In an article that overtly smacks of raw bias, Kanupriya Vashisht whines about the recent California Textbooks Issue.

She starts the article by clearing up how objective she is by potraying the organisations that fought for a decent potrayal of Hinduism in California's School Books by calling them, 'Hydra Headed Hindutva' groups.

She goes on to sing some paeons about the 'secular' camp..

The rival group, led by Michael Witzel, an American professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University, had the support of a number of academicians including Indian historians Romilla Thapar, DN Jha and Shereen Ratnagar. (http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/witzelletter.pdf)

The important point to note is that she gives a hyperlink to the letter Witzel wrote while she does not mention any of the many sites on which the Hindu view is presented.

Also, she tries to shore up the 'secular' camp by mentioning its biggies, Romilla Thapar, Jha and others as if this association itself is enough to deem their mission as the justified one..

On the other hand, the Hindu group has a vast array of intellectuals, professors and educationists, not to mention that they are all practicing Hindus as well as a few Scholars of Hinduism. This is conveniently hidden.

If somebody should talk on behalf of Hinduism, they are labed as hydras and hindutva-vadis. This label has become a convenient whip to lash out at anybody who dares to question the leftist brigade.

About 50 international scholars specializing in the study of Indian history and culture endorsed the letter of Prof Witzel.

What? Where is the proof? What a caveat meant to mislead the people!

In some cases, the changes suggested and approved by the groups tended to show a sanitized version of ancient Indian history and to depict Hinduism as a religion without any reference to its caste system

This paragraph shows that the author has absolutely no idea what the issue is about. It is about Hindus wanting a voice in matters which talk about them, their heritage and religion. Is that too much to ask?

Also, the issues were about gross misunderstandings about Hinduism that is already present in the US. This present attempt was made to rectify many of them.

When ever Hinduism was talked about, the caste and Sati (suttee) is invariably dragged in. Do we talk about Hitler and Crusades in lessons about Christianity? about Witch Hunts and the Inquisition? or do we talk about the Millions massacred by Timur Lane when he sacked Delhi and claimed it for Islam?

The revisionists wanted the following reference to the Ramayana, "One of the most famous Hindu stories is the Ramayana. The Ramayana tells about life in ancient India and offers models in dharma", changed to: "One of the most famous Hindu scriptures is the Ramayana. The Ramayana describes the divine actions of Bhagwan Ram when he appeared in ancient India. Through His righteous living He set an example of how to live by dharm."

What is wrong about that?
Isn't that what Ramayana is about? Rama?
Is it just about being a famous story that tells about life in ancient India? What is Ramayana without Rama?
Of course Ramayana describes the divine actions of Lord Rama. Is that wrong?