"An unzoroastrian act"

This has reference to Berjis M. Desai's article titled, "An unzoroastrian act" (Parsiana, June 7, 2006). Desai's vitri­olic attack on the elderly panthaky of Poona's Sir J. J. Agiary ErvadEruchshaw B. Dastur is unwarranted and in abso­lutely poor taste. We fail to understand what has prompted Desai to rake up this unnecessary controversy? We also won­der why Desai, who is not only an emi­nent lawyer but also a journalist, did not bother to verify the truth and ascertain the facts with the panthaky or the behdins of Poona before rushing to the Press. Where is the 'fairness' and 'sense of justice' that columnists like Desai often preach to others but seldom practise?

As far as we know, neither the lady (Khushnum Chouhan) nor her family has complained to anyone. It therefore seems that this is all a planned and mischievous conspiracy to malign and tarnish the reputation ofan elderly, dedi­cated and much respected priest and create with malefic intent, a rift between the panthaky and the trustees of the Agiary.

I have been a regular worshipper at the Sir J. J. Agiary for the past 70 years and I have personally known Dastur ever since he became the panthaky of this Agiary more than a quarter of a century ago. He is a very pious, humble and conscientious priest who takes his priestly duties very seriously. He has maintained the Agiary and its sanctity with selfless dedication and personal care. In my view the Sir J. J. Agiary is one of the cleanest and most popular agiaries in Poona and this is thanks largely to the efforts ofDastur who has not only been a good administrator but also a good fundraiser for the Agiary's maintenance and upkeep.

Desai has alleged that Khushnum Chouhan, a Parsi lady married to a non­Parsi was not permitted by Dastur. to sit in the Agiary for her late mother's and her late aunt's prayers. This is a blatant lie. Khushnum had often been visiting the Agiary after her marriage and if one may add, without observing the 'tarikats' (spiritual observances) of the religion. Yet, Dastur, though hurt and disap­pointed would hold his peace to keep the dignity and decorum of the place of worship under his charge.

Chouhan's advocate seems to have served a notice to Dastur stating to the effect that his client had never renounced Zoroastrianism. Desai has added that marriage under the Special Marriage Act does not amount to change of reli­gion.

With great respect to these legal pun­dits I would like to pose a few counter questions and make a few observations of my own:

oHow can one claim that Chouhan has not renounced the Zoroastrian faith when in fact she has flouted one of the most important tenet and practice of the faith by marrying outside the fold?

If as alleged, she is a practising Zoroas­trian, does she still wear the sudreh­kusti? Does she recite her Zoroastrian prayers? Does she perform the padyab­kusti before entering the Agiary? oThere is no explicit provision in the Special Marriage Act, 1954, laying down that a woman marrying under the Act continues to enjoy the same religious rights and benefits after the marriage, or that she will be entitled to the use of the institutions of her religion in which she was born or which she professed imme­diately before her marriage.

oThe Special Marriage Act confers no special civil right to anyone in matters of religion. All the 51 sections and five schedules of the Act are silent on this subject.

oUnderthe earlier Special Marriage Act, 1872, if a Parsi professing the Zoroas­trian religion wished to marry under the Act, he or she had to make a declaration that he or she did not profess the Zoro-. astrian religion. In the present Act (i.e. the Special Marriage Act, 1954 ), there is no such provision for making such a declaration (i.e. renouncing one's reli­gion). The absence of this provision is the only trump card relied upon by the champions of the alleged rights of Parsi women married to 11011-Parsis under the Special Marriage Act. The question is, can the mere absence of a provision confer a civil right?

oindia being a secular state, and having given constitutional rights of freedom of religion to individual citizens as also to religious denominations, no civil leg􀀕 islation can have such provisions as may disturb such religious freedom. Who can be a member of a particular religious denomination or who can have a right to insist on being a member thereof and being entitled to the use of its religious institutions is determined by the per­sonal law of that denomination which, again, is based on the precepts, beliefs and tenets of the religion. Whether a person continues to be a Parsi, Hindu or Muslim and whether he/she is entitled to the use of the religious institutions are questions for the denomination to de­cide. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Special Marriage Act is deliberately silent on this question.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that Dastur cannot be faulted if he chooses to stand firm on his religious beliefs and exercises his powers as a panthaky to deny admission to persons like Chauhan .

Desai who reportedly is himself an ordained priest has urged the trustees of the Sir J. J. Agiary to throw Dastur out of the Agiary. This impulsive and mali­cious hint is not only in poor taste but also absurd. The trustees of the Agiary may be the custodians of the funds and properties of the Agiary. However they neither have the right nor the compe­tence to interfere in religious matters.

Dastur is a very senior and much respected priest who enjoys the full con­fidence and trust of the devout behdins of Poona. The attack against him is malafide, mischievous and calculated to cause him grievous hurt and harm. How­ever, we would like to inform persons like Desai that the behdins of Poona who patronize the Agiary will rally round their beloved panthaky and stand sol­

idly by his side no matter what the odds. Outsiders like Desai may rake up a storm in the Press and get away with it. However, if push comes to shove, the behdins, of Poona will not only defend their panthaky but ensure that those who threaten him will regret having ever picked up the gauntlet.

C. P. Mehta

Poona

Berjis Desai replies

Even allowing for the fact that C. P. Mehta is an octogenarian, his letter bristles with illogical arguments. Mehta first states that "neither the lady nor her family has complained to anyone." He proceeds to then state that "Chouhan's advocate seems to have served a notice" to Dastur. The panthaky may indeed be performing his duties very well but that does not give him the right to deny entry to a Parsi Zoroastrian. Mehta denies that Dastur did not permit.entry to the lady and dubs it a "blatant lie," when the Ervad has himself admitted in writing to Chouhan's advocate that he has indeed denied entry to her! Mehta contends that by reason of her interfaith marriage, "she has flouted one of the most impor­tant tenet and practice (sic) of the faith." This contention is too nonsensical to be controverted. Mehta would like to know whether she still wears the sudreh-kusti, recites prayers and performs 'padyab' before entering the Agiary. Mehta should stand outside the Agiary and ask these questions to each Parsi lady, intermar­ried or not, entering the Agiary.

It would be a waste of newsprint to engage in a debate with Mehta over his fanciful attempts to interpret the law (including the repealed 1872 Act). Suf­fice it to state that not even the most diehard orthodox lawyer will disagree with the proposition that marriage under the Special Marriage Act 1954 does not amount to renouncing one's faith.

Mehta should realize that alas his favorite panthaky does not have "pow­ers to deny admission" to any intermar­ried Parsi. However, the trustees of the Agiary do have the power to throw out a panthaky who admittedly violates the civil rights of the beneficiaries.