Since the NCERT tried to evade all issues in the first grievance, a second grievance has been filed, asking NCERT to produce primary evidence for “Euclid” or delete all 63 mentions and image of Euclid from its 9th standard text. Further falsehoods will be taken up subsequently.<\/p>\n
The new grievance is given below.<\/p>\n
This grievance is raised as a response to the response received to grievance DOSEL\/E\/2019\/01152 (signed Smt. Tulika Verma, Under Secretary). <\/span> Since the NCERT tried to evade all issues in the first grievance, a second grievance has been filed, asking NCERT to produce primary evidence for “Euclid” or delete all 63 mentions and image of Euclid from its 9th standard text. Further falsehoods will be taken up subsequently. The new grievance is given below. DOSEL\/E\/2019\/01645 This grievance is raised as a response to the response received to grievance DOSEL\/E\/2019\/01152 (signed Smt. Tulika Verma, Under Secretary). The response received from Smt. Tulika Verma, unfortunately, does not address all the five points (falsehoods) DOSEL\/E\/2019\/01152 contained, and at best, can be seen as a partial (and unsatisfactory) response to FALSEHOOD 2. Vide this grievance, we request clarity on FALSEHOOD 1 in DOSEL\/E\/2019\/01152: 1) Does NCERT consider Euclid a historical person who lived in the past (Yes \/ No \/ Not sure)(There are 63 references to Euclid, and one image, in just the 9th standard NCERT math text)2) If the answer to question 1 above is a yes, what is the serious evidence NCERT can furnish to support the claim that Euclid is historicalSerious evidence means evidence from PRIMARY sources. Tertiary sources like Wikipedia are unacceptable, as are secondary sources. The related point also being made is that Euclid is part of church propaganda. Therefore, merely producing some Western secondary text in support of the propaganda is NOT acceptable. (Or if NCERT regards it as acceptable, it must also agree to put a bold warning at the beginning of the school text that it has no serious evidence for the story stated about Euclid, and that its policy is that all Indian children are obliged to accept whatever nonsense is stated in Western secondary texts, and have no right to challenge those texts by demanding primary evidence). Thank you for your attention.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-175","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-education","category-history-and-philosophy-of-mathematics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ckraju.net\/wordpress_F\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ckraju.net\/wordpress_F\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ckraju.net\/wordpress_F\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ckraju.net\/wordpress_F\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ckraju.net\/wordpress_F\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=175"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ckraju.net\/wordpress_F\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ckraju.net\/wordpress_F\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=175"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ckraju.net\/wordpress_F\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=175"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ckraju.net\/wordpress_F\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=175"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
The response received from Smt. Tulika Verma, unfortunately, does not address all the five points (falsehoods) DOSEL\/E\/2019\/01152 contained, and at best, can be seen as a partial (and unsatisfactory) response to FALSEHOOD 2. <\/span>
Vide this grievance, we request clarity on FALSEHOOD 1 in DOSEL\/E\/2019\/01152: <\/span>
1) Does NCERT consider Euclid a historical person who lived in the past (Yes \/ No \/ Not sure)<\/span>
(There are 63 references to Euclid, and one image, in just the 9th standard NCERT math text)<\/span>
2) If the answer to question 1 above is a yes, what is the serious evidence NCERT can furnish to support the claim that Euclid is historical<\/span>
Serious evidence means evidence from PRIMARY sources. Tertiary sources like Wikipedia are unacceptable, as are secondary sources. The related point also being made is that Euclid is part of church propaganda. Therefore, merely producing some Western secondary text in support of the propaganda is NOT acceptable. (Or if NCERT regards it as acceptable, it must also agree to put a bold warning at the beginning of the school text that it has no serious evidence for the story stated about Euclid, and that its policy is that all Indian children are obliged to accept whatever nonsense is stated in Western secondary texts, and have no right to challenge those texts by demanding primary evidence). <\/span>
Thank you for your attention.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"