VII SUPPORTING LETTERS BY ACADEMICS AND SCHOLARS » Michel Danino
Michel Danino
INTERNATIONAL FORUM FOR INDIA’S HERITAGE
80 Swarnambika Layout
Ramnagar
COIMBATORE - 641 009
(Tamil Nadu) India
Email : micheld@sify.com, ifih@vsnl.net
Coimbatore (India),
23 November 2005
To:
Ms. Ruth Green, President,
State Board of Education,
1430 N Street, Room 5111,
Sacramento, California 95814
USA
Dear Ms. Green
and respected Members of the Board of the Curriculum Commission and SBE,
Please excuse me for taking your time on an issue close to my heart : I am referring to the portrayal of India’s history and civilization in the social studies textbooks recommended for adoption by the California Department of Education.
I was born in France but have lived in India for almost 30 years and have become an Indian citizen; I have written several books, many papers and delivered numerous lectures on Indian history and culture, including at leading Indian institutions and Universities. A few years ago I convened the International Forum for India’s Heritage, a network of over 200 Indian scholars and thinkers (www.geocities.com/ifihhome ; our new website www.ifih.org will be available in a few months). I am also involved with educational research here in India and recently conducted an extensive survey of 11,000 students, a first in the country.
Since I believe you have already received many communications on this issue, I will be as brief as possible. First allow me to congratulate you on the openness and transparency with which the CDE textbooks are meticulously revised. Clearly, involving expert representatives from every civilization / religion is the best way to reach satisfactory yet historically correct formulations.
From my information, it appears that a few self-styled experts in Indology, led by Prof. Michael Witzel, have attempted to derail this process of consultation in the case of India. There are two issues here: one of competence, another of attitude.
In terms of competence, Prof. Witzel’s lies in the field of linguistics, although in recent years he has been making frequent pronouncements on Indian history, archaeology, early science, social life, and many more, taking advantage of his position at Harvard University which has enabled him to get, at least in India, more “coverage” than humble, semi-obscure Indian scholars with infinitely more learning than most Western Indologists could dream of acquiring in a lifetime.
The issue of attitude is more central. As you have probably already gathered, Prof. Witzel and his associates have been prompt to tilt at windmills of the “Hindutva” or “saffron” kind. Those labels usually refer to supposedly hard-line Hindu activists, but have been increasingly misapplied to Indian scholars who offer their own interpretations of early India, or who stress the remarkable achievements and distinctive traits of Indian civilization. Although many Western scholars — from Will Durant or Carl Sagan to Georges Ifrah — have done much the same, their unfortunate Indian counterparts are now portrayed as dangerous promoters of a quasi-fascist ideology ! To give just one example here, I have been dismayed to see Indian archaeologists of great experience and world repute such as Prof. B. B. Lal, Dr. R. S. Bisht or Dr. V. N. Misra reviled and slandered by Prof. Witzel or his associates simply because they objected, on solid archaeological grounds, to the racial and now discredited Aryan invasion theory. I once asked (on an egroup) Prof. Witzel and Dr. Farmer why they did not show the same aggressiveness towards Western archaeologists who said the same thing (such as Dr. Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, Dr. Jim Shaffer, Dr. K.A.R. Kennedy, Lord Colin Renfrew or Dr. Jean-François Jarrige), but my question only met with silence, while virulent attacks — generally mixed with sarcasm, ridicule, and intimidation — continued.
What this attitude reveals, apart from sheer intellectual arrogance (often in the name of “science”), is, first an inability to come to terms with the fact that Indian civilization is still alive and has a natural right to stress its continuity and antiquity and to take pride in its ancient culture. It is nobody’s case that ancient India was a perfect place or a spotless Eden, but it certainly achieved great things in the fields of science, technology, religion, philosophy, spirituality, art, literature, governance etc., and anyone interested in studying India should be provided with the facts. Moreover, today’s Indian should be free to discover his or her roots without being fed with outdated divisive and often racial theories of the colonial kind.
More seriously, this attitude denotes a desire to create a thought police and impose a dogmatic, one-track view of Indian civilization; it also displays an unhealthy readiness to demonize whoever does not toe the line. Given the richness and complexity of this civilization, such a crude attempt is wholly unacceptable.
I earnestly request you to turn to objective and experienced experts on India, who have at least a sincere sympathy and goodwill for the object of their study. India has suffered enough misportrayals as it is.
I thank you for your kind attention.
With sincere regards,
Michel Danino