I was off the Internet for several weeks,
in small-town India, mercifully away from all
the sectarian ranting; and it came home to me
once again that there is nothing quite like
melding into the daily realities of a mixed
working class community to truly comprehend
the spirit of secular India. Every such time-out
only underscores for me just how far removed
is the hate-filled world of the Hindutvadis
from the heartbeat of India. Regrettably, I
am now back in the unreal world -- in front
of my computer -- and I am promptly reminded
of the unfinished business in the matter of
Hindutva's assault on California's history-social
science textbooks, which I have described at
length in my earlier articles (see http://raju-rajagopal.sulekha.com/blog/posts.htm).
A post on the interIIT forum by Dr. S. Kalyanaraman
(advisor to the Hindu Education Foundation (HEF),
and an RSS ideologue from Chennai, who frequently
pontificates on "Hindu civil rights"
in America in the same breath as he scoffs at
the very notion of minority rights in India)
informs us of the final outcome of the Hindu
American Foundation's (HAF) lawsuit last year
against the California State Board of Education
(SBE): new regulations governing textbook adoptions,
recently put out for public comments (http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/rr/.).
I read the proposed rules, line by line, searching
for some evidence of the victory hitherto declared
by HAF. I found none! Instead, SBE appears to
have taken the Superior Court's ruling (that
it properly enact its code of regulations) as
an opportunity to tighten the rules to ensure
that it does not lose control over the adoption
process again, as it almost did last year:
The revised regulations strengthen the role
of teachers, educators, and subject matter experts
in the adoption process, through formally appointed
Instruction Materials Reviewers, Content Review
Experts, and review panels drawn from them.
At the same time, they seem to minimize the
role of community advocacy groups: e.g. a previous
provision that allowed members of the public
to send in "general statements of objection"
has been
eliminated -- the new rules require that all
written comments "must provide a reason
as to why the content is inaccurate or does
not meet the content standards, curriculum frameworks,
evaluation criteria or social content."
The regulations also seem to rein in the Curriculum
Commission, a statutory advisory body to SBE,
which is susceptible to political maneuvering
(as was apparent last year): "Commissioners
must evaluate instructional materials according
to the SBE adopted content standards…may
add recommendations, but shall in no way delete
or alter the recommendations of the review panels…shall
not recommend rewrites," etc.
And, greater emphasis has been placed on SBE's
right to enforce compliance of the publishers
with adopted materials, presumably to discourage
behind-the-scenes deals with community groups
(as was also apparent last year): "Publishers
shall not change or modify instructional materials
after the date specified…will
provide evidence showing that the adopted edits
and corrections have been made," etc. In
the same vein, private communications among
Curriculum Commissioners, review panelists,
publishers, and members of the public have been
severely restricted during the adoption process.
Putting it another way, had the new regulations
been in effect last year, it is highly unlikely
that SBE would have lent so much credence to
HEF, an RSS front, or to the Vedic Foundation
(VF), a cult whose leader avers that only he
brings us the true and authentic history of
India -- which he claims is 1,972 million years
old! The Commission would never have retained
its own advisor, who turned out to be a staunch
supporter of Hindutva
and an apologist for caste hierarchy and Brahmin
supremacy; and who, in a case of the fox watching
the chicken coop, rubber-stamped almost all
the changes sought by HEF and VF. And it is
doubtful that a lone Commissioner would have
been able to endlessly humor Hindutva's theories
at the public hearing, as some of his colleagues
sat out the proceedings (e.g. any discussion
linking Harappan civilization with the Vedic
people, or of Aryan indigenousness, would have
been nipped in the bud as a direct violation
of approved content standards!)
In hindsight, officials probably recognize
that it was their willingness to bend over backwards
to accommodate what they thought were legitimate
Hindu voices that ultimately landed them in
so much controversy: Had the new regulations
existed last year, SBE would never have been
put in the position of having to appoint a new
Content Review Panel (CRP) in the eleventh hour
to mitigate the damage wrought by the Commission's
work and then having to take the controversial
step of mediating between its own CRP and the
Commission's "Hindu expert" (which
ultimately reversed many of the ideologically
motivated changes approved by the Commission,
but also introduced awkward compromise language
in some of the texts.)
In summary, I agree with HAF –-
for once -– that the new
regulations will "dramatically impact how
the next round of textbook reviews is handled
by the California Board of Education."
But was this the "victory" that so
many of its supporters had worked so hard for?
***
The originally proposed textbooks obviously
left plenty of room for improvement, given that
the publishers had considerably expanded the
narratives, and considering that there had been
little or no prior scrutiny of the sections
on India (see more in my previous posts). And
it is entirely understandable that many parents
and students were concerned with the overall
quality of the textbooks. But, as one looks
back at the intervention by Hindutva groups,
it is quite evident that they were driven more
by ideological considerations than by a genuine
interest in the accuracy of history books:
They disguised their RSS/VHP roots to win favor
with the community, sensing a unique opportunity
to legitimize their version of history; wildly
exaggerated the flaws in the textbooks to whip
up sentiments among concerned parents; attempted
to plant the nasty idea in our children's heads
that they were being targeted at school because
of their religious belief; made common cause
with Zionist groups, and used their new-found
political clout in Washington to lean on SBE
on behalf of the "aggrieved Hindu minority";
and they pulled out all stops to smear their
opponents, including dozens of South Asia scholars,
as "anti-Hindu" and "Hindu-baiters,"
and tried to intimidate some of them at their
workplace -- a lesson learned well from their
Zionist mentors, who are quick to label anyone
opposed to Israeli policies as an anti-Semite
or a self-hating Jew.
When all of these efforts appeared to come
to naught, HAF made a last ditch effort to "blackmail"
SBE, under threat of legal action, into accepting
their suggested changes. When that too failed,
a lawsuit based on obscure procedural grounds
became their only viable option to save face
with their constituency. (In retrospect, anyone
with deep pockets -- Hindu, Muslim, Christian,
Jew, or Atheist -– could
have retained a law firm familiar with the inner
workings of educational system to sue SBE, and
they would have won hands down, given that the
latter offered virtually no defense of its bureaucratic
faux pas in failing to properly enact its regulations.)
Hindutvadis continue to broadcast a victory,
as they fudge the final outcome in the case,
which was a far cry from their original objectives:
After all the brouhaha, the textbooks as finally
published don't include many of the changes
close to their heart, barring the deletion of
a few egregious passages. But, on the other
hand, the new regulations will most likely discourage
the type of direct intervention that Hindutva
groups attempted last year; and their notoriety
may even precede them to the next state where
they may be planning to intervene. Unfortunately,
that may also make it more difficult for genuine
community voices to be taken seriously, unless
parents distance themselves from Hindutvadis
and start building bridges with educators and
recognized scholars of history, who have much
to offer in improving school textbooks.
At the end of the day, RSS hardliners will
look back at their California experience as
a case of defeat snatched from the jaws of victory!
***
P.S. Another Hindutva group calling itself
CAPEEM is now claiming in a federal lawsuit
that officials of SBE violated the civil rights
of Hindus during last year's adoption process.
And they are passing the hat around to finance
legal discovery to "strengthen" their
case. Before supporting their fishing expedition,
parents should pause to consider which is a
more likely violation of civil rights: a procedural
oversight by SBE officials, who are administering
one of the most complex, minority-friendly school
curriculum development processes in the U.S.,
or sustained efforts by Hindutva groups to wipe
out the very existence of a large section of
Hindus (Dalits) from
the textbooks, and to falsely portray the caste
system and gender roles in ancient India as
a benign, even a positive, social arrangement?
