See today's Wall Street Journal article below.
--Kalyan
Hindu, Islamic, Jewish Groups Fault Portrayals of Events And Often Win Changes
The Untouchables Weigh In
By DANIEL GOLDEN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
January 25, 2006; Page A1
The victors write the history books, the saying goes. But increasingly,
religious advocates try to edit them.
Religious pressure on textbooks is growing well beyond Christian
fundamentalists' attack on evolution. History books are the biggest
battleground, as groups vie for changes in texts for elementary and secondary
schools that cast their faiths in a better light.
Two Hindu groups and a Jewish group have been set up in the past three
years as textbook watchdogs, adding to Islamic advocates who have
monitored history textbooks since 1990. In addition, some Sikhs have started
to complain about being short-changed in history textbooks.
All are seeking to extract concessions as California holds its periodic
approval process for history textbooks. The process drives
school-district purchases in the most populous state, and books adopted for
California typically are the ones that schools in the rest of the country end
up using for several years.
Hindu groups, in particular, have swamped California authorities with
proposed revisions, which would delete or soften references to
polytheism, the caste system and the inferior status of women in ancient India.
For example, the Hindu Education Foundation, a group linked to a Hindu
nationalist organization in India, proposed replacing a textbook's
statement that "men had many more rights than women" in ancient India with:
"Men had different duties ... as well as rights than women. Many women
were among the sages to whom the Vedas [sacred texts] were revealed."
California's Curriculum Commission endorsed this and most other changes
pushed by Hindu groups, moving the matter along to the state board of
education, which usually follows its advice. But then a strong objection
to such changes arrived from a group of U.S. scholars, led by a Harvard
professor, Michael Witzel. The scholars' protest, in turn, led to a
lawsuit threat, a call for Harvard to disband the professor's department,
and finally an unusual state-sponsored head-to-head debate between two
scholars of ancient India.
Underlying such free-for-alls is the question of whether lobbying by
religious groups yields a more sensitive and accurate version of history
or a sugar-coated one -- and also whether students are served better or
less well. "It tends to be scholar pitted against believer," says
Kenneth Noonan, a member of the state education board.
For textbook publishers, meanwhile, to ignore religious groups is to
risk exclusion from markets. One of the nation's largest school
districts, Fairfax County, Va., dropped a McGraw-Hill Cos. 10th-grade text from
its recommended list last year after complaints from Hindu parents,
keeping it out of classrooms there.
Religious protests nearly crippled Oxford University Press's effort to
enter the U.S. world-history textbook market. The prestigious
university press sought to impress California authorities with cutting-edge
scholarship and narrative verve, but the Curriculum Commission initially
recommended against adopting Oxford's sixth-grade book last fall after
Jewish and Hindu groups objected to it.
The Institute for Curriculum Services, a Jewish group set up in 2004 to
scrutinize textbooks, was upset by the book's statement that
archaeology and ancient Egyptian records don't support the Biblical account of
the Exodus of the Israelite slaves from Egypt. While conceding this was
true, the group said the book didn't apply the same skepticism to
Islamic or Christian events, such as when it said that "ancient writings" and
the Gospel according to Matthew relate that "wise men (probably
philosophers or astrologers) followed a brightly shining star" when Jesus was
born. Similarly, the book said that "according to Muslim tradition,"
the prophet Muhammad flew into heaven from the site of the Dome of the
Rock mosque.
The Hindu groups, meanwhile, called the book's tone insensitive, such
as its heading over a column about vegetarianism in India: "Where's the
Beef?" The state board finally put the book on its approved list after
Oxford cut the passages found objectionable and added a paragraph
saying that for Jews, the Exodus is a "central event in their history" and
"powerful symbol of the importance of freedom."
Casper Grathwohl, an official of Oxford University Press, says it
preserved its integrity, and the give-and-take improved the text. But he
complains that "the process is skewed toward giving the loudest voices
what they want."
Every six years, California adopts a list of history books for
kindergarten through eighth grade, and districts can spend designated state
money only for books on this list. Publishers typically roll out new
textbooks for the state, whose districts are expected to buy nearly $200
million of history books over the next two years. California alone
represents 10% to 12% of the national textbook market.
In the 1970s and 1980s, history texts shied away from religion. "They
didn't use the 'capital G' word," says Roger Rogalin, a publishing
consultant. "They said the pilgrims gave thanks on Thanksgiving, but they
didn't say to whom."
Difficult Goals
Prodded by religious groups, states began requiring more coverage of
the topic. But they imposed goals that can be hard to reconcile: both
maintaining historical accuracy and enhancing the pride and self-esteem of
believers. California's guidelines, for instance, say students "should
understand the intense religious passions that have produced fanaticism
and war." But also, texts should avoid "reflecting adversely" on
anyone's creed or instilling "prejudice against...those who believe in other
religions."
Such cautions provide an opportunity for religious activists such as
the Council on Islamic Education in Fountain Valley, Calif. In
California's most recent review, the council called for extensive changes, most
of which the state appears likely to accept.
One target: A Prentice Hall text said the medieval spread of Islam was
partly due to military conquest. "Actual conversion to Islam did NOT
occur...at the point of a sword," the council told the state. A
specialist appointed by the state board to review Islamic coverage recommended
dropping the reference, and Prentice Hall says it will do so.
Publishers often hire the Council on Islamic Education to prescreen
manuscripts. In California, the council is a "content consultant" for
Houghton Mifflin Co. and Ballard & Tighe Co., an educational publisher in
Brea, Calif. The council has sometimes advised Prentice Hall and other
publishers as well.
Publishers have allowed the Islamic group to "dictate" content, charges
Gilbert Sewall, director of the American Textbook Council, a New York
nonprofit group that reviews history texts and has said they often lack
depth and factual fidelity. "Islamic pressure groups have been working
energetically for 15 years to scrub the past in instructional
materials," he wrote to California officials. He added that "textbooks submitted
either gloss over jihad, sharia [Islamic law], Muslim slavery, the
status of women and Islamic terrorism -- or omit the subject altogether."
Houghton Mifflin says it hasn't ceded any control to the Council on
Islamic Education, and seeks Hindu, Jewish, Protestant, Catholic and
Buddhist perspectives too. "We listen to their input and weigh it against
what our scholarly authors believe is true," a spokesman says. Ballard &
Tighe says its text was examined by Jewish and Hindu experts as well as
the Islamic council. "We're mostly looking not to insult people," says
an executive of the publisher. A spokeswoman for Prentice Hall says it
has found the Council on Islamic Education to be a "solid resource for
reviewing content."
The council's founder, Shabbir Mansuri, says that texts are treating
Islam better not because of his efforts but because of state guidelines
that stress sensitivity toward religious beliefs.
Disputes over textbook portrayal of Hinduism are a staple of politics
in India, and the concerns have arrived in America along with many
Indian immigrants. The conventional view of ancient India in U.S. history
texts is that men enjoyed more rights than women and that, then as now,
Hindus worshipped many gods and were divided into castes.
But the Hindu Education Foundation and the Vedic Foundation, the
educational arm of a Hindu temple in Austin, Texas, say Hinduism is
monotheistic because all of its deities are aspects of one god, Brahman. So when
one textbook referred to Hindus visiting temples to "express their love
of the gods," this should be changed to "express their love for God,"
said the Vedic group.
The groups repeatedly proposed deleting references to the caste system
and making other changes that burnished the image of Indian history and
culture. For instance, McGraw-Hill's book said of an early monarch
called Asoka that his "tolerance was unusual for the time." The Hindu
Education Foundation suggested changing "unusual" to "usual."
'Source of Misunderstanding'
At the Vedic Foundation, "Our motto is to re-establish the greatness of
Hinduism, and part of that is to correct the textbooks," says
Janeshwari Devi, director of programs. "Those are a source of misunderstanding,
prejudice and derogatory information."
Some Hindu students say they're humiliated in school because texts
dwell on customs such as ostracism of untouchables and an old tradition,
rarely observed today, of "sati" -- widows immolating themselves on their
husbands' funeral pyres. Trisha Pasricha, a high-school junior in a
Houston suburb, says she used to deny being Hindu to classmates because
she was tired of refuting stereotypes perpetuated by textbooks and
teachers. "The textbooks bring up all these obscure practices, like bride
burning, and act like they happen every day," she says. "The biggest
mistake is that Hinduism is portrayed as polytheistic. And the caste system
has nothing to do with Hinduism. But no one believes you, because it's
in the textbook."
But some prominent scholars, both non-Hindu and Hindu, say the books
were right. According to Madhav Deshpande, a Sanskrit professor at the
University of Michigan who is Hindu, Hinduism is polytheistic and linked
to the caste system, and women did have inferior status in ancient
India.
He says the Hindu groups hold a mistaken position that dates to when
India was ruled by Britain in the 19th century and under pressure from
Christian missionaries. The missionaries told prospective converts
Christianity was superior because it had one god, treated women fairly, and
didn't have castes, Mr. Deshpande says, adding that to counter, Hindu
intellectuals made up an argument that their religion had once been the
same way. The foundations' contention that the caste system developed
separately from Hinduism is incorrect, he maintains, because "in ancient
texts, there is no distinction between the religious and nonreligious
domains of life."
Jackson Spielvogel, a retired Penn State professor and author of
McGraw-Hill's "Ancient Civilizations" textbook, says, "You can't allow Hindu
nationalists to rewrite the history of India.... It becomes an issue of
censorship."
To review changes proposed by the Hindu groups, California hired an
expert recommended by one of the groups: Shiva Bajpai, a retired
California State University history professor. He endorsed most of their
changes. "I want to recognize the negatives but project the positives," says
Mr. Bajpai, who is Hindu.
With his blessing, the changes were rolling toward ratification by the
state board when Harvard's Prof. Witzel unexpectedly intervened.
Alerted by an Indian-American graduate student whom the Vedic Foundation had
approached to support its changes, Mr. Witzel wrote to the board the
day before a Nov. 9 meeting at which approval of the Hindu-backed changes
was expected. "They are unscholarly [and] politically and religiously
motivated," wrote Mr. Witzel, a Sanskrit professor. His letter was
co-signed by nearly 50 scholars, including Mr. Deshpande of Michigan.
Mr. Witzel calls the Hindu Education Foundation a front for a prominent
nationalist group in India, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, whose
leader caused a stir in November by urging Hindu women to have more
children to keep up with the Muslim growth rate. A spokesman for the Hindu
Education Foundation acknowledges a connection -- it was established by
the U.S. counterpart of the Indian group -- but says it acts
independently.
State officials did an about-face after they got Mr. Witzel's letter,
inviting him and two like-minded scholars to scrutinize Mr. Bajpai's
recommendations. When the three advised restoring much of the textbooks'
original wording, angry letters began pouring in from Hindu groups. One,
the Hindu American Foundation, threatened to sue the state. A petition
from Hindu advocates called on Harvard to end its association with
"Aryan Supremacist Creationist hate mongering." Harvard responded by
defending Mr. Witzel's academic freedom.
The groups persuaded two members of California's congressional
delegation to weigh in. Rep. Pete Stark, a Unitarian, and Rep. Linda Sanchez, a
Catholic, asked the state superintendent of public instruction to
investigate Mr. Witzel. The superintendent replied that the state had
already held three public hearings on the history texts, received more than
1,000 pages of testimony, and considered more than 800 textual changes.
The pendulum swung back on Dec. 2, when the Curriculum Commission voted
to support most of the changes sought by the Hindu foundations. "We
have to err on the side of sensitivity toward religion," a commission
member, Stan Metzenberg, said at the time.
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."
Caught in the cross-fire, the board of education summoned Mr. Witzel
and Mr. Bajpai to an unusual private session Jan. 6. Before board and
commission members, staffers and the board's lawyer, the scholars debated
each edit.
"It was a gladiator combat," Mr. Bajpai recalls, "the most acrimonious
thing I have ever done in my entire life. It deteriorated into me
telling him he didn't understand anything." Mr. Witzel says Mr. Bajpai
"mixed his religion with scholarship."
The duo did reach consensus on some changes. They agreed to narrow the
McGraw-Hill text's statement that men in ancient India had "more
rights" than women to "more property rights" -- but not to the Hindu groups'
preferred wording of "different" rights.
Still, it isn't certain the compromises reached by the two scholars
will stand. At a meeting Jan. 12, the state board of education created a
subcommittee to reconsider the matter -- and to prepare for still more
religious pressure when books are expected to be added to the list in
two years.
Thaths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Untouchables Weigh In
By DANIEL GOLDEN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
January 25, 2006; Page A1
The victors write the history books, the saying goes. But increasingly,
religious advocates try to edit them.
Religious pressure on textbooks is growing well beyond Christian
fundamentalists' attack on evolution. History books are the biggest
battleground, as groups vie for changes in texts for elementary and secondary
schools that cast their faiths in a better light.
Two Hindu groups and a Jewish group have been set up in the past three
years as textbook watchdogs, adding to Islamic advocates who have
monitored history textbooks since 1990. In addition, some Sikhs have started
to complain about being short-changed in history textbooks.
All are seeking to extract concessions as California holds its periodic
approval process for history textbooks. The process drives
school-district purchases in the most populous state, and books adopted for
California typically are the ones that schools in the rest of the country end
up using for several years.
Hindu groups, in particular, have swamped California authorities with
proposed revisions, which would delete or soften references to
polytheism, the caste system and the inferior status of women in ancient India.
For example, the Hindu Education Foundation, a group linked to a Hindu
nationalist organization in India, proposed replacing a textbook's
statement that "men had many more rights than women" in ancient India with:
"Men had different duties ... as well as rights than women. Many women
were among the sages to whom the Vedas [sacred texts] were revealed."
California's Curriculum Commission endorsed this and most other changes
pushed by Hindu groups, moving the matter along to the state board of
education, which usually follows its advice. But then a strong objection
to such changes arrived from a group of U.S. scholars, led by a Harvard
professor, Michael Witzel. The scholars' protest, in turn, led to a
lawsuit threat, a call for Harvard to disband the professor's department,
and finally an unusual state-sponsored head-to-head debate between two
scholars of ancient India.
Underlying such free-for-alls is the question of whether lobbying by
religious groups yields a more sensitive and accurate version of history
or a sugar-coated one -- and also whether students are served better or
less well. "It tends to be scholar pitted against believer," says
Kenneth Noonan, a member of the state education board.
For textbook publishers, meanwhile, to ignore religious groups is to
risk exclusion from markets. One of the nation's largest school
districts, Fairfax County, Va., dropped a McGraw-Hill Cos. 10th-grade text from
its recommended list last year after complaints from Hindu parents,
keeping it out of classrooms there.
Religious protests nearly crippled Oxford University Press's effort to
enter the U.S. world-history textbook market. The prestigious
university press sought to impress California authorities with cutting-edge
scholarship and narrative verve, but the Curriculum Commission initially
recommended against adopting Oxford's sixth-grade book last fall after
Jewish and Hindu groups objected to it.
The Institute for Curriculum Services, a Jewish group set up in 2004 to
scrutinize textbooks, was upset by the book's statement that
archaeology and ancient Egyptian records don't support the Biblical account of
the Exodus of the Israelite slaves from Egypt. While conceding this was
true, the group said the book didn't apply the same skepticism to
Islamic or Christian events, such as when it said that "ancient writings" and
the Gospel according to Matthew relate that "wise men (probably
philosophers or astrologers) followed a brightly shining star" when Jesus was
born. Similarly, the book said that "according to Muslim tradition,"
the prophet Muhammad flew into heaven from the site of the Dome of the
Rock mosque.
The Hindu groups, meanwhile, called the book's tone insensitive, such
as its heading over a column about vegetarianism in India: "Where's the
Beef?" The state board finally put the book on its approved list after
Oxford cut the passages found objectionable and added a paragraph
saying that for Jews, the Exodus is a "central event in their history" and
"powerful symbol of the importance of freedom."
Casper Grathwohl, an official of Oxford University Press, says it
preserved its integrity, and the give-and-take improved the text. But he
complains that "the process is skewed toward giving the loudest voices
what they want."
Every six years, California adopts a list of history books for
kindergarten through eighth grade, and districts can spend designated state
money only for books on this list. Publishers typically roll out new
textbooks for the state, whose districts are expected to buy nearly $200
million of history books over the next two years. California alone
represents 10% to 12% of the national textbook market.
In the 1970s and 1980s, history texts shied away from religion. "They
didn't use the 'capital G' word," says Roger Rogalin, a publishing
consultant. "They said the pilgrims gave thanks on Thanksgiving, but they
didn't say to whom."
Difficult Goals
Prodded by religious groups, states began requiring more coverage of
the topic. But they imposed goals that can be hard to reconcile: both
maintaining historical accuracy and enhancing the pride and self-esteem of
believers. California's guidelines, for instance, say students "should
understand the intense religious passions that have produced fanaticism
and war." But also, texts should avoid "reflecting adversely" on
anyone's creed or instilling "prejudice against...those who believe in other
religions."
Such cautions provide an opportunity for religious activists such as
the Council on Islamic Education in Fountain Valley, Calif. In
California's most recent review, the council called for extensive changes, most
of which the state appears likely to accept.
One target: A Prentice Hall text said the medieval spread of Islam was
partly due to military conquest. "Actual conversion to Islam did NOT
occur...at the point of a sword," the council told the state. A
specialist appointed by the state board to review Islamic coverage recommended
dropping the reference, and Prentice Hall says it will do so.
Publishers often hire the Council on Islamic Education to prescreen
manuscripts. In California, the council is a "content consultant" for
Houghton Mifflin Co. and Ballard & Tighe Co., an educational publisher in
Brea, Calif. The council has sometimes advised Prentice Hall and other
publishers as well.
Publishers have allowed the Islamic group to "dictate" content, charges
Gilbert Sewall, director of the American Textbook Council, a New York
nonprofit group that reviews history texts and has said they often lack
depth and factual fidelity. "Islamic pressure groups have been working
energetically for 15 years to scrub the past in instructional
materials," he wrote to California officials. He added that "textbooks submitted
either gloss over jihad, sharia [Islamic law], Muslim slavery, the
status of women and Islamic terrorism -- or omit the subject altogether."
Houghton Mifflin says it hasn't ceded any control to the Council on
Islamic Education, and seeks Hindu, Jewish, Protestant, Catholic and
Buddhist perspectives too. "We listen to their input and weigh it against
what our scholarly authors believe is true," a spokesman says. Ballard &
Tighe says its text was examined by Jewish and Hindu experts as well as
the Islamic council. "We're mostly looking not to insult people," says
an executive of the publisher. A spokeswoman for Prentice Hall says it
has found the Council on Islamic Education to be a "solid resource for
reviewing content."
The council's founder, Shabbir Mansuri, says that texts are treating
Islam better not because of his efforts but because of state guidelines
that stress sensitivity toward religious beliefs.
Disputes over textbook portrayal of Hinduism are a staple of politics
in India, and the concerns have arrived in America along with many
Indian immigrants. The conventional view of ancient India in U.S. history
texts is that men enjoyed more rights than women and that, then as now,
Hindus worshipped many gods and were divided into castes.
But the Hindu Education Foundation and the Vedic Foundation, the
educational arm of a Hindu temple in Austin, Texas, say Hinduism is
monotheistic because all of its deities are aspects of one god, Brahman. So when
one textbook referred to Hindus visiting temples to "express their love
of the gods," this should be changed to "express their love for God,"
said the Vedic group.
The groups repeatedly proposed deleting references to the caste system
and making other changes that burnished the image of Indian history and
culture. For instance, McGraw-Hill's book said of an early monarch
called Asoka that his "tolerance was unusual for the time." The Hindu
Education Foundation suggested changing "unusual" to "usual."
'Source of Misunderstanding'
At the Vedic Foundation, "Our motto is to re-establish the greatness of
Hinduism, and part of that is to correct the textbooks," says
Janeshwari Devi, director of programs. "Those are a source of misunderstanding,
prejudice and derogatory information."
Some Hindu students say they're humiliated in school because texts
dwell on customs such as ostracism of untouchables and an old tradition,
rarely observed today, of "sati" -- widows immolating themselves on their
husbands' funeral pyres. Trisha Pasricha, a high-school junior in a
Houston suburb, says she used to deny being Hindu to classmates because
she was tired of refuting stereotypes perpetuated by textbooks and
teachers. "The textbooks bring up all these obscure practices, like bride
burning, and act like they happen every day," she says. "The biggest
mistake is that Hinduism is portrayed as polytheistic. And the caste system
has nothing to do with Hinduism. But no one believes you, because it's
in the textbook."
But some prominent scholars, both non-Hindu and Hindu, say the books
were right. According to Madhav Deshpande, a Sanskrit professor at the
University of Michigan who is Hindu, Hinduism is polytheistic and linked
to the caste system, and women did have inferior status in ancient
India.
He says the Hindu groups hold a mistaken position that dates to when
India was ruled by Britain in the 19th century and under pressure from
Christian missionaries. The missionaries told prospective converts
Christianity was superior because it had one god, treated women fairly, and
didn't have castes, Mr. Deshpande says, adding that to counter, Hindu
intellectuals made up an argument that their religion had once been the
same way. The foundations' contention that the caste system developed
separately from Hinduism is incorrect, he maintains, because "in ancient
texts, there is no distinction between the religious and nonreligious
domains of life."
Jackson Spielvogel, a retired Penn State professor and author of
McGraw-Hill's "Ancient Civilizations" textbook, says, "You can't allow Hindu
nationalists to rewrite the history of India.... It becomes an issue of
censorship."
To review changes proposed by the Hindu groups, California hired an
expert recommended by one of the groups: Shiva Bajpai, a retired
California State University history professor. He endorsed most of their
changes. "I want to recognize the negatives but project the positives," says
Mr. Bajpai, who is Hindu.
With his blessing, the changes were rolling toward ratification by the
state board when Harvard's Prof. Witzel unexpectedly intervened.
Alerted by an Indian-American graduate student whom the Vedic Foundation had
approached to support its changes, Mr. Witzel wrote to the board the
day before a Nov. 9 meeting at which approval of the Hindu-backed changes
was expected. "They are unscholarly [and] politically and religiously
motivated," wrote Mr. Witzel, a Sanskrit professor. His letter was
co-signed by nearly 50 scholars, including Mr. Deshpande of Michigan.
Mr. Witzel calls the Hindu Education Foundation a front for a prominent
nationalist group in India, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, whose
leader caused a stir in November by urging Hindu women to have more
children to keep up with the Muslim growth rate. A spokesman for the Hindu
Education Foundation acknowledges a connection -- it was established by
the U.S. counterpart of the Indian group -- but says it acts
independently.
State officials did an about-face after they got Mr. Witzel's letter,
inviting him and two like-minded scholars to scrutinize Mr. Bajpai's
recommendations. When the three advised restoring much of the textbooks'
original wording, angry letters began pouring in from Hindu groups. One,
the Hindu American Foundation, threatened to sue the state. A petition
from Hindu advocates called on Harvard to end its association with
"Aryan Supremacist Creationist hate mongering." Harvard responded by
defending Mr. Witzel's academic freedom.
The groups persuaded two members of California's congressional
delegation to weigh in. Rep. Pete Stark, a Unitarian, and Rep. Linda Sanchez, a
Catholic, asked the state superintendent of public instruction to
investigate Mr. Witzel. The superintendent replied that the state had
already held three public hearings on the history texts, received more than
1,000 pages of testimony, and considered more than 800 textual changes.
The pendulum swung back on Dec. 2, when the Curriculum Commission voted
to support most of the changes sought by the Hindu foundations. "We
have to err on the side of sensitivity toward religion," a commission
member, Stan Metzenberg, said at the time.
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."
Caught in the cross-fire, the board of education summoned Mr. Witzel
and Mr. Bajpai to an unusual private session Jan. 6. Before board and
commission members, staffers and the board's lawyer, the scholars debated
each edit.
"It was a gladiator combat," Mr. Bajpai recalls, "the most acrimonious
thing I have ever done in my entire life. It deteriorated into me
telling him he didn't understand anything." Mr. Witzel says Mr. Bajpai
"mixed his religion with scholarship."
The duo did reach consensus on some changes. They agreed to narrow the
McGraw-Hill text's statement that men in ancient India had "more
rights" than women to "more property rights" -- but not to the Hindu groups'
preferred wording of "different" rights.
Still, it isn't certain the compromises reached by the two scholars
will stand. At a meeting Jan. 12, the state board of education created a
subcommittee to reconsider the matter -- and to prepare for still more
religious pressure when books are expected to be added to the list in
two years.
Thaths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/CSM/story?id=1534056
India history spat hits US
Educators in California have unleashed debate by revising textbooks.
By Scott Baldauf
NEW DELHI - In the halls of Sacramento, a special commission is
rewriting Indian history: debating whether Aryan invaders conquered
the subcontinent, whether Brahman priests had more rights than
untouchables, and even whether ancient Indians ate beef.
That this seemingly arcane Indian debate has spilled over into
California's board of education is a sign of the growing political
muscle of Indian immigrants and the rising American interest in Asia.
The foes - who include established historians and Hindu nationalist
revisionists - are familiar to each other in India. But America may
increasingly become their new battlefield as other US states follow
California in rewriting their own textbooks to bone up on Asian
history.
At stake, say scholars who include some of the most elite historians
on India, may be a truthful picture of one of the world's emerging
powers - one arrived at by academic standards of proof rather than
assertions of national or religious pride.
"Some of the groups involved here are not qualified to write
textbooks, they do not draw lines between myth and history," says Anu
Mandavilli, an Indian doctoral candidate at the University of Southern
California, and activist against the Hindu right. Speaking of one of
the groups, the Vedic Foundation in Austin, Texas, she adds, "On their
website, they claim that Hindu civilization started 111.5 trillion
years ago. That makes Hinduism billions of years older than the Big
Bang." (The assertion has since been pulled from the site.)
"It would be ridiculous if it weren't so dangerous."
Revisionist debates hot in many nations
Communities use history to define themselves - their core ideals,
achievements, and grudges. Small wonder, then, that history is
frequently reevaluated as political pendulums shift, or as
long-oppressed minority groups finally get their say. History, and
efforts to revise it, have touched off recent controversies between
Japan and its neighbors over its World War II past, as well as between
France and its former colonies over the portrayal of imperialism.
Here in India, Hindu nationalists have pushed forcefully for
revisionism after what they see as centuries of cultural domination by
the British Raj and Muslim Mogul Empire.
Instigating the California debate were two US-based Hindu groups with
long ties to Hindu nationalist parties in India. One, the Vedic
Foundation, is a small Hindu sect that aims at simplifying Hinduism to
the worship of one god, Vishnu. The other, the Hindu Education
Foundation (HEF), was founded in 2004 by a branch of the right-wing
Indian group the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
This year, as California's Board of Education commissioned and put up
for review textbooks to be used in its 6th-grade classrooms, these two
groups came forward with demands for substantial changes.
Textbooks did have glaring mistakes
Some of the changes were no-brainers. One section said, incorrectly,
that the Hindi language is written in Arabic script. One photo caption
misidentified a Muslim as a Brahman priest.
But instead of focusing on such errors, the groups took steps to add
their own nationalist imprint to Indian history.
In one edit, the HEF asked the textbook publisher to change a sentence
describing discrimination against women in ancient society to the
following: "Men had different duties (dharma) as well as rights than
women."
In another edit, the HEF objected to a sentence that said that Aryan
rulers had "created a caste system" in India that kept groups
separated according to their jobs. The HEF asked this to be changed to
the following: "During Vedic times, people were divided into different
social groups (varnas) based on their capacity to undertake a
particular profession."
The hottest debate centered on when Indian civilization began, and by
whom. For the past 150 years, most historical, linguistic, and
archaeological research has dated India's earliest settlements to
around 2600 BC. And most established historical research contends that
the cornerstone of Indian civilization - the practice of Hindu
religion - was codified by people who came from outside India,
specifically Aryan language speakers from the steppes of Central Asia.
Many Hindu nationalists are upset by the notion that Hinduism could be
yet another religion, like Islam and Christianity, with foreign roots.
The HEF and Vedic Foundation both lobbied hard to change the wording
of California's textbooks so that Hinduism would be described as
purely home grown.
"Textbooks must mention that none of the [ancient] texts, nor any
Indian tradition, has a recollection of any Aryan invasion or
migration," writes S. Kalyanaraman, an engineer and prominent
pro-Hindu activist, in an e-mail to this reporter. He and other
revisionists refer to recent studies that don't support an Aryan
migration, including skeletal anthropology research that claims to
show a continuity of record from Neolithic times. Such research has
not convinced top Indologists to abandon the Aryan theory, however.
The final changes in California's textbooks are expected in the next
few weeks, but in the meantime, mainstream academics, both in America
and abroad, are setting off alarm bells.
"It was a whitewash," says Michael Witzel, a Harvard University
Sanskrit scholar and Indologist, who testified before the commission
in Sacramento. "The textbooks before were not very good, but at least
they were more or less presentable. Now, it is completely incorrect."
Aryan invasion a British-era theory
Early proponents of the "Aryan Invasion Theory" proposed in 1850 by
philologist Max Mueller may have had political agendas to justify the
subjugation of the subcontinent, Mr. Witzel says, but the
preponderance of evidence shows that Aryans came to India, with their
horses, their chariots, and their religious beliefs, from outside.
"Unquestionably, all sides of Indian history must be repeatedly
re-examined," wrote Witzel and comparative historian Steve Farmer, in
an influential article in the Indian magazine Frontline in 2000. "But
any massive revisions must arise from the discovery of new evidence,
not from desires to boost national or sectarian pride at any cost."
On the other side of the debate, the historian Meenakshi Jain, a
self-described nationalist, says that history is meant to be
rewritten, depending on the perspective and needs of the present time.
"Indic civilization has been a big victim of misrepresentation and
belittling of our culture," says Ms. Jain, a historian at Delhi
University and author of a high school history textbook accepted by
India's previous government, led by the pro-Hindu Bharatiya Janata
Party.
Pride has its place in history?
Like many Hindus, Jain is proud of the accomplishments of Indian
history, such as the fact that three small Hindu kingdoms - Kabul,
Zabul, and Sindh - were able to hold off invading Muslim armies for
400 years. She also thinks that students should learn that some of
India's most famous temples were commissioned not by upper caste Hindu
kings but by aboriginal tribes, who in modern times have been
relegated to "backward status."
"There is no such thing as an objective history," Jain says. "So when
we write a textbook, we should make students aware of the status of
current research of leading scholars in the field. It should not shut
out a love for motherland, a pride in your past. If you teach that
your country is backward, that it has no redeeming features in our
civilization, it can damage a young perspective."
But no matter which version of Indian history California adopts for
its 6th graders, it is bound to aggravate someone. The Board of
Education has already heard from South Indians who argued that the HEF
and Vedic Foundation represent a North Indian upper-caste perspective.
"We were saying, 'These groups don't speak for us,' " says Anu
Mandavilli, herself a South Indian. When groups like the Vedic
Foundation try to simplify Hinduism as the worship of a single god,
"they have their own agendas."
--
"Bart! With $10,000 we'd be millionaires! We could buy all kinds of
useful things... like love." -- Homer J. Simpson
Do you Yahoo!?
With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail.
