|
Home |
Introduction Furthermore, we believe the Department of Education has discriminated against the Hindu community at numerous points during the review process. All edits submitted by Muslim and Jewish groups were accepted without question, while many of the corrections submitted by the Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Foundation were dismissed on spurious grounds. Also, while the CDE has respected the authority of Muslim and Jewish religious leaders to direct how Islam and Judaism should be portrayed, it has chosen to disregard the Hindu community and instead consult a small group of Western scholars led by Prof. Michael Witzel of Harvard. While we respect the academic freedom of Prof. Wtizel of his supporters, we feel that their theories do not accurately reflect the beliefs of the Hindu community in the United States and should not be used as a basis for creating a curriculum for public schools. The guidelines for religious education set down by the CDE mandate that the curriculum "Instill in each child a sense of pride in his or her heritage; develop a feeling of self-worth; eradicate the roots of prejudice... and enable all students to become aware and accepting of religious diversity while being allowed to remain secure in any religious beliefs they may already have." The guidelines also state that no religion can be portrayed as an improvement on another religion, and that no religion can be portrayed as inferior to any other religion. As we will show below, the proposed content of the textbooks in question make it impossible for these guidelines to be met. Therefore, the attempt by the CDE to force this content on the Hindu community is not only an insult to Hindus all over America but a violation of the CDE's own standards.
1. Inaccurate Information about Hinduism
In other cases, Hindu beliefs are trivialized or presented in a disrespectful manner. For example, in the "The Ancient South Asian World" by Oxford University Press, it says: More serious instances of bias occur when the books cover controversial topics such as gender and caste. For example, "Ancient Civilization" by Holt says, "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." Many of the books say something similar to this. Of course, it is well-known that there have been and continue to be problems with gender discrimination in India, but to claim that this discrimination is mandated by Hindu philosophy is grossly unfair, and to say that women were not allowed to read the Vedas is truly ludicrous. There are numerous women sages mentioned in the Upanishads, including Lopamudra, Vishwavara, Apala, and Romasha, and some portions of the Rigveda are thought to have been composed by women. It is true that some later texts like the Manusmriti are less favorable towards women, but we feel that in cases like this, when there is a conflict between shruti and smriti, the former should be given more weight. Moreover, even the Manusmriti says that "Where women are worshipped, all activities are successful, and where they not respected, all activities fail" (3:56). At the very least the authors should point out the differing interpretations of Hindu philosophy when it comes to gender, but instead they have chosen to emphasize the most negative interpretation possible. Similar problems occur when the textbooks discuss the caste system. Most of books talk at length about caste discrimination – far more attention is paid to caste than to any other aspect of Hindu society or philosophy. Many books say that according to Hinduism, lower-caste people cannot attain moksha. But in the Gita, Sri Krishna says that anyone can attain moksha (9:32); the Yajurveda (18:48) says the same thing. Moreover, in the Shanti-Parva of the Mahabharata, varna is described as something that is based on one's skills and inclinations, not on one's birth. Furthermore, in the whole of the Rigveda there is only one mantra, #12 in the Purusha-Sukta (10:90), which mentions the four castes; in this mantra, the universe is described metaphorically as a human body, and each of the four varnas as described as separate but equally important parts of the body. Once again, the authors should have at least mentioned the theological discussion about this issue within Hinduism, rather than just choosing the most negative spin possible. As with gender discrimination, it cannot be denied that caste discrimination has taken place in Hindu society, but a study of Hindu sacred texts clearly shows that such discrimination results from a flawed understanding of Hindu philosophy; discrimination based on caste is not advocated anywhere in the Vedas, the Upanishads, or the Gita. Even Mahatma Gandhi himself wrote, "I believe in varnashrama of the Vedas, which in my opinion is based on absolute equality of status notwithstanding passages to the contrary in the smritis and elsewhere." Does anyone seriously believe that Gandhi, of all people, was a bigot who wished to oppress Hairjans? Finally, a major concern of the Hindu community is the fact that many of the books present the Aryan Invasion Theory as an established fact, despite the volume of archaeological, biological, and linguistic evidence that calls this theory into question. In fact, one of Prof. Witzel's colleagues at Harvard, Prof. Edwin Bryant, has written a book called The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture in which he lays out the arguments on both sides; moreover, Prof. Bryant points out that Indian historians whose opinions might differ from the Western viewpoint are often unfairly marginalized by Western scholars. At the very least, in the interests of fairness, the textbooks should present both sides of the debate even-handedly. However, given the guidelines mentioned above, we feel that it should be removed altogether; not only is the theory incompatible with the currently-held beliefs of many Hindus, it has also been used in the past to justify British rule over India and is based on the same racial theories that the Nazis later used to justify the Holocaust. In addition to concerns about the information presented in the textbooks, there are also serious concerns about what the publishers have chosen to leave out. Much space is devoted to talking about the caste system, monkeys, cows, etc, but the most important aspect of Hinduism, the philosophy, is largely ignored, perhaps because the authors simply do not know anything about it. Also, many of the achievements of Hindu civilization in areas such as mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and philosophy are either ignored altogether or given a very cursory treatment.
2. Different Standards for Different Religions? Consider the topic of gender discrimination. When talking about Hinduism, the books say that Hinduism teaches that women are inferior to men. When talking about Islam, however, the books say that Islam preaches equality between men and women, despite vast amounts of evidence from both history and present-day conditions in nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran that some schools of Islamic thought that do not hold this view. Furthermore, the Koran and the Hadiths sometimes contradict themselves on this matter; some verses say that women are equal to men, but others say that a woman's testimony is worth less than a man's in court, or that women do not have equal marital and inheritance rights. So why do the textbooks not say that Islam preaches the inferiority of women, as they do about Hinduism? Why do they not even mention the fact that there is debate about this in the Islamic world? Similarly, consider the subject of jihad. While American Muslims see jihad as an internal spiritual struggle, numerous terrorist attacks by Islamic extremist groups in India, Israel, the United States, and elsewhere indicate that there are Muslims who believe that jihad is a violent struggle. Furthermore, many who have committed violence in the name of jihad throughout history have justified their actions by referring to verses in the Koran and that seem to advocate violence against non-Muslims. However, when the textbooks discuss jihad, they emphasize the spiritual aspect of it, and if they do mention violent jihad at all (and most do not), they state that the violence is based on misinterpretations of the Koran. If the publishers can portray violent jihad as a misinterpretation of the Koran, why do they refuse to accept the fact that caste discrimination is based on a misinterpretation of Hindu scripture? Also, consider the question of the origin of Christianity. Many scholars of Christian history believe that the Biblical account of the life of Jesus is not an accurate historical account; it may have been fabricated by St. Paul, and the Bible may have been further edited at the Council of Nicea (for an excellent summary of the current scholarly debate, see this article in Slate magazine: http://www.slate.com/id/2132974/entry/2132989/). Despite these questions, however, the textbooks portray the Biblical account of Jesus as a historical fact. Why isn't speculation about the origin of Christianity mentioned in these textbooks? Why is the Bible treated as a historical account when Hindu scriptures are treated as myths? Finally, consider the history of Judaism. The Book of Exodus says that when the Jews reached the land of Israel after fleeing from Egypt, they waged war against the people living there so that they could claim the land that God had granted them. But none of the textbooks describe this as a "Jewish Invasion" of Israel. The textbooks also refrain from treating Christianity as an improvement on Judaism, but many of them do treat Buddhism as an improvement of Hinduism. These are just a few simple examples of a larger pattern: when there is a debate about the origins of a religion, or if there are controversial topics in that religion, the textbook authors consistently chose the position that is most harmonious with what American practitioners of that religion believe, or that presents that religion in the best light. Moreover, issues such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, Jihad, etc. are presented as history, not as theology. This is a subtle yet extremely important distinction; by presenting these issues as history, the books avoid the implication that Christianity or Islam teach violence or intolerance, and thus avoid the implication that American Christians or Muslims are violent or intolerant. In the case of Hinduism, however, the books imply (and in some cases state openly) that our religion preaches caste or gender discrimination, which in turn will lead students to believe that American Hindus routinely practice such discrimination.
3. Involvement of Western Academics and Discrimination against the Hindu Community By the CDE At this point, Prof. Witzel and his supporters sent a letter to the CDE asking them disregard the corrections submitted by the VF and HEF. At no point in this letter could we find any reference to the actual corrections requested by the VF and HEF; instead, the letter simply accuses the two groups of being motivated by right-wing political ideologies. Moreover, the authors question the right of the VEF and HEF to suggest corrections to the CDE, claiming that the groups lack academic credentials. Their argument appears to be that no Hindu has a right to comment on his or her own religion unless he or she has a Ph.D in Sanskrit or Archaeology from a Western university, even if he or she can speak Sanskrit and has read the Vedas. Would the authors similarly argue that a rabbi born and raised in Israel who learned Hebrew at a religious school has no authority to comment on Judaism? Considering that the Board of Education accepted every single one of the corrections submitted by Muslim and Jewish community organizations without question, the CDE seems to believe that Jews know best about Judaism and that Muslims know best about Islam. What justification, then, does the CDE have for ignoring the Hindu community and turning to Prof. Witzel and his colleagues? In response to Prof. Witzel's allegations, the CDE decided to delay a final decision and formed a 3-member Content Review Panel to scrutinize the Hindu community's suggestions in more detail. Shockingly, of the three members of this supposedly neutral panel, one was prof. Witzel himself, and another was one of the co-signers of his letter, Prof. Stanley Wolpert. The panel did not contain a single Hindu, much less one who had worked with the VF or HEF. Dr. Bajpai was also excluded. Moreover, the Sate Board of Education did not even make the existence of the CRP public until weeks after it had been formed. In light of these facts, Hindu community turned out in large numbers at a meeting in Sacramento on Dec. 1st to protest the CDE's conduct. As a result of this protest, the CDE again reversed itself and agreed to a new set of corrections that largely matched the result of Dr. Bajpai's initial analysis. However, on January 6 th, a meeting was held in which Dr. Bajpai and Dr. Witzel debated each other about the proposed corrections. The CDE decided that in the event of a disagreement between the two, no changes would be accepted, which effectively gave Prof. Witzel a veto over all of the proposed changes.
Conclusion Despite whatever the VF's and HEF's opponents may believe, this issue has nothing to do with any political movements in India. We are Americans, and our only concern is that Hinduism is taught in American schools with the same level of respect that is shown to every other religion. Right now the community is faced with a situation in which every religion but Hinduism is being presented positively, and in which every community but the Hindu community is being given a chance to influence how their religion is taught in public schools. It is vital that community members come forward to express their concerns to the textbook publishing companies and to the government of the State of California. What we have in California right now is discrimination, plain and simple, and the Hindu community cannot let this grave injustice go un-answered.
|