“No entry!”

I agree that the banning of the Parsi Press from attending the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) launch was rather rude. However you and Jamé were asking for trouble. You seem to be printing the exact words of your advertisers/donors/World Zoroastrian Organisation (WZO) who are generally from overseas. How is it that the publication has now been doubled when I believe the earlier 12 issues were published with great difficulty? The Parsis of the world and Bombay could have been witness to a fantastic jashan and launch ceremony of WAPIZ but because of your own doings you were boycotted.

If you were so concerned about the interests of the community at large you would not be airing only one-sided views. I am ashamed of the negative vein in which you write about the orthodox. Well I am one of them and do not wish to change sides even if my economic state was improved by the liberals.

Hope greater wisdom dawns on you and you take a positive step towards religious views and not air views of the liberals alone. I was one of your very regular readers/subscribers and had gifted several to my family and friends as well. My firm Stewols and Company used to advertise but now we have changed our mind and do not wish to do so because of your reversal of views and change in stance of reporting. In fact you should be doing sting operations like Tehelka.

If at all you are at a juncture where you do something positive for the community we will be sure to support you.

SHIRAZ K. DOONGAJI

Nagpur

The Editors reply

(In response to our appeal for inserting an advertisement in our August New Year issue, Doongaji sent us the following response which he requested we publish in the magazine.)

Around 23 percent of our subscribers and one percent of our advertisers are from overseas. All of our sponsors are from India. Most of our well-wishers are middle-of-the-road Zoroastrians and several of them are orthodox. Around 85 percent of our income is from India so the insinuation that there is a foreign hand at work is unfounded. Almost 90 percent of our income is from advertisements and subscriptions. As Doongaji mentioned, he himself was an advertiser and had gifted subscriptions.

Everyone does not have to agree with our views in order to support us. They assist us because they believe in a free Press.

People’s faith and beliefs are shaped by our upbringing, our parents, friends, schools, work environment, neighborhood and also economies. Money is not the main factor.

Doongaji implies economic consideration influence people’s religious leanings. As Doongaji himself says: "I… do not wish to change sides even if my economic state was impoved by the liberals.”

If he will not change his point of view for economic betterment, why should he assume that anybody else is different? Parsis and the Parsi Press in general have liberal leanings just as Doongaji has orthodox leanings.

Our point of view does not change with each new advertiser, donor or subscriber in India or overseas. A publication has to see who its constituency is and cater to its needs.

With one crore rupees given to WAPIZ it is clear the orthodox are well-heeled. So if money is the deciding factor, both sides can purchase loyalties. As a matter of fact the WZO started modestly and met with much resistance while WAPIZ had a grand launch and was lauded by the orthodox.

Doongaji states the Parsis in the world and Bombay could have been witness to a fantastic jashan and WAPIZ launch ceremony. It was WAPIZ that did not wish the community Press to be present at their inaugural while at the same time welcoming the general Press.

If Doongaji and WAPIZ are upset with the Parsi Press they can start their own publication as they did their own ‘world’ body. Or they could support existing orthodox publications such as The Parsee Voice. This would be a more constructive approach than questioning the bonafides or imputing mercenary motives to the established media.