California Textbook Issues — Ancient India and Hinduism
Many have heard about “California textbook issue” with respect to India and Hinduism related content, but may not understand what exactly are the problems. Some have vague ideas like it has to do with dirty pictures of India or essays that show its culture in poor light. This article is aimed at clarifying the major narrative issues as it relates to the school history syllabus, so anyone can understand and articulate to others. Briefly, it will address the points below:
· California’s history syllabus called Content Standards hasn’t changed since 1998. It reflects inaccurate colonial narratives such as Brahmanism, Aryan Invasion, Caste Pyramid.
· California also publishes a detailed instruction manual called Framework. Hindu community fought hard for thousands of changes in Framework (mainly in chapter 10 and 11) and it was revised in 2016. Framework removed Aryan, Invasion, Brahminism, Caste Pyramid and many such colonial perspectives.
· Many textbooks from major publishers still use colonial narratives — unfair, inaccurate and unequal portrayal.
California Education Code Requires Fairness and Parity
First, a bit of history about the history of textbooks issue! In the 1940s, California stopped teaching religion in schools, thanks to a lawsuit at the time. In the early 1990s, teaching religion was revived, thanks to another lawsuit! But it was decided to teach religion in a positive manner, that doesn’t make any student uncomfortable in the classroom about their beliefs. California Education Code Sections 50101c, 60040, 60044 requires Fair and Accurate content in textbooks, and Parity or equality of all religions and civilizations — one should not be shown superior or inferior to other. California also has an Anti-bullying law since 2016, so students feel safe and secure in classroom environment.
Content Standards —1998 Syllabus based on Colonial Narrative
In 1998, the state published Content Standards, which served as the syllabus outline on what topics should be taught. This has not changed since then, and any change requires legislative process. The state also published the California Framework, which is more like a detailed instruction manual based on the content standard topics. Together, Content standards is like table of contents, and Framework is like the actual content of a history book. This Framework was revised in 2016, with inputs from multiple groups and much debate by scholars, parents and teachers. More than 75% of the 12,000 edits suggested were about Ancient India and Hinduism!
Publishers of textbooks (there are about 6 major ones) must adhere to these standards. Ultimately, however, the individual school districts get to decide which textbooks to pick, or if they want to pull together their own material from different sources to teach history.
Unfortunately, the Content Standards reflect what is called as Colonial perspectives, since it was influenced by academia and government officials with an agenda. A previous article highlighted efforts by CAPEEM, in exposing such professors and officials hiding behind the notion of “confidential communication” and “academic freedom”.
Colonial rulers such as the erstwhile British government in India promoted distorted narratives since 18th century, that served a few purposes — 1) justify their presence in India, making the case that even ancient Hindus were invaders; 2) divide and rule Indians; 3) encourage religious conversions by amplifying social issues as religious problems. So, they focused on terms such as Aryan and Dravidian and invasion, Brahmanism to promote views of Brahmanical Patriarchy. They also mixed up Varna and Jati as Caste (see previous article on this last topic) to project that Hinduism endorsed a hierarchical rigid social structure. They also tried to promote Buddhism as a moral alternative to Hinduism, using Ashoka’s conversion as endorsement, downplay Hindu women rights and achievements since Vedic times to sustain patriarchal views.
The following sections summarize each of the Content Standard topic, where Ancient India and Hinduism is in Grade 6 syllabus as part of early human civilizations (up to 500 CE), and Medieval history in Grade 7 (500 CE to 1500 CE). It also states how Framework changed and how issues with textbooks still persist.
1 Indus Valley Civilization Continuity
Teaching about Indus river civilization is great. The problem is the narratives ignore continuity of Indus valley culture to Hindu symbols and practices, despite archeological evidence with seals and artifacts showing Namaste, Swastika, Pashupati (Shiva in meditation pose), woman wearing sindhoor on forehead. Instead textbooks show Indus Valley civilization vanished for some reason in 1900 BCE, and there is no connection to Hinduism, which started 400 years later with Aryan invasion — colonial idea is to show Vedic knowledge could have only come from outside India. Today, there are more discoveries, proving the existence of the previously disputed Sarasvati river — it should actually be called Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization. The Framework fixed this with language showing continuity, recognized the possibility of Sarasvati river, and textbooks should fix this discontinuity as well.
2 Aryan Invasion
Aryan is not a race or ethnic group — Hindu texts only use ‘arya’ as a respected person or noble (like gentlemen/ladies, Sir/Madam). Colonials promoted Aryan as a warrior race that invaded India and established Vedic culture. Scholars have rejected Aryan as a race, and the invasion theory as well (see previous article on this topic).
The Framework removed the word Aryan and replaced ‘invasion’ with ‘migration’. It talks about Indic people migrating inward into India, and also presents the theory that the migration could have been outward (this view is based on new DNA studies). Textbooks still show Aryan narrative, still mention invasion theory and/or downplay migration theories. (Likewise, Dravidian is also not a race or ethnic group. It only refers to a geographic southern peninsular region (tra+vida = 3+coasts)).
3 Brahmanism
Colonials coined the word Brahmanism in the 1800s, to show Hinduism as a Brahmin’s religion, and promote Brahminnical Patriarchy views. In fact, even Hinduism with the “ism” for Hindu way of life, is a colonial invention — the Vedic beliefs were called Vedanta. The term Brahmanism no doubt offends Brahmins– it also is offensive to non-Brahmins, whose contributions and faith through the ages to Hinduism is belittled. The Framework removed the word Brahminism, but textbooks still call out Brahminism as Hinduism. The Framework also added a separate chapter on Hinduism for grade-7, and added language to existing grade-6 content, highlighting the following: Hinduism is also monistic (or mono-theistic vs. just polytheistic); key Hindu concepts such as dharma, artha, kama and moksha and mention of Women in Hinduism — female deities, in particular. Textbooks devote too few pages to explain Hindu concepts, and usually get the symbolism of deities wrong, or focus on irrelevant things such as beauty of deities.
4 Caste System
Colonials force-fit a pyramid model on any society to promote a oppressor-oppressed narrative. So, a Caste pyramid would be filled with Brahmins at the top and Shudras at the bottom, force-fitting a hierarchical structure, when that was not the intended societal model. Caste actually refers to the Portugese Casta system, which was a rigid race-based system to prevent inter-marrying. It is not the same as India’s Varna and/or Jati system (see previous article on this topic)
The Framework removed the pyramid model, and clarified Varna and Jati and origin of the word Caste. It says untouchables performed work such as cremation, animal skin and sanitation, without rationale that these are prone to disease outbreak and ignoring the possibility of social distancing (while the same Framework acknowledges that Native Americans were wiped out through diseases contracted from settlers — selective learning is biased). Textbooks over-emphasize and portray the typical oppressor-oppressed model with no inquiry if such gross inequalities or practices persisted throughout history including other countries and religions, presume caste system as intended evil with no rationale for any practice whatsoever, and wrongly link every aspect of caste to Hindu religion, ignoring socio-economic evolution or political reasons.
5 Buddhism vs. Hinduism
It’s great to teach about the life of Buddha and morals in Buddhism, but Colonials use this to paint a narrative that Buddhism was a moral alternative to Hinduism, which was immoral. Such a comparison is against the education code that requires parity. The syllabus also ignores Jainism and Sikhism, which are also great religions of Indian origin. The Framework changed the narrative to avoid any “Hinduism vs. Buddhism”, and included mention of Jainism and Sikhism — textbooks still haven’t changed.
6 Mauryan empire and Ashoka vs. Other Empires
This is a build up of a colonial narrative that starts with the glorious Mauryan empire that started with Hindu kings, and ended with Ashoka, who converted to Buddhism after the Kalinga war — as if Hinduism was violent and only Buddhism promoted non-violence (Ahimsa). Although the exact date is unclear, evidence suggests Ashoka may have converted to Buddhism even before the war. Several other empires and kings such as Marathas, Chola, Vijayanagar are also ignored throughout history. The Framework changed to reflect many such changes, and textbooks need to follow.
7 Downplaying Math, Science, Art Contributions
It is not clear why Bhagvad Gita would be aesthetic vs. intellectual, and Ramayana mentioned as a love story (in one of the textbooks), completely missing the science of yoga and dharmic dilemmas these texts intended to deliver. The easiest way to explain the downplaying of contributions from India is the typical “…Indians invented number zero and symbols for numerals…”. The inventions of Aryabhatta, Brahmagupta and others is the entire base-ten arithmetic and math that we use today — not just zero and numeral symbols. They needed this for astronomical calculations with large numbers, and prior methods with Roman numerals or the Arab way of writing the entire number out was difficult for addition or subtraction. Early concepts of algebra and other math concepts were also developed in India, and acknowledged by Arabs, who documented and later spread it to Europe. Some of Shusruta’s surgical techniques are used even today in plastic surgery, but any mention of his name is conspicuously absent. Framework clarified that Indians pioneered inventions such as base-ten number system, early concepts of algebra, game of chess, aesthetic dance such as Bharatanatyam and Tamil sangam literature that was hitherto missing. Textbooks should stop downplaying, rather acknowledge and include detailed contributions of Indians such as Aryabhatta and Shusruta.
Change Content Standards, the Narrative and Inquiry for Future
In summary, California’s Content Standards in the light of Ancient India and Hinduism needs change — however, the Hindu community’s efforts have met with frustration with the government being slow and citing budget issues, and even courts not entirely sympathetic. Textbooks need to align with the revised California Framework and not use the Content Standards as an excuse to promote colonial narratives.
They should focus on relevance to the study of history and inquiry based learning, as opposed to promoting colonial narratives. They need to ensure parity with other civilizations and religions. This is not optional — recently a U.S. District Court has observed that “…Content Standards do not exist in isolation, and must be be read together with the CA Framework…”. But this is recent, and the struggle continues to create the awareness, and deal with the academic deficiencies.
The goal for every Hindu is to remove avidya, or ignorance. A thousand lies make it true, and when the lies end up in textbooks used by a thousand teachers, avidya prevails worldwide. There is hollowness, and there is hope, in my opinion.
