venerated for
generations in family, farm and social or
community festivals. The right of the Hindu
community to get involved and be heard in
matters related to curriculum content and
fair depiction of hindutva (Being Hindu,
Essence of Being Hindu) as a component of
the civilization studies to which the
students are exposed through the grades of
the educational system.
One of the declarations admitted by the CA
Superior Court judge was that of Prof.
NathanKatz.
Hindu tradition places
enormous emphasis on responsibility, vratam
and hold that rights flow from due
performance of responsibilities. Hindu term
adhikaara flows from the performance of
responsibilities. Prof.
NathanKatz made a
comment that only the insider has the
adhikaara to state the Hindu tradition and
what is involved not mere historical
chronicling but a compassionate
understanding of the meanings of cultural
metaphors.
I would invite a reference to the last URL
which deals with teaching of 'religion' in
many schools. An excerpt follows: "
One exception is Modesto,
Calif. For the past five years, all
ninth-graders have been required to spend
nine weeks studying major world religions.
The course begins with a segment on the
First Amendment and religious liberty in the
United States, then describes in succession,
though not comparatively, the beliefs and
practices of Hinduism, Buddhism,
Confucianism, Sikhism, Judaism, Christianity
and Islam. The semester's other half covers
world geography; apparently, students should
know about seven spiritual continents as
well as the physical ones. In a rare example
of empirical research in this area,
Modesto's experience has been studied by
Emile Lester, a visiting professor of
political science at the University of Mary
Washington in Fredericksburg, Va., and
Patrick S. Roberts, an assistant professor
at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va. Their
report, "Learning About World Religions in
Public Schools," is available from The First
Amendment Center's offices at Vanderbilt
University in Nashville. Surveying
approximately 400 students with 75 written
questions before and after they took the
world religions course in the fall of 2004,
the researchers found that after the course,
students expressed modest increases in their
already strong support for religious liberty
and their weaker support for other First
Amendment rights like freedom of speech and
assembly. The course increased students'
basic knowledge about world religions and
stimulated student interest in learning more
about major faiths. After the course,
students were far more likely to view all
major religions as sharing "basic moral
values." But this increased appreciation of
similarities among faiths "did not
contribute to religious relativism or
encourage students to change religious
beliefs," the researchers write. Students
did not conclude that "differences between
religions are negligible or that choices
about religion are arbitrary whims." In
fact, later in-depth interviews with a
sample of students showed that students'
personal faith was more likely to be
invigorated than enervated."
During the proposed
deliberations between CDE/SBE, it is the
responsibility of HAF, Hindu parents and the
Hindu community to re-affirm the cardinal
principle enunciated as a guideline that the
children studying the educational material
should get instilled with a sense of pride
in their heritage and to reclaim their civil
right to get involved in transmitting
information on Hindu traditions and value
system to the students.
The task has just begun; the
CA court judgement is but one milestone in
the ongoing Hindu Civil Rights movement
involving over 2.3 million Hindu Americans
(according to the 2005 survey figures).
Hindus are contributing immensely to the
American society and economy and their
voices have to be heards.
