Rustom Gae clarifies

I was rather surprised see that a paragraph containing extracts from the personal letter of condolence written by me on the demise of Manchi to his son and daughter in-law, Ronnie and Yasmin, was included in the obituary write-up.

Objection is raised by P. B. Bharda to the following statement made in the said paragraph: "He leaves us with a tremendous feeling of awe and wonder that such a good person worked with us in close proximity and did his best to improve the lot of Parsis and others in Bangalore... He fought many matters for the benefit of poor Parsis successfully exposing at the same time misdeeds, misappropriation of funds and breach of trust...”

Suffice it to say that over and above what is stated in the above paragraph nobody (including Bharda) has the right to know what communication on the subject was exchanged between me and Gandhi, nor do journalistic ethics permit her to disclose such communication to any person whomsoever.

Anjuman records, communication with members of the community and others, media coverages, etc unequivocally show Disawalla’s interest in current topics and issues pertaining to the Parsi community in general and Parsis of Bangalore in particular. It cannot be gainsaid that he took keen interest in all these matters and expressed his views boldly and firmly without any fear or favor and thereby fought many matters (including controversial matters) successfully for the benefit of Parsis, specially poor Parsis.

The important role played by him in safeguarding the interests of Parsis in relation to Entee Dharamshala and the Anjuman’s trust deed bears eloquent testimony to the same. It is not necessary to refer here to more instances in support thereof. His thought-provoking articles and write-ups in Parsiana and other journals support the above statement. He was liberal and forward-looking in his ideas matching with the present times, though that was not appreciated by some members of the Bangalore Anjuman.

The above statement is completely general in nature without any reference whatsoever to the Bangalore Anjuman or its trustees or any other person whomsoever. No right thinking person (thinking objectively) can legitimately raise objection to the same. It does not contain any baseless allegations, nor does it malign "the fair name of the trustees and the Bangalore Parsee Zoroastrian Anjuman” as alleged. It is not correct to infer therefrom that "our funds are being mismanaged or misappropriated” as alleged. Any such inference is uncalled for, unwarranted and unjustified. Frivolous allegations made in the aforesaid letter of Bharda are hereby firmly denied.

The aforesaid statement is simple, straightforward, innocuous and not harmful in any manner whatsoever. It contains no damaging charges, nor does it refer to the trustees or the Anjuman as alleged. There is not even a minuscule element of truth in the unfounded allegations made therein. The trustees indulge in drawing unwarranted inferences from the statement to suit their own requirements as purported to have been done by them in the aforesaid letter by Bharda. The above statement, worded as it is, is fully justifiable and is hereby reiterated.

Statements or allegations made in Bharda’s letter contrary to or inconsistent with what is stated above have no substance whatsoever and need no further consideration so far as they relate to me. They are hereby unhesitatingly denied.

• • •

On reading the obituary on the late Dr M. D. Disawalla I was reminded of the lengthy correspondence I had with him between September to December 2001.

Categorically stating that he refuses to accept "dakhmenashini as it exists today due to complete absence of vultures” he explained how it negated "the very fundamental concept of rapid consumption and disposal of dead bodies kept in the dakhmas…

"I am qualified enough being in the medical profession for more than 60 years and having witnessed innumerable post mortems and seeing the condition of dead bodies in the mortuaries 48 hours after death to comment on the condition of these bodies in a high state of putrefaction, decay and emanating a foul odor. Let us be realistic in admitting that this is what happens exactly in our dakhmas…”

The Bangalore Parsee Zoroastrian Anjuman (BPZA) made futile attempts to close down the aramgah after the consecration of the dakhma on March 23, 1940. The BPZA tried to circumvent the order of the Mysore Government (Order no 3245-8-L-R-238-38-5 dated January 10, 1939) which specified that the permission to construct the dakhma was subject to full retention and use of aramgah by those Zoroastrians who wish to consign their dead by burial. The BPZA went to court on four occasions on appeals and lost every time with costs till finally the learned judge of the Mysore High Court Dewan Bahadur P. Venkatraman Rao gave a landmark judgment on August 19, 1947 (R.A. No 209 of 1945/46) that any Zoroastrian is free to select the mode of disposal of the dead by burial even when the dakhma is in existence. This order from the High Court of Mysore makes his dismissal from BPZA under Rule 4.1 null and void and inoperative.

All the advice and comments by Disawalla fell on the deaf ears of the BPZA. At least the Bombay Parsi Punchayet could lend a ear to the opinions expressed by the learned medical practitioner who after witnessing in mortuaries countless corpses in a state of appalling decay and putrefaction boldly rejected dakhmenashini.

The humiliating dismissal of Disawalla from the membership of BPZA was an act of high-handed arrogance and I wrote in no uncertain terms to that effect to the then president, Kali D. Cawasji.

Dr P. D. SUNAVALA