The South Asian: California Textbooks Need Sensitive Edits

February 15, 2006

California Textbooks Need Sensitive Edits

The article on textbook edits received numerous comments – with different perspectives but all very thoughtful. And one thing they made clear – some form of editing of the current textbooks is needed and the edits have to be sensitive to our communities.

There is no argument at all that the current textbooks represent Hinduism inappropriately. Not only are they factually incorrect – Hanuman being called the monkey king and Ramayana being said to follow Mahabharata – but by not separating myth from history, they mock at many Hindus.

The question is not, then, whether edits are needed but what will these edits be. And I do not think that the edits suggested by Vedic Foundation et al passes muster. At the very least, they are as problematic as the current texts – they do not represent the breadth of Hindus or the plurality of Hinduism either and generalize based on one worldview and set of practices. But as we discuss this, let us step back for a moment.

Just as common people who live in a certain region should have an important role in the laws made about that region and how those laws will affect them – more than perhaps ‘experts’ who will not experience these laws – I cannot but argue that the edits cannot be based solely on the suggestions on ‘experts’. They must account for the experiential aspects of communities who are part of the Hindu religion and traditions. Michael Witzel being a professor in Sanskrit or in Indic traditions is not enough of a reason to accept his edits as the final word (and I am told that they are not being accepted as the final word anyways). This is not to comment on the appropriateness of his comments.

As I see them, these edits must then be sensitive to the plurality of Hinduism. They must embrace that plurality. In fact, I think it would be a key strength of Hinduism to present that a wide variety of worldviews and belief systems grew within Hinduism, learning from each other and from traditions outside Hinduism. Thus, worldviews that saw a single God on whom the whole world depended coexisted and constantly engaged with worldviews that believed that all of us were part of a cosmic consciousness and this consciousness in its ultimate expanse was Brahman. It is within this context that we understand “I am God”.

It would be a significant strength to present that these various schools of thought coexisted even though they were sometimes in direct opposition to one another. There was much philosophical growth through active processes of engagement by which they learnt from one another.

All of these translated into diverse forms of rituals, festivals and celebrations. On one hand, while Gods like Vishnu were worshipped as the dominant deity, there coexisted, often within the same families, a number of Gods and Goddesses as well that were of central importance to the family.

One of the comments pointed out that I, the author or the abovementioned articles should be proud that I can critique my religion thus. Yes I am. I find it significant that I can critique and I believe we – individually and as a community – grow through such critique. It is this tradition that allowed Vishistadvaita to follow Advaita and Dvaita philosophies to evolve thereafter.

However, I am also afraid that we are losing the tradition and we are becoming less tolerant of criticism and more willing to violently abuse critics. While arguing that we are tolerant, we are being more intolerant. As a result, we may not find the space for the greater understanding of these philosophies or evolution of others.

As a Hindu, I look at my tradition critically and expectantly to see how we grow. At some level, it matters much more how WE work with one another, or how WE evolve. Thus within this context, I am not worried whether other traditions do not allow for such critique. I think they should, but it is most critical that we continue to maintain that space.

One of the comments claimed that textbooks about Judaism or Islam do not acknowledge the position of subservience that women have had in these communities. “Why then are Hindu text books being asked to present these aspects?”, the comment asks.

That other traditions may not have confronted issues within their own traditions – they should but their not having done so – does not prevent me from demanding the same from myself or from my traditions. As with any old tradition, I think that there was much wrong that occurred within Hinduism. As part of our sensitivity, it is important we recognize and acknowledge it.

The inhuman treatment of Dalits was one such case. It still goes on and it is quite common in much of India. Just as sensitivity demands that the edits recognize the needs of most upper caste Hindus who are troubled by the current textbooks, it is also important that these edits recognize the violence against dalits. The first step is to acknowledge it. Irrespective of whether others may or may not acknowledge their weaknesses – for this is the question of growth within our traditions, within these philosophies.

I believe that Hinduism will grow not by sweeping these under the veritable carpet and ignoring it. Or making excuses for it. It will grow by recognizing where we went wrong and learning to change that.

Thus, it would be appropriate – even necessary – for the text books to recognize that Dalits were treated inhumanely, that certain texts argued for such treatment and that was wrong. Similarly, it would be appropriate for these textbooks to say that even while there were few women who were important philosophers, seers, etc, women had lesser rights and decision making capabilities within Hindu societies and this was wrong.

I believe, these edits would be sensitive, they would be inclusive and in recognizing our strengths, our weaknesses and our strengths in recognizing our weaknesses, they would make us proud. Most importantly, they would highlight this very strength in Hinduism – that it is rich and complex enough to recognize its mistakes and go forth.

Posted by collective at February 15, 2006 10:07 AM

Comments

The author should realise that the current edits are not for scholars' use, but for teaching the children of sixth grade and thereafter in schools of California. Whatever is included will be read by all children of California schools in a comparative context with all other religions. If only social customs of one religion are shown as deficient in some respects and not of others, it will amount to miseducating the California School children, and to leave a permanent negative imprint on their immature minds against Hinduism. That will be a grave disservice not only to Hinduism but also to all the children of California schools, the children of the whole of the western world(through migration of the California curriculum contents), and most negatively and unjustly the Hindu children around the globe.The issue of equity in initiation and acceptance of the edits, therefore, cannot be ignored. The California School Board must apply its guidelines to all communities without discrimination first.

Once this is so accepted, individuals like Witzel have to be, as a corollary, thrown out of this process. Hindus, then, will have no problem of identifying what is relevant, sufficient and necessary for the Hindu school children to learn about their religion and religious history in the sixth and other grades to educate them appropriately, in the comparative context with all other religions. Social deficiencies do emanate in every society from time to time, but those deficiencies should not be misused to define and degrade a society or religion, when being studied togather with other religions of the world.
Every religion must receive similar treatment. That is US constitution and Law, and it must be respected.
Posted by: Col R.Aggarwala(ret) Faculty U of Michigan(retd) on February 22, 2006 09:05 PM

Dear Friends

Here is the latest news - The Hindu camp has been defeated. Foreigners like Witzel have decided what schools teach children about Hindus.

All those who wrote against the edits -- should hang their heads in shame. Have you seen how glowing Christianity and Islam are portrayed. That was the basis of the edits -- to have parity in portrayal.

I am hoping that the silver lining would be - through such repeated attacks, the sleeping secular Hindus would wake up.

A.H. Venkitesh

Here is the latest update from Witzel:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasian_research/message/3108
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasian_research/message/3107

For History:
http://www.hinduvoice.net/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi?flavor=archive&list=hnl&id=20060\
119102503
http://communalism.blogspot.com/2005/12/california-textbooks-hindutvas-smear.htm\
l

-----------------------

From: Michael Witzel
Date: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:35 pm
Subject: Hindutva defeat sealed in CA witzel_michael

With satisfaction we note that the long drawn out California battle has
drawn to a successful close this afternoon, at 2 p.m.

Today’s meeting of the subcommittee of the Board of Education (SBE) has
clearly come down on the side of reason and historical accuracy, with
a vote of 5 : zero,

The recommendations of the Dept. of Education were adopted without
*any* changes.

That means all the ahistorical and sectarian edits of the two Hindutva
foundations were decisively thrown out. The ‘persuasive’ proposals of
the 50 scholar’s letter and the second (Heitzman-Wolpert-Witzel) panel
as well as the results of the Jan. 6 rout of S. Bajpai carried the
day.

Thus, the position of women is correctly stated in the edits as
suppressed, the caste system and suppression of Dalits are back,
polytheism (not ‘God’) is back, and the Aryan migration is back.

We now await the final decision of the full State Board on March 9.

Incidentally, the funniest thing today was that one Hindutvavadins got
up an quoted some ‘Christian’ quotations out of Steve Farmer’s
dissertation on Pico that should have made Farmer a Bible thumping
creationist -- only that those sentences were Pico’s, half a millennium
ago, not Farmer’s. More later. Well, this great idea had been
spread yesterday all over the Indian Civilization list at Yahoo.

Funny, that Hindutvavadins always believe their own inventions and
defamation...

Sure enough, the ‘real reason’ for the Hindutva defeat was already
foretold this morning by Dr.Kalyanaraman (though it was not written in
his diffuse style, but clearly by a ghost writer): collusion between
the CA Secretary of Education, who is on Harvard’s Board --I did noy
know that-- and the hate "mongering groups at Harvard." Almost as
good as the Farmer 'quote' ! Conspiracies, conspiracies...

Seriously speaking, we have been predicting the defeat of the Hindutva
edits ever since the first reports of the irregular (and probably
illegal) procedures at the meeting of Dec. 2 of the SBE’s Curriculum
Commission reached us that day. The SBE just could not uphold the
historically incorrect and obscurant edits made on that day, as pushed
through by one of its Commissioners, in clear collusion with the
Hindutva groups involved; we have reported on this least earlier.

The signs on the wall were visible in the materials received during the
informational meeting held at Sacramento on January 6, and when the
revised edits were published by the staff of the Dept. of Education one
week or two ago: almost all of the egregious and ahistorical edits
have been taken out, and today’s procedures at Sacramento have
reconfirmed that.

In sum, this is a clear victory for reason and scholarship in the face
of sectarian and politically motivated, right wing action groups. Their
allegiance is elsewhere than in California and they instead aim at
gaining political capital in India.

No smiles today but deep anger on the faces of the Hindutvavadins, who
openly admitted defeat, and smiles all around on the faces of the many
groups opposing them.

All who have participated in the process of combating this
religio-political ideology and beating it back have good reason to be
elated. One onslaught on the non-sectarian American education system
has been defeated.

However, we have to be ready for the next one. Hindutvavadins will
(perhaps) learn from the blatant mistakes made this time, and they
will begin concerted, if futile effort to change textbooks in Texas
two years from now.

Congratulations and thanks to all involved, all around the globe. Just
occasionally, at least some of us have to get out of the Ivory Towner
and take a stand.

M.Witzel
Posted by: A.H. Venkitesh on February 27, 2006 08:17 PM

Hinduism is not a matter of a democratic muster opined from of the “breadth of Hindus or the plurality of Hinduism” Seeking such an aggregate can only lead to the chaotic circus wherein the religion is reduced to contorted caricature of social themes - the ‘ill treatment of Dalits’ of ‘caste’, of ‘myths’ etc

The primary issue (and there is only ONE) raised many times over, is the sociological and psychological impact on young immature sixth graders, through the portrayal of Hinduism in demeaning and distorted terms, none of which find parallel expression in the other religions studied.

If this much is understood, then the ‘edits suggested by Vedic Foundation’ need be reviewed to consider compliance against the offending primary issue. Nothing else. And that would be a good start.

No one - I include most adults, let alone sixth graders, needs or - can possibly be taught the vast expanse of Hinduism.
Posted by: Ashok M on March 1, 2006 12:36 AM

In USA only about 150 years ago one can get $50 for killing an Indian, and $25 for killing a Indian child.
In a country like that it is not surprising that a Nazi like Witzel can prevail upon truth and true religion of the Hindus.
It is not upto Witzel to define Hinduism, it is already defined in our holy texts, which Witzel would not accept as texts of Hindu religion.
They, Anglo-Americans,are trying to downgrade Indian civilization and Indian religions. They are not scholars at all, but propangandists of the worse type.
Christians, Jews, Muslims can define their religion, but Hindus must accept the definition as selected by the Anglo-American.
It does not matter whether one is from Harvard or Cambridge, they are all ignorant.
Have a look at the picture of Subhas Chandra Bose in the book written by the Harvard Professor of History, Neil Ferguson, called Imperialism. You cannot recognize him. Also Neil Ferguson called him Indian Musolini.
Witzel, Professor of Sanskrit in Harvard does not know Sanskrit, just like MaxMuller, professor of Sanskrit in Oxford University. Romila Thaper or Irfan Habbib also do not know any Sanskrit or Pali or Brahmi, but they are posing as experts on ancient history of India.
They disregard completely the findings of the Russian historians, who have proved beyond doubt that this people, Habbib, Wiztel, Thaper, D.N.Jha, R.N.Sharma, and all the rest of this gang of Scholars are the most ignorant people on earth on India's ancient history.
Posted by: Dipak Basu on May 1, 2007 04:35 AM

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Comments:

Remember info?

ARCHIVED ARTICLES