Full report of Meeting with CA school Board
An Account of the meeting at Sacramento called by SBE on 27th February 2006
I . PRELUDE TO FEBRUARY 27 METTING AT SBE OFFICE, SACRAMENTOThe SBE put up an agenda and their proposed list of corrections to the textbooks at their website on 13 February 2006. The agenda did not have any schedule, so the participants were not aware how much time would be allocated to Public hearings etc.
The list of proposed recommendations from SBE reflect their incompetence in understanding matters related to ancient India or ancient Hinduism, as well as their total lack of concern for either the students or the publishers. The recommendations are in many cases mutually contradictory (and irreconciliable) which would make it impossible for publishers to adopt the 'confroming edits' rules according to which if a change is proposed to one textbook, all the other textbooks will have to harmonize their own text with that change. But if the proposed changes themselves are mutually contradictory, what can the publishers do? Perhaps they will just do whatever suits them. Here are examples of the SBE member's incompetence (as well as those in FOSA/ CAC/ IER who are praising them):
Eg. 1
HEF edit 15 (page 93) : Here the SBE/CDE removes the sentence: "
It (Hinduism) began with the religion of Aryans who came to India in 2500 BC." From the McGraw Hill/Glencoe textbook.
HEF edit 48 (page 102): Here SBE/CDE inserts "
Hinduism began with the religion of Aryans" into the MacMillan/McGraw-Hill textbook.
Eg. 2
HEF edit 17 (page 94): Here the CDE/SBE suggestion retains the sentence that "
They [The Aryans] created a new social system"
HEF edit 14 (page 93): Here the CDE/SBE suggestion removes the sentence "
The Aryans created the caste system" with "
a new social system evolved.."
Eg 3
HEF edit 80 (page 109) : Here the SBE/CDE recommendation is to retain the sentence "
Once their society had merged with the local population; a late hymn of the Rig Veda described the four castes."
HEF edit 84 (pages 109-110) ? Here the SBE/CDE recommendation removes the sentence completely.
[Note that here the SBE has given conflicting recommendations for the SAME sentence for the SAME book!]
Eg 4
HEF edit 90 (page 111) : CDE/SBE changes to the sentence : "
In the second millennium BCE, invaders called Aryans came to northern India."
VF edit 38 (page 120) : SBE/CDE replace `conquered' in the original text with the sentence "In the second millennium BCE, people called Aryans migrated into northern India."
Eg. 5
VF edit 45 (page 121) : CDE/SBE retains the sentence "
Later Vedism is often called Brahmanism".
HEF edit 25 (page 96) : SBE/CDE recommends "
Drop all reference to a religion called Brahmanism". In HEF edit 63 (page 105) also, CDE/SBE drops the reference to `Brahmanism'. In HEF edit 74 (pages 107-108) also, SBE/CDE drop references to `Brahmanism'
There are at least a dozen more such examples.In short, this decision shows:
- The lack of academic competence of the bureaucrats serving the SBE in understanding Indian history and Hinduism.
- Their lack of commitment to academic accuracy (and accompanying lack of concern for children)
- Their lack of concern for publishers who will find it impossible to implement the 'conforming edits' rule which mandates that all textbooks should teach the same things. Since the recommendations of the SBE itself are so mutually conflicting, the publishers will how basically decide whatever they want to do.
In short, the Board meeting was a victory for bureaucratic incompetence and politicization of history. It was a victory for institutionalized prejudice in a progressive state like California.
Initially, Witzel's intervention had caused the Board to reject a majority of the Hindu edits. But the final document accepts all but 17 or so edits that are crucial from a Hindu perspective), with the remaining edits being either accepted in a changed (but acceptable) form or inconsequential. In short, even despite the efforts of Hindu haters who would want Hinduism to be portrayed with less sympathy and empathy vis a vis other religions, a large majority of the Hindu edits have actually been accepted as such or in an acceptably changed form.
II. PENDING EDITS:The important point to note is that in early November 2005, the CDE had decided to meet again to discuss 'pending' Hindu edits (amounting to 70% of submissions by Hindu American groups) because in their first meeting they ran out of time while discussing the edits of other religions. However, the second meeting never happened, which itself shows how prejudiced the process of the CDE was, because they considered the edits of other religions in toto but give lesser importance to Hinduism related edits.
III. MEETING TURNOUT:The expected turnout for the SBE meeting was approximately 200 persons members of the public, primarily representing HAF, HEF, VF, CAC, FOSA, FETNA. According to a rough count based on who was talking to whom, who spoke and who was sporting organization badges, the estimated break up was as follows: 100-110 people supporting Hindu edits. Then there were about 20 officials and staff/security, 10 media persons (Argus, SacBee, SF Chronicle, SJMN, NDTV etc). 50-60 supporters of FOSA/CAC/FETNA. There could be 10-15 people whose affiliation was not known.
The meeting was throughout lead by Dr Ruth Green, immediate past president of the State Board of Education for California.
The meeting started a few minutes later than the scheduled time of 10 AM.Since the room with the Board officials was too small, the additional persons (a majority of them) were sent to 2 overflow areas where they could watch the proceedings from monitors placed their.
[Now in his characteristic papparazzi National Enquirer reporting stule, Witzel argues that the faces of Hindus in the audience were glum. Wonder how he could conclude this. Members of the audience were seated in parallel rows one behind the other, and they could not see each other to an great extent, much less even know who belonged to which camp. And all the more because they were in different rooms. So someone had to walk back and forth to the front of all the rooms to see all the faces (and of course know who belonged to which camp) to know who was glum and who was not! In conclusion, Witzel has characterically bluffed, a habit we see in his academic writings too sometimes]
IV STARTING SPEECHES BY RUTH GREEN AND TOM ADAMS:Ruth Green and Tom Adams read a long santized report on how they have dealt with these edits, whitewashing his own questionable role in the whole matter related to Hindu edits. He stated clearly that it was the letter from Witzel and other people that motivated SBE to recommend CC to look at Hindu edits again from the perspective of accuracy. He emphasized that edits are meant to correct only easily verifiable errors of accuracy and sensitivity, and not necessarily those that involve interpretations of history.
Subsequently, the CC meeting overturned most of CDE recommendations during their December 02 meeting and it was felt that that their decisions were academically unsound.
Tom Adams did not mention anything about the January 06 meeting called by SBE with Dr Bajpai and Dr Witzel. He also referred to the former as ad Hoc and the latter as CRP whereas in earlier communications, the former was also referred to as CRP.
Then, it was mentioned that on January 12, Ruth Green announced the appointment of a 5 member sub-committee (who occuppied the podium in this meeting on 27 Feb) to decide if CC decisions were academically sound or not. The sub-committee then put out a document of their recommendations on the internet (on Feb 13). Ruth or Tom never elaborated on how this document was arrived at, which is rather sinister especially because they also did not mention the January 6 meeting).
Ruth then said that representatives of FOSA, HAF, HEF, VF, and Groups representing Islam, Jews etc can come and speak for 2 minutes each. Shalini Gera of the Hindu hating group CAC interrupted and said that she had sent in a joint fax with FOSA and should be allowed separate time for them but Ruth disallowed her on the grounds that only the listed groups had interacted with SBE for a long time and only they could speak.Ruth emphasized that the public comment will end at 1:30 PM. As a result of this, dozens of Hindus who had come from Southern California driving 400 miles or more, taking time off work and spending a lot of money and effort on boarding/lodging overnight, were unable to present their testimony.
Ruth also mentioned that they had received 1500 pages of testimony since putting the document on the Internet and asked the members of the subcommittee if they were overwhelmed. Their responses indicated that they had probaly not read it, although one member of the subcommitee remarked that given the diversity of opinion on this matter, it is apparent that several textbooks will have to be written to cover all the views.
V. INVITED SPEAKERS FROM VARIOUS ORGS: Communist Organization FOSA speaker Rama Bhupathi focussed on the fact that HEF/VF edits 'whitewash' untouchability and erase their history etc.
HAF speaker (external legal counsel) elaborated how the very process of SBE was questionable now especially since they have now acknowledged themselves that it was the Witzel letter that made them adopt the route they took to reject Hindu edits. Internal legal counsel of HAF namely Suhag Shukla could not speak because they ran out of time.
HEF speaker Sunil Errabali stated how the textbooks discriminate against Hinduism by giving a grotesquely negative caricature of our faith and objected to the manner in which biased academics were allowed to have the final say on Hinduism. Khanderao Kand highlighted the sinister manner in which the OUP book, which was first rejected the board, was adopted subsequently by some backdoor politicking by the publisher, as a result of which it is still unclear as to what that textbook will actually say. It should be noted that this textbook has the maximum number of factual errors, and frivolous/insensitive remarks against Hindus (although Glencoe book has the most dominantly negative text).
VF speaker Janeshvari Devi highlighted the gross discrimination faced at the hands of SBE by Hindus especially on how the pending edits were dismissed by them even though they were submitted on time. She also spoke on how the textbooks depicted Hinduism selectively in a very insensitive manner, and that the recommendations of the SBE posted now on the web are very inconsistent and mutually contradictory. Also she said that if the Board is unwilling to consider Hindu edits in a scholarly and sensitive manner, then VF will approach practicing Hindu scholars to give their own opinion on these edits.She highlighted the fact that the support for VF-HEF efforts was very broad based and she had written letters of support from Frank Pallone (leader of India Caucus), Kumar Barwe (leader of Majority group in MD), and numerous CEO's and mainstream Indian American organizations. By implication, the CAC/FOSA groups were sectarian and politically motivated. She gave examples of how these textbooks discriminated against Hindus. Janeshwari Devi had come with a video camera to tape the entire proceedings but her instrument was stolen right before the meeting started!
Shabir Mansuri from Islamic textbook council did not show up. (He did not have to, since FOSA was there!)
The Jewish representative argued that the words 'Chosen People' should be removed because they create ill-will between Jews and non-Jews.
*********
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: General information.Around 10:45, public comments restricted to 1 minute each were invited. They lasted till 12 AM. Since most speakers overshot the alloted 1 minute, and there were interludes, it is reasonable to assume that within the 75 minutes, no more than 50 persons spoke. CAC/FOSA organized people had largely faxed their names beforehand and therefore in this first session, they had perhaps 60% of the speakers.There was considerable clapping whenever an HEF/VF spoke.
There was lunch break from 12-12:45, and the second session lasted for 60 minutes. In this session, the speeches were more timed and there were perhaps 55 speakers of whom as many as 80% spoke in favor of VF/HEF. As a result, Vasudha Dalmia and many other Hindu hating comrades seemed quite discomfited - she actually left.
VII. SPEAKERS FAVORING HEF/VF EDITSOverall, approximately 65% speakers favored HEF/VF. Since they had not pre-faxed their names, a lot of others (almost 30) who had come in support of Hindu edits did not get a chance to speaker, otherwise the percentage would have been higher. There were at least 25 speakers who did not have anything to do with the two organizations but supported their edits. A rough count indicated that at least 100- 110 people who showed up were supporters of the Hindu edits.
The highlight of the pro-HEF/VF side was the very touching testimony by almost 10 children ranging from Grade VI to High School, who showed up and narrated instances of how they fell slighted and humiliated when they studied Hinduism. At the beginning of the speech, some Hindus were seen telling the security personal of the presence of violent communists and Islamists in the room due to which they felt insecure about the security of their children. Perhaps as a result of this, more security personnel were called in to man the premises. A Dalit (Rama Bhupathi?) who saw the children in the beginning remarked that unlike Hindus, they did not 'use our children for propaganda!'. The remark was made with a smirk and the evidently was made in very bad taste.
A sixth grader named Damini Trehan flew in specially from the Orange County and narrated that she had just completed her chapter on Hinduism and India. She felt that whereas Buddhism was presented very clearly, Hinduism account was very negative and confusing, and it seemed to be all about caste. She felt that it appeared that Hindus are influenced by everyone else but it is as if they cannot contribute anything to others. She asked that if the chapter on China can focus so much on their contributions, then why should the chapter on India say so little on her contributions to humanity. She also thought that her classmates made fun of Hindu deities after they read the chapter.
Abhijit, now a freshman in a CA university, stated how he was unable to recognize his own religion when he studied his textbooks, which focussed on stereotypes such as caste, cow, Sati, polytheism etc. Considering what he went through himself, he felt compelled to support the HEF/VF edits.
A sixth grade White Christian boy spoke most eloquently in support of his Hindu classmates, and pleaded for ending discrimination against Hinduism. He said, "I will be hurt if my Christian faith is ridiculed. You take care that it is not. Why then are we ridiculing a religion that gave the world yoga, tolerance, pluralism, mathematics; Do everything that you must so I can tell my Hindu friends that we Americans are also as civilized as you Hindus have been. We too are sensitive." The auditorium erupted into an applause as he finished his 58 second speech.
Bhaavika Patel, a 10th-grader at Monta Vista High School in Cupertino, said: that Hindu kids are embarrassed about their religion, afraid to show their pride because their classmates make fun of them. She asked how many California students know that there is more to Hinduism than just the caste system?'We only hear of the negatives, and that makes us feel inferior.
Another student from Milipitas high school (or middle school?) made a very eloquent speech on how she had to constantly defend her Hindu identity in view of the negative descriptions of her Hindu heritage in textbooks. She said that many Hindu students actually would hide their identity rather than defend it continuously and keep feeling embarassed.
Another High School student from Palo Alto spoke in favor of the edits saying that she felt humiliated as a sixth and seventh grade student earlier.
Overall, some 8 teenagers spoke in favor of Hindu edits. There were two who spoke against, but would perhaps fall in Witzel's category of 'Hina' (which he selectively translates as 'lost' and 'abandoned') which they perhaps would not mind as an appellation for themselves.
Gautam Desai (?) wondered why people were forgetting the fact that these textbooks were meant for sixth grade 11 year old school children and not for University graduate students. He said that sixth grade is not the place to discuss negative and contentious issues and that sixth graders need to be taught material that instils in them pride and self-confidence about who they are. He opposed back=projecting modern politics and evils into Ancient Indian history.
Another speaker said that according to CA code of Education, section 60040(a) and 60044, while describing men and women in history, the achievements of both sexes should be described equally. Children should not be indoctrinated so that they loose faith in their own religion. But the Glencoe textbook only says that "men had many more rights than women. Unless there were no sons in a family, only a man could inherit property. Only men could go to school or become priests..if a couple did not have children, the man could marry a second wife. One custom shows how lives of Indian men were more important than the lives of Indian women. When a man from a prominent family died, his wife was expected to leap into the flames. This practice was called suttee. If the wife resisted and did not kill herself, it was a great shame. Everyone would avoid the woman from then on." HE challenged the board members to produce such a hate-filled, negative and incorrect paragraph on the role of women in chapters on any other religion in Glencoe or any other textbooks.
Another speaker argued that FOSA et al were back-projecting today's evils into ancient Hinduism. He asked if Christianity should be taught as a child molester religion because many Catholic priests have abused children, or if Islam should be taught as a terrorists' religion because many most terrorist activities today are carried out by Muslims. If not, then why is it that Hinduism is being characterized in these textbooks solely by negative markers.
Suhag Shukla stated that there was a marked disparity in how the textbooks portrayed Hinduism vis a vis how they portrayed other religions. It was therefore only proper that the obsessively negative focus in these textbooks should be removed, and intervention of biased academicians must not be allowed.
Karthik Venkat argued that the textbooks present a onesided view of the caste system. He gave a long list of facts how the most powerful ruling houses had origins in communities now called untouchables, how they produced the most famous saints and sages of Hinduism, authored many of the religions sacred texts. He said that if the Dalits truly wanted their children to be empowered, than the textbooks should highlight their glowing heritage, instead of focussing solely on negatives.
Erik (or Eric?), a school teacher from Fremont argued that he had many Asian students in his class and he felt that their faith should be depicted with the same empathy and respect as that of other children, and therefore he supported HEF and VF.
Madhulika Singh made an eloquent speech citing passages from several textbooks for grades VI and VII showing how the inferior status of women is depicted as 'different roles' for Islam whereas there is almost a tirade against Hindus in the same textbooks. She argued that this will make Hindu American students feel embarassed.
Another white American gentleman, presumably Madhulika Singh's husband, wondered why there is so much rancor and dispute about the edits related to Hinduism when all of the other religions' edits have been accepted. He said that the heritage of Hindu children have a right to be treated with the same respect and empathy in these school textbooks as other children are.
Rajesh read out some passages from Steve Farmer's PhD thesis which indicated that he was a Bible Thumper or at least quoted medieval scholiasts such as Pico as if they were his own views. He had a copy of the thesis checked out from the Stanford Library.
Vishal Agarwal pointed out that the the allegation that VF/HEF edits whitewashed untouchability in textbooks was a blatant lie because all these edits put together affected only 20% of so of the text related to untouchability in all these textbooks, and at least half of these edits had also been accepted by Witzel. He stated that despite the pre-whetting of textbooks for santization by Christian, Islamic and Jewish groups, these communities sent in hundreds of edits of which practically 98% were accepted. On the other hand, the Board did not consider 70% of the edits, dismissed 15% of them completely (or accepted them in a mutilated form) and only 15% were accepted. Further, he cited quotations from Holt and Glencoe textbooks on how the treatment of women was glossed over for Abrahamic religions but focussed on negatively for Hinduism. Is this not discrimination, he asked?
Dr Vaishnav of Stanford stated that he is a biogeneticist who has researched in this field for more than two decades, and can make a professional opinion on whether any significant Aryan invasion and migration occurred or not. He insisted that his scholarly opinion based on the latest data ruled out any such Aryan invasion or migration around 1500 BCE and that this is no more than a racist fantasy.
Gaurang Desai pointed out that FOSA had links with the Communist Party of India, FETNA has been demonstrated in the past to have had links with LTTE which is a terrorist organization. Likewise, many other groups and parties opposing Hindu edits had violent and militant links. He asked if SBE wanted such shady characters to decide on what school children should be taught.
One gentleman read a verse from the Gita that said that all human beings of all genders and caste were entitled to salvation by worshipping God, and he used it to drive home the point that the objections against Hindus by the 'Dalit' speakers were false.
A gentleman named Piyush, whose speech drew a lot of applause, stated that he belonged to lowest of Hindu castes, and his father worked as a sweeper in a Hindu temple. But he was a proud Hindu and recalled with fondness the close association of the temple priest with his father, and how the latter played a very important role in Hindu religious activities in his areas. He argued that the reality is more complex and Dalits actually play a very important role in Hindu religion whereas the textbooks focus obsessively on just the negative side.
A Hindu mother narrated how her daughter, after studying the chapter on Hinduism, came home and wept inconsolably because she thought that her mother would have to burn herself on the pyre and become a Sati when her father died, leaving no one to fend for herself. Her mother narrated that it took her a lot of effort to tell her daughter how this practiced mainly picked up during Islamic invasions of India and was defunct now. She narrated that this focus on a marginal and sensationalist practice was not good for well being of Hindu children.
A Mrs Bhare, who is a teacher herself, stated very eloquently how it is impossible to teach about Hinduism from the current textbooks because they give such a grotesque, negative, disjointed view of Hinduism, reducing it to a caricature. She said that when there are several other good books available (she presumably showed a book produced in UK by the Vivekanand Kendra, then why should students have to study such garbage in these textbooks.
Sunil Erraballi of HEF stated that HEF was withdrawing its objections to the use of the term 'Dalit' from Prentice Hall textbook if people felt so strongly about it. He urged people to move on rather than focussing on just one matter. Coincidentally, or due to it, there were no more Dalit protests after this.
A Hindu Swayamsevak representative said that he represented 3000 Hindu families in the Bay Area and therefore represented the largest contingent of Hindus and he supported HEF/VF edits. Likewise, a leader of the Balgokulam project also came forward with his support for Hindu edits, and so did two leaders of the Sanskrit Bharati organization. One member started addressing the Board members in Sanskrit and switched midstream to English, asking them if it is appropriate to hire him to decide on Hindu edits just because he knew Sanskrit. He wondered why the Board hired a prejudiced Sanskritist to decide matters on ancient Indian history and Hinduism, and whether they would hire a Latin scholar to decide matters related to Christianity in these textbooks.
Another speaker emphasized that some people want the word Dalit in textbooks. But standard scholarly literature on this, says that untouchability was very rare in ancient India . There is no pan- Indian identity called Dalit, that it is a word used mostly by ideologues and activists . The word Dalit was first used as a proper noun to denote the untouchable community as recently as 1970's. Most members of the community still do not use it to refer to themselves, and it is a very politically loaded word with militant overtones. Most of these Dalit activists do not represent the vast majority of Hindu untouchables , and many such movements actually have non Hindu roots. The word is merely a politically correct, but a very inaccurate term.
A Hindu priest came from southern California and argued that Hindus believe only in one God, and he can be worshipped in many forms. Therefore, he supported the VF-HEF edits that remove plural words for Hindu notion of God.
An additional 10 or so parents came forward and narrated how their children felt slighted by the negative descriptions of Hinduism in school textbooks. They argued that the textbooks should present Hinduism in a more positive manner.
Another speaker highlighted the fact that the Aryan invasion and migration theories are racist through and through and had no evidence from archaeology, geology, genetics and any other scientific field. He said that it was offensive to use such discredited theories to explain the origins of Hinduism.
Towards the end, Ruth Green said that she was running out of time. Supporters of Hindu edits protested very loudly and said that many of them had driven hundreds of miles in large groups and it was very ruthless that they were not being given a chance to speak. Ruth then allowed one member to represent a contingent of 15 young Hindus who had come fron Thousand Oaks in the LA County. He stated very forcefully that the textbooks that were proposed by the Board were very negative, incorrect and factually biased when it came to Hinduism and it is a pity that the Board was willing to go along with what a racist professor from Harvard had to say on this matter.
VIII. COMMENTS OPPOSED TO HEF/VF EDITS:In general, none of the speakers who opposed the edits of HEF/VF said anything to highlight the fact that the textbooks do in fact show a marked disparity between how Hinduism is presented vis a vis how other religions are presented. Their sole focus was to attack Hindu edits. This group included several communists, American Christian and Jewish professors, Sikhs, 2 Muslims, and some Dalits of unknown religious affiliations. About 7-8 people did identify themselves as Hindus. About 5 of these said that they did have school going children. 3 said that they are themselves are products of CA high school education. One was a student in a school and he spoke against these edits - it appeared he was half Indian and half white. Some of these people also said that the HEF/VF edits and the textbooks suppressed the voices of untouchable histories and presented a very upper caste perspective.
The first sepaker were James Heitzman (Witzel CRP member) who said that the latest Board document was acceptable because it reflected a diversity of opinion.(It appears that for people like him, academics is a game of politics, to be decided more by compromise rather than concern for children or historical accuracy).
Vasudha Dalmia repeated the typical Marxist trope that 'Hinduism is very diverse', 'group of traditions now subsumed under the title Hinduism', 'HEF edits etc present monolithic picture of Hinduism' etc., due to her being a student of Romila Thapar. Someone in the audience remarked that petro-dollars were at work here, which apparently offended her so much that she was found repeating this remark to others during the lunch break. Of course, Dalmia forgot that these books were for sixth graders and not for graduate students. She was seen reading the Siliconeer piece of yellow journalism and must have found it very scholarly. She was seen gesticulating angrily to a young Hindu and seemed to threaten him that she will inform the security to have him evicted.
A Muslim professor sitting next to her from Berkeley went on and on with the theory that there was no Hindu and no Muslim before the British came, and but then unexpectedly made a negative sentence against HEF/VF edits. Wonder why he was silent about Muslim edits which whitewash their negative aspects.
Robert Goldman from UC Berkeley denounced the AIT as a racist theory most of the time but towards the end said that the sum-total of the evidence made AMT a plausible theory. It was unclear whom he was talking in favor of but to an outside observer it would appear that he was favoring HEF/VF (which was of course not his intention).
Prof Stephanie Jamison, an ex colleague of Witzel at Harvard (who denied her tenure at Harvard due to Witzel, per the grapevine) now works at UCLA.One of her students read out her testimony that in her 25 years of research on Vedic texts, she had concluded that the lot of women was no better in Vedic times than in post Vedic times. She referred to un-named publications (presumably books like 'sacrificer's wife, sacrificed wife', which are like Catherine Mayo's gutter inspector reports).
Steve Farmer was most unimpressive. He of course presented himself as an 'associate' of Michael Witzel (the correct word would be assistant). He flapped his arms wildly in the most unsophisticated manner, and likewise spoke quite flippantly that if we consider genetic evidence then the British, Shakas etc also never invaded India. He said that the British were the greatest enemies of 'Hindutva' people. Wonder where this quickie Indologist learned this fact!
In general, the non-descript professors and lecturers who showed up thought that they were addressing a crowd of students and went on and on before their minute was up and they had not made half their point. This makes one concerned about the standard of scholarship and intelligence in departments of anthropology, social studies, gender studies etc etc. In contrast, teachers of science etc., seemed soundly in favor of Hindu edits.
FETNA representative argued that the textbooks present a very Brahmanical and Vedic-Aryan version of history and that HEF-VF edits reinforce this. He said that he has submitted additional edits to the Board to rectify this situation.He argued that he represented the Tamil community whose heritage is not represented in these textbooks.
Anu Mandavili (Grad student at UCLA), Shalini Gera and her husband Girish Agarwal, Raju Rajagopal and other Hindu hating communists said pretty much the same thing, focussing on defaming HEF/VF, and calling Hindu parents as mass murders just as in Nazi Germany it was sufficient to call someone a Jew and then pack him or her off to the gas chambers. These and 1-2 other people said that HEF/VF were playing a minority card in the USA when they themselves wanted to suppress minorities in India! There was a lot of bitterness, destructiveness and hatred in their speeches which matches their overall activities in real life. Subsequently, after the meeting was over, Someone brought in Babri Masjid, while another person made similar irrelevant remarks devoid of any intellectual content. Gera was heard telling a reporter (of Argus?) in a propagandist vein that 'academics has won over Hindutva' but the reporter did not include such silly remarks in his news report.
Dr Lawrence Cohen from UC Berkeley said a largely neutral statement arguing that religion should be treated with sensitivity, but made a negative comment or two in supposed slant in HEF/VF edits.
Sunaina Maira, Associate Prof of Anthropology at UC Davis who wrote an article full of blatant lies (indicating her penchant to be economical with honesty) made the typical defamatory remarks- nothing original, enlightening or intellectual in her comments.
There were perhaps 3-4 other academics whose remarks indicated one thing very clear, that they were for retention of completely negative descriptions of Hinduism in these sixth grade textbooks in the name of historical accuracy but were silent about the rosy picture of Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Judaism in these same textbooks. This convinces me that these academics are Hinduphobic and if one is Indian, then you have to be a gungadin to survive.
Anu Mandavili tried to speak twice under the pretext that she was merely trying to speak for a friend who had to avoid coming to the venue because her child was sick. However, the crowd hooted her so strongly that even Ruth Green disallowed her.
A grad student of archaeology at Berkeley with a very funny moustache and wearing a dhoti-kurta came in and said that there is no evidence of Sarasvati river. His speech perhaps evoked the maximum hooting and derision and even the sub-commitee members could not help laughing. The student was obviously frustrated because when he tooh his seat, a few seats away from me, he used the four letter 'f' word for the audience.
There were 2-3 Hindu women who said that Hinduism oppressed women and for this reason the negative descriptions should stay their.
The biggest anti-HEF/VF contingent was that of people who claimed to be Dalits. About 3-4 said that they were representing the Gharib Das group, 4 or so represented a local Gurudwara. (It should be noted that Sacramento and its vicinity including the Yuba city has a very strong community of Khalistani Sikhs). There were perhaps 6-8 others, making perhaps 15 overall. They were very forthright in their attack against Hindus, but the leitmotif of their speeches was that they have been suppressed in modern times and therefore the textbooks should reflect that. One person quoted Tulsidas sundarkanda, another claimed that the Vedas themselves promoted untouchability. One person said that his community members were forced by upper castes to indulge in professions such as toilet cleaning. Another person said he was a chuuda, chamaar, bhangi....and all the other terms used for their community and went on a tirade against Hinduism. He went on and one beyond 1 minute although Ruth Green repeatedly told him to leave the podium. Another one of them claimed that if we take out caste out of Hinduism, nothing remains! A significant feature of this group was that most of them (or practically all of them with 1 or 2 exceptions) were elderly or middle aged persons. There was a good chunk of them from Punjab. On the contrary, a very significant proportion of the HEF/VF supporters were young. Clearly, the children of these self-professed Dalits do not want to take on this label and want to attach themselves to the larger casteless Hindu American community. On various Dalit lists, an elderly Dalit even remarked sadly that his child wanted to celebrate Diwali. One of them said that to see what untouchability was, we should visit India. Some of these speakers spoke very pathetically and with a vendetta against Hindus in a very hateful manner, playing a very destructive role.
A Muslim speaker remarked that HEF/VF wanted to project Islam and other non-Hindu faiths as foreign by rejecting AIT (typical argument propagated by Marxists and then picked up by Muslims. Just as in the past the Taliban picked up arguments that were initially spelt out by Indian communists).
A grad student of anthropology said that the textbooks should reflect both good and bad so that we can fight these evils. There were perhaps 1 or 2 other Grad students (including a Law student from Berkeley) who were second generation who said something to the same effect.
A notable feature of this side was the orchestrated nature of FOSA effort, because many speakers referred to specific edits which the SBE had accepted but which they wanted overturned. Speaker after speaker belonging to FOSA cited specific edits that they wanted overturned. In some instances, Ruth Green was seen taking specific notes.
The impression one got from FOSA/CAC folks were that they were the new White Man's sepoys who had started seeing their own heritage from a colonial viewpoint and wanted to trash it to the best extent possible. Apparently, these people did not feel offended that Witzel used a slur like HINA for American Hindus which shows that they are Hindu haters themselves. It was also cleared that FOSA/CAC was motivated by hate, and their action was purely destructive because they have not done anything to improve the presentation of Hinduism in textbooks in the past, but are now playing a destructive role when someone is trying to do something constructive.
IX. CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING: A little after 1:45 PM, Glee Johnson proposed a motion recommending adoption of the edits with their suggestions as posted on the web on February 13th, and all 5 members voted within a minute to approve the motion.
Unexpectedly, Khanderao Kand rushed to the podium and asked the five officials as to what made them decide on 4 hours of testimony and reams of evidence within a matter of less than a minute. He asked to be explained the basis of their decision, which seemed thoughtless and hasty. One board member mumbled something to the effect that they have taken all views into account in their decision, but there was a clear lack of conviction in what he said.
As the five members then started walking in a file out of the Hall, someone started saying 'shame on you!' and this was followed by a chorus of 'Shame', 'Shame' Shame'! reflecting the disgust of the audience on the extremely cavalier and prejudiced manner in which the Board members had pronounced their edict on a minority religion in the United States. The Board members then huddled in for a closed door meeting.
The mood of the Hindu Americans audience seemed even more determined after the meeting, whereas the Shalini Geras, Mandavilis etc., were seen telling the reporters their cliched propagandist claims 'scholarship has won', when in fact the Board recommendations are anything but scholarly!
It was clear that the meeting was merely an eyewash, and that the Board will rubber stamp on March 8-9 what they have already approved on 27th February. It appears that the Hindu groups would go ahead with their lawsuit.
Labels: Anti-Brahmanism, California Textbook, HAF, Hindu Human Rights, Hindutva
