Colonial Discourse and the Suffering of Indian American Children is now freely available.
Colonial Discourse and the Suffering of Indian American Children Book Cover.webp
We examine the impact of the current colonial-racist discourse around Hindu Dharma on Indians across the world and prove that this discourse causes psychological effects similar to those caused by racism: shame, inferiority, embarrassment, identity confusion, assimilation, and a detachment from our cultural heritage.

Talk:South Asia Area Center Title VI

From Hindupedia, the Hindu Encyclopedia

South Asia Area Center Title VI was a hastily put together coalition of academics assembled to ensure the continuation of existing instructional materials and with the goal of remove India from textbooks and replacing it with South Asia.

On January 31, 2006, the Directors of the Title VI South Asia Research Centers submitted a letter addressed to the California Department of Education, they stated:

"The idea that Sanatana Dharma is a basic belief of Hinduism ignores both changes in the historical usage of the term to connote an array of notions and ritual practices, and its tendency since the late nineteenth century, to be associated with Hindu Nationalist groups in whose usage it has become a monolith and acquired a narrow and exclusively Sanskritic connotation. Such groups have since the time of the founding of the first Hindutva organization in 1925 been associated with violence and destruction. "[1]

In this letter they blatantly violate academic integrity. A couple of examples are provided:

  • The academic "state of the art" on the topic of Aryan migration theory stating that this is the most accurate theory at this point in time ignoring 13+ papers that challenge that position[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14].
  • Delink Hinduism and Ancient India as because they claim that Hinduism emerged in the 19th century [15].
  • Well known Hindu texts such as the Aṣṭādhyāyī and Tolkāppiyam as "non-Hindu" to justify their position[16].
  • Misrepresent Sanskrit as being foreign to Hindu Dharma[17] and argue falsely that Hindu women are treated as impure and unfit ignoring the richness of the traditions and respect always provided to women and described in detail across a wide body of texts[18].
  • Falsely attribute well understood Hindu concepts like ahiṃsā to Buddhism and Jainism[19]

Members of the Committee Denotes Faculty at Title VI Institutions that signed this report:[edit]

Academics who signed this letter without any publications on the topics discussed[edit]

  1. James Brow, Acting Director of the South Asia Institute and Professor of Anthropology and Asian Studies, University of Texas at Austin
  2. Lawrence Cohen, Associate Professor of Anthropology and South Asian Studies, UC Berkeley
  3. Vasudha Dalmia, Professor of South and Southeast Asian Studies, UC Berkeley
  4. Munis D. Faruqui, Assistant Professor of South and Southeast Asian Studies, UC Berkeley
  5. Suvir Kaul, Professor of English and Director, South Asia Center, University of Pennsylvania
  6. Barbara Metcalf, Alice Freeman Palmer Professor of History and Chair, Center for South Asia Studies at the University of Michigan
  7. Gautam Premnath, Assistant Professor of English at the University of California, Berkeley
  8. Raka Ray, Associate Professor of Sociology and South Asian Studies, and Chair, Center for South Asia Studies, UC Berkeley
  9. Parama Roy, Associate Professor of English, University of California, Riverside
  10. Sudipta Sen, Associate Professor of History, University of California, Davis
  11. Alexander Von Rosspatt, Professor of South and Southeast Asian Studies, UC Berkeley
  12. Kamala Visweswaran, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Asian Studies, University of Texas, Austin
  13. Charles Hallisey, Associate Professor and Director of Religious Studies Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Academics who have some publications related to the topics discussed[edit]

  1. Amrita Basu, Professor of Political Science and Women's and Gender Studies, Amherst College
  2. Robert Goldman, Professor of South and Southeast Asian Studies, UC Berkeley
  3. Hans Hock, Professor of Sanskrit, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
  4. Robert A. Hueckstedt, Professor of Sanskrit, University of Virginia
  5. Nita Kumar, Brown Family Professor of South Asian History, Claremont College
  6. Owen Lynch, Charles F. Noyes Professor Emeritus of Urban Anthropology, New York University
  7. Vijaya Nagarajan, Associate Professor of South Asian Religions, Department of Theology and Religious Studies, University of San Francisco
  8. V. Narayana Rao, Krishnadevaraya Professor of Languages and Cultures of Asia, University of Wisconsin-Madison
  9. Banu Subramaniam, Associate Professor of Women's Studies, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
  10. Leela Prasad, PhD Candidate at the University of Pennsylvania in 1998.
  11. Cynthia Talbot, Associate Professor of History and Asian Studies, University of Texas at Austin

Fraudulent Signatories[edit]

  1. Debaroja Singh, Assistant Professor of Women's Studies, William Paterson University of New Jersey
  2. K. P. Singh, Lecturer, Asian Languages and Literature, University of Washington Seattle
  3. Sumit Guha, Professor of History at Rutgers


References[edit]

  1. ↑ 11-18 Kamala Visweswaran CBE Final Report
  2. ↑ Bryant, Edwin. The Quest for the Origins of the Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan, Migration Debate. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
  3. ↑ Elst, Koenraad. Indigenous Indians: Agastya to Ambedkar. New Delhi: Voice of India, 1993.
  4. ↑ Feuerstein, Georg, Subhash Kak, and David Frawley. In Search for the Cradle of Civilization. Wheaton: Quest Books, 2001.
  5. ↑ Frawley, David. Gods, Sages, and Kings: Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization. New Delhi: Motilal Banarasi Dass, 1993.
  6. ↑ Frawley, David. The Rig Veda and the History of India. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 2001.
  7. ↑ Lal, B. B. How Deep are the Roots of Indian Civilization? Archaeology Answers. New Delhi: Aryan Books International, 2009.
  8. ↑ Lal, B. B. “Aryan Invasion of India: Perpetuation of a Myth.” In The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History, edited by Edwin F. Bryant and Laurie L. Patton, 50–74. New York: Routledge, 2005.
  9. ↑ Shaffer, J. G., and Diane A. Litchenstein. “South-Asian Archeology and the Myth of Indo-Aryan Invasions.” In The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History, edited by Edwin F. Bryant and Laurie L. Patton, 75–104. New York: Routledge, 2005.
  10. ↑ Talageri, Shrikant. The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis. Rev. ed. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 2004.
  11. ↑ Talageri, Shrikant. The Aryan Invasion Theory: A Re-appraisal. Rev. ed. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 2006.
  12. ↑ Possehl, Gregory L. The Indus Civilization. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press, 2002
  13. ↑ Robb, Peter, ed. The Concept of Race in South Asia. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1995.
  14. ↑ Trautmann, Thomas R. The Aryan Debate. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005.
  15. ↑ "Problems in Identifying Hinduism with Ancient India: Hinduism is a plural tradition" ... "whereas most of the traditions that went into the making of what we know as Hinduism today emerged in the centuries immediately before and after the onset of the Common Era (C.E.). “Hinduism” does not even emerge as a term of reference until the colonial period in the 19th century... "
  16. ↑ of “Ancient India” with Hinduism means that other texts, which are not strictly about “Hinduism”, but important to South Asia’s intellectual heritage, such as the Sanskrit grammar by Panini or the Tolkappiyam of classical Tamil, are completely sidelined.
  17. ↑ "Problems identifying Ancient India with Sanskrit: Dual classical traditions"
  18. ↑ Sanskritic Hindu laws describe women as impure and unfit for scholarship, as lacking judgment and capability, of being the carriers of caste purity, as being entitled to lesser property and inheritance than men, etc. we recommend that they be given more information both of the strictures against women’s participation in public and religious life
  19. ↑ While the Upanishads make mention of the notion of ahimsa, it does not become important to Hinduism until after Buddhism and Jainism make it central to their conception of life. In other words, there was no prior ‘Hindu’ support for ahimsa; it is only when Hinduism became more like the Hinduism we know today that it took over ahimsa from Jainism and Buddhism
Retrieved from "https://hindupedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:South_Asia_Area_Center_Title_VI&oldid=144816"