“No world body please... ”

Your Editorial Viewpoint ("No world body please, we’re Parsis!” Parsiana, July 7, 2005) makes confusing reading.

Are you advocating co-existence or merger? Co-existence implies toleration of differing positions, while maintaining the independence and integrity of each entity involved.

Merger means absorption. Now, if the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) were to merge with the proposed International Zoroastrian Organization (IZO), it is very conceivable the global franchise, one day, would make the BPP a virtual non-entity!

Is such marginalization desirable when the BPP is entrusted with holding thousands of crores of Parsi funds, property, hospitals, institutions, etc, and the mandate to use these is only for the Parsis? The implications of merger are written on the wall. Why can’t they be seen? What "orthodoxy” are we talking about?

Bodies like the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) and IZO can co-exist but not unqualifiedly amalgamate for another, but associated, reason. The cock-a-hoop Caucasian, Latin American, North American, Australian, Samoan… neo-Zoroastrians, and as many such in India as numerous as its regional languages, can substantively wipe out the chronically agitated, virtually broken-down community of the Parsis in India. Is this fair?

Let the IZO look after its own flock — let them flourish –– and the BPP (and WAPIZ, if it means real "business”) look after the quiveringly vibrant community of the Parsis in India — to hell if they are dwindling. In fact, more so, if they are.

Are we thinking of our humble, almost quixotically honest members or of glamorous global networking? To what extent are we honest when we wish to go global? Who is it that the BPP should primarily serve? The jet-hopping, well-endowed neo-Zoroastrians, or the descendants of the majority of our pioneering community, eking out their existence as well as they can in the country of their forefathers’ adoption?

God knows, there appear to be as many publicity-seeking Zoroastrian associations, conferences, five-star meets, jamborees and congresses as there are members of our community! The exaggeration is to make a point. Which other community indulges so? There must necessarily be some restraint on the almost banal, self-congratulatory, award-conferring, hobnobbing of deemed "winners.” And to think we’ll now have 24 months of such "bravura” from your pages!

The "Parsi Press?” What "Parsi Press?” Maybe this is yet another exaggeration to make a point. Dr A. P. RANA

The Editors reply

We are neither advocating co-existence or merger. What we want is a truly representative Zoroastrian world body where membership is based on shared values and not birth. Anjumans that are members of the Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India enjoy autonomy, and yet at the same time they belong to the all India body. At the United Nations democracies and dictatorships sit side by side. If all these different entities can come together and still retain their individual parts, then why can’t the Parsis do likewise?

•••

The Parsiana editorial elicited a chain of reactions. Was it possible one man could completely overrule and change and thwart the formation of the world body? Yes the same one, who without him being named is referred to as, "the Oxford returned,” "British accentwalo,” "Anglicized Parsi.” You have to grant so much to this man Khojeste Mistree that single-handedly he swayed the vote in his favor, while the deliberations were still afloat! This world body was shelved because people were made to realize by Mistree that at some time this may go against the tenets of the Parsi religion itself.

The WZO (World Zoroastrian Orga­ni­sation) is an NGO doing great work all round. The World Zarathushti Chamber of Commerce (WZCC) deals with economics and financial matters. Zoroas­trian Studies deals with the study of the religion. There never was a need to have the Parsi Irani name added to them, as these are more broad based, whereas the world body of Zoroastrians was to be more flexible with the membership clause, and sooner or later it seemed it would be more of a cosmopolitan body and so the objections! Further by not adding the Parsi Irani terms in the world body it became more suspect! So we suddenly find it in limbo as projected in its present form. And like always we are shying away, instead of thrashing out the issues and coming to a fair, all round solution.

This bogey of Parsis in India are worried about our agiaries, trust properties, dakhmas, etc being ‘jhorpoed’ (snatched) by the suspect-Zoroastrians, only shows that people really doubt our intelligence. How can one listen to such talk! Such a question can never arise. These properties are so well protected that no one can touch them! And if at all such a thought is in the mind of some Parsis then here again the people concerned have not been able to put their fears to rest. And this is the main problem –– lack of proper communication and transparency.

Come what may we must involve the Parsi Press specially Parsiana, which never shies away from printing any views for or against any issue, whether or not the Editor agrees! Such a magazine must be our tool to voice all opinions. Involving the national Press is something we must avoid, as it is no concern of theirs to know what problems we are thrashing out within our community. In fact more such Parsi news in the national Press only becomes a matter of jest for the public! Comments like ‘atli nalli kaum (such a small community) and they are splitting apart’ are not funny at all.

RODA D. HAKIM

Baroda

The Editors reply

Mistree spearheaded the drive in the Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anju­mans of India and abroad. Until his appearance as the Belgaum Zoroastrian Anjuman representative, the Federation had sanctioned chairman Minoo Shroff to negotiate and finalize the proposed world body constitution.