Home
FOSA/CAC Position
Letters
of Support
Textbook Edits
Action
Alerts
Press Coverage
IN DEPTH:
|
Court Transcript Exposes HAF’s Fraudulent Press Releases
Oakland,
California, Apr 30, 2006:
A recently-released transcript from the Superior Court of California
reveals that the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) and its allies have
misled the media and public about the proceedings during the court
hearing on April 21, 2006. At that hearing, the Superior Court of
California in Sacramento denied the Hindu American Foundation (HAF)'s
demand for a preliminary injunction against the publication of new
sixth-grade textbooks.
Yet in its press release dated April 24, 2006, the HAF claimed: "Judge
Patrick Marlette stated that he was “troubled” by process
followed by the SBE in adopting sixth grade social studies textbooks
… “We are pleased that Judge Marlette agrees that the
procedure followed thus far by the SBE in relation to Hindus is
problematic,” said Suhag Shukla, Esq., legal counsel of HAF."
In a press release two days later (April 26, 2006), the HAF re-asserted: “[The HAF legal team is] pleased
that the judge suggested the process followed by the SBE to be
problematic,” said Ishani Chowdhury, Executive Director of HAF
… Judge Marlette twice indicated that he was "troubled" by the
process used to approve these texts.
However, the court reporter’s transcript of the ruling clearly
contradicts the HAF’s claims. According to the transcript, the
Judge ruled that ”The burden of
proof is on the Petitioners, and based on what has been presented, I
cannot find – I am not convinced that Petitioner has carried
their burden to show the likelihood that they would succeed on the
merits, particularly on this issue of the content.” In
spite of the Judge’s failure to find merits at this preliminary
phase, the HAF noted in its April 26, 2006 press release: “Some
accounts report that the judge rejected HAF's claims ‘on the
merits,’ when the judge never decided such a thing,” said
Suhag Shukla, Esq., legal counsel of HAF.”
Resolve before school year?
In its April 24, 2006 press release, the HAF also claimed: “Judge
Marlette requested that the Hindu groups and the SBE confer to, among
other things, provide a schedule to resolve this case before the
textbooks in question are distributed this fall. For that reason, Judge
Marlette denied the injunction in favor of a schedule that will bring
this case to a resolution before the school year.”
According to the hearing transcript, however, it was the HAF attorney
Ms. Caplan who brought up this issue by asking: “You
(sic) Honor, are you encouraging the parties to try to resolve this
… before the text is printed for the school year?” To
which the Judge replied: “If that can be resolved, then I think
everybody’s interests are going to be served.”
FOSA calls for the HAF to retract its fraudulent press releases and
apologize to the community for its gross misrepresentations of the
proceedings of April 21. We believe that the Hindu American Community
deserves better than to be served by organizations whose ideological
zeal blinds them to the distinction between fact and fiction. If, as it
claims, the HAF really cares about Hindus, particularly Hindus in the
United States, it must then abrogate all ties with the anti-minority,
anti-dalit, and anti-women Hindu supremacist groups in the U.S. as well
as those in India, and work to heal the hurt it has caused to the
community through its attempts to distort and delay textbooks for
California school children.
FOSA decries the HAF’s attempts to manipulate public opinion and
believes that the HAF owes an explanation to the community of
Journalists for its dishonest press releases. FOSA calls upon the
Indo-American Press to investigate this issue further and demand
accountability from the HAF, the HEF and the VF.
FOSA also cautions the community at large to beware of the HAF’s
attempts to raise money for a suit that has been judged to be lacking
in merit by the California Superior court. Indeed, the HAF’s
latest fabrications must be understood in the context of the numerous
setbacks suffered by the Hindutva forces in their attempts to doctor
California state textbooks. As the court’s transcripts make it
clear, the Judge did not
urge any settlement between the two parties- yet, we are convinced that
the HAF will attempt to enter into a compromise or a settlement with
the SBE in order to salvage a minimal amount of credibility, without
which the HAF and HEF’s similar future interventions stand to be
defeated.
|
