An organization called the Sikh Coalition appears to be organizing emails to various supporters of American Birthright: The Civics Alliance’s Model K-12 Social Studies Standards. The Sikh Coalition, and individuals writing form letters on their behalf, state that they object to our brief description in our Grade 10 World History Standards of the history of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka since their independence, because one item of post-independence South Asian history that should be included is “Muslim, Sikh, and Tamil terror.” Their objection appears to be partly that this is an oversimplification of recent Sikh history and partly that to mention the historical fact of Sikh terror will somehow inspire a wave of persecution of Sikhs in America. They call upon the Civics Alliance to change American Birthright and they call upon our supporters to renounce American Birthright.
The Sikh Coalition is wrong to attempt to censor American Birthright from stating the plain truth. The Sikh Coalition is wrong to attempt to frighten American Birthright’s supporters to withdraw their support from American Birthright. The Sikh Coalition is wrong to characterize Americans as so prone to engage in persecution that they must be kept in ignorance of world history to prevent them from exercising what the Sikh Coalition appears to believe is a natural American tendency to behave badly. The Sikh Coalition’s implicit bigotry against Americans, indeed, is an attitude of which they ought to be ashamed.
The Sikh Coalition appears to be another member of the coalition of progressive identity-group politics organizations that specializes in unfounded resentment and aggressive censorship—a coalition of fellow Americans who are, alas, examplars of the least attractive aspects of American society. We suspect that the Sikh Coalition’s attack on American Birthright is largely an attempt to gin up publicity for their obscure organization. We will have more to say about that later. But first we would like to address American Birthright’s coverage of Sikh history—which, we think, is better than that of any rival social studies standard in America.
American Birthright mentions Sikhs twice, both times in our Grade 10 World History standards. In our Standard on the Mughal Empire (early modern Indian history, from ca. 1500 to ca. 1800), we include as one substandard of six, “Rise and development of the Sikh religion and states.” (Standard 38.b, p. 110) In our Standard on the history of independent India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka (contemporary Indian history, from ca. 1948 to the present), we include as one substandard of six, “Muslim, Sikh, and Tamil terror.” (Standard 71.d, p. 119) These substandards, of course, are telegraphic and general: academic content standards provide a broad framework, which are meant to be elaborated in curriculum frameworks and model lesson plans.
Of the many things American Birthright takes pride in, an important one is our coverage of Sikhs and Sikhism. To our knowledge, no other American social studies standard mentions the history and religion of the Sikhs in India. The National Council for the Social Studies’ model The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards does not mention Sikhs. The social studies standards of three of America’s four largest states—California, New York, Florida—do not mention Sikhs or Sikhism at all. Texas’ World History Studies TEKS only mentions Sikhism in an ahistorical catalogue of world religions: “describe the historical origins, central ideas, and spread of major religious and philosophical traditions, including Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism.” Connecticut’s social studies standards, for which the Sikh Coalition served as a Project Consultant, mentions Sikhs in America, but nothing of Sikhs’ religion and history. The Civics Alliance, unprompted by complaints from organizations such as the Sikh Coalition, judged that social studies standards should establish the expectation that American students should learn about Sikhs’ history and religion, and learn about the Sikhs within an accurate and detailed historical context. Texas’ TEKS prevents us claiming that we are unique in our coverage of Sikh religion and history—but we can certainly claim that our coverage is among the best in America.
We also mention Sikh terror in our coverage of contemporary India: “Muslim, Sikh, and Tamil terror.” Sikh terror, of course, is an important aspect of contemporary Indian history. Above all, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Sikh bodyguards assassinated her in 1984. This is an incredibly significant moment in Indian history—and one we find difficult to describe in terms other than “Sikh terror.” Nor was this an isolated incident: another notable incident of Sikh terror was the destruction of Air India Flight 182 in 1985, and the consequent murder of all 329 passengers and crew on board. To mention Sikh terror also was intended to inspire deeper coverage in textbooks, curriculum frameworks, and lesson plans of the Sikh Punjab insurgency, which mattered a great deal in the 1970s and 1980s, and also to allude to the broader importance of Sikh nationalism in contemporary India. So far as we can tell, American Birthright is absolutely alone among American social studies standards in thinking that coverage of contemporary world history ought to include mention of the Sikhs in India. We, as none of our peers, think Sikhs and their continuing existence deserve to be known by American students.
Of course our phrasing—“Muslim, Sikh, and Tamil terror”—was telegraphic. Social studies standards are and ought to be telegraphic: they are meant to prompt longer coverage in related materials. Such longer coverage doubtless would provide greater nuance. We judge our wording was appropriate for a social studies standard. To avoid using the word terror, to cater to the presumed sensibilities of the Sikh Coalition or similarly minded organization, also would take a political stance—and a stance at odds not only with that of the Indian government’s, and of the large majority of Indians, but also at odds with the very large numbers of Sikhs who do not support terrorist tactics in the pursuit of Sikh autonomy/independence, and who wish such acts of terror to be named in plain English. American students in a World History class might have a productive debate about whether the cause of Sikh autonomy/independence justifies terror—but only if they know that Sikh terror existed.
The Sikh Coalition states that simply to mention Sikh terror is ‘unbalanced’ coverage. Of course modern Sikh life cannot be reduced to terror—and we strongly doubt that most American teachers or students would take our statement as a prompt to make so reductionist and unfounded a presumption. Here we must come to judgments of significance. Indira Gandhi was assassinated and Air India Flight 182 was blown up, and these are among the skeleton of facts that American students ought to know about contemporary Indian history. We judge that “Sikh terror” is the appropriate phrase to use in American social studies standards’ necessarily condensed coverage of post-independence India.
So far we have spoken on the substance of Sikh religion and history. There also is the question of precedent. American social studies standards are greatly weakened by agitation such as the Sikh Coalition engages in, to censor, bowdlerize, or extenuate their favored group’s participation in any of the catalogue of evils which mankind all too often commits. Similar agitation seeks to erase mention that Islamic jihadis committed the 9-11 terrorist attacks, or that American Indians committed the Deerfield Massacre, or—the list of man’s inhumanity to man is long. Policymakers and education administrators, very understandably, frequently prefer to euphemize or avoid mention of any contentious issue. The Sikh Coalition’s agitation, if successful, will almost certainly result in the simple erasure of Sikh religion and history from American social studies standards, as the simplest way to address public argument. The Sikh Coalition apparently would prefer that Americans know nothing about Sikhs than that they know something forthrightly negative. If they succeed in this attempt, they will encourage every other organization of professional bowdlerizers to engage in the same tactics. The Sikh Coalition’s victory on this issue will invigorate the coalition that seeks to make sure that American students know as little as possible of the world and its history.
As for the Sikh Coalition itself—the first communication of theirs in regard to American Birthright of which we are aware included criticisms of aspects of our coverage of American history, such as the George Floyd riots, which articulate the concerns of progressive American organizations rather than of an organization primarily concerned with Sikh history. Their institutional focus appears to be to prevent discriminatory acts against Sikh-Americans—which is laudable in itself, although their implicit presumption that Americans are a nation eager to persecute Sikhs is shameful and discreditable. Their criticism of American Birthright, in consequence,appears to center not so much on the truth of our standards’ historical coverage as on their belief that it will inspire Americans to commit bigoted acts against Sikhs. We are greatly disappointed in the Sikh Coalition’s lack of faith in the common decency of their fellow Americans. We also are saddened that a people who identify so closely with the courage of the lion (singh) should suffer from a self-appointed representative so eager to reduce Sikhs to the victimology of the modern American left.
We also suspect that the Sikh Coalition’s complaint is opportunistic. American Birthright, after all, has not yet been adopted by any state—although we have high hopes for the near future. The Sikh Coalition may believe that we are a weak target, that they can easily persuade policymakers to renounce us, and that they can raise their institutional profile by means of an easy victory. They may also believe that even if they fail to persuade policymakers to renounce us, they can use a ginned-up controversy to gain publicity and engage in fundraising. We think it most likely that the Sikh Coalition’s attack on American Birthright is essentially a marketing campaign.
Of course the Civics Alliance does not renounce our use of the phrase “Muslim, Sikh, and Tamil terror.” But here we come to a complexity. We have always said that policymakers should take American Birthright as a model, which they can and should adjust as they see fit, for any reason whatsoever. We do not think policymakers should renounce American Birthright at the Sikh Coalition’s behest, or change our language to quiet unfounded complaints. But they have every right to do so. And we do not want to waste their time on a matter they generally will consider of minor importance. We therefore provide at once a substitute phrase to characterize contemporary Indian history, which any policymaker can state they will emend American Birthright to incorporate:
Muslim, Sikh, and Tamil movements, both peaceful and violent.
But, to repeat, we do not think this phrase is as accurate, or that policymakers should surrender to bullyragging complaint by organizations such as the Sikh Coalition. The Sikh Coalition, rather, should engage in the proper spirit of American education reform, and provide its own model standards for how they believe Sikh history and religion should be treated. This is what we have done with American Birthright—not satisfied ourselves with complaining about existing social studies standards, but worked constructively to create an alternate social studies standard. We did this so that American citizens and policymakers could compare American Birthright with existing social studies standards and choose the better option. We urge the Sikh Coalition to present policymakers with their vision of what should be—to seek to supplant American Birthright not by seeking to eliminate it, but by providing an alternative.
We also urge the Sikh Coalition to reconsider its priorities. We believe that if the Coalition’s staff truly cared about how American social studies standards present Sikh religion and history, they would focus their energy on state education departments and urge them to treat Sikh religion and history as thoroughly as does American Birthright—which on this subject exemplifies best existing practices among American social studies standards. We think that American students should know the Sikh people’s religion and history—and we do not condescend to Sikhs by describing them as plaster saints. The Sikh people have no greater champion among American education reformers than the Civics Alliance. We hope that the Sikh Coalition will soon recognize and acknowledge this truth.
Photo by Gayatri Malhotra on Unsplash
