About Opentopia
Opentopia Directory Encyclopedia Tools

Californian Hindu textbook controversy

Encyclopedia : C : CA : CAL : Californian Hindu textbook controversy

Part of a on
Hinduism

History · Deities
Denominations · Mythology
Beliefs & practices
Reincarnation · Moksha
Karma · Puja · Maya
Nirvana · Dharma
Vedanta ·
Yoga · Ayurveda
Yuga · Vegetarianism
Bhakti
Scriptures
Upanishads · Vedas
Brahmana · Bhagavad Gita
Ramayana · Mahabharata
Purana · Aranyaka
Shikshapatri · Vachnamrut
Related topics
Hinduism by country
Leaders · Mandir
Caste system · Mantra
Glossary ·
Murti

This box: [ view] • [ talk] • [ edit]

A controversy in the US state of California concerning the portrayal of Hinduism in history textbooks began in 2005. The Texas based Vedic Foundation (VF) and the American Hindu Education Foundation (HEF) complained to California's Curriculum Commission, claiming that the coverage of ancient Indian history and Hinduism in sixth grade History and Social Sciences textbooks was biased against Hinduism, and demanding that the portrayal be revised according to their organisations' views of Hinduism and Indian history.

Contents

Opposition to the edits of the two Hindu foundations

Late in the process, Michael E. J. Witzel, a Harvard Sanskrit professor "unexpectedly intervened" [link]. Witzel, along with his collaborator Steve Farmer, was informed about the edits proposed by VF and HEF by an graduate student of Indian origin at a California university. Witzel wrote a letter to the California Board of Education, protesting against the changes, suggesting that the matter be discussed publicly, and that professional advice be taken by the Board. The letter was supported by the signatures of 47 academics in the field of Asian Studies from all over the world.

Dan Golden of the Wall Street Journal describes the developments [link]: 

The game wasn't over. Other Hindu groups -- including members of the "untouchables" caste -- entered the fray on Mr. Witzel's behalf. The Dalit Freedom Network, an advocacy group for untouchables, wrote to the education board that the proposed Vedic and Hindu Education Foundation changes reflect "a view of Indian history that softens...the violent truth of caste-based discrimination in India.... Do not allow politically-minded revisionists to change Indian history."



The Dalit Freedom Network is part of a Colorado based Christian advocacy organization run by Dr. Joseph D'Souza, leader of the "All India Christian Council." He later sent a letter to the Board of Education on behalf of Dalit Freedom Network. It was co-signed by Udit Raj and Kancha Ilaiah, (see [link]), both prominent critics of Hinduism [link][link]. Further letters of support came from other Christian Dalit groups ([link]) including the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, the Dalit Shakti Kendra, and the Dalit Solidarity Forum in the USA.


Other Dalit groups that testified, and are on public record in California, include those with a Ambedkarite background such as the [Ambedkar Centre for Justice and Peace], [Indian Buddhist Association of America], New Republic India, and Californian Dalit Sikh temples such as the Guru Ravi Dass Gurdwara[link].


The edits proposed by the Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Foundation were also opposed by a group of organizations including the Friends of South Asia[link], the Coalition against Communalism (CAC), the Federation of Tamil Sangams in  North America[link] [link], Non Resident Indians for a Secular and Harmonious India, the Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment, and the Indian American Public Education Advisory Council (IPAC)[link].


Forty-seven professional South Asian scholars from universities all over the world and some major American Departments of South Asian Studies [link] co-signed the original letter of opposition to the proposals of the two Foundations. Seventeen members of the California Legislature wrote a letter of support for the scholars.[link] These documents have been made available on the website of the South Asia Faculty Network.[link]


Early on after Witzel's intervention, Viji Sundaram, a reporter for IndiaWest [link], wrote that the scholarly consensus behind Prof. Witzel's petition is likely to have influenced the Board of Education's decision to review the changes suggested by the Hindu groups. Another reporter, Rachel McMurdie of the Milpitas Post, pointed out the parentage and close links between the Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Foundation and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh as well as the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, the American branch of the RSS. [link][link]



The State Board of Education decides


On 27 February 2006, after listening to 3 hours of public comment and after receiving 1500 pages of written comment, a five member of panel of the Board adopted a recommendation of accepting the actions on the edits proposed by the staff of the California Department of Education (CDE).[link] The subcommittee approved some 70 changes but it rejected proposed revisions from VF and HEF on monotheism, women's rights, the caste system and migration theories.[link] 


On 8 March 2006, the full Board agreed with the February 27 decision, voting (9 to zero, 2 abstentions) to reaffirm only the changes approved on February 27, and to overturn the rest of the contentious changes pushed by the HEF and VF, with two exceptions: the Aryan Migration Theory would be mentioned as disputed by scholars, and the Vedas would be referred to as sacred texts, rather than songs or poems. Most parties expressed qualified satisfaction with the decision; however the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) threatened the board with a lawsuit [link] [link] [link]. [link].


Ruth Green, past president of the SBE, said that the ruling "represents our best efforts. Many ideological fault lines have played out here. These beliefs are deeply held."[link].


A PR firm hired by the Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Foundation alleged "What is at stake here is the embarrassment and humiliation that these Hindu children (in America) continue to face because of the way textbooks portray their faith and culture."[link] Janeshwari Devi of VF said that "The two foundations submitted about 500 proposed changes, and more than 80 percent were not approved." [link].



The Lawsuits


On March 10, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF)  declared it would sue.[link]. It did so at Sacramento on March 16, and a previously unknown group, [California Parents for Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM)], filed a separate law suit in Seattle on March 14.


An emergency hearing  (temporary restraining order), demanded by HAF, was set for March 21. It was dismissed by the judge. Likewise, a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) against the California State Board of Education (SBE) to stop the printing and distribution of several textbooks containing distortions and an unbalanced presentation of Hinduism was heard and dismissed on April 21, 2006 in the California Superior Court. HAF alleged that, in his ruling, Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette stated that he was “troubled” by process followed by the SBE in adopting sixth grade social studies textbooks [link]. This allegation is not borne out by the official court transcript as declared by the Friends of South Asia. [link]  Instead, Judge Patrick Marlette stated that the petitioner (HAF) had not demonstrated to be able to win the case on merits, and especially so in relation to the substantive issues involved.


The Hindu American foundation has responded with a press release alleging media errors in reporting the trial proceedings [link], quoting:


"No journalists were present at the hearing, and according to HAF, several media reports relied on the motivated and biased interpretations of an amateur writer who gained recent notoriety for his anti-Hindu blog. This individual, with no previous experience reporting on legal proceedings, detailed that he attended the hearing and did not rely on official transcripts in his widely circulated report."


Marlette also appeared to be concerned that he could not evaluate the value or accuracy of the texts in the contexts of a preliminary hearing, as that decision would require a lengthy analysis of the texts. Preliminary hearings are, by contrast, limited. The court rules impose limitations on both the length of the papers that can be submitted and the amount of time available for the hearing.


“Some accounts report that the judge rejected HAF's claims ‘on the merits,’ when the judge never decided such a thing,” said Suhag Shukla, Esq., legal counsel of HAF. “Clearly there is a fundamental lack of understanding as to the standard of proof required for preliminary injunctive relief. It’s difficult to obtain -- particularly against the government. More importantly, this particular denial has no bearing on the ultimate outcome of the case.”



See also



References



External links



Press coverage


Listings of press coverage


Coverage In the American press.

Coverage on Radio and TV





Coverage by the Indian-American Press





Press coverage in India





The lighter side








 





From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.














Search Titles









0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJ
KLMNOPQRST
UVWXYZ?










E-mail this article to:



Personal Message: