Accuracy vs. pride
RAJU RAJAGOPAL
|
Is it possible to teach history honestly and yet ensure that no child feels embarrassed of his/her heritage?
|
THE RECENT controversy in California over history textbooks boiled down to one question: Is it possible to teach history honestly and yet ensure that no child feels embarrassed of his/her heritage? Groups with close affinity with the RSS and the VHP had vehemently argued that it was, as they attempted to insert their version of Indian history into the textbooks. But they failed to convince a court that the proposed write-ups were either inaccurate or were out to malign Hindus. The judge reaffirmed the primacy of accuracy over community pride, and the publishers prevailed.
California has in place an elaborate set of procedures governing curriculum development, which not only emphasise factual accuracy "reflective of current and confirmed research," but also prescribe "social content" guidelines designed to reflect a pluralistic and multi-cultural society: e.g. instructional materials must help end stereotyping and "instil in each child a sense of pride in his or her heritage."
On the surface, the two goals — accuracy and pride — may seem incompatible: for instance, southern white parents could theoretically invoke their children's self-esteem to object to the coverage of slavery, and German parents could similarly object to a discussion of the Holocaust. But, in their wisdom, California educators have allowed for exceptions to the social content requirements in the teaching of history; in fact, they mandate the coverage of slavery, genocide and human rights.
When new sixth-grade textbooks came out in 2006, it seemed that the publishers had made an earnest effort to affirmatively present Hindu and Buddhist religious thought and to cover the important contributions of ancient India to mathematics, science, and literature. But they had also allocated considerable space to the caste system and untouchability, which, unfortunately, contained a few egregious remarks.
Understandably, many Hindu parents were deeply concerned. But Hindutva groups sensed a fresh opportunity to legitimise their well-known theories: caste system was a mutually beneficial social arrangement; women in ancient India enjoyed "different" rights, not lesser ones; Aryans were indigenous to India, etc.
They disguised their RSS/VHP roots and wildly exaggerated the textbook flaws to incite the community; planted the nasty idea that Hindu children were being taunted at school because of their faith; got one of their own supporters appointed as an "independent expert" to a commission charged with recommending textbooks, who then rubber-stamped their edits.
When these efforts came to naught, they made a last ditch effort to pressure the school board, under threat of legal action, into accepting their suggested edits. When that too failed, a lawsuit based on obscure procedural grounds — that the board had not properly enacted its regulations governing textbook adoptions — became their last best hope to block the textbooks.
The court ruled favourably on their procedural challenge, but refused to oblige them on the textbooks. The landmark judgment reaffirmed that while children's self-esteem was important, it could not be the primary consideration in writing history books.
The judge's ruling on the caste system summed it up eloquently: It "is a historical reality, and indisputably was a significant feature of ancient Indian society. Nothing ... requires textbook writers to ignore [it], even if studying it might engender certain negative reactions in students ... Just as the regulation does not require textbooks to ignore unpleasant historical realities, it does not require them to present such realities in an unnaturally positive light... "
In an ironic twist, RSS and VHP groups, which deride the very notion of minority rights in India as "appeasement," and whose own textbooks leave little room for the pride of India's Muslim and Christian children, had donned the mantle of an aggrieved minority in California to exploit its community-friendly adoption process. At the end of the day, they did not succeed; however, their scandalous conduct may make it more difficult for genuine community voices to be heard in the future.
Perhaps, there is a lesson in this for Indian educators, who all too often allow `community sentiments' to stifle honest debate.
rajurajagop@yahoo.com
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
