Editorial Viewpoint
Serving a purpose
Another world congress is in the offing, the eighth since 1960. As the 400 or so delegates gather in London for a week of deliberations, talks and social events, the question that always plays on the mind of the community remains. What will the meet achieve?
The answer depends on how you view the event. For many, community gatherings are a waste of time and money, talk shops that generate more sound than light. Some see them as divisive forces bringing to the surface simmering differences. What have eight Congresses achieved? they ask. Tell us what tangible results you have to show?
Similar accusations are made regarding the Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India meetings. They are viewed by many as expensive extravaganzas, "full of sound and fury signifying nothing," as the Bard would say.
Yet on the other hand you have countries and cities vying with each other to host national and international events. In the past, before the Los Angeles Olympics, the games were a money loser. Still countries keenly competed with one another to host the event. There was the element of prestige, of international recognition, and finally the thrill of holding such a meet. The bonhomie generated, the new contacts and friendships formed, the business and social connections, the exposure to different points of view and other cultures...
So the question is not so much whether such events serve a purpose but rather whether the event has served the purpose that was intended. Not whether congresses should be held but whether they are properly held.
The judgment on the Eighth World Zoroastrian Congress (8WZC) in London has still to be determined. The Seventh World Zoroastrian Congress in Houston was a benchmark on how congresses should be managed. Not only was it a social and cultural success it was also financially viable. The Zoroastrians in North America have learned well from their new countries of abode how to manage events.
They began their preparations early, thought things through, made it a global effort, functioned democratically and planned meticulously. Other countries could take a leaf from their book.
The 8WZC had one advantage: the possibility of being the Congress to oversee the creation of a truly representative world body. The idea had been mooted in the First World Zoroastrian Congress held in Tehran 45 years earlier.
In the interim period, two world bodies were formed, both consisting of individuals. As the major anjumans and associations could not concur on a world body, individuals stepped in. The World Zoroastrian Organisation (WZO) was formed by the office bearers of the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe (ZTFE) and the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) was formed by the disgruntled members of the Ahmedabad, Bardoli, Nargol, Belgaum, Panchgani anjumans and two ex-trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP).
The International Zoroastrian Organization (IZO) which is a compromise umbrella body joining the amalgam of federations (WZOF) and individuals (WZOI) was to be formed at the 8WZC but now will be kept on hold indefinitely.
The members of the Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America (FEZANA) gave a mandate for one world body. The IZO could be viewed as three (IZO, WZOF, WZOI). The BPP wants only Parsi Irani Zoroastrians to be office bearers of IZO, a condition that would be unacceptable to FEZANA, Iran and others also.
The WZO, which made many compromises to adapt to the IZO's requirements, may decide the price they are being asked to pay is too high.
WAPIZ is too new and insignificant to be involved in the negotiations except as a spoiler. Its emphasis on racial qualification is unlikely to find many takers, especially in the West where the interfaith marriage rate is over 50 percent. WAPIZ's sound bites may be loud but its bite is feeble.
Thus 45 years after the Tehran Congr
The answer depends on how you view the event. For many, community gatherings are a waste of time and money, talk shops that generate more sound than light. Some see them as divisive forces bringing to the surface simmering differences. What have eight Congresses achieved? they ask. Tell us what tangible results you have to show?
Similar accusations are made regarding the Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India meetings. They are viewed by many as expensive extravaganzas, "full of sound and fury signifying nothing," as the Bard would say.
Yet on the other hand you have countries and cities vying with each other to host national and international events. In the past, before the Los Angeles Olympics, the games were a money loser. Still countries keenly competed with one another to host the event. There was the element of prestige, of international recognition, and finally the thrill of holding such a meet. The bonhomie generated, the new contacts and friendships formed, the business and social connections, the exposure to different points of view and other cultures...
So the question is not so much whether such events serve a purpose but rather whether the event has served the purpose that was intended. Not whether congresses should be held but whether they are properly held.
The judgment on the Eighth World Zoroastrian Congress (8WZC) in London has still to be determined. The Seventh World Zoroastrian Congress in Houston was a benchmark on how congresses should be managed. Not only was it a social and cultural success it was also financially viable. The Zoroastrians in North America have learned well from their new countries of abode how to manage events.
They began their preparations early, thought things through, made it a global effort, functioned democratically and planned meticulously. Other countries could take a leaf from their book.
The 8WZC had one advantage: the possibility of being the Congress to oversee the creation of a truly representative world body. The idea had been mooted in the First World Zoroastrian Congress held in Tehran 45 years earlier.
In the interim period, two world bodies were formed, both consisting of individuals. As the major anjumans and associations could not concur on a world body, individuals stepped in. The World Zoroastrian Organisation (WZO) was formed by the office bearers of the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe (ZTFE) and the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) was formed by the disgruntled members of the Ahmedabad, Bardoli, Nargol, Belgaum, Panchgani anjumans and two ex-trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP).
The International Zoroastrian Organization (IZO) which is a compromise umbrella body joining the amalgam of federations (WZOF) and individuals (WZOI) was to be formed at the 8WZC but now will be kept on hold indefinitely.
The members of the Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America (FEZANA) gave a mandate for one world body. The IZO could be viewed as three (IZO, WZOF, WZOI). The BPP wants only Parsi Irani Zoroastrians to be office bearers of IZO, a condition that would be unacceptable to FEZANA, Iran and others also.
The WZO, which made many compromises to adapt to the IZO's requirements, may decide the price they are being asked to pay is too high.
WAPIZ is too new and insignificant to be involved in the negotiations except as a spoiler. Its emphasis on racial qualification is unlikely to find many takers, especially in the West where the interfaith marriage rate is over 50 percent. WAPIZ's sound bites may be loud but its bite is feeble.
Thus 45 years after the Tehran Congr
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive