Editorial Viewpoint
How trust-worthy?
The navjotes of Anahita and Ayesha Dua in Chicago last year upheld one of the basic premises of Zoroastrianism: making a moral choice. The sisters' parents Arnavaz (n‚e Fouzdar) and Kulwinder Dua did not impose either of their religious leanings on their children. On reaching adulthood, the two siblings arrived at their decision. "My sister and I were in a position where we could choose to sit in our house in silence or demand the right and recognition to be good Zoroastrian women."
More recently in Bombay the two adult Stafford sisters born of a Parsi mother and non-Parsi father, had their navjotes performed at the prayer hall made available through the good auspices of a member of the Association of Inter-Married Zoroastrians (AIMZ) and the goodwill of that organization and the Association for Revival of Zoroastrianism (ARZ).
While navjotes of children of Parsi mothers to non-Parsis do occur, the initiation of adult offspring of such unions is rare. That these children who are discriminated against and considered non-Parsis still choose to embrace their mother's faith speaks volumes for their commitment to the religion.
While their navjote ceremony means that they are legally and religiously full-fledged Zoroastrians, they are not considered Parsi Zoroastrians in the eyes of the law (a Parsi is one born of a Parsi father). Hence legally they may not avail of trust funds and properties specified for Parsi Zoroastrians.
Can they enter a fire temple? In the landmark case of Petit vs Jeejeebhoy, 1908, Bombay High Court Justice Dinshaw Davar noted: "I come to the conclusion that even if an entire alien - a Juddin - is duly admitted into the Zoroastrian religion after satisfying all conditions and undergoing all necessary ceremonies, he or she would not, as a matter of right, be entitled to the use and benefits of the funds and institutions. founded and endowed only for the members of the Parsi community."
Davar's co-judge on the bench, Justice Frank C. O. Beaman stated, the "question is not whether the Zoroastrian religion permits conversion, but whether, when these trusts were founded, the founders contemplated and intended that converts should be admitted to participate in them."
But the three Privy Council judges in Saklat vs Bella 1925 while agreeing that Bella had no legal right to enter the Rangoon fire temple stated the trustees could permit her admission. The judges noted: "that at the time when these grants at Rangoon were made the Government must have intended that the temple should be for the benefit of professing members of the Parsi community i.e. racial Parsis or people deemed after a long lapse of ages to be racial Parsis.
"But this does not exhaust the matters to be determined on the present appeal. It determines that the respondent Bella has no right of entering into the temple and may therefore be excluded or extruded from the temple by the trustees. They can treat her as a trespasser. But it does not follow that they are bound to so treat her.
"When property is set apart for public or charitable uses, it will be a malversation to apply any of the funds for persons who are not objects of the trust. Those who are objects of the trust must have all the benefits they require; and if there is a surplus, it must be left to the courts to make a cy prŠs application of it. But when the subject matter of such a trust or charity is the rendering of some convenience or service of such a nature that it will not hurt the lawful recipients if others share with them, their lordships are aware of no case in which it has been held that the trustees are bound to exclude persons who have no legal title to share. They may do so; they may treat all such persons as trespassers and say. 'Thus I will thus I command, let it stand.' But if they choose to admit to the benefit of some park or garden established for a particular district some person from over the bor
More recently in Bombay the two adult Stafford sisters born of a Parsi mother and non-Parsi father, had their navjotes performed at the prayer hall made available through the good auspices of a member of the Association of Inter-Married Zoroastrians (AIMZ) and the goodwill of that organization and the Association for Revival of Zoroastrianism (ARZ).
While navjotes of children of Parsi mothers to non-Parsis do occur, the initiation of adult offspring of such unions is rare. That these children who are discriminated against and considered non-Parsis still choose to embrace their mother's faith speaks volumes for their commitment to the religion.
While their navjote ceremony means that they are legally and religiously full-fledged Zoroastrians, they are not considered Parsi Zoroastrians in the eyes of the law (a Parsi is one born of a Parsi father). Hence legally they may not avail of trust funds and properties specified for Parsi Zoroastrians.
Can they enter a fire temple? In the landmark case of Petit vs Jeejeebhoy, 1908, Bombay High Court Justice Dinshaw Davar noted: "I come to the conclusion that even if an entire alien - a Juddin - is duly admitted into the Zoroastrian religion after satisfying all conditions and undergoing all necessary ceremonies, he or she would not, as a matter of right, be entitled to the use and benefits of the funds and institutions. founded and endowed only for the members of the Parsi community."
Davar's co-judge on the bench, Justice Frank C. O. Beaman stated, the "question is not whether the Zoroastrian religion permits conversion, but whether, when these trusts were founded, the founders contemplated and intended that converts should be admitted to participate in them."
But the three Privy Council judges in Saklat vs Bella 1925 while agreeing that Bella had no legal right to enter the Rangoon fire temple stated the trustees could permit her admission. The judges noted: "that at the time when these grants at Rangoon were made the Government must have intended that the temple should be for the benefit of professing members of the Parsi community i.e. racial Parsis or people deemed after a long lapse of ages to be racial Parsis.
"But this does not exhaust the matters to be determined on the present appeal. It determines that the respondent Bella has no right of entering into the temple and may therefore be excluded or extruded from the temple by the trustees. They can treat her as a trespasser. But it does not follow that they are bound to so treat her.
"When property is set apart for public or charitable uses, it will be a malversation to apply any of the funds for persons who are not objects of the trust. Those who are objects of the trust must have all the benefits they require; and if there is a surplus, it must be left to the courts to make a cy prŠs application of it. But when the subject matter of such a trust or charity is the rendering of some convenience or service of such a nature that it will not hurt the lawful recipients if others share with them, their lordships are aware of no case in which it has been held that the trustees are bound to exclude persons who have no legal title to share. They may do so; they may treat all such persons as trespassers and say. 'Thus I will thus I command, let it stand.' But if they choose to admit to the benefit of some park or garden established for a particular district some person from over the bor
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive