Home
FOSA/CAC Position
Letters of Support
Textbook Edits
Action
Alerts
Press Coverage
IN DEPTH:
|
Joint Letter to the California State
Board of Education
by
Friends of South Asia, Coalition Against Communalism, EKTA, Federation
of Tamil Sangams of North America (FeTNA), Guru Ravi Dass Gurudwaras
and the Dalit Community of Sacramento, and Ambedkar Center for
Justice and Peace.
Ms. Glee Johnson, President
Mr. Ken Noonan, Ms. Ruth E. Green, Mr. Jonathan Williams, Mr. Joe Nunez
Members of the History-Social Science Committee
State Board of Education
1430 N Street, Suite 5111
Sacramento, California 95814
Mr. Roger Magyar
Executive Director
State Board of Education
Dr. Thomas Adams
Director, Curriculum Framework and Instructional Resources Division
California Department of Education
Subject: February 27th
History-Social Science Committee Meeting (Re: Edits to Ancient Indian
History and Hinduism in Grade 6 Text Books)
Dear Ms. Johnson and Members of the History-Social Science Committee:
We write to you to follow up on our January 5, 2006 letter to the Board
in which we had expressed our serious concerns with the outcome of the
Curriculum Commission’s (CC) meeting of December 2, 2005. At the
January 12, 2006 Board meeting, many of our members outlined specific
objections to the edits recommended by the CC. Since then, numerous
scholars as well as community groups have voiced their opposition to
many of the changes proposed by the Vedic Foundation (VF) and the Hindu
Education Foundation (HEF).
We have reviewed the latest Edits and Corrections List
recommended by SBE/CDE (the staff) for consideration by the committee
at its meeting of February 27, 2006 and would like to offer the
following comments:
1.At the outset, we wish to convey our sincere appreciation to the
Board as well as to the staff for taking the concerns of the mainstream
Indian-American community seriously, both in the matter of eliminating
religious and cultural stereotypes, which should have no place in any
school text book, and in the matter of maintaining historical accuracy.
Specifically, we applaud the deletion of a few offensive passages such
as the ones referred to in HEF edits # 69, 70, 71, 72 - Oxford
University Press. We hope that in the future publishers will exercise
more care and sensitivity in their coverage of Hinduism and the history
of India, and will seek the advice of South Asian scholars and experts
from the area on an ongoing basis.
2.Notwithstanding the above, our detailed review of the books (except
for Oxford University Press, which was not available) indicates that
the publishers appear to have taken great pains to present Ancient
India/Hinduism in a mostly affirmative and interesting manner. We feel
that this point is not being adequately underlined in media reports,
which continue to portray the California textbook issue as a conflict
between insensitive scholars and Hindu children, who risk having their
religious pride harmed. As community groups, and as parents, we feel
that it is important to place on record our view that in light of # 1
above, virtually all of the edits that are currently being debated have
more to do with facts and historical accuracy than with
“community pride,” however that might be defined.
3.We are pleased to note that the Edits and Corrections List recently
posted by the staff has taken note of many of the concerns expressed by
South Asian scholars, Dalits, and other community groups. Upon detailed
review, however, we have lingering
concerns in five areas, which we would like to place before the
Committee for discussion at its February 27th meeting. We provide a description of these concerns below, along with our recommendations and detailed supporting arguments. Please
note that all of our recommendations fall within ambit of discussions
that have already taken place, and we are not suggesting any new text. (Our edit-by-edit comments may be found in the attachment):
a.With
regard to changing the word “caste” to “class”
or “varna” (HEF edits # 52 – Macmillan/McGraw-Hill
and 79, 82, 83, 85, 93 - Prentice Hall): We see considerable
room for confusion by the introduction of an entirely new term
“varna” in some of the staff recommended edits. While we
acknowledge that Varnashrama Dharma is the phrase used in early Hindu
texts in describing the division of society into four categories, we
reject the position taken by some that varna is distinctly and
materially different from caste, and that the varna system “was
based on…capacity to undertake a particular
profession…and was not hereditary” (HEF edit #17 –
Glencoe/McGraw-Hill). In fact, as scriptural references below clearly
demonstrate, “varna” was used synonymously with what we
today call the caste system, and hence linking varna to caste would be much more appropriate than linking varna to class.
(Use of the term “varna (class)” is also highly misleading.
“Class” in American popular usage denotes a space for some
form of mobility through individual effort, where one can aspire to
become middle class, or share social spaces with the middle class.
“Caste,” on the other hand, especially in its everyday
lived practical dimension, is quite different. In fact, if we were to
think of a more appropriate comparison, racial orders more closely
resemble caste: Strong notions of superiority/inferiority, purity and
pollution, strictly (and violently) enforced segregation of community
location, social life, and work, systematic discrimination in social,
cultural and political life, prevalence of institutionalized violence
by racial/caste elites, are just some common features of racial orders
and caste societies.)
We are pleased that the staff has rejected HEF’s position in edit
#17 as well as in edits #80 and 81. However, the words
“class” and/or “varna” are still to be found in
edits # 52, 79, 82, 83, 85 and 93. After looking closely at each of
those edits, we suggest that either
the word “caste” be restored to these edits, or the term
“varna (caste)” be used to minimize confusion in the
pupils’ minds. (See attached edit by edit suggestion.)
We base our argument on the following evidence: According
to scriptures, when the great sages came to Manu and asked him to
expound on the duties of all the varnas, his response (in the Manusmrthi) was an astoundingly detailed manual of caste dos and don’ts
that had nothing whatsoever to do with character or aptitude-based
division of labor (i.e. Gunakharma Vibhaga), which HEF alludes to in
edit #17. Many upper caste defenders of the caste system often resort
to one solitary allusion in the Manusmrthi (slokha 10.65), which says,
“A Shudra can obtain the caste of a Brahmin and a Brahmin may
obtain the caste of a Shudra,” but they often fail to mention
that this is only a continuation of slokha 10.64, which says that
“by creating [marital] relationships with families that are
progressively nobler and nobler and by avoiding connections with the
low one…” then in the seventh generation the issue becomes
a Brahmana!1
There is nothing in the scriptures to suggest (for instance) that
Brahmins ill-suited to learn the Vedas were ever demoted into Shudras,
nor to indicate that Shudras with exceptional learning skills were ever
elevated to the status of Brahmanas. Gunakarama Vibhaga, as described
in the Bhagavad Gita (slokha 4.13)2
is a theoretical construct that has had no historical bearing on the
Varna (Caste) System as practiced on the ground. (The term
“varna” does not appear anywhere in the Indian Constitution
or in any of India’s social legislations.) In fact, earlier
slokhas in the Bhagavad Gita (slokhas 1.41 to 1.44) are entirely
consistent with Manusmrthi’s strictures against
“inter-mixture” of castes; and they describe the ultimate
punishment awaiting the transgressors of caste boundaries: eternal hell.3
We believe that the caste
system is the single most important, continuous, social phenomenon that
has been unique to Hinduism for over 3,000 years. The Caste
System– and not “varna” or “class”--
should therefore find a major place in any history book on ancient
India. We urge the Board to restore the term “caste” in
lieu of the proposed term "Varna (class)."
b.With respect to chronology (HEF edit # 15, 18 - Glencoe/McGraw Hill):
The staff’s edit says, “The basic principles of what is
known as Hinduism today were already formulated by 1500 B.C. They are
to be found in the four Vedas.” We feel that this continues to
ignore many aspects of Hinduism and ancient Indian thought that either
claim pre-Aryan origin or do not owe their allegiance to the Vedas:
Dravidian Tamils, Dalits, Adivasis, Veera Shaivas, etc. (e.g. early
Tamil texts clearly distinguish between the Tamils and the Aryans.) We
recommend an alternative statement that would accommodate this
plurality: “Some aspects of
what is known as Hinduism today were already formulated by 1500 B.C.
They are to be found in the Vedas.” If SBE is unable to make this change, we suggest that the original text be retained.
Also, in Edit #18, we suggest that the phrase “some historians” be changed to “most historians” so that it does not leave the erroneous impression that the concept of Indo-Europeans is a minority scholarly opinion.
c.With respect to the origin of the Aryans and the name of Indus Valley Civilization (HEF edits #91
– Teacher’s Curriculum Institute and VF edit #18 –
Houghton Mifflin/McDougal Littell: We are glad to note that an attempt
to rechristen the Indus Valley Civilization as “Indus-Saraswati
civilization” has been rejected by the staff. However, we note
with concern that Houghton Mifflin and McDougal Littell continue to use
the term “Saraswati,” thus legitimizing VF/HEF’s
attempt to conflate Harappan civilization with that of the Vedic
Aryans, a theory not supported by any reputable scholarly evidence. (We
have previously provided a number of documents in support of our
contention that the effort by some to place Vedic Aryans in Harappa is
designed to support the sectarian ideology of the extremist
organizations such as RSS and VHP in India, and has been soundly
rejected by most scholars of South Asia.)
To advance our argument further: The Chapter Review section (page 246) of Houghton Mifflin lists two items as conforming to California Content Standard 6.5.1.
The first of these two reads: "The first Indian civilization arose near
the Indus and Saraswati Rivers." The inclusion of the “Saraswati
River” here suggests that it is an established physical fact
comparable to the Indus river. 6.5.1 also states: "Locate and describe
the major river system and discuss the physical setting that supported
the rise of this civilization." Research into the actual location of
the “Saraswati” is far from conclusive although the
strongest evidence points to its location in Afghanistan.
Regardless, there is no Saraswati River that can be conclusively
confirmed as a "major river system" with a "physical setting,"
especially not in the sense that the Indus River is. Yet the textbook
contains a whole section titled "Saraswati Earthquake," placed just
before the section on Indus Valley civilization, and presents a
scenario where the river dried up. This section is incongruent with the
overall themes in the text.
In the section on "The origins of Hinduism" the text describes the
Aryans (Indo Europeans) as having migrated to India. On page 228, a
graphic shows the direction of Aryan migration into India from the
northwest, and the migration is described in terms of a gradual
cultural exchange between Aryans and Dravidians who contributed
religion and urban life respectively to the complex "blended culture"
that developed. Moreover, Content Standard 6.5.2 requires the text to
"Discuss the significance of the Aryan invasions" which implies that
the Aryans are distinct from the people of the early civilization of
the Indus Valley, otherwise known as the Harappan Civilization.
For these reasons, we urge
the Board to ask these two publishers to seriously consider
alternatives to the section titled “Saraswati Earthquake.’
The presence of the term “Saraswati” in the original text
also compounds the problems arising out of further modification of the
proposed edits: In VF edit#18, both the original and the proposed
replacement paragraph focus on the Saraswati as if it were a valid
reference to a single river. That the 'Saraswati' still remains a
complex and contentious issue is perhaps better reflected in the first
paragraph from the Student’s Edition.
We recommend that at a minimum VF edit #18 – Houghton
Mifflin/McDougal Littell -- be restored to the more factual statement
in the Student’s Edition, “Some researchers have developed
the theory…”
For the record, we would also like to point out that the single piece
of purportedly scholarly evidence presented at the December 2nd CC
meeting to support VF/HEF’s “Aryans were indigenous”
theory – a 1999 genetics paper by Toomas Kivisild – has
been superceded by several later genetics papers by Kivisild and other
researchers, who find, “the
upper castes have a higher affinity to Europeans than to Asians, and
the upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are
the lower castes…We conclude that Indian castes are most likely
to be of proto-Asian origin…”4
While this finding would lend more credence to the prevailing
“Aryan Migration Theory,” we do not believe that genetics
alone can determine the origin of Aryans; and we present this
information only to demonstrate the faulty evidence used at the CC
meeting to make a momentous historical determination, contrary to the
prevailing view among most scholars.
d.With regard to Dalits (e.g. HEF edit # 51, 52, 62 and 86):
We are happy to note that a reference to Dalits has been reinstated in
edit #86 on page 182 of Prentice Hall. We hope that other publishers
too – e.g. edit #52, MacMillan/McGraw Hill -- will choose to add
similar references to Dalits, without which students will be unable to
make the important connection between “untouchables”
referred to in history books, with the over 160 million citizens of
contemporary India, who call themselves Dalits.
Manusmrthi outlines in great detail the origin of the
“untouchables” and the genesis of Dalit hamlets (bastis),
which one sees on the outskirts of most Indian villages today: chandalas, svapacas,
etc. – also referred to in some scriptures as “vile
castes” or “unwanted progeny”-- are the result of
“inter-mingling” of upper caste men and women with the
Shudras. According to Manu, these “untouchable” communities
were to be expelled to outside the village and were to sustain
themselves on left-over food from the main village, use only broken
plates and wear clothes from dead people, etc. (slokhas 10.49-54)5
However, we note that edit #52 continues to state, “Its members
were called untouchables because they performed dirty work.” As
the Board heard from representatives of the Dalit community at the
January 12th meeting, this statement is contrary to all historical
evidence and is deeply offensive to the community. As explained before,
the scriptures explicitly support the opposite thesis: namely,
“untouchable” status was determined by birth. We
recommend that the original text (without the use of the word
“because”) be retained after changing “varna”
to “varna (caste)” for reasons explained earlier. We also
recommend against the deletion of pictures of
“untouchables,” which depict the reality of life for
millions of Dalits today (HEF edits # 51 and 62).
e.With regard to status of women (e.g. HEF edit #19, 45):
We are also pleased to note that an awkward attempt by HEF to distort
the status of women in ancient India (edit #19 - Glencoe/McGraw Hill,
“Men had different duties…as well as rights than
women”) has been rejected in favor of retaining the original
text, “Men had many more rights than women.”
However, the staff’s recommendation in edit # 45
(Macmillan/McGraw Hill) to change “Men had many more
rights” to “Men had many property rights than women”
-- is inconsistent with the recommendation in edit #19, and tends to
convey the erroneous impression that property was the only area that
women had less rights. We strongly recommend that the original text be retained without any changes.
We would like to make two observations in support of our position:
a. describing the patriarchal nature of ancient Hindu society is
entirely consistent with similar descriptions to be found in the text
books under other ancient societies6, and there is simply no case to be made that Hinduism in being treated any differently in this regard;
b. in a recent public radio program, Prof. Shiva Bajpai averred that we
should not be trying to view ancient history in the context of modern
values. His line of argument simply does not apply in this case, as the
originally proposed texts merely reflected what ancient Hindu
scriptures themselves said about the status of women -- through their
own prisms, so to speak -- and made no attempt at value judgments, as
far as we could see.
We hope that the Board will give careful consideration to the above
comments and will fully restore historical accuracy to the narratives
on Indian History and Hinduism in Grade 6 History-Social Science text
books. We will be happy to provide further support for these
recommendations before or at the February 27th meeting.
Sincerely,
Friends of South Asia (FOSA)
Anu Mandavilli
http://www.friendsofsouthasia.org
mail[at]friendsofsouthasia.org
Fax: 928-395-2998
Coalition Against Communalism (CAC)
Raju Rajagopal
http://www.ektaonline.org/cac
communal_harmony[at]yahoo.com
EKTA
Raj Barot
http://www.ektaonline.org
rajbarot[at]yahoo.com
Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America (FeTNA)
Thillai Kumaran
http://www.fetna.org
president[at]fetna.org
Guru Ravi Dass Gurdwaras and the Dalit community of Sacramento
Kewal K. Bolina and Hansraj Kajla
Hrkajla1950[at]hotmail.com
Ambedkar Center for Justice and Peace (ACJP)
Yogesh Verhade
http://www.acjp.org
acjpintl[at]yahoo.com
Notes:
1. Manusmrthi -
edited by Dr. R.N. Sharma, English translation by M.N. Dutt, “The
Vrajajivan Indological Studies,” published by Chaukhamba Sanskrit
Pratishthan, Delhi, 2003
10.63: “Annihilation of killing propensities (i.e. compassion to
all), truthfulness, non-stealing, purity and subjugation of the senses,
these four, Manu described as the general duties of all the four
castes” [Note that the actual slokha uses
“chaturvarnye” – referring to four varnas]
10.64: “If the daughter of a Brahmana by his Sudra wife is
married to a Brahmana, and the daughter of that union is again married
to a Brahmana, and so on uninterruptedly up to the seventh generation
in the female line, then at the seventh generation the issue of such
union is divested of its Parasava caste and becomes a Brahmana”
10.65: “Thus a Sudra may obtain the caste of a Brahmana and a
Brahmana may obtain the caste of a Sudra; similarly, the sons of
Ksatriya or Vaisya fathers may acquire higher or lower castes.”
2. Bhagavad Gita - Acharya, Multilingual Systems, “Text of Gita with meanings,” Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Madras: http://acharya.iitm.ac.in/cgi-bin/show_gita_ch.pl?1_4
4.13: “The four orders of society (viz., the Brahman, the
Kshatriya, the Vaisya and the Sudra) were created by Me, classifying
them according to the qualities and skills, predominant in each and
apportioning corresponding duties to them; though I am the author of
the creation, know Me, the immortal Lord to be passive and
immutable”
3. Bhagavad Gita – see above for source
1.41: “With the prevalence of vice, O Krsna, the womenfolk become
corrupt; and with the corruption of women, O Varshneya (Krsna), there
ensues an admixture of castes” [Note that the slokha uses the
term “varnasankarah”]
1.42: “Intermingling of castes leads the family of these family
destroyers to hell. Deprived of ritualistic offerings, the spirits of
their forefathers also fall”
1.43: “Through these evils bringing about an intermixture of
castes, the age-old caste-traditions and family customs are
destroyed”
1.44: “O Janardana (krsna), we hear that men who have lost their
family traditions dwell in hell for an indefinite period of time.”
4.“Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations” by Michael Bamshad, Toomas Kivisild, et. al., June 2001, Genome.org. http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/11/6/994
5. Manusmrthi – see above for source
10.49: “Ksattas, Ugras and Pukkasas shall live by killing or
capturing hole-dwelling animals; curing of leather (cobbler’s
work) is the profession of Dhigvanas, and drum-beating, etc. is that of
the Venas.”
10.50: “Doing their proper works, these castes shall live in the
forest, or about cremation-grounds, or on hill-tops, or underneath the
lordly trees.”
10.51: “Candalas and Svapacas (lit. dog-eaters) shall live at the
outskirts of villages, they shall use no utensils; dogs and asses being
their only wealth.”
10.52: “They (Candalas, etc.) shall wear the apparels of corpses,
eat out of broken pots, wear ornaments of steel, and live a nomadic
life.”
10.54: “One shall cause food to be given to them through his
servants in broken saucers; and they must not be allowed to roam about
in a village in the night.”
6. The imbalance of power between men and women in diverse
civilizations are documented in several texts. E.g. McGraw
Hill/Glencoe: “In ancient Egypt, the father headed the
family” (p. 164); in ancient Israel, “Sons were especially
valued because they carried on the family name” (p. 218). In
China, “Men were respected because they grew the crops. They went
to school, ran the government… Chinese women could not hold
government posts (p. 287); in Sparta, Greece, “Wives lived at
home while their husbands lived in the barracks” (p. 346); and in
Athens, “For Athenian women, life revolved around home and
family. Girls married early --at 14 or 15-- and were expected to have
children and take care of household duties. .... they could leave the
house only if a male relative went with them” (p. 362), etc.
|
