“The great divide”

Your Editorial Viewpoint, "The great divide” (Parsiana, March 2005) advised the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) leadership to draw a lesson from the Thana Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman (TPZA) relating to the battle over the International Zoroastrian Organization (IZO). It is further stated how the TPZA countered the "(Khojeste) Mistree camp” letters sent to anjuman members and the stand taken by Rustom Cursetji and his team, on principles, at the Ahmedabad meeting of the Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India.

In this connection, I submit a copy of the circular letter by the managing committee of TPZA. From its contents you will observe that TPZA has taken the same stand as has been insisted upon by the "Mistree camp” at Ahmedabad, perhaps with the sole intention to win the election. Based on the assurances given by the TPZA, members voted in their favor.

According to the circular issued by the managing committee:

"We have always supported Parsipanu and condemned conversions and opposed cosmopolitan residential society in religious/Parsi Trust property and that’s why three buildings (140 homes) in Thana are exclusively for Parsi/Irani Zoroastrians.

"At Ahmedabad, we expressed (possible) support for formation/joining a world body with adequate safeguards, such as members only Parsi/Irani Zoroastrian, head office at Bombay, all office bearers from India, majority voting right (51 percent or more) and or veto power, autonomy for all anjumans and Federations to have their own rules, etc and of course with your mandate, so requested chairman, Minoo Shroff not to keep it for voting in that meeting, before proper deliberations and debates at all levels.

"Unfortunately only some few members/candidates, exclusively from Patell Apartments who want their society with common standard bye-laws so they can have freedom to sell their flat to any at market rate are doing mischievous propaganda with twisted facts and lies. Please do not get misled by their folly. ”

The stand taken by the Cursetjee team at Ahmedabad was their personal view, as members of the TPZA are not in favor of a cosmopolitan world body. No mandate has been obtained by TPZA on this issue from their members. On the contrary, nearly 200 members opposed joining the World Zoroastrian Organisation (WZO) cosmopolitan body and requested the trustees to call for a general body meeting to discuss this issue. Realizing the sentiment of a majority of members, the trustees have not yet arranged such a meeting even after the lapse of a couple of months.

Some of the trustees of the Thana Anjuman have expressed their displeasure on the stand taken by the ‘Cursetji camp’ at the Federation meeting in Ahmedabad.

As regards the formation of WZOI/WZOF (World Zoroastrian Organization of Individuals and World Zoroastrian Organization of Federations), it is the dream of a few rich people residing abroad. They are making strenuous efforts to legitimize conversion through such organizations to make a back door entry not only into our religion but also to avail of community benefits. Had that not been the case, they would not have insisted upon membership being open to all Zoroastrians, instead of restricting it only to Parsi/Irani Zarathushtis.

In the history of the BPP, its trustees have never been in so miserable a state of affairs as they are today on the issue of IZO/WZOI/WZOF. Some of them are "agents” of their counterparts abroad. They are unable to convince organizers of such associations that religious and traditional values cannot be bargained in lieu of socioeconomic upliftment of the community.

On the other hand the trustees of the BPP are losing ground in persuading various anjumans to accept the membership clause as per the draft constitution framed by the organizers abroad. Instead of taking a lesson from the Federation meeting at Ahmedabad, they have made futile efforts to declare that the trustees of the BPP would insist upon keeping only Parsi/Irani office bearers in IZO/WZOI/WZOF at the same time keeping the community in the dark about membership. This is obvious for some of the trustees of the BPP are eager to join the world body at any cost. They harp on one point: "If we do not join the world body, we will be isolated.” At the same time they overlook the historic truth that it is isolation which has brought our community to its present level of prosperity.

The matter is lingering for more than 30 years which obviously indicates indecisiveness on the part of the BPP in taking a right decision on this issue.

A point which pains me is the negative role played by community publications. Instead of giving balanced news and justice to the sentiment of a majority of anjumans and the community as a whole, they have preferred to give a one-sided story. Every effort was discouraged and given a different hue. This is nothing but a mockery of journalism which may succeed for the time being but not forever. The sooner they realize this truth the better for them and the community.

JAMSHED J. MOHTA

Bardoli

The Editors reply

Our editorial praised Rustom Cursetji for taking "the Mistree camp head-on.” We stated "they followed all the democratic norms, permitted Mistree to address the anjuman members on his opposition to the world body, countered the letters the Mistree camp sent to anjuman members criticizing the Cursetji team, stood by their principles at the Ahmedabad Federation meeting despite being threatened and verbally abused and then went on to win the trusteeship/committee elections.” Nowhere did we state Cursetji’s stand on who was eligible or not to join the world body. The Cursetji team fought fire with fire and won. The thrust of our editorial was that the Federation and Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) leadership have to fight for what they believe in. What point of view they follow will depend on their beliefs and the wishes of their constituencies. Politics is the art of the possible. The BPP trustees may favor the liberal or the orthodox point of view. But they have to respect the views of those who elected them to office. If a final decision is to be taken, it must be as per the wishes of the community and not a handful of votaries, liberal or orthodox.

Mohta mentioned, "No mandate has been obtained by TPZA on the issues (of joining the world body) from their members.” Firstly an anjuman is not obligated to take a referrendum on the issue. Secondly how many of the anjuman representatives who signed the memorandum of disagreement had called general body meetings to assess their anjuman’s point of view on the subject? And how many anjumans who have joined the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) have called a general body meeting to ask if their leaders should join/support WAPIZ? Even though the membership of WAPIZ comprises individuals, some of the founders and members of WAPIZ have stated their anjuman’s affiliations, thereby indirectly indicating they represent the concerned anjuman on the body.