Subject: [world-vedic] Dr Rosser Responds to Anti-Hindu Steve Farmer From: Vrndavan Parker Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 21:27:59 +0200 (CEST) To: vediculture@yahoogroups.com Dear Steve Farmer, I received your letter, dated August 22, cc'ed to two dozen recipients - the honorable Provost, esteemed scholars, including the pluralism Devi - Diana Eck, several respected journalists, one especially well-known investigative reporter who is also a former member of the Indian Parliament, as well as other distinguished individuals Greetings, Your letter concerned the case filed by California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM) in the Eastern California United States District Court. I did not receive Mr. Rajaram's original email, but you included me among this noteworthy group. There was a big difference between your reading of the judge's decision and the press release issued by CAPEEM, upon which Rajaram seems to have based his comments. As you can see, since you have the judgment sitting before you, Judge Damrell rejected the defendants' arguments that CAPEEM lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. You rightly observed that he "dismissed the case against the California State Board of Education (SBE) and the California Department of Education (CDE), on the grounds of the Eleventh Amendment to the US Constitution" The 11th amendment means that, except under extraordinary circumstances, which CAPEEM seemed to have hoped for, a citizen can not sue a state (though a citizen can sue the federal government for redress). You wrote that this was "exactly the reverse of what Rajaram claims". However, from the tone of your commentary, while explaining the case, you seem to assume that the whole case was dismissed - frivolous and laughably thrown out of court. Actually, THIS is the "exact opposite" of the judge's ruling. As you can see from the Federal Court decision in front of you, and also mentioned in your summation of the case, the judge gave the plaintiffs 20 days to refile their case. He ruled that CAPEEM had sufficiently shown that their children's First Amendment rights would be violated if the allegations were true. Though the defendants attacked the substance of CAPEEM's Equal Protection Clause claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, the court rejected that argument, ruling that allegations of "repeated scrutiny of proposed edits; secretive processes in making final decisions; and, hostile academic advisors . . . if true, could establish grounds for relief under an Equal Protection claim." Since the judge ruled that there was sufficient evidence of First and Fourteenth Amendment violations, do you think that when CAPEEM refiles the case, Judge Damrell will suddenly reverse himself and say "never mind"? Do you think he invited them to refile so that after three weeks he could just dismiss it as frivolous, even though they had followed his directives? The law doesn't work that way. The judge looked at the case and determined that it had merit. He advised CAPEEM to refile. Easy enough to understand how Rajaram interpreted that as a green light to move forward. Your interpretation seemed to halt just after the word "dismissed", ignoring what was dismissed and what was not. This same scholarly methodology of pre-selected results unfortunately taints civil discourse and the evolution of the field of Indic Studies. I don't have the final, written, Federal Court decision in front of me, but I found out through a little research that Judge Damrell definitely did not dismiss the case. He instructed Venkat Balasubramani, CAPEEM's lawyer, to inform his clients to drop the CDE and the SBE as defendants and proceed with the case. He did not rule that CAPEEM's case could not go forward. He ruled that due to the 11th amendment the plaintiffs could not sue a state agency, but they are not barred from suing employees of a state agency who violated the law by "secretive processes". Rajaram is not so far off base after all: "Judge Frank C. Damrell of the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the suit filed by parents of California school children". They had shown probable cause, but to accommodate the 11th amendment, they had to drop two of the plaintiffs. End of matter. You introduced the recipients of this email to your esteemed role as co- moderator of the "large [international] Indo-Eurasian Research List". Back in November, your diatribes convinced 49 scholars associated with this group to sign your anti-textbook petition, sight unseen. Code Red! The Hindu nationalists are taking over California…. Where is the terminator when you need him in Sacramento? Your letter arrived in California belatedly, after the end of the due process set up by the SBE, when the Curriculum Committee had already decided to edit several negative or erroneous descriptions about the religious beliefs and practices of Jews, Muslims, and Hindus from our children's textbooks. Shortly after the edits were announced your highly incendiary letter arrived. You singled out the Hindu-American community, using pejoratives against them and making ungrounded assumptions. You threw blanket condemnation on all the suggested editorial changes made by the Hindu-American citizens who had spent significant time in Sacramento working with the California Curriculum Committee. Your letter didn't refer to even one of those editorial changes. You couldn't have analyzed them, because you wrote your petition before the edits were made public. Your letter was written based on your condemnation for Hindus, not on the worthiness of their work. Before writing this rather racist letter, neither you or Michael Witzel had the opportunity to review any of the edits, yet you stated that the "proposed revisions are not of a scholarly but of a religious-political nature" and "do not reflect the views of the majority of specialists on ancient Indian history nor of mainstream Hindus." Does being the co- moderators of the IER make you guys psychic? You pronounced judgment without reviewing the materials. Certainly, as a scholar of Sanskrit, Professor Witzel knows that Hindi is written in the Devanagari alphabet, whereas the Harcourt textbook stated that, "Hindi is written with the Arabic alphabet, which uses 18 letters." Don't you think it would have been more professional if you had reviewed the textbooks and/or edits before passing such strongly worded, acrimonious judgment? Perhaps if you had you would have been more measured, reasonable, and professional. But you didn't bother to do the research prior to pronouncing your harsh opinion. Btw, the Hindus who are concerned about what the textbooks teach about their religious tradition ARE "mainstream"… they are not Marxists - so they do not think that religion is the opiate of the people… they are not fascist—so they are not xenophobic. They are democratic, hardworking citizens who deserve respect from scholars, not fear and loathing. One textbook warned students to "watch out" because Hindu goddesses are "bloodthirsty". Really, if you think about it, that comment is rather catchy…. blood thirsty Hindus… sounds like a cool topic for RISA or a weekend topic on IER. Since Professor Witzel has developed quite a reputation within the Hindu-American community for his mocking tone and aggressive stance, he would not be a good source of editorial advice concerning "the intimacy of practitioners". Practioners, whom he refers to as "Hindus in North America (HINAs) [who] are not just hiina, `lost, abandoned', but they (understandably) cling to their homeland in all manners they can come up with. `Reforming' our schoolbooks according to an imagined Golden Age (Ram Raj), hoary India is just one of the expressions we can observe." On your IER list, addressed to almost 700 scholars, Witzel uses a Sanskrit word hiina to disparage Hindu-Americans as lost and abandoned. This word carries derogatory meanings such as inferior, insecure, lowly and defective. Witzel mocks Hindu- Americans for "building crematoria", for building "many temples", having "Sunday schools" and sending their "daughters to study Classical Indian dance" which he erroneously claims is not a "highly regarded occupation back home". He then mocks marriage customs and religious rituals, adding that such behaviors "add to the heady brew" that he dislikes in Hindu-Americans who can too easily adapt to the American environment while maintaining their ethnicity. Curse the "model minority"! Their presence in the classroom complicates how teachers teach about Hinduism. Dr. Witzel imposes his own imagined stereotypes on the Indian- American community. If he had said these words about another minority group, he would have been called a bigoted racist—but, instead, surprisingly, he was formally invited into the process by the SBE, bias waving high. Witzel seems to be among a group of scholars who are afraid that the study of Indic religion and culture is being 'hijacked' by practicing Hindus. Well, practicing Hindus are here to stay…. you need to reexamine your paradigm. Didn't any of your IER scholars find it unusual that in his letter to the SBE, Professor Witzel made no references to specific content, but simply strove to paint all of the editorial suggestions with the same broad stroke of politicized denigration. In the process of attempting to tar the Hindu-American parents in California, he accused them of atrocities and blamed them for riots that occurred in India a few years ago. These Hindu-American parents had nothing to do with violence in India, and in fact rarely have the opportunity to visit the land of their ancestry since they have families and employment in the USA. Accusing the parents of California school children of genocide in order to discredit them is a misdirected and reprehensible strategy, not unlike Krystalnacht. Instead of the Indo-Europeans up in arms, it could have been a group of scholars inspired by their academic investigations into the veracity of the Exodus story in the Bible. Such a motivated group of scholars, let's call them Israeli-Exodus Researchers (IER2) may have unintentional anti-Semitic tendencies as they argue that the "Exodus story was produced for theological reasons: to give an origin and history to a people and distinguish them from others by claiming a divine destiny." (http://www.truthbeknown.com/exodus.htm) In contrast, the ICS reviewed the Jewish portion of the textbooks and suggested that "It is essential to clarify that the Passover observance is more than a meal and not a celebration of the tenth plague; rather, it commemorates the Exodus." The ICS requested these edits: "Jewish families hold a special ceremony called the Seder. During this service, families retell the Exodus story, [add these words: express sorrow for the plagues God sent to the Egyptians,] and eat certain foods. [remove these words: such as matzoh, a bread Israelites ate during the Exodus.] [Add this sentence: "Jews observe Passover for eight days in memory of the Exodus when their ancestors escaped from Egyptian slavery.]" Because a group of hypothetical IER2 scholars refuted the Exodus story should SBE retract their approved edits if they receive a heated letter protesting the change and promising an international scandal if the "Zionists, who murder Palestinian children," are allowed to whitewash Hebrew history. I doubt very much if such blatant anti-Semitism would be allowed, but somehow Hindu-phobism passed under the wire. The edits requested by the Hindus were retroactively disallowed, yet the edits requested by the Jews and Muslims are allowed to remain. This is blatant discrimination- -the Hindu citizens of California were singled out for discrimination because of a letter based on biased preconceptions. This issue is of special concern to me. In 1995, as part of my master's thesis in Asian Studies, I analyzed the contents about India in four high school World History textbooks. My interest in this topic began in the 1980's when I taught World History at the secondary level. Since I had lived in India when I was younger and subsequently received a BA in South Asian Studies, I was familiar with India's history and culture, with an informed understanding of Hinduism. To my surprise, what was written in the textbooks concerning the traditions of India was unrecognizable mumbo-jumbo. It treated the students as if they were incapable of learning sophisticated ideas and it treated the peoples of the Subcontinent as if they were exotic, inert nonentities whose very existence had no historical significance. [For an article based on that 1995 research, please see: "Internationalizing Teacher Education: Preparedness to Teach About India", Teaching South Asia, ed. Karl J. Schmidt, Project South Asia, Missouri Southern State College, Fall 2001; See: http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasia/tsa/VIN1/Rosser.htm ] Ten years later, in 2005, Hindu-Americans finally raised questions about the overt misrepresentations and absurd presentations of Indic religious traditions in history textbooks used in American secondary classrooms. I have personally witnessed the strangely negative, exoticized bias operative in the presentation of Hinduism as found in World History textbooks. The narratives about Hinduism are not only out-dated, but in many cases they are simply wrong and actually quite insulting. Through it all, Hinduism is represented as a peculiar artifact, described using colonially constructed categories unrecognizable to practicing Hindus. You and professor Witzel went wild on the term "Hindutva", You used it six times on the first page of your petition—hyperdutva. You warned your colleagues to man the forts of the Ivory Towers… Hindu nationalists are in California trying to destroy your life's work. "Stop the Hindutvavadis!" Dr. Farmer, please take a deep breath and realize that the citizens who were working on the textbooks with the Curriculum Commission were plain old Hindu-American parents. Precisely, the majority of them were second-generation Hindu-American parents, who themselves had gone through the American public school system a decade or two earlier. They were keenly aware of the erroneous and insulting nature of the textbooks' narratives about Hinduism. Now that these second generation Americans have children of their own, they are motivated to solve the pervasive problem that they endured during their own experience in social studies classes. So, they worked with the State Board of Education, following the procedures, step by step, to remove errors and bias that continues to skew the narrative about their heritage. It is amazing to me that scholars in the field of Hindu Studies haven't worked with textbook publishers to normalize the narrative so that it is presented on par with the other world religions. I was surprised by the impropriety and conflict of interests when Dr. Mark Kenoyer, the author of one of the textbooks up for review, signed your petition. I have long respected Dr. Kenoyer's work on the Indus Valley, but unfortunately, his OUP textbook on ancient India was the worst of the lot! Shouldn't he have recused himself from signing to avoid duplicity of interests? The Hindu-Americans in California were not trying to whitewash Indian history or justify the murder of minorities, for goodness sake! They were attempting to correct obvious errors. One textbook stated that the "Mahabharata was written before the Ramayana". Of course, we all know that the Ramayana came before the Mahabharata. This error is no different from a textbook saying that the Gospels were written before Genesis. However, the Witzel/Wolpert/Heitzman triumvirate commented concerning this edit, "Who in Sixth Grade cares which epic was 'written' first?" Hindus care. Sixth grade teachers care. This shows a blatant disregard for accuracy. I have taught sixth grade, and I resent that attitude! Believe me, the students will not like it one bit when and if they find out that their textbooks got something so simple so wrong. You associated these American citizens with "pogroms in Gujarat". You accused them of scandalously rewriting history, comparing their efforts to the controversy over historiography and textbooks at NCERT. This is a completely twisted comparison. In India, the previous government, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), headed by the BJP, was critical of the predominance of the Marxist paradigm a JNU, ICHR, UGC, and NCERT. When they made appointments, they chose scholars from outside the usual body of Leftists, who had, since the days of Nurul Hassan, chaired many of the councils and commissions. The Indian Council of Historical Research was established in 1969 under the chairmanship of Prof. R. S. Sharma, whose commitment to Marxism is well known. "During his chairmanship, there were allegations from many historians that ICHR was being used for propagating history from a Marxist standpoint." (Ghosh, Partha S. "The Rewriting of History", The Hindu, July 15, 1998.) Satish Chandra, another well-known Marxist historian, became chairman of the University Grants Commission. The National Council for Education Research and Training hired Leftist historians, such as Bipin Chandra and Romila Thapar, who wrote the textbooks in the seventies. In 2001, amid a huge controversy, the BJP replaced these twenty-five year old textbooks, changing the theoretical focus from modes of production to the examination of indigenous models. Several of the textbooks were of inferior quality, such as the one on Ancient India by Makkan Lal and Modern India by Hari Om. However, the textbook on Medieval India by Meenakshi Jain is well written and inclusive. It is a model for textbooks on medieval India, far superior to Satish Chandra's textbook on the same topic, written in 1978, and reissued in 2005. But unfortunately Jain's textbook was jettisoned along with the other BJP era textbooks, when the UPA won the elections and resurrected the Marxist-era NCERT textbooks written in the seventies. You can not compare the efforts of the Hindu-American parents in California, who were trying to remove a few obvious errors from their children's textbooks, word by word, to the complete replacement of all the history textbooks and supplanting the dominate paradigm. Your comparison is hyperbole. According to the conditions laid out by the California State Board of Education, the Hindu-American parents could only change a word here and there, or explain how a picture was mislabeled—not rewrite entire passages. These are needed improvements. Even the panel of South Asian experts who belatedly examined the textbooks, said were they generally terrible, not only the definitions but many of the graphics about Hinduism were outlandishly wrong. For instance, the drawing of King Ashoka, a north Indian ruler from the third century BC, is represented in one textbook wearing an elaborate costume from somewhere like Medieval Turkmenistan. In the Glencoe/McGraw- Hill book, the Hindu-American parents suggested that the illustration of a Brahman in ancient India, be replaced with something "more historically appropriate". The Witzel/Wolpert combine wrote that, "The illustration is no worse than anything one sees in Amar Chitra Katha." Comparing a textbook to a comic book is laughable and highly unscholarly. They continued with their critique, "It is impossible to imagine where something more historically appropriate would be found. We suggest that the illustrator simply remove the beard and change the dress to a dhoti." Professor Bajpai in responding to this comment, wrote, "This is a gratuitous remark. One can create plausible portraits based on figures on art objects, frescoes and literary descriptions in the works of ancient India. There are illustrated manuscripts of later periods, which can inform an illustrator about the culture- specific illustrations. Of course, these will not be historical photographs but surely authentic illustrations compared to the ludicrous and insensitive ones in the text." Why was Witzel so flippant? Textbooks are not comic books. They are suppose to reflect historical accuracy. There is also a photograph of an elderly Muslim gentleman, wearing an Islamic skullcap, with his hands raised in the traditional Islamic gesture for offering namaz, but the caption states that the picture is a "Brahmin at prayer". Interestingly, this identical mislabeled picture appeared in several of other 6th grade textbooks. This absurd error is no different than a textbook showing a photo of a Catholic priest serving mass at a church and labeling it "A Muslim priest offers prayers at a mosque". Significantly, there is a pejorative attitude that runs throughout the text regarding India: a section on vegetarian traditions mocks the topic with a subheading of "Where's the Beef?" One textbook derides Hindus by saying, "Even if there is a famine, Hindus would rather starve than eat beef." In the section on Islam, the textbook does not mock Muslim customs - it doesn't say, "Even in times of famine, Muslims rather starve than eat pork." These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. It is amazing that these kinds of stupid mistakes and insensitive narratives have remained in the textbooks all these years, despite the slew of multi-cultural correctives in the last few decades. Since Indians immigrated to the USA in the sixties and seventies, many have noticed the negative slant with which the history of India is presented in their children's textbooks. However, they did not make an issue of it. This is in contrast with other religious groups who have been working with curriculum boards and textbook publishers for decades, such as the Institute for Curriculum Services (ICS) that works with the educational community to ensure that the sections on Judaism in the textbooks accurately reflect Jewish sensibilities and do not inadvertently promote anti-Semitism. The Council on Islamic Education (CIE) has been visibly active in the past decades. Both the ICS and the CIE have a long record of working with the California State Board of Education to correct what they perceive as distorted views of their religious traditions. This was the first year that Hindus have been involved in the public process, though for years critiques of the shoddy treatment of Hinduism in the textbooks have appeared in magazines such as India Abroad and Hinduism Today. In the textbooks, Christianity and Judaism are represented with positive images and any negative aspects are ignored or sugarcoated. Hinduism is the only religion that is treated like an exotic curio, described from an outsider's perspective. Hinduism is criticized and blamed for various social ills, whereas other religions are treated with kid gloves. When evaluating the textbooks, reviewers took into consideration how all the religions were represented. The lop-sided treatment of Hinduism when compared to other faiths is noticeable. See the study by a high school teacher in New Jersey, Women and Hinduism in U.S. Textbooks, http://www.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=4564#. David Freedholm explains with numerous examples from the textbooks that "Hinduism is not afforded the same balanced and nuanced treatment with regard to women's issues given to Christianity and Islam." Freedholm wrote, "Hinduism and Indian society are portrayed as schizophrenic in that they venerate the devi and idealize women on the one hand and on the other treat wives as `slaves'. Another essay that compares the academic treatment of Hinduism with that of other faiths is the careful analysis of Encarta, Are Hinduism studies prejudiced? In his research, Sankrant Sanu investigates the impact of "scholarship of certain sections of the academic community studying Hinduism." http://www.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=4499 In their textbooks, American Hindu children are subjected to a negative emphasis on many topics including women's rights, whereas gendered issues are treated more sympathetically in sections on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The textbooks state that in Hinduism women are inferior. In `Ancient Civilization', published by Holt, on page 154 is written, "Hinduism also taught that women were inferior to men. As a result, Hindu women were not allowed to read the Vedas or other sacred texts". No such remarks are made for any other cultures or religions in the textbooks. Ancient Hinduism is unfairly singled out and judged per modern standards, using presentism - applying contemporary ideals to evaluate the past. It is questionable that women could not read the Vedas in the entire period of ancient India that is covered in this textbook. There are numerous examples of women authors and teachers in ancient India. Amazingly, when Hindu groups in California asked the SBE to harmonize the description of women's rights in ancient India with descriptions given for Judeo-Christian and Islamic societies, they were insulted and dismissed with pejorative labels. Contextualizing social oppression and sexism within the discourse of human rights, a teacher/textbooks could relate inequities in India to similar problems in Western society, and thereby avoid stereotyping class-based discrimination and gender violence as uniquely Hindu. Using "sati" to narrate Hinduism is the same as describing Christianity through the lens of witch burning in medieval Europe. I am very curious to know if you, Steve Farmer and Professor Witzel, seek to deny Hindus the right to describe their own religion according to their beliefs. Textbooks narratives are not about the supremacy of one tradition over another. The Hindu groups requested subtle changes, such as the heading "Hindu Beliefs About Multiple Gods" should be replaced with the less sensational and more accurate phrasing: "Hindu Beliefs About Various Forms of God." The requests were realistic and sensitive. Hindus believe that though "God is one, the forms are many". Please, Dr. Farmer, tell me what is it that you fear about this point of view? Many simplistic and easy to correct errors are often made in modern curriculum materials. For instance, one textbook stated, "As time passed, Indians began to question how the world came into being. These questions led to changes in Brahmanism." The suggested editorial change was, "As time passed, Indians began to question how the world came into being. These questions led to changes in contemporary religious ideas." This conveys more meaning to the student and is more in sync with Hindu self-concepts. "Brahmanism" is not a term that Hindus use. It was coined during the colonial era and is not used by Hindus to self-describe their religion, and in fact, is usually considered insulting. Referring to Hinduism as "Brahmanism" is tantamount to calling Catholics "Papists"—it is derogatory. Yet, tellingly, Professor Witzel vied for retaining that insulting wording. It was a sick joke that Professor Witzel concluded his letter with a threat - if California's State Board of Education accepts the textbook edits suggested by Hindu-Americans, it "will lead without fail to an international scandal". He did not express the same hysteria concerning the changes requested by the Jewish or Muslim groups. His unsupported tirade singled out one group simply because they are Hindus, not because their editorial suggestions were invalid. Certainly, as a scholar of South Asian Studies, he would not suggest that the textbooks retain this: "The people of the Indus Valley developed a civilization that lasted for over 500 years." He knows very well that the IVC lasted far longer than five centuries. He would have to agree with the recommended edit, "The people of the Indus Valley developed a civilization that lasted for over 1300 years." Correcting such errors is not political and has nothing to do with Hindutva or Neocons anymore that the changes requested by the Jewish representatives regarding Exodus are examples Zionism. I am sick of this ugly tamasha of hyper-critical, going-nowhere, culturally insensitive, political posturing. The Hindus of North America are not HIINA. I am tired of battling the pseudo-academic attack dogs that go for my children's jugulars. I am disturbed at the chasm separating practicing Hindu-Americans from scholars who specialize in the study of Hinduism at American universities. This is a disturbing gulf between what scholars write about Hinduism and the actual beliefs of modern Hindus. It is time to change the paradigm. Thank you for reading this long letter. Please forgive me if I have offended anyone while speaking truth to power. I pray that in the next few years, scholars of Hindu Studies will realize that hostility towards devout Hindus is counterproductive and destructive. Your Brahmanism paradigm has already crumbled. A new generation of scholars is ready to take up the challenge of representing Hinduism without relying on colonially constructed, Marxist enhanced models designed to denigrate and disempower. Thank you very much, Yvette C. Rosser, PhD Dartmouth University I would like to call your attention to three articles: Trisha Pasricha, a High School student in Houston, TX, wrote this article about "How US Schools Misrepresent Hinduism" in 2003, when she was 14: http://www.mcwret.org/hicad/Essay%20by%20Trisha%20Pasricha.htm Vamsee Juluri, an Associate Professor of Media Studies at the University of San Francisco, recently wrote this article: Hinduism and Academics: An Analysis http://www.india-forum.com/articles/140/1/Hinduism-and-Academics%3A-An-Analysis Here is a short excerpt from Juluri's essay: Hinduism in the Western Academy Hinduism had very bad press in the West in the past, notwithstanding the occasional recognition of Gandhi and others, and it is these terrible misrepresentations that are still the bedrock of Western perception not only of Hindus but also of India. Gory violence, bizarre rituals, inhuman oppression, lack of hygiene, lack of free will, wily priests, decadent kings, passive natives, and of course, noble European masters, are what have tainted the Western imagination. My students, for example, often start their classes with me with their only knowledge of India and Hinduism being these assumptions, but they are smart and know that many of these myths are untrue and racist, and expect a better picture from me than what they suspect is a lousy media stereotype any way. Given such a situation, I see it fit to first balance out the misinformation about Hinduism in the popular Western imagination, and then to address the critical concerns about Indian society. To illustrate, if a student asks if it is true that Hinduism calls for the immolation of widows, I have no hesitation in saying "no," despite the fear in the academic community that denying this is tantamount to supporting a fundamentalist agenda. This, and many other ugly misrepresentations about Hinduism in academics and also the media are pervasive and powerful because they were created at a time when all the might of imperial power could sustain them and impose them around the world. The obsession with equating Hinduism with "caste" and "gender," and of course, the infamous Aryan invasion theory, all come from this time, when writing about Hinduism and India was part of a larger project of Orientalism, and Hindus could have very little authority in speaking against such lies. Despite the end of official colonialism, the Orientalist tendency still persists in academics and in popular culture, and cannot be ignored. And this article written recently by a second generation Indian- American, concerning the textbook tamasha: "Forgetting the Child - the Heart of the Matter," by Niraj Mohanka: http://www.india-forum.com/articles/90/1 [Text of the article copied below:] Why should the sixth grade textbook teach eleven year old children in California about ancient cultures such as China, India, Rome, Greece, Israel, and Mesopotamia? The answer is obvious - the world is shrinking rapidly, and we have people of all nationalities and ethnicities living right in our midst. Particularly after 9/11, American children need to be made aware of cultures other than American culture so that they can appreciate the diversity of the shared heritage of mankind and become better, more informed citizens of a multicultural country and world. No longer is India a distant, exotic land that is unrelated to the United States. We are all trading partners and close neighbors in an increasingly small global village. Now picture yourself as an 11 year old Indian-American or Hindu- American student in a California classroom, with 20 other children. It is almost certain that you would be the only child in the class with that ethnic background. As a result, your twenty other classmates would be completely unfamiliar with your religion, and with your cultural heritage that is so different from theirs. In addition, assume, as studies have indeed demonstrated, there is a 95% or greater chance that your teacher has never taken a single class himself or herself that deals specifically with India or Hinduism. Therefore, he or she relies almost entirely on the textbooks thrust upon her, and you. In your classroom, you study the fascinating ways in which ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamians and Chinese lived and produced wonderful art, architecture, cities and temples. You learn about Hebrew writings that became the Old Testament, and how Christianity was `revealed' in the Roman Empire. It is all so exciting, so interesting, and you really start liking the subject. Now you read the chapter on India. And what do you read? That Hinduism is equal to the caste system, in which there is a large section of people who are called untouchables. The untouchables were discriminated against, they were suppressed and people would not even see them, let alone touch them. Then you read that Hindu women in ancient India were burned when they died and were harassed if they did not commit Sati (page 245 in Glencoe textbook). You read that "women did not inherit property", they "could not study", they "could not remarry" and their "life was miserable as a widow". You would study that people in India would not eat beef "even if they were starving". You would also learn that you worship "statues of gods and goddesses in temples", whereas others worship a powerful, all-knowing and living God. If you were a Hindu child and especially a Hindu girl, you would say to yourself - "Oh my God! How embarrassing! Other cultures did not seem to have this problem. My teacher did not say any such horrible things when she was teaching about Christians, Muslims and Jews. But the textbook cannot be wrong. It seems I've had the bad luck of being a member of the wrong religion. Then why did my parents lie about the greatness of my religion? What are my classmates thinking about me now? Sarah was my friend, but now she will make fun of me because I belong to a culture where they hate women, whereas she comes from a religion where women have many rights. And they treat all men and women equally in Islam, but in my religion they really ill-treat women and even other men. Why was I born Indian? Why was I born Hindu? I wish I wasn't." Is the reader surprised that the little 11 year old Indian-American or Hindu-American child could get shattered from a sense of shame vis-a`- vis her or his classmates? Well then consider these facts about the proposed textbooks for grade VI in California (realizing that the situation is no different in other states): These textbooks have dozens of factual errors related to India and Hinduism. For e.g., Hindi is said to be written in the Arabic alphabeth! But even worse, they present an obsessively negative picture of ancient India, include clichéd pictures of scavengers and untouchables cleaning latrines, scrawny cows eating garbage on streets (with gratuitous remarks like "Where is the Beef", or statements like "even if Hindus are starving, they will not eat beef"). Students are taught that only Hinduism ill-treats women or other men. For other religions, these topics are either not discussed, or white-washed. Or even if issues of slavery and gender inequality are mentioned, they are de-linked from the respective religions, and treated only as distant historical and/or social issues. Hindu religious beliefs are presented in ridiculous terms like "according to the Karma theory, if you do bad deeds, you may be reborn as a pig or an insect", whereas the teachings ("revelations") of other religions are taught in a very profound manner. Hindu holy books are just "poems", `songs' (like Madonna's pop-songs?), or "myths" whereas the Bible and the Quran are "revealed scriptures" whose accounts are historical facts. The list of such errors of fact, bias and disparity with other faiths in these textbooks is endless. But wait, there's more. If, by chance, there is anything positive in Hindu culture, it is neglected. No mention is made of the fact that Hindus alone worship God in Her Feminine Form. No mention is made of the fact that Hindus were the only society where slavery did not exist. No mention is made of the fact that religious wars were rare in Hindu society. No mention is made of the fact that many `untouchables' compiled the greatest of Hindu scriptures, and became Hinduism's most famous saints. And certainly no mention of the fact that India was historically the most tolerant nation in accepting differing religious beliefs in the world - not just `tolerating', but welcoming Jews, Zoroastrians, Atheists, `heretical Christians', `Qaramatian Muslims' and others who fled persecution elsewhere. It does not take a psychiatrist to understand or imagine what a disastrous effect such a negative description of Hindu and Indian heritage could have on the minds of an 11 year old child, especially if she or he is a Hindu or of Indian descent. These students will be made to feel ashamed of their heritage, and may become objects of ridicule and contempt by their classmates. They would either want to deny their heritage completely, causing a lot of friction with their elders, or even develop feelings of shame, embarrassment and inferiority. It could exaggerate the development of poor self-esteem, leading to learning difficulties, emotional stress and behavioral problems in impressionable students of these ethnic groups. These damaging effects may be long-lasting and impact the future trajectory of their life. Peer pressure and acceptance becomes increasingly strong and irresistible in teenage years, and it is inappropriate to subject sixth grade students (10-12 years) to such a predominantly negative and patently biased presentation of their heritage. While it is desirable at the College level to expose students to both sides of the story, impressionable and delicate sixth grade students should be taught material that is positive, and reinforces a sense of self-confidence and pride in what they are. After all, is this not the basic purpose of teaching world cultures to 11 year old children? But certain scholars with a track record of India-bashing and anti- Hinduism are insisting that in the name of historical accuracy, Hindu- American students should be subjected to such an obsessive negative coverage of their heritage. Why don't they use the same yardstick for other cultures and religions? There is so much good in all cultures and civilizations. Why just dig out all the mud in Hinduism and throw it on innocent faces? Is it surprising that these same scholars and ideologues have actually done nothing in the past to improve narratives on India and Hinduism in textbooks? [….] The obsessively negative and discriminatory manner in which American school textbooks treat our religious and cultural heritage is simply unacceptable. During a talk at Harvard University on February 3, 2005, Professor Michael Witzel insists on retention of these negative descriptions of India and Hinduism in sixth grade school textbooks and instead of wanting to help the thousands of Hindu parents in this country, he along with many of his peers in academia are actually threatening to continue their anti-India and anti-Hinduism crusade beyond California. He stated at that talk, "We have been late in California, but wait for Texas two years from now. It will be much more messy". He mocks at the genuine protests of thousands of Hindu-American parents in California as "motivated by Hindutva nationalism", and arrogantly connects them with thousands of murders in Gujarat in 2002. Why this politicizing and demonization of Hindu parents who simply want their children to grow up not hating themselves? As a proud 2nd generation Indian-American with three school-going children today, I want to remind all those out there who seek to corrupt this issue with politics or hatred that I and many thousands of concerned parents like me, will do whatever we can to protect our children from bigotry and discrimination. The truth is that this issue is not about academics versus "right-wing, Hindu fanatics." This is not even about anti-India and anti-Hindu academics versus concerned parents. At the heart of this textbook controversy is my child - and your child - and every child. Enough is enough. Baas!