I had previously blogged about how Indian community leaders in the Virginia suburbs had petitioned to update the textbooks that high school students use. These textbooks are often riddled with gross inaccuracies about India and Hinduism. Parents and community leaders in California have been pursuing a similar goal there, but the results have been mixed and now a significant group has voiced opposition to some changes. This begs a closer look at possible hidden agendas. New American Media reports:
 |
|
Don’t stand so, Don’t stand so close to me… |
Some Hindu and Sikh activists in the U.S. who have been trying in recent months to persuade the California Board of Education to adopt curriculum revisions in textbooks for elementary and middle school students say they are unhappy over the direction their efforts seem to have taken while on the home stretch.A clutch of academics and historians, who have just recently joined the debate, seems to have neutralized the gains the activists believe they had made. The academics weighed in with their views Nov. 8, which collectively dismiss many of the curriculum changes suggested over the past year by individual Hindus, as well as such organizations as the Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Society.
For example, one of the statements Hindu activists want deleted from a social science book is that Aryans were a “part of a larger group of people historians refer to as the Indo-Europeans.”
The activists assert Aryans were not a race, but a term for persons of noble intellect. The academics have urged that this statement not be removed.
In that same book, Hindu activists want the statement, “Men had many more rights than women,” replaced with, “Men had different duties (dharma) as well as rights than women. Many women were among the sages to whom the Vedas were revealed.”
The response from the academics? “Do not change original text.”
<
p>It seems that many of the academics and historians that have voiced opposition to certain changes are suspicious of the motives of some of the Hindu activists. This group of academics includes Romila Thapar.
Writing on behalf of the academics, Michael Witzel, a Sanskrit professor at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., asserted that the groups proposing the changes have a hidden agenda.“The proposed revisions are not of a scholarly but of a religious-political nature, and are primarily promoted by Hindutva supporters and non-specialist academics writing about issues far outside their area of expertise,” Witzel wrote to CBE president Ruth Green in the letter.
Among the 45 or so signatories to his letter are Stanley Wolpert, professor of history at UCLA, and Romila Thapar, India’s well-known historian.
<
p> If the historians are correct in their recommendations, and I have no reason to suspect that they are not, then this might be a great disservice to others around the country seeking legitimate changes for inaccuracies such as the ones pointed out in Virginia. If word spreads that there is an effort to actually place Hindutva propaganda in U.S. school textbooks, then every legitimate complaint will lose credibility. The school board was supposed to vote on changes yesterday, but as of now I cannot find the results (I will update the post when I do).
Supporters are hoping to make a last ditch effort to have their voices heard. They say it is crucial that the CBE accepts their suggestions if students are to get a proper perspective of Indian culture and history.“The social science and history textbooks do not give as generous a portrayal of Indian culture as they do of Islamic, Jewish and Christian cultures,” asserted Malhotra, founder of Infinity Foundation, an organization that is trying to give a “fair” portrayal of India in the U.S. “The Board of Education needs to have a standard that should be applied to all religions.”
“There’s a Euro-centric slant to what’s being taught in California classrooms,” noted San Francisco Bay Area resident Mona Vijaykar to India-West. “I’m upset that India’s contribution to modern civilization is not highlighted, and presented like European civilization is.”
Vijaykar runs the “India in Classrooms” program she launched two years ago in the San Francisco Bay Area to set right misconceptions teachers and students have about Indian history and culture.
I visited the India in Classrooms link above (which is where I got the image of the apple with a bindi). They had several Powerpoint presentations that serve as teacher resource guides. I didn’t go through them thoroughly, but they seem harmless. Perhaps more diligent SM readers can uncover any hidden agenda. Most of these groups probably have noble motives. It only takes a couple bad apples to ruin needed change.
There is an organization called Educators’ Society for the Heritage of India (ESHI) that works to combat the inaccuracies about Hinduism and India in the education system. It’s worth checking out as well.
actually, i listen to the “India in Classrooms” podcast, which you can get off of either itunes or podbazaar.com [podbazaar is kind of interesting b/c it’s a collection of southasian podcasters on all sorts of different topics–i highly recommend Desi Dilemmas by Smitha Radhakrishnan]. Vijaykar seems to focus her efforts more on the fact that she feels the CA textbooks are not portraying ancient India in good light.
I’m split on this issue, because i never really thought about her assertions as Hindu activism, but now i think i’m going to have to go back an listen again.
anyways…i’m shamelessly going to plug for podbazaar again…b/c it is really cool and i truly think that if you’re interested in hearing all sorts of randomness having to do with South Asia, you sould check it out. You can hear the news in Hindi, listen to cooking shows, there is a ton of stuff.
thanks for the heads up!
The efforts in Caliornia are led by “Hindu Education Foundation”.
As usual SM has decided to take the Anti-Hindu scholars such Witzel at their face values, rather than finding out the truth or pointing out the inaccuraices in their source material.
Some more resources for smart people to make their own judgement:
List of Actual changes proposed and rejected by Prof. Witzel List of 26 CA organizations supporting the changes in text books. Hindu American Foundation complaints to California School Board about Prof. Witzel and his cronies Hinduism Today Comments on California Text Book Treatment of Hinduism
–S Jain–
“The social science and history textbooks do not give as generous a portrayal of Indian culture as they do of Islamic, Jewish and Christian cultures,”
if i had to bet, this is probably true. now, i probably agree with the historians on the facts, but the reality is that cultural sensitivities trump objectivity from what i can tell when i comes to religious-cultural traditions. i don’t see much chance to really teach history in an explicitly multicultural society objectively, but mebee i’m a pessimist. if this nation is a white ethnic homeland these problems might be solved by shifting back toward focusing on western civilization, since there is a powerful grassroots constituency that already exists to enforce unbiased objectivity today in regards to the legacy of european civilization.
Fact is, looking at the disputed phrases, nobody knows all that much about the history at that time. Most, or all, of the academically accepted history is not supported by anything more than assumptions.
In fact, the activists are correct in eliminating the reference to the Aryan/Indo-European race invasion or migration, because there is no archeological evidence to support that assertion. The whole idea of Aryans comes from 19th-century European Indologists’ interpretation of Vedic texts, which was informed by pre-existing ideas about an ultra-white-type race which spread from one area to invade Greece and other regions.
In a situation where little independent evidence for any theories has existed until very recently, the academic historians, when it comes to ancient India or ancient Hinduism, make just as many assumptions, are just as ruled by biases, and are not really more informed than the average person who identifies as Hindu. Plain and simple, more research needs to be done in this area.
Given the poor state of knowledge in this area, it is best to eliminate any unsupported assumptions from the textbooks, which will eliminate both “Hindutva” and “Eurocentric” biases. No evidence for Indo-European race? Don’t mention it. Is there evidence for female Vedic scholars or not? Mention or don’t mention it accordingly.
And finally, want to bring the insider’s perspective to academic descriptions of Hinduism? Participate in the research and authorship of those descriptions.
Probably not a bad idea. At least people will know something as opposed to nothing 😉
In fact, the activists are correct in eliminating the reference to the Aryan/Indo-European race invasion or migration, because there is no archeological evidence to support that assertion. The whole idea of Aryans comes from 19th-century European Indologists’ interpretation of Vedic texts, which was informed by pre-existing ideas about an ultra-white-type race which spread from one area to invade Greece and other regions.
this is all true. i.e., there is little archeological evidence for a mass migration, and the original theories were based on one-white-race theories. nevertheless, the philology is rock solid, the persistent problem of neologisms or non-cognates in ‘indigenous’ terms in archaic greek or sanskrit strongly suggests that both languages were spread via cultural diffusion from a common location. the argument is based on simple logic
a) the indo-european languages are genetically related-no one disputes this b) particular regions are excluded from being part of their source of origination because of characteristics of the cognate terms
this does not imply a mass migration, and the genetic evidence does not bear this out, but, there are non-trivial traces of exogenous gene flow from western eurasia into south asia over the past 10,000 years. there is plenty of historical evidence for elite emulation and language transmission over the past 2,000 years. the spread of latin is a perfect example, the genetic & historical evidence does not point to replacement of indigenous stock by italians. but, there were italian colonies which served as the nucleii of latinate culture which eventually superseded the celtic and iberian substrate. closer to home, 1/3 of south asians are muslim, but only about 5% of the ancestors of this 1/3 (high bound) were west asian within the last 1,000 years.
i have read a few books which argue that indo-european is indigenous to the indian subcontinent. it smelled a lot like creationism to me. just because 19th scholars were eurocentric racists doesn’t mean they were wrong in everything.
I looked at some of the India In The Classrooms material… and I think it’s a little less than innocuous. The main problem is that there is this pervasive rhetoric that the true “Indian culture” of today is substantially similar to that of Ashoka, for example. It’s total BS — that’s like saying that modern Italian culture is mostly like the Romans. Thus any negative portrayal of the distant past is viewed as an attack on modern Indians — they take it so personally. So what happens is an attempt to whitewash the past and present in order to “dispel myths and stereotypes.”
In the end it encourages a myopia about the real problems that do face India. Yes, there are prominent Indian women who do great things, but the fact is that there is profound inequity between the classes, exacerbated by the perpetuation of the dowry system and other cultural aspects of modern India. So you have a choice — pretend like problems don’t exist, or let the eurocentric historians present the problem with less understanding of their antecedents.
From the article Abhi linked, the following:
I think we preety much have close to a consensus on the above, from previous threads and discussins.
I have read Rajiv Malhotra’s writings and he has claimed that he is against Hindutva. He makes it very clear in an article he wrote titledRISA-Lila1 Wendy’s child syndrome. It was his crusade against how South Asian studies sections of US universities are dominated by an old boys club who dont like criticism. He wrote:
I think unfortunately the politics of all these is such that Rajiv Malhotra and people who argue like him, cant win. If they bring up criticism, they get labelled Hindutva-vadi. Actually there is no real way of changing the Euro-centric view of South Asia in the world, simply because the winners write the history and winners like it the way they want and Europe is the cultural victor, at present.
Absolutely.
Sure, but the history books talk in terms of mass migration or invasion, which we agree is unsupported. If the book writers want to say what you have said, then fine.
A poor choice, frankly.
Good show, RC.
S.Jain writes: >>As usual SM has decided to take the Anti-Hindu scholars such Witzel at their face values
SM has done nothing of that sort. See what Abhi wrote:
Gotta go now.
M. Nam
Perhaps ‘agenda’ (or worse yet, ‘propaganda’) gives a misleading impression of the situation here. I don’t think this is an issue of a bunch of Hindus conspiring to infiltrate American textbooks. Rather, it is a group of people who are not fully cognizent of the degree to which late-nineteenth-century and twentith-century Hindu-authored ‘counter-discourses’ (i.e., those which contest colonial/Orientalist representations) have influenced their own understanding of Indian history. In many cases, these refutations by Hindus of earlier Western representations of Hindu/Indian culture do little more than invert the essentialist constructions of the latter (e.g., ‘Hindu women are oppressed by Hindu men’ becomes ‘Hinduism reveres women as manifestations of the Divine Mother’). In both cases, the complexities of the historical realities are not queried, nor are the terms (‘oppression’/’reverence’) brought into question. It is important to remember, of course, when we are discussing the ‘truth’ of any account of history, that every history is a constructed narrative, told from a particular perspective, and embodying the assumptions and aspirations of those who tell it.
As usual people have not bothered to read the original source of all the problems as mentioned above. You know sometimes it is a good idea to atleast “pretend” that you don’t know everything about everything and read/listen before speaking:
List of Actual changes proposed and rejected by Prof. Witzel
This battle to change the presentation of Hinduism has a larger agenda than just the Aryan Theory. There are numerous little little things that have been continously projected as wrong regarding Hinduism and Hindu. For example, Tell me how many non-hindus know that Hinduism is not a polytheistic religion? Do they know that according to Hindu philosophy there is only one god? Here are some propsed changes that Mr. Witzel doesn’t like
1)Page 169, “Religious Epics,” current text, “The Ramayana, written later than the Mahabharata…” Replace with, “The Ramayana, written prior to the Mahabharata…”
2)“Mathematics and Other Sciences”: current text, “The ancient Indians were also very skilled in the medical sciences.” Replace with, “The ancient Indians were also very skilled in the medical science known as the Ayurveda. Ayurveda is derived from Sanskrit ayus, meaning long and healthy life span, and veda, meaning theory and practice. The psychosomatic dimension of ayurveda incorporates significant input from the tradition of yoga. Though principally a pathway to spiritual liberation, yoga as a discipline of breathing and bodily functions finds a place of honor in most medical and healing traditions of India.”
3) Page 242: current text, “Because the Harappans left no written records, we do not know much about their society or government.” Replace with, “The Harappans left behind inscriptions on a variety of objects such as seals, potsherds, and axes, as well as an occasional signboard.”
4) Page 249, second paragraph: current text, “Hinduism began with the religion of the Aryans, who arrived in India around 1500 B.C.The Aryans believed in many gods and goddesses who controlled the forces of nature. We know about Aryan religion from their ancient hymns and poetry, especially their epics.” Replace with, “Hindus believe in many gods and goddesses. We know about Hindu religion from ancient Vedic hymns and poetry, especially Hindu epics.”
You can read more about them in the document here …List of Actual changes proposed and rejected by Prof. Witzel
Honestly – your link doesn’t work for me. Absent that, the Aryan theory was the only point I had to work with.
I do agree with all the changes you have listed in your comment and do not see why Mr. Witzel would have a problem with them.
For example, Tell me how many non-hindus know that Hinduism is not a polytheistic religion? Do they know that according to Hindu philosophy there is only one god?
this is the sort of thing that causes problems. “JM,” who reads my own blog and this blog describes himself as a “polytheist.” who is anyone to make a absolute generalization about hinduism? i say ban world history and focus on american history, enough controversies there that are barely tractable there.
and yeah, your initial links were often broken.
I think that the fact that people get so exercised about the monotheism/polytheism issue is because of an internalized “monotheism = enlightened/polytheism = backwards” dialectic that arises, as Areem pointed out, from colonial discourses. In the end, isn’t it semantics? Worshipping different aspects/forms of one god with different names without invoking that oneness is performatively equivalent to worshipping multiple gods.
I can also see legitimate debate about most of the proposeed changes. In particular, the evidence for true writing as such at Harappa/Mohenjo Daro is not conclusive, as I recall. The proposed change is misleading on that point, while the original leaves out the nuance that some evidence for writing exists.
Anand:
This wording doesn’t at all assert that the “inscriptions” are a true writing system – it just notes their existence. So I don’t find this proposed change misleading.
And change #4 in Jain’s comment #15 involves fewer assumptions than the original text.
I think that the fact that people get so exercised about the monotheism/polytheism issue is because of an internalized “monotheism = enlightened/polytheism = backwards” dialectic that arises, as Areem pointed out, from colonial discourses. In the end, isn’t it semantics?
1) let’s move this past whitey (i.e., “colonial discourses”). zoroastrains have also tended to shift away from dualistic interpretations of their religion toward a monotheism in the islamic world. muslims in china have reinterpreted their religion through a confucian framework. this is a universal trend of accomidation with dominant norms.
2) sure it’s semantics, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter. i honestly don’t think there is a real cognitive difference between the god all the religious people say they worship, but they are willing to kill each other because one is labeled “allah” and another is “g*d,” or whatever. bloodshed in the name semantics is a structural condition of human life.
3) what you see here is the peril of a multicultural society where a group of motivated individuals seeks to speak for ‘hindus.’ who are we to say that they should speak for hindus? or that they shouldn’t? and the fact is that hindus do not exist in a historical vacuum, non-hindu ‘spokespersons’ might want to get involved because the depiction of south asian history is relevant to their own groups as well (i.e., muslim groups might want to emphasize that aurangzeb did fund a hindu temple here and there and that he was actually just a pious person whose image was tarnished by colonial historians attempting to sow schism between brown groups).
4) but areem & you have hit on the crux of the problem, the present texts have no nuance, while the revisions don’t either. but we’re not talking about texts aimed toward those who are taking college level courses soaked in historiography, we’re talking about middle and high schools, right?
5) so let’s abandon teaching about ‘world heritage’ and focus on american heritage, one battle at a time. as americans our own identity and common values are more salient than the historical debates about the character of the indus valley civilization or british colonial period in brownland.
It will only create one more reason for we Americans to attack places and people we dont even know about!
Now lets talk about Michael Witzel’s ad hominem comments:
When objected and argued on his work on Indology, Mr. Michael resorts to personal attacks as recorded by many of his co-researchers.
Such ad hominem arguments and personal attacks are rendered even in his letter to California Board of Education who had given an initial approval to the changes.
Contrary to his claims, the Hindu Eduction Foundation (HEF) has an extensive broad based support from the Hindu community in California.
More on Communism Watch
It will only create one more reason for we Americans to attack places and people we dont even know about!
most americans don’t need to know about the rest of the world, only policy makers. the 25% who get college educations can also learn.
and anyway, i wonder, are there scholars speaking up when jews, muslims and god knows who make up their own history too? that’s what bothers me, i’m not surprised hindutva types want to put their fantasies next to the history (as well as correcting stuff like ‘mythology’ as opposed to ‘belief’), i just wish there would be some evenhandedness on this sort of thing. the problem with assertions like: that every history is a constructed narrative, told from a particular perspective, and embodying the assumptions and aspirations of those who tell it, that it leaves no room for ideas like facts. granted, i know enough history to know that there are big error bars.
so again, i say go back to teaching US history, there is no way that we’re going to make world history anything other than heritage-appreciation-pamphlets.
In some cases, not this one. Please go through the link I posted about “supporting organizations”. A big representative of Hindu’s in America – the Hinduism Today – also supports the changes proposed. Other supporting organizations are Institute for Curriculum Services and Council on Islamic Education.
The politics behind the scene are worth noting – a new review panel was appointed within days; the new panel was headed by the very people who oppose it!!!!!!!
i don’t know enough about the specifics, but i think Abhi hit a nail on the head, a few bad apples mixed with some good apples. if nothing else i think the emphasis of post-modernism on discourse has given us an understanding that the way an idea is presented is not objective, but mixed into the power politics of the day.
my gut feeling is euro-centrisim, hindutva, progressive-ism (broadly vaguely defined), and even more movements/ideologies are playing a part here. to find one ideology good and another bad seems too simple. there’s probably a bunch of competing things going on here. i appreciate the discussio going on
verry true, Razib.
verry interesting, hammer_sickel.
I find my self in agreement with S Jain, and hammer_sickel on the interpretation side. If u look at an errors such as hindi is written in arabic script ever making it into the text you know that incompetent buffoons are running the show. Even errors like these have to be pointed out. On policy i agree Razib here. I dont see the point of teaching ‘world history’ or ‘world culture’ in public schools. But i doubt that is going to happen in the shortterm, so kudos to hindu education foundation.
RC
I dont see a shorterm solution. Its a cold war of sort. The longterm solution is for india to work its ass off become economicaly powerfull(it helps in more than the direct way), and for diasporic individuals educate yourself on ‘indic’ topics rather than rely on schools to do that.
Hello all, On this particular issue, can more people please read through the changes etc. before putting in their opinions? Please don’t throw words like eurocentric, hindutva in your opinions or suspicions if you haven’t actually read the text under controversy.
I understand most of us are wary of any hindu fundamentalist agenda here but you’ve gotta admit – its not atypical to find errors or misappropriation on Indian stuff in general, so please lets contribute to the discussion in a more meaningful way.
To Razib, this is a rare disagreement from me re: your point about reducing/removing world culture/history info from textbooks – in my observation, americans in general are more insulated from information from around the world than at least urban educated in India (local news is terribly local in the US), and given USA’s position in the world, it’s kids need to learn more, not less about their world.
Ok so I’m going through the list right now, and it seems a mixed bag to me. A lot of the proposed changes everyone agrees on. Quite a few that the CRP (that’s the last minute expert committee that was set up to review proposed changes) is changing only in language. Then there are those that its changes significantly, and finally those it wishes to overrule change suggestions.
One this is for sure. The texts in question did really need to be looked at!! Sample these three:
The monkey king Hanuman loved Rama so much that it is said that he is present every time the Ramayana is told. So look around— see any monkeys?”
The Vedic peoples discriminated against the Dasa, a group of people who spoke a different language that did not sound at all like Sanskrit. The Brahmins sometimes made fun of the Dasa and said that they spoke as if they had no noses. (Pinch your nose and see what you would sound like.)
Some, like most Nepalis, are Buddhist.
One of the underlying diffs between the two groups’ approach that I’ve noticed is that the activists would like to take out a lot of occurrances of “Indo-aryan” from the text, while the CRP wants it there.
In my opinion, from having gone through about half of the 41 page pdf, is that most of recommended changes seem appropriate, whereas most of CRP’s vetos do not. All in all, I don’t think they’ve helped much from the output. And I certainly don’t see any fundamentalist agenda at work here.
To Razib, this is a rare disagreement from me re: your point about reducing/removing world culture/history info from textbooks – in my observation, americans in general are more insulated from information from around the world than at least urban educated in India (local news is terribly local in the US), and given USA’s position in the world, it’s kids need to learn more, not less about their world.
they should read the paper. world history is cookie cutter. or, if you want to get post-modernist about it, rather than ‘world history,’ let’s agree upon ‘world propoganda.’ i.e., the set of mythologies about the past that promotes the american republic’s cohesion.
SM readers would do well to actually connect with academics from India, to actually find out how history is studied in India.
Romila Thapar and many other academics in the history department at JNU have been questioned on their submissions by many other schools and approaches to history. There are many existing competing views on “facts” and an objective portarayal would include competing theories too, rather than present merely one as “fact”
For instance the subaltern school does not receive as much bandwidth in textbooks as it should. The marxist historian approach is one that drives NCERT text books, which form the basis of most school education in India too.
A significant lacuna in the study of History in schools like JNU is the lack of focus on studying classical texts in the original in Sanskrit and arriving at conclusions based on this study. Would a student of classics in the West be able to ge away without studying Latin, Greek and Italian and studying texts in the original? Then how can these academics who show a lack of study of original texts or even a knowledge of Sanskrit be considered authorities in their subjects?
I felt this strong gap as a student at JNU in the social sciences school (not history, though) but was very pleased to read Umberto Eco’s recent criticism of Indian academics on exactly this front:their lack of knowledge of original texts.
Its not academics dont exist who dont know their work. Its just that their work does not get the sposorship that is required to balance this inequity in academic works.
This is not a mere Hindutva question. This label is a defensive one, created by those who choose not to do serious rigorous groundwork before proposing theories borrowed from other frameworks. Not all, but many many JNU academics are guilty of these shortcuts.
Its very simplistic to put a religious revivalistic label on an effort to bring some authenticity into Indian academic work. Its easier for some of us to find academics here who will undertake these endevors seriously and exhibit great deapth of knowledge about India. Its a pleasant surprise, truly.
What goes by official history in Indian schools (especially in English)leaves a lot to be desired, for someone who is really interested in studying the past. Unless, one is studying in local languages, when the availablity of work becomes a lot more varied.
The Hindutva spin is an easy one to fall back on. SM readers , I think, are curious enough to dig up things on this very contentious area by themselves, rather than rely on what academics who have to protect their grants say.
Sumita
It appears that the Hindu Education Foundation has won somehow. There are no details yet, but hoefully they will be coming forth. Here is the blurb from Hinduism Today website:
1. News Update: Hindus Unexpected Win Textbook Changes in California
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, December 13, 2005: California Hindus were celebrating today their victory in yesterday’s meeting of the State Board of Education Curriculum Commission. The Vedic Foundation (http://www.thevedicfoundation.org/) and Hindu Education Foundation (http://www.hindueducation.org/) worked for months to have changes made to sections of California textbooks that deal with India and Hinduism. Then there was a hasty intervention by a group of scholars of Indology which threatened to reverse many of the changes. Fortunately, the Curriculum Commission sympathized with the Hindus and allowed only a few changes to what Hindus had requested. Unfortunately, they could only get relatively small adjustments on the “Aryan Invasion” issue, changing the wording to “Aryan migration,” but leaving the general concept intact. Full story in tomorrow’s HPI.
These changes are very significant, because California is one of the few states that buys its books centrally. Therefore this process will forces book publishers to make changes in their text books, which will be sold to rest of the USof A.
Proposed change: 37 Page 169, “Religious Epics,” current text, “The Ramayana, written later than the Mahabharata…” Replace with, “The Ramayana, written prior to the Mahabharata…”
Review panel’s comments (Mr. Witzel): Who in Sixth Grade cares which epic was “written” first? Use the following phrase: “The Ramayana tells about…”
LOL…!!! Why does he even care about the proposed changes at all??
Proposed change: Page 268: current text, “Although he was a Buddhist, Asoka allowed his Hindu subjects to practice their religion. His tolerance was unusual for the time.” Replace with, “Although he was a Buddhist, Asoka allowed his Hindu subjects to practice their religion. His tolerance was usual for the time.”
Review panel’s comments (Mr. Witzel): It is best to drop entirely the reference to tolerance.
Hmm…Amartya Sen’s whole book “The Argumentative Indian” falls apart.
Excellent, Sumita.
I kinda remember stating that my folks were that, but no matter, I am not interested in distancing from them. When you see Vaishnavites go to the Meenakshi temple and not go to the Sundareshwara shrine nearby because it is Shiva’s, then the honest truth is that they are pretty much being polytheistic. At the level of practice of the common man, the practices at least are polytheistic, even if the central beliefs may not be. You have to peel many layers of the onion before you get to the monotheistic, the pantheistic and maybe the atheist innards of Hindu beliefs.
I don’t understand why Hindus are quick to jump up and down and claim that we are monotheistic and not polytheistic. It seems to me that we are both, if such a thing is possible. I understand that the many centuries of domination by the Muslims and then the British kind of puts us in a defensive posture, and we kinda want to go with what they value. But it seems more honest to state how things are, rather than in a way that might win the approbation of others. There is much in Hinduism to be glad for and worrying about whether monkey and elephant gods are irrational is silly. Christianity and Islam are not rational either.
Of course, whether Vaishnavites and Shaivites might visit or not visit each other’s temples varies from family to family.
So true and well put.
Here is an circulating on the net with Witzel’s take on the California hearings. He is claiming victory. So what is the real story here? Interesting that Hindus and Sikhs couldn’t work together!
Fra: Michael Witzel [mailto:witzel@fas.harvard.edu] Sendt: 26. november 2005 17:26 Til: Peter Zoller; Garrett G. Fagan; Alexander Vovin; Patrick Olivelle; Boris Oguibenine; Phyllis K Herman; carendreyer Dreyer; Frederick Smith; Lars Martin Fosse; Rajesh Kochhar; Richard Meadow; Stanley Wolpert; Dwijendra Jha; Georg von Simson; Madhav Deshpande; Frank Southworth; Hiroshi Marui; Sudha Shenoy; Asko Parpola; Mohammad Mughal; Don Ringe; S. Palaniappan; Wim van Binsbergen; Homi Bhabha; huang9; David Stampe; Hideaki Nakatani; Jonathan Mark Kenoyer; Stefan Zimmer; Romila Thapar; Muneo Tokunaga; Shereen Ratnagar; Michael Witzel; Sheldon Pollock; Dominik Wujastyk; Parimal G. Patil; Steve Farmer; Robert Goldman; falk Falk; jkirk Kirkpatrick; agnes korn; Scharfe; Kalpana Desai; maurizio.tosi@tiscali.it ; Patricia Donegan; Shingo Einoo Kopi: Arlo Griffiths; Raka Ray; Leonard van der Kuijp; Michael Witzel; John Brockington Emne: Next step: California Comm. vote on Hindutva changes
Dear friends, success! It seems that we were successful; more details will follow as soon they become available. Here the initial, partial report from people present at the meeting of the California State Board of Education: This afternoon the California Board of Education voted to approve the school books for adoption in California schools; seven of eight publishers’ programs were approved (Including the initially rejected Oxford U.P. one, it seems without adding in any of the Hindutva material). Below, I attach our joint letter for your reference. We had planned to send it to you earlier, but all the back and forth yesterday in preparing for today’s (Wednesday’s) meeting prevented me. Luckily, we had a California historian of india, Prof. J. Heitzman (UC Davis), present at the meeting who also used a letter written by Prof. Wolpert. Hence, some more detailed news about the meeting of the California State Board of Education: The meeting was to decide whether to adopt the changes that have already been suggested, collected in a book containing the massive number of changes. Comments from the audience: each one to speak for TWO MINUTES each. The first cohort of speakers included representatives of the Vedic Foundation, who all urged adoption of the changes. The next major group consisted of a number of Sikh speakers who urged non-adoption of the changes until after the insertion of additional material on Sikhism. Prof. Heitzman, speaking for us all, then alluded to the “Standards for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Social Content,” section:” Religion; Indoctrination”, urging the Board not to “encourage or discourage belief or indoctrinate the student in any particular religious belief.” Pointing out that we represent thousands of high-level scholars from all religious backgrounds dedicated to the academic study of South Asian history and culture, he stated that we have two main objections to the current draft that cause us to oppose its adoption: (1) the consulting base, i.e. Dr. Bajpai, is too narrow for a problem of this complexity; and (2) we “impugn the credentials” of the Vedic Foundation and other Hindu groups to speak competently on issues of South Asian history and religion. These groups project, either overtly or subconsciously, policies known as Hindutva or “Hinduness” that portray South Asian and specifically Indian identity as Hindu. Their program has ravaged the social studies textbooks of India for the last ten years. He urged the Board not to allow a religious chauvinism of India to become the policy of the State of California, which would provoke an academic and international uproar. He volunteered the services of the university community specializing in the analysis of South Asia for evaluating the edits and additions proposed for the California textbooks: “We are ready to earn our pay; let us help you.” Sincere thanks to Prof. Heitzman and to all of you ! This shows how concerted action, even if it comes as late as ours, can be successful. Incidentally, the next thing to tackle is the BBC website. Let us discuss how to go about it. Please see this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/index.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml
Best wishes, Michael
Michael Witzel Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University 1 Bow Street , 3rd floor, Cambridge MA 02138 1-617-495 3295 Fax: 496 8571 direct line: 496 2990 http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm
Of the 45 academics who signed on, how many were brown?
The total number that I got was 48. Ten were Indian (one Pakistani), going by the names, not sure of citizeship status.
And only four seemed to be affiliated to universities in India.
I would like to add that I feel that “browness” should be used as criteria to judge the academic merit of their opinions.
Sorry about the triple post! In the post above that “should” s/b “should not”.
Obviously, the Neo-Nazi’s (Witzel) have lost:
One change recommended by the Vedic Foundation was the use of “deity” for “statue” in referring to the carved image of a God or Goddess, called “murthi” in Sanskrit. This change was rejected by Witzel’s group. The Commission agreed to the Hindu request to change “statue” to “deity.”
Another issue the Witzel panel disapproved was to use upper-case “G” for God when referring to Hindu worship of God. Commissioner Levine noted that for Hindus there are many forms of the one God.
Hindus requested one sentence in one book be changed from saying, “Modern Hindu continue to visit temples to express their love of the gods,” to “…visit temples to worship and express their love for God.” This was rejected by Witzel’s group, but accepted by the Commission. Similar changes were accepted throughout the books.
Another edit was to change the definition of yoga from “Yoga is a type of … slow breathing” explaining its derivation from the Sanskrit “yog,” meaning “joining together.
… and many more were accepted…
Immediately following the Hindu edits, some 600 plus edits from the Jewish community were accepted in their entirety!!!
Shame on some Indian/pseudo-hindus who support Witzel on some of the changes his panel had rejected.
I was referred to this page by the podbazaar team and was thrilled to see the vibrant dialogue that the recent history textbook furore has generated. I was also quite humbled by the comments regarding ‘India in Classrooms’. This is as genuine and candid..and sometimes abbrasive 🙁 … a feedback that I could hope to receive.
As I read the entire dialogue, one paragraph seems to express my own sentiments:
“….think unfortunately the politics of all these is such that Rajiv Malhotra and people who argue like him, cant win. If they bring up criticism, they get labelled Hindutva-vadi….”
For whatever it is worth, I would like to assert that India in Classrooms is not affiliated to any religious or political organization. It does not take an expert to see the distortions and stereotypes that exist in the school textbooks. If parents were more out spoken to point out obvious misrepresentations to the teachers and subsequently to the state dept, IC would not be necessary. Unfortunately Indians and particularly Hindus are reticent to bring any spotlight upon themselves and the consequence of their indifference is borne by second generation Indians in the classroom. By the same token I agree that our efforts can be derailed by unnecessary demands. I wish that more professionals of Hindu background, would lend their voice to this issue. If we are perceived as a group of religious zealots we lose credibility. India in Classrooms makes every effort to walk the fine line in highlighting India’s contribution to modern civilization, which is greatly underplayed in the textbooks and in bringing an academic awareness of the meaning of Hindu symbols and customs to counter ignorance and build intercultural understanding. The tons of letters that India in Classrooms receives from grateful Indian Amerikids and other Americans is a happy testimony to our efforts.
Even if Hindutva-vadi’s bring up genuine points like the ones discussed here, it doesnt take out credebility and authenticity of the issue itself. It is the political opposition to of Hindutva-vadi’s that thrive on such ad hominem hence dividing the otherwise united forces.
I see Apples fighting among themselves whereas the problem is somewhere else. One should learn to look beyond their political affiliation. Otherwise, you are no different than the “divisive” forces.
“Another issue the Witzel panel disapproved was to use upper-case “G” for God when referring to Hindu worship of God. “
Just out of curiosity. Did Witzel approve of the use of upper-case “W” for “Witzel” or “P” and “A” for “Prominent Academics”, I wonder? Does anyone have the actual list of 48 Witzel-Followers? These names need to be publicized far and wide. It’s not every day that one sees a name bigger than God’s – and here there are 48 of them!
Max Muller – the “father of Aryan Invasion theory” said this about Darwin and proved that evolution is a doctrine:
Prof. Wolpert – a signator on Witzel’s lies – His detractors claim that Prof. Wolpert admits to having no archaeological evidence and that he reconstructs Aryan Invasion from the Vedas even though the Vedas do not mention it.
Exerpt from conversation between Witzel and Steve Farmer – another signator
From: Steve Farmer Re: [Indo-Eurasia] Earliest origins of the Om/Aum concept What if you want to call your goat and your wife simultaneously, Michael? :^)
Michael Witzel replied:Dan, Many short mantras (the later biija mantras) like oM have humble origins the Veda. Him (hiM) is used in the Veda to call your goat .. and your wife. Cheers, Michael
Another member of the yahoogroup, Dean Anderson, posted the following to the group (mail headers are shown followed by the relevant excerpt):
From: “vardiss” Date: Tue Apr 5, 2005 6:47 pm Subject: Re: SV: [Indo-Eurasian_research] Aryans on Mars Well, apparently you haven’t seen the latest evidence of Aryan gods on Mars. 😉 Amazingly, the picture comes from the NASA web site. In spite of other webs sites calling it “what NASA doesn’t want you to know.”
James Heitzman – yet another neo-nazi proves that Hinduism is inferior
James Heitzman: Christianity came to India at the time of apostles! James Heitzman: Islam is revealed word of God James Heitzman points out existence of miracles in Christianity James Heitzman: Hinduism mostly based on speculations James Heitzman: Hindus are cross-dressers, worship images and dump them
Other accomplice to Witzel are:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/witzelletter.pdf
Well Neo-Nazis is a little harsh. But the supercillious, derisive tenor of the emails is palpable.
People who make their daily bread off being “experts” in a culture while simultaneously deriding it…
Sometimes (particularly reading Witzel’s comments) it seems like some of these people go into this field in order to take charge of its narrative to “put it in its place,” i.e. in an inferior position to their own traditions.