The Texas-based Vedic Foundation (VF)[1] and the Hindu Education Foundation (HEF),[2] complained to California's Curriculum Commission, arguing that the coverage in sixth grade history textbooks of Indian history and Hinduism was biased against Hinduism;[1] points of contention included a textbook's portrayal of the caste system, the Indo-Aryan migration theory, and the status of women in Indian society.
Bajpai, who was selected by the Vedic Foundation for the task, approved nearly all the changes;[4] while presented by the VF as an independent scholar, it later came out that he was a member of a closely affiliated organization.
[5] Michael Witzel, Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University organized Indologists against the objections of Hindu groups, sending a letter with some 50 signatories to the CDE to protest changes of a "religious-political nature".
[15] The HEF operates under the auspices of the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, which professes adherence to the RSS's ideological principles; the VF does not claim affiliation with other groups, but cooperates closely with the VHP.
[15] California's Curriculum Commission endorsed most of the changes pushed by Hindu groups, moving the matter along to the state board of education, which usually follows its advice.
[13] Witzel, along with his colleague Steve Farmer, was informed about the edits proposed by VF and HEF by a person claiming to be a graduate student of Indian origin at a California university[citation needed].
Each group, claims Dan Golden, vie for changes in texts for elementary and secondary schools to cast their faiths in a better light or in sensitive manner before children.
Trisha Pasricha, a high-school junior in a Houston suburb, says she used to deny being Hindu to classmates because she was tired of refuting stereotypes perpetuated by textbooks and teachers.
The Dalit Freedom Network, an advocacy group for untouchables, wrote to the education board that the proposed Vedic and Hindu Education Foundation changes reflect "a view of Indian history that softens ... the violent truth of caste-based discrimination in India ... Do not allow politically-minded revisionists to change Indian history.In addition to this foundation, a number of other organizations took up the matter.
[25][26] After extensive further discussion of the Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Hindu edits by specialized scholars on January 6, 2006, and after several public SBE meetings, a decision was reached on February 27, 2006.
[27] The subcommittee approved some 70 changes but it rejected proposed major revisions from VF and HEF on monotheism, women's rights, the caste system and migration theories.
Most parties expressed qualified satisfaction with the decision; however, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), which had not participated in the revisions, threatened the board with a lawsuit.
"[32] A public relations firm hired by the VF and the HEF stated that, "What is at stake here is the embarrassment and humiliation that these Hindu children (in America) continue to face because of the way textbooks portray their faith and culture.
[34] Michael Newdow, an atheist attorney who is known for filing cases related to the deletion of the word 'God' from the Pledge of Allegiance, later joined CAPEEM's legal team.
[36][37] The case then proceeded with the Discovery phase, and CAPEEM requested documents from the SBE and CDE, and issued subpoenas to various persons involved in this case, including CDE officials, SBE, publishers, Christian groups such as the Dalit Freedom Network, the Council on Islamic Education, Curriculum Commission member Charles Munger, Jr., and the review committee members S. Wolpert, J. Heitzman and M. Witzel.
On February 25, 2009, the California Federal Court ruled that CAPEEM's claim was viable with respect to the actual process of adoption but denied the plaintiff CAPEEM motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the Establishment Clause as they lacked standing,[39] and partly granted and partly denied the defendant Members of the California State Board of Education's motion.
The HAF claimed that the textbooks "portray[ed] the Hindu religion in their discussion of the history, culture and religious traditions of ancient India in a negative light".
[45] It said that the portrayal of the Aryan invasion or migration was not grossly inaccurate, the treatment of Hinduism in the textbooks did not violate the standard set by the state, and it said that the caste system, being a historical reality, had to be discussed even if it angered a certain negative reaction in students.
[verification needed] The contested textbooks, providing discussion and justification of the most contended issues (women's rights, dalits, Aryan invasion or migration, Hinduism as a monotheistic religion) stayed.
[45] Educationist LaSpina comments that the lawsuits were filed after the State Board made "extraordinary efforts" to reach a compromise with the Hindu groups.