“The rape of the...”

It is sad that the malady that has afflicted a section of the Parsi Press for quite some years now, has spread its tentacles to Parsiana as well. Parsiana’s vitriolic editorials and biased reporting of the last two Federation meetings, seek only to malign and discredit (and thereby silence?) the orthodox, while the serious reasons behind the orthodox attempts to protest have been glossed over and the major issues underlining the very presence of the orthodox at Federation meetings, have been completely ignored.

Malafide motives (with absolutely no substantiation) are ascribed to the orthodox, like "having an agenda to halt meaningful dialog,” and "attempting to stymie the functioning of the Federation.” The fact that the Federation platform is increasingly being used to promote an agenda that goes against our religious tradition, in direct conflict with the stated position of the high priests, and the attempt on the part of the leadership to impose their personal heterodox views on an unsuspecting community through stealth and subterfuge via the Federation, is totally ignored. This, in fact, is the only reason so many anjumans have begun asserting their rights at Federation meetings.

It seems that Parsiana wishes to support only "yes men” and a mute and dumb show rather than the candid questioning of the ills afflicting the community. What comes through is that to get Parsiana’s approval we have to agree to everything that pushes a heterodox agenda. If you are orthodox, you are generally a fascist, often a buffoon, most times a goonda and certainly an ignoramus. This time Parsiana goes one-step further, wrongly accusing the orthodox camp even of dishonesty!

Take the instance of Parsiana’s comment that "The hall was jam packed… largely represented by members of the orthodox lobby who had acquired their endorsement knowingly or unknowingly.” The word "unknowingly” wrongly introduces the idea of dishonesty where none exists. Every single one of the proxy delegates attending the Federation meeting was doing so in an official capacity, with a letter of authority officially stamped by the trustees of the respective anjuman. Despite this, Parsiana writes as if the proxy delegates were there without knowledge of the anjumans. This kind of false innuendo continues throughout the Parsiana report and editorial to discredit the orthodox. So for example:

Official delegates from Gujarat are referred to as "dissidents from Gujarat.” Only derogatory terms like "henchmen, cohort, hangers-on,” etc are used to describe the orthodox group. Words like "goondagiri and dadagiri” are subtly introduced in the report, without clarifying that those words were wrongly used, in the first place. J. Kanga for instance, in a fit of anger directed at the orthodox, had said, "What is this goondagiri…” when a large number of delegates stood up in support of a call asking Keki Gandhi to step down from office. What was so goonda-like about showing our opposition to the joint honorary secre­tary’s manipulative way of functioning?

Whatever be the "niceties or parliamentary procedures” found lacking in the orthodox group by Parsiana, surely our action cannot be labeled goondagiri? There was certainly no goondagiri then or at any other time during the meeting, yet these words, wrongly used, instantly find their way into prejudiced Press reports.

Protests like the above, by what Parsiana refers to as "the orthodox lobby/group” are decried in the most damning terms but the serious reasons behind the protests are completely glossed over. For example, the extreme manipulation of the elections, whereby the AGM and the elections and appointments to over 30 posts were concluded in approximately 15 minutes, finds no mention anywhere in the report or editorial!

Orthodox voices are decried as being, "loud,” "increasingly shrill,” "strident,” "shouting,” "blasting.” On the other hand, to give only one of many such examples, Lt Gen Adi Sethna’s completely out-of-control shouting, in response to a point raised by a delegate about Delhi anjuman’s Parsi dharam-shala being rented out to non-Parsis, is referred to in respectable terms by Parsiana, like, "it was only Sethna’s experience as a commanding officer that enabled him to be heard above the noise.” With due respect to Sethna and to Parsiana’s fascination with his military background, the words "strident,” "shouting,” "blasting,” (and may I add, intimidating) were certainly more applicable to the General’s outburst that day than they were to orthodox voices; but of course Parsiana wouldn’t notice that!

With particular reference to Parsi­ana’s comments on my "parrot-like” questioning of Delhi’s membership of the Federation:

My specific question to the Federation leadership was whether Delhi qualifies to be a member of the Federation, under the rules and regulations of the Federation. I received a lengthy explanation on the genesis of the Federation, the Bombay Parsi Punchayet’s walking out of the Federation many years back, Delhi’s backdoor entry into the Federation, and Delhi’s contribution to the Federation. What I did not receive was an answer to my question. In fact, the question remains: if Delhi allows non-Parsi spouses to be members of the anjuman, how can it continue to be a member of the Federation when the rules do not permit it.

In response to Parsiana’s attack on Khergam and the query, "What kind of anjuman is Khergam if it nominates such a person to represent its interests?” Khergam is the kind of anjuman that the Federation should be proud of having as a member! For it is a small anjuman, which has clearly seen the bigger picture and recognizes the need for organized opposition to misplaced reform being imposed on the community. If only Parsiana had picked up the phone and talked to the trustees of Khergam (instead of wrongly accusing me of not doing that) they would have known that the trustees, who are actively involved in the upkeep of the anjuman, the fire temple and the dakhma, had sought Federation help several years back, but there was none forthcoming. Since then, the trustees have, on their own initiative, settled the minor encroachment problem. Further, they have personally taken another matter to court, without any help from the Federation whatsoever. I saw no purpose in reporting, merely for the sake of reporting, a matter in which the Federation has not been involved all these years. My statement on Khergam therefore, was deliberate and intentional (not made out of ignorance as it is made out to be). Further, please note the double standards operating at Parsiana. While my statement on Khergam is dissected, doubted and discredited, Jamsheed Kanga’s absolute silence, (he just passed on the mike, when it was his turn to give a report on Satara), is conveniently not even mentioned!

In conclusion, it might be of interest to know that during the lunch recess, I walked up to J. J. Irani, who I was told had commented on the lack of decorum at the meeting. Apologizing for cross-talking on the floor, I asked him if that justified his opening statement describing the meeting as "the most unruly meeting he had ever witnessed.” The man was big enough to admit that he had indeed used the word "unruly” wrongly. (Parsiana has not verified this retraction with J. J. Irani — editors.) Yet, how effectively the Press has used those words to discredit the orthodox.

That is not all. Towards the end of the meeting, Irani shared with the delegates an SMS sent to him by a friend during the meeting (inquiring after his well-being and wondering if he was being lynched by the bawas)! He replied to the SMS, he said, assuring his friend that after the first 15 minutes, all was well at the meeting. Is it not strange that Parsiana does not report Irani’s final comment at all? Moreover, when one recognizes the reason behind the agitation of the orthodox during the first 15 minutes (which was as a result of the manipulation of the so-called "elections”), the cross-talking becomes even more understandable.

The power of the pen is supreme and it is well nigh impossible to expose every bias and false innuendo that the editorial and report are riddled with. Suffice it to say that when journalists sharpen their claws instead of their pens, the real picture never emerges as the truth is scratched out. The picture the community gets is full of personal biases, as the reporter has gone to extraordinary lengths to clothe the truth. It is sad that this kind of biased and prejudiced reporting is coming from the once-balanced Parsiana.

TANNAZ PARAKH

I am surprised that Dr J. J. Irani, director of Tata Sons, considers the behavior of Lalu Prasad Yadav, Rashtriya Janata Dal chief, and former chief minister of Bihar, better than that of the delegates attending the Federation of Parsi Zoroas­trian Anjumans of India meeting in Bombay ("The rape of the Federation,” Editorial Viewpoint, Parsiana, September 21, 2005).

Yadav has been charged by the court in Jharkhand of swindling crores of rupees in the fodder scam case. And when forced to step down as chief minister, he puts his wife as chief minister in his place.

This corrupt scamster was appointed railway minister in the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) coalition at the center just because the Congress wanted to grab power by obtaining majority.

One knows about the mafia gangs and the abject poverty in Bihar, and according to one report, this was due to Yadav’s policy of inducting dalits into lucrative jobs at the expense of highly educated persons who therefore migrated to other states. Admonishing the delegates for their behavior in comparison to Yadav was ridiculous.

Dr P. D. SUNAVALA