Funeral rites and rights

After almost two years of deliberation, the trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) in a six to one decision have decided to permit the performance of the funeral ceremonies, barring the geh sarna (paidust) on the Doongerwadi grounds. The body of the deceased who has opted for burial/cremation or any form of disposal other than dakhmenashini will not be brought to Doongerwadi but the subsequent ceremonies may be performed there.

"A suitable place would be demarcated in the area known as Ambawadi (which is far removed from the dakhmas and the bunglis) for constructing a prayer hall for the aforesaid purpose,” states a letter signed by BPP chairman, Jamshed N. Guzder and addressed to Hoshang Wania, the convener, Save Doonger­wadi Action Committee (SDAC).

Parsiana reproduces Guzder’s letter as well as extracts from dissenting trustee Rustom Tirandaz’s note to his co-trustees (subsequently trustee Dinshaw Mehta has joined Tirandaz in opposing the Punchayet decision), excerpts from an article written by former BPP chairman and trustee Eruch Desai, all of which appeared in the Jam-e-Jamshed Weekly of December 9, 2001 and some lines from a rejoinder by Wania.

Guzder states:

At a board meeting held on November 6, 2001, the trustees of the BPP by a majority, after duly considering the opinion of senior counsel Rafiq Dada and all the facts and circumstance of the matter have taken the decisions set out herein below.

The DDD-AG (Disposal of the Dead with Dignity — Action Group) conveyed to the trustees their decision to the effect that the body of a deceased Zoroastrian which is to be disposed of by a method other than the method of dakhmenashini would not be brought within the premises of Doongerwadi. In other words, the first day’s ceremony up to the geh sarna would be performed at a place other than Doongerwadi. The remaining obsequial ceremonies, in such circumstances, were proposed by the DDD-AG to be performed at Doonger­wadi, subject to the approval of the trustees.

In view of the above revised stand of the DDD-AG, the trustees at the aforesaid meeting arrived at the following decisions:

•The request of the DDD-AG to perform the religious ceremonies other than the first day’s ceremony up to geh sarna appeared to the trustees to be reasonable and the trustees decided to accept the same, subject to what is stated below.

•Only the ceremonies permitted by the Zoroastrian religion would be permitted to be performed at Doongerwadi and no other form of ceremonies would be so permitted.

•No existing bungli would be provided to the followers and supporters of the DDD-AG for the aforesaid purpose. Furthermore, at no time or stage would the body of a deceased be brought within the premises of Doongerwadi.

•A suitable place would be demarcated in the area known as Ambawadi, (which is far removed from the dakhmas and the bunglis) for constructing a prayer hall for the aforesaid purpose.

•Such a prayer hall would be constructed at the entire cost of the DDD-AG after obtaining such permissions as are necessary for that purpose, the land at all times to belong to the BPP.

•The arrangements for the aforesaid ceremonies and prayers would be made by the supporters and followers of the DDD-AG directly with the mobeds.

For the sake of clarification, it may also be stated that the trustees reiterate their earlier decision that they would uphold, support, sustain and strengthen the system of dakhmenashini. The trustees reiterate their earlier decision to support the construction of an aviary up to a total capital cost of one crore rupees. The trustees have already provided for four solar concentrators and additional solar concentrators will be installed in due course. All measures possible for strengthening the system of dakhmenashini would be taken by the BPP.

As soon as the above decisions regarding the permission to have the ceremonies performed by supporters of the DDD-AG as aforesaid were arrived at by the trustees, these were made known to our colleague trustee, R. S. Tirandaz (who was not present at the aforesaid meeting) and he was requested to communicate the same to your Committee and we trust this has already been done. However, for the sake of good order, we are addressing this letter to you so that the position in the matter is reiterated.

The trustees also decided that should any party which or any person who is not satisfied with the aforesaid decisions of the trustees, such party or person would be free to move an appropriate judicial forum or authority. If after expiry of a period of 30 days, no order of any competent judicial authority or forum is received by the trustees, the trustees would proceed to implement the above decisions.

The trustees earnestly request that in the wider interests of the community and for greater peace and harmony within the community, the aforesaid decisions may please be accepted by all sections of the community.

The trustees have seriously deliberated on this issue and have endeavored to arrive at decisions which they believe are in the larger interests of the community.

Should you so desire, the trustees would be happy if a few representatives of your group meet the trustees to discuss at a mutually convenient date and time.

Tirandaz writes in a letter dated December 4, 2001 addressed to the trustees:

Ever since the opinion of our senior counsel Rafiq Dada has been received by us, I have been most intrigued by the happenings that have taken place in the board. The events of the last few weeks have badly shaken my faith in our collective wisdom to really take the right decisions without fear or favor and steer the course of the majority of the Parsi Irani Zoroastrian community out of the present murky and turbulent waters created by the controversy of dakhmena­shini versus cremation.

I have failed to understand why, when our only legally qualified solicitor colleague Dadi Engineer initially and unequivocally declared that on strict interpretation Dada’s opinion favors the SDAC’s contentions, did we suddenly have to create a volte face, and double over backwards in favor of the DDD-AG.

First of all, I am at pains to understand, that whereas hitherto all the decisions of the BPP have been unanimous, why all of a sudden is it thought fit to send out unilaterally a letter to the DDD-AG without so much as informing the SDAC only because most of us were desirous of pleasing the doctors, lawyers and other professionals who were breathing down our necks.

Sadly have I noted that we talked of a samast anjuman meeting as desired by the clergy as well as the rank and file of the community and an originating summons to be moved by us in the Bombay High Court as considered by us, but we chickened out when the threats of the DDD-AG to drag us to the court and close down the dakhmenashini system were extended.

Eruch Desai, Bomi Zaiwalla, the eight High Priests of India, all the 44 presiding priests of (Bombay’s) fire-temples, and over 10,000 Parsi Irani Zoroastrian signatories have been unanimously equivocal in their condemnation of the DDD-AG’s demands. They have reinforced Dada’s stand, no matter how much one might try to find fault with it...

If our affidavit on dakhmenashini does not have a ring of hypocrisy in it, then we have much to do, to get dakhmenashini on track again, and the lesser the interference, the better and faster and cheaper can we get the job done.

If we are not men of straw and if we care for Zoroastrianism let us stymie the DDD-AG with a call for a samast anjuman meeting and also go to court with an originating summons, as that is the least we can do for the thousands of nameless and faceless devout Parsi Irani Zoroastrians, and the various anjumans of India, who look to the BPP as their savior, since we lack the courage to ask the minuscule DDD-AG to go their separate way as a new denomination of Zoroastrianism.

May saner counsel prevail and lift the burden of destroying the faith from our frail shoulders.

Eruch Desai writes:

In support of their decision, the trustees say that the request of DDD-AG to perform the religious ceremonies other than the first day’s ceremony of geh sarna appears to the trustees "to be reasonable” and the trustees decided to accept the same. It is a sad chapter in the history of the BPP that they have ignored not only (the) views of the learned High Priests of the community who should know better on the subject than the trustees, but also the legal position as propounded in the counsel’s opinion. Can "reasonableness” of a request prevail over these two paramount factors? If according to the opinion, and if according to the religious experts, such ceremonies cannot be performed, then no decision can be taken by any responsible body of men ignoring the pillars of the community and the legal position on which only the courts alone can pronounce an authoritative judgement...

The trustees have also laid down that no existing bunglis would be provided to the followers and supporters of the DDD-AG for the aforesaid purpose and a suitable place would be demarcated "in the area known as Ambawadi (which is far removed from the dakhmas and bunglis) for constructing a prayer hall for the aforesaid purpose.” Whilst imposing this condition, the trustees seem to admit the position that the existing land and the bunglis thereon cannot be used for recitation of the prayers also, when the bodies are not consigned to the dakhmas. In the same breath, how can they say that a part of the same land, but some distance away, can be availed of for the purpose? The condition that at no stage should the body of a deceased opting for alternate system be brought within the premises of Doongerwadi, does not alleviate the... situation.

A further condition imposed is that such prayer hall shall be constructed at the entire cost of the DDD-AG after obtaining such permissions as are necessary for that purpose and the land shall at all times belong to the BPP. Could not then a demand be, that if the new prayer hall to be constructed at Ambawadi does not form part of the Trust property the same can be made available to the other communities also for recitation of the prayers?...

The trustees have further stated in the letter that all measures possible for strengthening the system of dakhmena­shini would be taken by the BPP including their support for the aviary system as also providing additional solar concentrators in due course. This does not cut much ice. It is blowing hot and cold at the same time. In one breath they say they are supporting the dakhmenashini system and in the other breath, how can they say that they can allow prayers in respect of a body which is not confined to the dakhma? It is also not consistent with their sworn affidavit to strengthen the dakhmenashini system...

The trustees have made no announcement of such an important decision in the Press or otherwise, immediately after it was reached on November 6, 2001 which was the normal practice in our days...

The trustees say that they have seriously debated on this issue and have endeavored to arrive at the decisions which they believe are in the larger interest of the community. By one stroke of the pen, the trustees have driven the death knell to the dakhmenashini system and possibly, to the Doongerwadi property, ignoring the opinion of the vast majority of the community as evidenced by nearly 8,000 signatures that SDAC have obtained as against nil from the other side on the so-called plea that "such wrong means cannot be used to justify the right ends...”

Wania’s response dated December 3, 2001.

You have completely ignored the fact that you are the trustees of the Doongerwadi property and hence bound to administer the same in accordance with the trust deed. Your own counsel has opined that your actions have to be in consonance with the religion. It is amply clear that the facilities at Doongerwadi are available only to those community members whose corpses are consigned to the dakhmas and not to those who wish to avail themselves (of) an alternate un-Zoroastrian method of disposal of the dead. The Zoroastrian religion firmly rejects all other methods of disposal of the dead except dakhmenashini, particularly where it is available and in use...

An issue as important as this cannot be decided by you, the trustees, who openly profess that you have no knowledge of the religion. Therefore, we believe, that it is imperative that a samast anjuman meeting be properly convened in the New Year. At this meeting, let both sides present their case so that the voice of the community may be heard and taken cognizance of, on this vexed issue.

We the members of the SDAC, speaking on behalf of the majority of the community, reject outright your decision to accede to the demands of the DDG-AG as well as we oppose your 30-day deadline communicated to us vide your letter dated November 28, 2001, and request you to rescind your wrong decision.