“Serving a purpose”

In your editorial "Serving a purpose” (Parsiana, June 21, 2005) you have rightly raised several relevant questions in respect of the World Zoroastrian Congresses (WZC).

My intention in writing this letter is to point out that if the WZC is to serve any purpose, then the recommendations made by the various expert panels at the WZC must be implemented in letter and spirit. As a concrete instance, two panels at the Fifth WZC held in Bombay from January 3 to 7, 1990 had advocated the adoption of the common Fasli calendar with New Year on Jamshedi Navroz on the occasion of vernal equinox on March 21. Fifteen years have passed but yet no action has been taken on this important recommendation in spite of the fact that Iran and several Central Asian republics celebrate Navroz on March 21 and reportedly even the Australian Zoroastrian Association has adopted the Fasli calendar.

When this mater was brought before the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) by the undersigned in 1993, the reply received was that some committee set up by the BPP several decades ago had decided against any change.

My investigation into the report of the said BPP committee was revealing and was reported by me earlier in the now defunct magazine Parsidom dated October 30, 1997 and also in Jam-e-Jamshed of May 21, 2000.

For the benefit of Parsiana readers I am recounting briefly the report of the BPP committee set up in 1927 in response to a wide communal clamor to adopt the Fasli calendar. The committee comprising of 34 members submitted its final report (FR) eight years later in 1935 during which period six members had died. Twelve members refused to act on the committee. Two members did not attend a single meeting and hence their signatures were not sought in the FR. That left only 14 members available for signing the FR which gave an extremely narrow split verdict.

Those in favor of the Fasli calendar were Behramghor T. Anklesaria, Sardar Dastur Nosherwan K. Aderbad, Dhunji­bhai N. Kurlevala, Meherjibhai N. Kuka, Pestonji K. Motivala and Dinshaw J. Irani. Those in favor of the Shahenshahi calendar were Mancherji P. Khareghat, Dastur Faramroz N. Kutar, Ervad Rustomji F. Billimoria, Dastur Khar­shedji E. Pavri, Ervad Bamanji M. Unvala, Faredun K. Dadachanji and Ervad Kekhasru M. Kutar. Hormusji D. Gharda abstained from taking sides.

Now the important question is whether the BPP was justified in banking on the outdated and controversial split verdict by a solitary vote made by a committee 70 years back, and refusing to honor and abide by the unanimous recommendations of expert panels made at the Fifth WZC. If the BPP shows glaring bias in opposing important recommendations made at the WZC and which have worldwide involvement, then the WZC would serve no purpose.

Dr P. D. SUNAVALA