|
The Hindu American Foundation
(HAF) wrote a latter in response to a Times of India article,
“US
text row resolved by Indian”, by Akshaya Mukul on
September 9, 2006. The article erroneously reported that the
case was resolved by an Indian academic.
September 12, 2006
Dear Editor,
Your September 9, 2006 story “US text
row resolved by Indian” is based on a one-sided reading
of the “friend of the court” brief submitted by
a coalition of anti-Hindu groups in the U.S. that was thrown
out by Judge Marlette in his judgment on September 1, 2006.
D.N. Jha did file an affidavit as part of
an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief filed by the
self-proclaimed Marxist-communist group, “Friends of
South Asia” (FOSA). However, Judge Partick Marlette
of the California Superior Court rejected the brief outright,
as it lacked merit and relevance. The Hindu American Foundation
(HAF) argued that the amicus brief did not provide “any
substantive legal nor adequate factual support for the assertions
contained in their proposed brief, relying instead on materials
that are not properly subject to judicial notice, as well
as several irrelevant and highly objectionable declarations.”
Judge Marlette agreed with HAF and refused to consider the
brief.
With that ruling, FOSA and other anti-Hindu
groups were shut out of the entire legal process. As such
it is inexplicable why your report credits Dr. Jha with “resolving”
the textbook row. As a matter of fact, the new textbooks will
now mention that the Aryan migration is “a controversial
theory that is not accepted by many scholars". May we
request that your reporters verify with all contending parties
in this debate before deciding to disseminate information
about the nature and content of the arguments in this complex
debate?
Sincerely,
Swaminathan Venkataraman
Member, Executive Council
Hindu American Foundation
|
