An unzoroastrian act

Some of our agiary trustees think nothing of committing a flagrant breach of trust. However, nothing is more painful than a Zoroastrian denying his fellow religionist the latter’s right to worship. This story does not come from some obscure hamlet in Gujarat but from Poona, the city which gave the nation some outstanding freedom fighters.

The priest is Eruchsha D. Dastur, the panthaky of Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Agiary in Poona Camp. The victim is a young lady, born of both Parsi Zoroastrian parents, but married to a Hindu, under the Special Marriage Act. She has never renounced her faith. She has never converted. When her mother died, Eruchsha did not permit this lady, Khushnum Chouhan, to sit in on the prayers at the Agiary. This young lady was devastated.

Recently again, when her aunt died, Eruchsha once again denied Khushnum entry into the Sir J. J. Agiary.

Jal Daruwalla, as her advocate, wrote to the panthaky that his client had never renounced Zoroastrianism. Marriage under the Special Marriage Act does not amount to a change of religion. The Bombay Parsi Punchayet has itself resolved, following Roxanne Shah’s case, that an intermarried Parsi woman who has not renounced her religion, is entitled to all the benefits of Parsi religious institutions. Eruchsha had violated Khushnum’s fundamental right to religious worship enshrined under the Constitution of India. The panthaky’s attention was also drawn to the landmark judgment of Petit vs Jeejeebhoy by the Bombay High Court.

Eruchsha replied to Khushnum’s advocate and said: "The sanctity and holiness of the fire at our Agiary is my main and arduous task. As a panthaky and protector of the fire, and the faith of the worshipper, it is my duty and my right to allow or deny the right of entry into the Agiary on what I perceive as harmful or harmless to the atash padshah.

"When a Zoroastrian lady has married a non-Zoroastrian, she has embraced the faith of her husband, and to that degree ceases to be a Zoroastrian. Therefore entering the precincts of the Agiary, and the inner sanctum, is in my belief harming the holy fire, and as a responsibility to my holiest of holy fires, (I) find it impossible to allow the desecration knowingly, of the fire, and betraying my own beliefs and those of the numerous other worshippers who pray at our door, believing the fire is pure.”

The priest obviously fancies himself to be above the law of the land and a defender of the faith. He arrogantly arrogates to himself the power to throw out people from the Agiary whom he thinks are ‘harmful to the atash padshah.’

Daruwalla wrote back stating that Khushnum was a beneficiary of the Agiary trust and Eruchsha’s personal beliefs of ‘harmful and harmless’ were immaterial. Daruwalla also wrote several letters to the trustees of the Agiary asking them to confirm whether they supported their panthaky’s actions. No reply, just a stony silence.

If Eruchsha has acted illegally, the trustees, by keeping silent, have condoned their panthaky’s conduct, and therefore, the trustees have denied the right of a beneficiary under the trust. This is nothing but a breach of trust.

The bigoted priest should be told by the Parsis of Poona that we are not living in the Middle Ages and we cannot burn the intermarried at the stake, even if we may like to do it. He has to be cleansed of the delusions of grandeur that he suffers from.

It is precisely acts like these which alienate our young from the faith. A community tottering on the brink of extinction can ill afford the luxury of losing its practising young. Leave aside the trauma you cause to an individual at a time of distress.

The trustees of Sir J. J. Agiary must tell Eruchsha that it is he who is ‘harmful’ to the atash padshah and, therefore, they have decided to throw him out of the Agiary.

Berjis M. Desai, a leading solicitor, is managing partner of J. Sagar Associates and a weekly columnist for The Bombay Samachar.