If you thought rewriting of history text books for school children in India was both controversial and messy, think again. At present, the California Board of Education (SBE) – like the Human Resource Development Ministry in India – finds itself in the unenviable position of playing arbitrator in a vitriolic exchange between opposing groups on the interpretation of historical factoids on ancient India.

At stake is the detailing of Indian history – for sixth grade students in California – pertaining to the contentious issues of polytheism, caste system and the rights of men versus women in Hinduism. When the SBE initiated public discourse on the subject late last year, before it contracted out the publishing job, it actually opened the veritable Pandora's box. So far, 153 edits have been proposed to the existing text.

Ironically, the fierce exchange emerges from a democratic process, in place for years. Every six years the CDE and the SBE adopt a number of textbooks for use in public schools. The task of making recommendations for specific edits and corrections to text books is vested in the Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission, an advisory body to the SBE.

A key component to the corrections process is the opportunity for public comment.

Where Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups have long been participating, this was the first time that Hindu groups – Vedic Foundation and the Hindu American Foundation -- stepped into the ring as it were – a reflection no doubt of the effort of the Indian American community in general to take part in public and civil life in their adopted country. Interestingly, the voices most heard making a case for the Hindu cause are second generation Indian Americans. Suhag Shukla, who was born and raised in California and then moved to Florida to pursue a career in law, and presently legal counsel to the Hindu American Foundation is an example.

A practicing Hindu and a lawyer who has worked on social causes (like for the homeless), Shukla maintains that her involvement was prompted to provide a moderate voice for Hindu groups in national debates, especially pertaining to those in education. "As a mother," she says, "I want my two young kids to be as proud of their heritage as me. This is important as we get more and more amalgamated into American society."

In the first round, the two Hindu groups proposed a series of changes including challenging some of the surmises made in the text. However, opposing groups enjoined the debate, just before the recommendations were to be approved, seeking to reverse the proposed changes. In the times since then, there has been a steady deterioration in the quality of the dialogue as both sides have hardened their individual stance.

Interestingly, at the core of the dispute is the two provisions prescribed by the California law for state education pertaining to the adoption of instructional materials by governing boards. One states that educational material may not contain "any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, handicap, or occupation." The other provision says that the same materials may not contain "any sectarian or denominational doctrine or propaganda contrary to law."

While, the former has given an opening for the groups seeking a more favourable interpretation of historical facts, the latter clause has allowed the so-called secular groups to mount a defence on the grounds that this would be tantamount to saffronisation of Indian history.

At present, the SBE has got itself a breather by appointing yet another sub-committee to review the changes – recommendations are expected to be submitted ahead of March 8-9 meet of the SBE board.
Regardless of the committee's decision, the battle lines have been clearly drawn and the venue is Sacramento – the power capital of California and also home to Governor Arnold Shwarznegger.

The decision to form a sub-committee on January 12 this year, was preceded by an acrimonious debate organized by the SBE between Shiva Bajpai, a professor of Indian history at California State University, Northridge and Michael Witzel, a professor of Sanskrit and Indian Studies at Harvard University. While Bajpai spoke on behalf of the Hindu groups, Witzel represented the so-called secular grouping.
Issue-by-issue they debated the revisions and deletions mooted by the two Hindu groups.

Going beyond the dispute over the historical veracity of facts, it is apparent that precedent does support the case made by those seeking a more favourable interpretation of history. The textbooks, under dispute, do not reflect similar skepticism with equally debatable historical events – forced conversions, rights of women -- in Islam and Christianity.

Talking to the Wall Street Journal, Gilbert Sewall, Director of the American Textbook Council, a New York-based non-profit group that reviews history texts said, "The textbooks submitted either gloss over jihad, sharia, muslim slavery, the status of women and Islamic terrorism, or omit the subject altogether."

Matters tend to complicate, because very often, available archaeological evidence does not settle the argument one way or the other – automatically leaving room for differing interpretation. Chris Chapple, Professor, Theological Studies, Loyola Marymount University, and someone who has done regular workshops in California for teachers believes that at the root of the controversy is the conflict over the the interpretation of archaeological evidence. "In the creation of textbooks for middle school students," he says, "it is important to keep in mind the disciplines of geography, archaeology, art history, politics, and economics. We do know that India has given birth to multiple complex cultural styles that continue into the present day.
It would seem most prudent to make certain that all students learn about Mahatma Gandhi and the birth of modern, independent India, and that the country has a rich, ancient heritage, with several puzzles that cannot be easily solved with existing archaeological evidence."

Given this background, it is clear that toeing the middle path is not necessarily the best option. Any compromise is bound to displease some quarters. And unlike in the past, the disenfranchised are not only vocal, but also willing to go the full distance to make their case.The time may come therefore for the SBE to shed past precedents and maybe take a less politically correct stance to the presentation of history.

Marcia Beauchamp, an independent consultant on religion and the schools and the former Religious Freedom Programs Coordinator for the First

Amendment Center from 1996-2001, argues in similar vein. According to her, it is at least somewhat true that the information students receive about religions other than Hinduism and cultures other than India's don't often involve practices that could today be criticised as "patriarchal" or hierarchical, as is the case with the information about caste and gender equality that is the subject of the proposed changes.

"So," says Beauchamp, "I would hope that textbook publishers will learn from this debate to provide more balanced treatment (in the sense of the positive contributions as well as less savory historical practices) of all the religions and cultures children learn about. In other words, children should learn some of the bad news as well as the good about each tradition and culture they study in order that their education be well-rounded and sound."

For the CDE, the moment of reckoning may be closer than what it may seem to perceive at the moment. All the more, since the Hindu groups, after having recruited the services of a law firm, clearly keep legal recourse as a final option.

Index