California textbook controversy over Hindu history

A controversy in the US state of California concerning the portrayal of Hinduism in history textbooks began in 2005. The Texas-based Vedic Foundation (VF)[1] and the American Hindu Education Foundation (HEF), complained to California's Curriculum Commission, arguing that the coverage in sixth grade history textbooks of Indian history and Hinduism was biased against Hinduism;[1] points of contention included a textbook's portrayal of the caste system, the Indo-Aryan migration theory, and the status of women in Indian society.[2]

The California Department of Education (CDE) initially sought to resolve the controversy by appointing Shiva Bajpai, Professor Emeritus at California State University Northridge, as a one-man committee to review revisions proposed by the groups. Bajpai, who was selected by the Vedic Foundation for the task, approved nearly all the changes;[3] while presented by the VF as an independent scholar, it later came out that he was a member of a closely affiliated organization.[4]

Michael Witzel, Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University organized Indologists against the objections of Hindu groups, sending a letter with some fifty signatories to the CDE to protest changes of a "religious-political nature"[2].

Witzel, Stanley Wolpert and a third Indologist then revisited the proposed changed on behalf of the State Board of Education and suggested reverting some of the approved changes.[5] According to the CDE, these scholars came to either an agreement or a compromise on the majority of the edits and corrections to the textbooks in 2006, with some proposed changes accepted and others rejected.[6] In early 2006, the Hindu American Foundation sued the State Board over matters of process.[5] The case was settled in 2009.[7]

Textbooks are reviewed regularly in California, and civic organizations participate in the revision process. In 2016, with a new review coming up, several academics led by Vamsee Juluri, professor of media studies at the University of San Francisco as well as the Hindu American Foundation protested the replacement of "India" with "South Asia" in the proposed draft.

Background

California textbooks' guiding principles

The Californian Standards for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Social Content contain the guiding principles for the textbooks.[8] They say: "The standards will be achieved by depicting, when appropriate, the diversity of religious beliefs held in the United States and California, as well as in other societies, without displaying bias toward or prejudice against any of those beliefs or religious beliefs in general."[9]

They also say: "No religious belief or practice may be held up to ridicule and no religious group may be portrayed as inferior.", and "Any explanation or description of a religious belief or practice should be presented in a manner that does not encourage or discourage belief or indoctrinate the student in any particular religious belief."[9]

Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups have done this for years, but the 2005 review was the first time Hindu groups participated.[4]

Response to draft textbook

Upon release of a draft of the textbook, Christian, Jewish, Islamic and the two Hindu groups submitted their edits in autumn 2005. After intensive scholarly discussions, over 500 changes proposed by Jewish and Christian groups and around 100 changes proposed by Muslims were accepted by the California Department of Education (CDE) and the State Board of Education (SBE); these scholarly discussions extended to January 6, 2006. Some 170 edits proposed by two Hindu foundations were initially accepted, supported by the reviewer, appointed by the California's Board of Education, Dr. Shiva Bajpai, Professor Emeritus of History, California State University Northridge.[10] However, 58 of the proposed edits by Hindu groups were challenged by various groups, including Professor Michael Witzel of Harvard University.[11] The challenge created a procedural and legal conflict.[12]

Accepted changes

According to the State Board of California, some accepted changes were:

Accepted edits and corrections
Proposed Edit/Correction
(by Hindu groups)		Ad hoc committee actionFinal SBE/CDE recommendation
Prof Bajpai and Prof. Witzel		Reference
Original textbook draft: "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?"
Proposed correction: Delete "The monkey king" from the first sentence, and the entirety of the second sentence.		Approve edit as written.Confirm Ad Hoc action.[13]:107
Original textbook draft: On page 149, a mosque was shown inside text about Hinduism.
Proposed correction: Replace photograph with one having a temple in the background. This photo is of a mosque.		Replace photo or crop out the mosque in the background.Remove the picture.[13]:125
Original textbook draft: "Hindus believed ... dharma of their class, society would be in harmony."
Proposed correction: Replace class with varna.		Approve edit as written.Confirm Ad Hoc action.[13]:124
Original textbook draft: "A group of people known as the Indo-Aryans arrived in the Indus Valley about 1500 B.C. These people developed a social structure called a caste system."
Proposed correction: Add a sentence informing students that there is a lot of controversy concerning the category of people known as "Indo-Aryans" and their origin.		Approve edit as written.Confirm Ad Hoc action. Add sentence, "There is controversy concerning the category of people known as the Indo- Aryans and their origins."[13]:108
Original textbook draft: A picture showed a Muslim offering prayer, was wrongly captioned as "A Brahman"
Proposed correction: Replace picture, then correct caption to "A Brahmin."		If the picture indeed depicts a Muslim, replace the illustration with an appropriate picture of a Brahmin.Confirm Ad Hoc action. Publisher should replace the illustration.[13]:112–113

Opposed changes

According to the State Board of California, some opposed changes were:

Rejected edits and corrections
Proposed Edit/Correction
(by Hindu groups)		Ad hoc committee actionFinal SBE/CDE recommendation
Prof Bajpai and Prof. Witzel		Reference
Original textbook draft: "Men had many more rights than women."
Proposed correction: "Men had different duties (dharma) as well as rights than women. Many women were among the sages to whom the Vedas were revealed."		Approve edit as written.Defer to the original text.[13]:94
Original textbook draft: "Once their society had merged with the local population, a late hymn of the Rig Veda described the four castes."
Proposed correction: Replace with, "A late hymn of the Rig Veda describes the interrelationship and interdependence of the four social classes."		Approve edit as written.Defer to the original text.[13]:109
Original textbook draft: A table was titled, "The Caste System"
Proposed correction: Replace table header with, "The Varnas".		Approve edit as written.Replace "Caste" with "Class".[13]:109
Original textbook draft: "... you'll learn about dharma and the other basic Hindu beliefs: Brahman, multiple gods, karma, and samsara."
Proposed correction: Replace with "... Hindu beliefs: Bhagwan, Forms of God, karma and maya."		CDE: are Bhagwan and maya explained in the text? If group's edit introduces new terminology without context, this may be confusing for students.Defer to the original text.[13]:121
Original textbook draft: "Around 1500 B.C.E., invaders called Aryans conquered northern India."
Proposed correction: Replace with, "Around 1500 B.C.E., invaders called Aryans came to northern India."		Publisher is directed to add a clarifying note that the "Aryan invasion theory" has been contradicted by scholarly evidence.Change to, "In the second millennium B.C.E., invaders called Aryans came to northern India."[13]:111

Claimants

Both the Vedic Foundation (VF) and the American Hindu Education Foundation (HEF) are ideologically aligned with the Hindutva (Hindu nationalism) movement in India, specifically the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). The HEF operates under the auspices of the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, which professes adherence to the RSS's ideological principles; the VF does not claim affiliation with other groups, but cooperates closely with the VHP.[14] Legal services for the textbook case were provided by the Hindu American Foundation.[14]

Opposition to the edits of the two Hindu foundations

California's Curriculum Commission endorsed most of the 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 Michael Witzel, the Wales Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University.[12] Witzel, along with his colleague Steve Farmer, was informed about the edits proposed by VF and HEF by a person claiming to be a graduate student of Indian origin at a California university. Witzel wrote a letter to the California Board of Education, protesting against the changes.[11] He suggested that the matter be discussed publicly, and that professional advice be taken by the Board.[11] The letter was supported by the signatures of 47 academics in the field of Asian Studies from various countries.[11]

Dan Golden of The Wall Street Journal described the effort of the two Hindu foundations, as similar to those by Jewish, Islamic and Christian foundations. Each group, claims Dan Golden, vie for changes in texts for elementary and secondary schools to cast their faiths in a better light or in sensitive manner before children.[12] In case of Hindu groups, The Wall Street Journal article described part of the motivation and response to be:

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.

...

(On December 2) 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.

— Dan Golden[12]

In addition to this foundation, a number of other organizations took up the matter. The President of the Dalit Freedom Network[15] at the time was Dr. Joseph D'Souza. D'Souza was also the President of the All India Christian Council.[16] D'Souza wrote a letter to the Board of Education on behalf of the Dalit Freedom Network. According to the Friends of South Asia (FOSA), further letters of support came from other organizations, such as the National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, the Dalit Shakti Kendra, and the Dalit Solidarity Forum in the USA.[17] FOSA also writes that further Dalit groups that testified before the SBE in January and February 2006, and are on public record in California, include those with Buddhist backgrounds, such as the Ambedkar Centre for Justice and Peace, Indian Buddhist Association of America, New Republic India, as well as Californian Dalit Sikh temples such as the Guru Ravi Dass Gurdwara.[18]

The edits proposed by the VF and HEF were also opposed by a group of organizations that included the FOSA, the Coalition against Communalism (CAC), the Federation of Tamil Sangams in North America,[19] Non Resident Indians for a Secular and Harmonious India (NRI-SAHI), the Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment, and the Indian American Public Education Advisory Council (IPAC).

Forty-seven professional South Asian scholars from universities all over the world and some major American Departments of South Asian Studies[20] as well as some 150 Indian American professors signed the original letter of opposition to the proposals of the two Foundations. Seventeen members of the California Legislature wrote a letter of support for the scholars.[21]

Soon after Witzel's intervention, Viji Sundaram, a reporter for India-West, wrote that the scholarly consensus behind Prof. Witzel's petition was likely to have influenced the Board of Education's decision to review the changes suggested by the Hindu groups.[22] Another reporter, Rachel McMurdie of the Milpitas Post, the largest newspaper publisher in the San Francisco Bay Area, pointed out the parentage and close links between the VF and HEF and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh as well as the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, the American branch of the Indian organization RSS.[23][24]

The State Board of Education decision

After extensive further discussion of the Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Hindu edits by specialized scholars on January 6, 2006, and after several public SBE meetings, a decision was reached on February 27, 2006. After listening to 3 hours of public comment and after receiving 1500 pages of written comment, a five-member panel of the Board adopted a recommendation of accepting the actions on the edits proposed by the staff of the California Department of Education (CDE).[25] The subcommittee approved some 70 changes but it rejected proposed major revisions from VF and HEF on monotheism, women's rights, the caste system and migration theories.[26]

On March 8, 2006, the full Board agreed with the February 27 decision, voting (9 to zero, 2 abstentions) to reaffirm only the changes approved on February 27, and to overturn the rest of the changes suggested by the HEF and VF, with two exceptions: the Aryan Migration Theory would be mentioned as "disputed", and the Vedas would be referred to as sacred texts, rather than songs or poems. Most parties expressed qualified satisfaction with the decision; however, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), which had not participated in the revisions, threatened the board with a lawsuit.[27][28]

Ruth Green, past president of the SBE, said that the ruling "represents our best efforts. Many ideological fault lines have played out here. These beliefs are deeply held."[29]

A public relations firm hired by the VF and the HEF stated that, "What is at stake here is the embarrassment and humiliation that these Hindu children (in America) continue to face because of the way textbooks portray their faith and culture."[29] Janeshwari Devi of VF said that "The two foundations submitted about 500 proposed changes, and more than 80 percent were not approved."[29] This refers to the initial changes proposed by VF that envisioned the complete rewriting of chapters, which is not allowed per California procedures.[30]

Lawsuits

CAPEEM case

The California Parents for Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM), a group founded specifically for the California schoolbook case after SBE's March 8 decision, filed the first lawsuit in Federal Court in Sacramento on March 14. The complaint was filed by Venkat Balasubramani, a Seattle attorney, who has worked in the past with public interest groups such as ACLU.[31] Michael Newdow, an atheist attorney who is known for filing cases related to the deletion of the word 'God' from the Pledge of Allegiance, later joined CAPEEM's legal team.[32]

The Court subsequently removed CDE and SBE as Defendants, because of existing legal rules, however, Judge Frank C. Damrell of the US District Court in the Eastern District Court of California allowed CAPEEM to amend the complaint on August 11/September 28, 2006, and go ahead against individual members of SBE and CDE.[33][34]

The case then proceeded with the Discovery phase, and CAPEEM requested documents from the SBE and CDE, and issued subpoenas to various persons involved in this case, including CDE officials, SBE, publishers, Christian groups such as the Dalit Freedom Network, the Council on Islamic Education, Curriculum Commission member Charles Munger, Jr., and the review committee members S. Wolpert, J. Heitzman and M. Witzel.

The subpoena to Charles Munger, Jr., and Rae Belisle resulted in emails that showed connections between them and members of churches.[35][36]

Among other subpoenas, CAPEEM issued an extensive subpoena [37] to Witzel to support their law case of March 2006 against members of CBE/SBE. Witzel turned over several CDs containing emails but CAPEEM followed up with a motion to compel him to deliver additional documents.

A hearing in Massachusetts District Court was held on July 3, 2007. As per court documents (see No. 07-2286), the court granted Witzel's motion for a protective order and denied CAPEEM's motion to compel "because it sought documents and communications that were not relevant and, therefore, not discoverable." CAPEEM appealed that ruling. On July 7, 2008, a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (No. 07-2286) denied an appeal by CAPEEM and decided that "CAPEEM has not shown that the Massachusetts district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to compel."

CAPEEM's subpoena to Witzel also resulted in Witzel's deposition at which his lawyer pleaded with CAPEEM to not publicize the deposition transcript and sought an agreement that CAPEEM would not publicize the transcript of the deposition. CAPEEM agreed to enter into such an agreement and has not publicized the deposition transcript of Witzel.

The subpoena to Dalit Freedom Network resulted in exposing the fact that it was not a Dalit group but a group that operated out of a church. Emails obtained from the group also showed that Witzel coordinated his activities with the church group and even erased the information that they were a religious group from Wikipedia's description of the group.[38]

CAPEEM also had several experts on its side including the noted biblical scholar Professor Joe Barnhart who pointed out that the textbooks indulged in indoctrination.

On February 25, 2009, the California Federal Court ruled that CAPEEM's claim was viable with respect to the actual process of adoption but denied the plaintiff CAPEEM motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the Establishment Clause as they lacked standing,[39] and partly granted and partly denied the defendant Members of the California State Board of Education's motion.

[40] On June 2, 2009, the Court ruled that good cause having been shown, and pursuant to United States' Rule of Civil Procedures, it accepts the Plaintiff's and Defendant's Settlement and General Release Agreement.[41] Concurrently, the Attorney General of California reached a settlement with CAPEEM where CAPEEM received $175,000 from the California State Board of Education, and both parties agreed to release each other from all claims and both parties agreed not to appeal.[7]

Hindu American Foundation case

A second lawsuit was filed by HAF in March 2006 against the Board of Education over the procedures used for reviewing the textbooks. HAF contended that the procedures did not satisfy the applicable laws.[42][43] The HAF also sought a temporary injunction against the publication of the textbooks, which was denied by the judge.[42][44]

Given the gravity of the charges and the potential disruption to the state textbooks, the court moved expeditiously and made its ruling in September 2006. Regarding the HAF claim that the Board of Education failed "in some instances" to follow the State laws regarding public meetings, the court agreed and directed the Board to update its procedures. However, the court did not find these "deficiencies in the regulatory framework" of the Board egregious enough to warrant the withdrawal of the textbooks. The procedures could be corrected while "maintaining the current [adoption] system."[42]

After addressing the procedural illegalities, the court turned its attention to the claim that the textbooks did not "conform to the applicable legal standards". The HAF claimed that the textbooks "portray[ed] the Hindu religion in their discussion of the history, culture and religious traditions of ancient India in a negative light". It also claimed that "the texts contain[ed] factual inaccuracies and [were] generally ... not neutral".[42] However, the court ruled that "the challenged texts comply with the applicable legal standards".[45] It said that the portrayal of the Aryan invasion or migration was not grossly inaccurate, the treatment of Hinduism in the textbooks did not violate the standard set by the state, and it said that the caste system, being a historical reality, had to be discussed even if it engered a certain negative reaction in students. The contested textbooks, providing discussion and justification of the most contended issues (women's rights, dalits, Aryan invasion or migration, Hinduism as a monotheistic religion) stayed.[46][47] Subsequent to the ruling, the HAF and the Board of Education reached a settlement, whereby the Board agreed to pay part of the legal expenses incurred by the HAF.[43] Both the HAF and the opposing groups claimed victory.[45]

Educationist LaSpina comments that the lawsuits were filed after the State Board made "extraordinary efforts" to reach a compromise with the Hindu groups The HAF did not regard the adopted changes as sufficient.[42] LaSpina recommends that the educators need to become "prudently aware" of the Hindu-American community's concerns over the portrayal of their history, religion and culture.[48]

Aftermath

In 2014, California State Senate majority leader Ellen Corbett spearheaded a bill (SB 1057) in the state legislature calling for a complete overhaul of its history and social studies curriculum to accurately portray Hinduism and other religions. The bill passed through both houses of the legislature with "unanimous support." However it was vetoed by the Governor Jerry Brown, ostensibly because it would slow down the curriculum revision process then underway. Corbett called it a "temporary set-back."[49][50]

2016-2017 Controversy

In California, textbooks and teaching guidelines are reviewed every six years. In 2016-2017, a variety of groups submitted textbook revisions dealing with a variety of issues related to histories of South Asia,[51] India,[51] Hinduism,[51][52] Sikhism,[51][52][53] India,[51] Dalits,[51][53] Muslims,[53] Ravidassias,[53] the Indus Valley Civilization,[51] and the rights of women,[51] as taught in California 6th and 7th grade textbooks.[51][54]

Groups Involved

Advocacy Groups

According to The Caravan, there were two main set of advocacy groups.

One set of groups "was led by the Hindu American Foundation…and the Hindu Education Foundation…heavily critical of certain parts of the textbooks, which they felt denigrated Hinduism."[51]

The other set of groups were organized as "South Asian Histories for All, an inter-caste, multi-faith group of activists," which "cited inaccuracies regarding caste and other issues in the textbook material, and called for a delay on the books’ approval so that they could be submitted for further editing."[51]

Academics

Academics also played an important role. There were two primary sets of academics providing comment on the issues. According to The Caravan, "Unified under the banner of the 'South Asian Faculty Group,' many professors signed a letter that detailed the reasons why many of the edits proposed by the Hindu groups were ahistorical and ideologically motivated. A similar letter, with over 90 signatories, was submitted this year, endorsing the specific edits requested by SAHFA."[51]

Opposing many of these edits, according to The Caravan, "The Hindu camp, too, assembled a team of academics…who submitted their own letter. It was written primarily by Jeffery Long, a professor of religion and Asian studies at Elizabethtown College…With almost 40 signatories, Long’s letter criticised some of the textbooks for their 'underlying Orientalist narrative' and their tendency to put forth 'inaccurate and unfavorable comparisons of Hinduism with other religions.'"[51]

Dalits and the caste system

The Debate

Advocates disagreed on whether and how the history of the caste system should be included in history books, and how Dalit communities should be named.[55]

The Uberoi Foundation recommended removing the word "Dalit," and The Hindu American Foundation proposed removing the word "Untouchable."[55] The Hindu American Foundation asked for the erasure of references to caste and untouchability, asking that the phrase “communities outside the jati system, the 'Untouchables,'" be changed to "socially ostracized and economically disadvantaged communities."[51] The Hindu Education Foundation opposed a suggest edit stating that Dalits were "forced to do work considered impure," writing “the suggested edit has political overtones."[51]

South Asian Histories for All and Dalit American groups argued for inclusion of the word "Dalit," and for retaining the history of the caste system in history textbooks.[55]

The Result

The proposal to rename "Untouchables" as "socially ostracized and economically disadvantaged communities" was rejected by the Instructional Quality Commission, and the use of the word Dalit was incorporated into the curriculum framework.[51]

However, according to The Caravan, "the final textbook matches HAF’s suggested edits more closely than it does the framework text. For example, while the framework had described the Dalit community by name, the approved National Geographic textbook fails to do so. It notes, 'At the bottom were slaves, laborers, and artisans…Many centuries later, another group developed that was considered even lower.'"[51]

Guru Nanak and caste

The Debate

Three Hindu groups, the Hindu American Foundation, the Hindu Education Foundation, and the Uberoi Foundation, all submitted edits that would remove references in the curriculum framework to Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikhism, being "a social reformer who challenged the authority of the Brahmins and the caste order."[51]

The Result

After debate, the Sikh Coalition praised the final textbook curriculum for retaining the language.[56] However, National Geographic, one of the publishers who developed a textbook based on the curriculum, dropped references to Nanak’s opposition to the caste system.[51] Sikh groups pointed to a Hindu American Foundation employee credited in the textbook as a “reviewer of religious content.[51] According to The Caravan, the Hindu American Foundation "affirmed that the foundation had worked directly with all the publishers except for Studies Weekly and McGraw Hill."[51]

Dalip Singh Saund and Sikhism

The Debate

In a suggested edit, the Hindu American Foundation asked for the removal of the word "Sikh" in descriptions of Dalip Singh Saund, describing him only as "an immigrant of Indian origin."[57]

The Result

The Instructional Quality Commission agreed to retain language naming Saund's Sikh identity.[58]

India and South Asia

The Debate

According to Scroll, the South Asia Faculty Group submitted edits asking for the word "India" to be replaced with "South Asia" in 24 of 93 instances where there were references to historical "India" in the curriculum framework.[55] They argued that "certain parts referred to as ancient India are now in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Bangladesh," according to a summary of their letter by Quartz.[52]

Groups like the Hindu American Foundation strongly opposed the use of the word "South Asia,"[52] and launched a "Don't Erase India" social media campaign.[59] They were supported by a group of academics, "Scholars for People"[60] who created an online petition that garnered over 25,000 signatures.[59][61]

The Result

The California Department of Education's Instructional Quality Commission eventually decided to use the word "India" in every instance within the curriculum framework.[62][63]

Indus Valley Civilization

The Debate

The Uberoi Foundation submitted edits changing every reference to the Indus Valley Civilization to include the word "Saraswati," a reference to the mythological Hindu river.[51]

The Result

The Instructional Quality Commission rejected the edits, retaining the phrasing "Indus Valley Civilization."[51]

Subsequently, the textbook review panel flagged publisher Pearson's references to the "Sarasvati River," responding with comments like "This is a subject of controversy, not settled fact…Remove mention of ‘Sarasvati’ and refer to it as ‘Indus Valley Civilization'". In response, a Pearson, employee defended the usage, citing that the change were requested by the Hindu American Foundation, the Hindu Education Foundation, and Hindupedia.[51] The Instructional Quality Commission upheld the original request, and Pearson revised its textbook.[51]

Representation of Hindus

A coalition led by the Hindu American Foundation and other community groups that includes nearly 40 academics, about 74 interfaith organizations and elected officials like Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and California State Senator Steve Glazer urged the California Board of Education to review the draft to ensure fair representation of Hinduism, Jainism and Indian culture.[64] Dozens of Indian-American students spoke out against the South Asia Faculty Group's suggested edits, accusing them of "Hinduphobia" and robbing them of selfhood.[65]

See also

References

  1. 1 2 "Textbook Reform Initiative: Problem statement". Vedic Foundation. Retrieved 2014-09-16.
  2. 1 2 "The Hindutva deluge in California". Hindustan Times. January 11, 2006. Archived from the original on January 13, 2006.
  3. ↑ "A saffron assault abroad". Frontline. January 14, 2006. Archived from the original on February 20, 2012.
  4. 1 2 Guichard, Sylvie (2010). The Construction of History and Nationalism in India. Routledge. pp. 82–85. ISBN 1136949313.
  5. 1 2 Suman Guha Mozumder (March 19, 2006). "Hindu groups sue California Board of Education". Rediff.
  6. ↑ Edits and Corrections List (2006), pp. 96–126.
  7. 1 2 Case 2:06-cv-00532-FCD-KJM, Document 220, Filed 06/02/2009, see clause 1, 3, and 6–20
  8. ↑ Developed by the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division California Department of Education Adopted by the California State Board of Education Published by the California Department of Education (2001)
  9. 1 2 Standards for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Social Content Developed by the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division California Department of Education Adopted by the California State Board of Education Published by the California Department of Education (2001)
  10. ↑ California Curriculum Commission Accepts Most Hindu Changes to Sixth Grade Textbooks Hindu Press International
  11. 1 2 3 4 Witzel, Michael. Letter to California Board of Education (November 8, 2005).
  12. 1 2 3 4 "New Battleground in Textbook Wars: Religion in History". The Wall Street Journal. January 25, 2006.
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Edits and Corrections List (2006).
  14. 1 2 Bose, Purnima (2008). "Hindutva Abroad: The California Textbook Controversy" (PDF). The Global South. 2 (1): 11–34. JSTOR 40339280.
  15. ↑ "The Dalit Freedom Network (www.dalitnetwork.org) was formed in 2003 to assist the Dalits in the areas of education, social justice, economic development, and healthcare", On the Side of the Angels: Justice, Human Rights, and Kingdom Mission, pp 89, Biblica, 2007-06-01
  16. ↑ The DFN website explicitly notes that "DFN partners only with All India Christian Council (AICC) members who are actively involved in the transformation and emancipation of the Dalit-Bahujan people, not with the AICC as a whole."
  17. ↑ Letters supporting FOSA/CAC's position on the California textbook controversy Friends of South Asia
  18. ↑ Friends of South Asia
  19. ↑ Letter to California State Board Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America
  20. ↑ South Asia Area Center Title VI Report on California Textbooks Unknown
  21. ↑ "Vote on textbooks upsets some Hindus". Archived from the original on July 12, 2006.
  22. ↑ "Textbooks And Hinduism – Why Accuracy Matters". Archived from the original on February 19, 2006.
  23. ↑ "Overseas Hindu body says Hinduism under threat". Archived from the original on January 11, 2006.
  24. ↑ About the Hindu Education Foundation and the Vedic Foundation, Friends of South Asia, retrieved 2015-10-25
  25. ↑ "March 2005 Agenda Item 19 Addendum – Meeting Agendas (CA State Board of Education)" (PDF). Retrieved 2014-06-23.
  26. ↑ "Committee sends textbook edits to state board". Inside Bay Area. Retrieved 2014-06-23.
  27. ↑ "Board of Education approves some Hindu changes to textbooks". Archived from the original on June 29, 2007. "Ed Board OK's changes in texts about Hinduism". Archived from the original on December 1, 2007.
  28. ↑ "Vote on textbooks upsets some Hindus". Archived from the original on July 12, 2006.
  29. 1 2 3 Charles Burress (March 10, 2006). "SACRAMENTO / Hindu groups lose fight to change textbooks / But decision by state Board of Education is supported by some Hindu Americans". Sfgate.com. Retrieved 2014-06-23.
  30. ↑ Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission, document CC-003 (03/04/04), dated November 22, 2005.
  31. ↑ Roberto Bonaccorso (December 24, 2014). "ACLU-WA_Annual Report 2005-06". Retrieved December 4, 2017.
  32. ↑ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved June 9, 2016.
  33. ↑ "Press Room". Capeem.org. August 11, 2006. Retrieved 2014-06-23.
  34. ↑ "Press Room" (PDF). Retrieved 2014-06-23.
  35. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on August 6, 2016. Retrieved June 9, 2016.
  36. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on August 6, 2016. Retrieved June 9, 2016.
  37. ↑ "Legal Documents". Capeem.org. Archived from the original on February 11, 2012. Retrieved June 23, 2014.
  38. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on August 6, 2016. Retrieved June 9, 2016.
  39. ↑ http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=rrgc
  40. ↑ (Case 2:06-cv-00532-FCD-KJM, Document 212, Filed February 26, 2009) can be found at: , see conclusion p. 62-63
  41. ↑ "Case 2:06-cv-00532-FCD-KJM, Document 221, Filed 06/03/2009" (PDF). Retrieved 2014-06-23.
  42. 1 2 3 4 5 LaSpina, A Clash of Chariots (2007), p. 46.
  43. 1 2 Hindu body, California educ board reach agreement over textbooks, Rediff News, June 25, 2007.
  44. ↑ Jonathan Jones, Hindu group's motion to block texts denied, East Bay Times (Oakland Tribune), 26 April 2006.
  45. 1 2 Kurien, A Place at the Multicultural Table (2007), p. 205.
  46. ↑ "US text row resolved by Indian". The Times of India. September 9, 2006. Retrieved 2014-06-23.
  47. ↑ Hindu American Foundation, et al., v. California State Board of Education, et al., Case No. 06 CS 00386, Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, 2006.
  48. ↑ LaSpina, A Clash of Chariots (2007), p. 48.
  49. ↑ HAF Gala: Miss America Reveals Childhood of Isolation, India West, September 24, 2014.
  50. ↑ Brown shoots down history curriculum update, Cabinet Report, October 28, 2014.
  51. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "The Latest Skirmish in California's Textbooks War Reveals the Mounting Influence of Hindutva in the United States". The Caravan. 2018-02-07. Retrieved 2018-10-02.
  52. 1 2 3 4 Punit, Itika Sharma (April 25, 2016). "Hindu groups in California oppose the proposed revisions to school textbooks". Quartz. Retrieved 2016-04-26.
  53. 1 2 3 4 "California Passes Textbook Standards Including 'Comfort Women,' Sikhs". NBC News. Retrieved 2018-10-02.
  54. ↑ "There's a new battle raging in California over history textbooks. Here's what you need to know". Salon. 2016-05-16. Retrieved 2018-10-02.
  55. 1 2 3 4 Chari, Mridula. "Last hearing today: Should the word 'Dalit' be used in California textbooks?". Scroll.in. Retrieved 2018-10-02.
  56. ↑ "CA Sikh History Approved, Sets Precedent For Nation". Sikh Coalition. 2016-07-15. Retrieved 2018-10-04.
  57. ↑ Solomon, Akiba (2016-04-01). "The Latest in a 10-Year Battle Over How California Teaches South Asian History". Colorlines. Retrieved 2018-10-02.
  58. ↑ "California textbooks: The next stage of the battle". The Indian Express. 2016-07-10. Retrieved 2018-10-02.
  59. 1 2 "South Asian Community Debates 'South Asia,' 'India' Ahead of Textbook Updates". NBC News. Retrieved 2018-08-11.
  60. ↑ "California Textbook Controversy: 'Scholars for People' sends final letter to CBE | IndiaFacts". IndiaFacts. 2016-05-12. Retrieved 2018-08-11.
  61. ↑ "California Curriculum Body Acknowledges Reality of Caste System". South Asian Histories For All. Retrieved 2018-10-02.
  62. ↑ "After hours of testimony, California state board rejects two history textbooks, approves 10 others". EdSource. Retrieved 2018-08-11.
  63. ↑ Press Trust of India (May 20, 2016). "'India' Will Not be Replaced with 'South Asia' in California Texbooks: Commission". India-West. India-West.
  64. ↑ "Hindus urge California state board to reject textbooks due to negative images". EdSource. Retrieved 2018-08-11.
  65. ↑ "Debate Erupts in California Over Curriculum on India's History". Retrieved 2018-08-11.

Bibliography

  • Bose, Purnima (2008), "Hindutva Abroad: The California Textbook Controversy" (PDF), The Global South, 2 (1): 11–34, JSTOR 40339280
  • Jaffrelot, Christophe (2007), "The Diaspora and Hindu Nationalism", Hindu Nationalism – A Reader, Princeton University Press, pp. 361–369, ISBN 0-691-13097-3
  • Kurien, Prema (2007), A Place at the Multicultural Table: The Development of an American Hinduism, Rutgers University Press, pp. 204–206, ISBN 978-0-8135-4161-7
  • LaSpina, James Andrew (2007), "A Clash of Chariots: The Hindu American Challenge to California's 6th Grade World History Textbooks", Social Studies Review, 47 (1): 46–49, ISSN 1056-6325
  • Padmanabhan, Sudarsan (2006), "Debate on Indian History: Revising Textbooks in California", Economic and Political Weekly, 41 (18): 1761–1763, JSTOR 4418171
Primary sources
  • Edits and Corrections List (PDF), State Board of Education, California, 2006
  • Standards for evaluating instructional materials for social content (California Department of Education; for Religion : Code 60044)
  • The changes approved by the Ad Hoc committee Sept.28-Oct. 30
  • "Review of criticism of Hindu edits by CRP (Dr.s Witzel, Heitzman, Wolpert), Nov. 2005" (PDF). Hindu Education Foundation. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 6, 2006.
  • "List of Proposed Edits To California 6th Grade Ancient History Texts with Recommendations of the CRP (Dr.s Witzel, Heitzman, Wolpert)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 11, 2006.
  • "Decisions of the Curriculum Commission, since rescinded". December 2, 2005. Archived from the original on September 28, 2006.
  • Final edits as proposed by the Dept. of Education and accepted by the sub-Committee, Board of Education, February 27, 2006
  • Vedic Foundation (VF) website
  • Hindu Education Foundation (HEF) website
  • California Parents for Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM)
  • California textbook controversy Links to some articles representing the debate, by Pluralism Project, Harvard Univ.
  • South Asian Faculty Network, USA
  • Friends of South Asia

Media coverage in the United States

  • Baldauf, Scott. "India history spat hits US". Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on July 3, 2006.
  • New Battleground In Textbook Wars: Religion in History The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 25.2006 (Front Page article) By Daniel Golden
  • Krieger, Lisa M. (February 18, 2006). "Scholars, faithful debate textbooks' portrayal of Hinduism. State to hear opinions on proposed changes". Archived from the original on February 23, 2006.
  • Textbook edits upset area Hindus. Local group threatens lawsuit against state if education board approves proposed changes by Jonathan Jones, February 26, 2006
  • Groups seeking textbook revisions: Lessons on life in ancient India stir education hearing by Charles Burress
  • After Letter, Prof. Gets Hate E-mail. Harvard Crimson – Cambridge, MA, USA, by Lulu Zhou
  • Board of Education rejects controversial edits of textbooks. Hindu groups push for changes to representation of Indian history by Sawsan Morrar
  • Krieger, Lisa M. (March 9, 2006). "Vote on textbooks upsets some Hindus. Changes they sought rejected by board". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on July 12, 2006.
  • Hindu groups lose fight to change textbooks. But decision by state Board of Education is supported by some Hindu Americans San Francisco Chronicle, by Charles Burress] Chronicle, March 10, 2006
  • Hindu group's motion to block texts denied. Judge's decision clears way for publication of sixth-grade history books By Jonathan Jones April 26, 2006

Coverage by the Indian-American Press

Media coverage in India

  • Now, Indian history textbooks raise a storm in California Times of India January 17, 2006
  • Endemic discrimination against Hindus Rajeev Srinivasan
  • Diaspora depressed over deception Organiser
  • International Re-written history raises intellectual temper in California Outlook Mag.
  • S. Gurumurthy. "Yes, 'secular' US seems kinder to Hindus than 'secular' India". Newindpress. Archived from the original on September 29, 2007.
  • 'A Victory For Community Organizations', Outlook, 28 February 2006.
  • US rejects 'Hindutva lessons' Times of India. By Percy Fernandez, March 20, 2006
  • Hindu organisation flays US court's decision on textbooks Rediff.com
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.