The faultline of these battles is constant. Some groups, such as the Hindu American Foundation, wish to see less mention of caste and other such matters in the history textbooks' discussion of Hinduism. Their arguments are two-fold: first, that a discussion of caste in the historical context of Hinduism equates the religion as it is practised now with the defence of caste; and second, that it would be demeaning to Indian-American students from Hindu families who would have to use these textbooks. They warned that such "criticism" of Hinduism might lead to bullying and marginalisation of these students, and marshalled testimony from school-goers from Hindu families that reading such details about Hinduism made them feel uncomfortable. In a parallel track in this year's dispute, they attacked certain revisions proposed by the expert group of academics reviewing the textbooks. The recommended revisions had sought to replace the word "Indian" or "Hindu" with "South Asian" when talking of ancient or medieval history.
The other side of the battle had a different set of points to make. In 2004, the first year this problem exploded, the debate was on whether such customs as "sati" and the ostracism of Dalits should be included in the discussion of Indian history. This led to a campaign led by dozens of prominent scholars of Indian history, in particular the Harvard Sanskritist Michael Witzel. After several public meetings of the state board of education, and the receipt of 1,500 pages of written commentary from all sides, the full California board of education largely rejected the 500 changes proposed by the Hindu organisations, preserving the mention of the caste system and the Aryan migration theory in particular. Sometime later, a Bill was passed by the California legislature calling for a complete rewrite of history textbooks, but was vetoed by the governor.
Also Read
This year's disagreement began by over several revisions demanded by the Hindu organisations. For example, they wished the discussion in the textbooks of Sikhism's founder, Guru Nanak, to avoid discussing his resistance to caste. They even wished the first Indian-American member of the US Congress, Dalip Singh Saund, to be described not as a Sikh but merely as an "immigrant of Indian origin". They also wished to keep the word "Dalit" out of the discussion in the textbooks on untouchability - which, as Dalit activists correctly pointed out, would be like erasing black people from a discussion on slavery in a textbook on US history.
In its vote last week on these issues, the state authority split some matters down the middle. Hindu organisations could declare victory, as "India" was not replaced with "South Asia" and references to Vedic Hinduism were not replaced by "the religion of ancient Indians". The faculty group revising the textbook had also advised the deletion of sections about Valmiki and Vyasa, but those too were retained by the Quality Instructional Materials Commission, as the state authority is called. However, most other attempts at revisions, particularly the erasure of the Dalit experience and of caste, were rejected. The state authority had many other similar controversies to deal with - for example, on whether the discussion on World War II would include mention of the "comfort women" - Korean and Chinese sex slaves for the imperial Japanese army that are the subject of continued tension between the countries.
For India, the lessons of the California experience should be less in who wins than in examining the process itself. An independent body seeks revisions by academic experts, and then opens those revisions out to comment by the public. India is constantly plagued by controversial changes to textbooks by one government or another. The California process shows how textbooks should in fact be changed: through an open, inclusive and transparent process.