“Disawalla’s distinctions”

We have had the occasion to read and discuss threadbare Rustom Gae’s response to our letter which was carried by you (Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, dated (June 7, 2006). However, we have not received your response. Our grievance was essentially to draw your attention to the action reproducing Rustom Gae’s condolence letter addressed by him to the family of the late Dr Manchi Disawalla, in which certain derogatory and defamatory charges are made against the trustees of our Anjuman. As already stated, as a very responsible and reputed journal the least we could expect from your editorial team was to ascertain the authenticity of these charges before rushing to the Press.

It is significant to record the following issues that emanate from Gae’s response to our letter, which was also carried by you:

It is important to note that Gae seems to feel that you have flouted journalistic norms when you chose to reveal the contents of a correspondence exchanged by him with the son and daughter-in-law of the late Disawalla. I quote: "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.” From this one can conclude that Gae having made certain baseless allegations never expected this to be printed and brought to our notice. That the trustees of The Bangalore Parsee Zoroastrian Anjuman became aware of these uncalled for remarks was thanks to your decision to reproduce his letter. His objections therefore to your having revealed the contents of his letter to the family speaks volumes. Probably not being sure of the authenticity of his unsubstantiated charges, he now objects to your action to print his letter. Had he known that you would have printed this letter he may have refrained from making such malicious and unwarranted remarks — a sure sign of a person not confident of his ability to defend his action.

However, this does not change the situation in as far as we are concerned. Our objection was against certain allegations of "misdeeds, misappropriation of funds, and breach of trust” made by Gae and printed by you without due verification.

Having been exposed through your columns he now seems to evade the responsibility and the implications of his charges by saying that he has neither mentioned any trustees by name nor does it refer to The Bangalore Parsee Zoroastrian Anjuman. You and your readers will agree that this explanation or for that matter defence by Gae is, to say the least, ridiculous as the entire article is about Disawalla and his frequent differences with The Bangalore Parsee Zoroastrian Anjuman. Thus when he makes the above referred allegations purported to have been made by Disawalla, it does not require a high degree of intelligence to conclude that it is a reference to the trustees and the trustees alone.

More importantly, we have to revert back to our earlier letter which was intended to draw your attention to the unsubstantiated charges and allegations made by Gae. We questioned your action in printing his earlier letter without satisfying yourself with regard to the authenticity of his charges of "misdeeds, misappropriation of funds, and breach of trust.” Needless to say, this has created considerable consternation in our Anjuman, as it would anywhere else should such charges of misappropriation go undefended. Trustees, are the custodians of the total interests of the members of our Anjuman — for that matter any anjuman. The members have a right to question the trustees with regard to these charges and also have the right to demand an explanation from them. Explanations we have provided, and shall continue to provide. However, this still does not absolve you, as a very responsible editor, from publishing incorrect and baseless statements from somebody who now objects to their reproduction.

We now insist that your magazine publishes a statement to retract the charges so published. This is the least we will demand from you, for with this restriction we shall be in a position to restore normalcy. Kindly ensure that we do not have to take this matter any further, as we must if there is no satisfactory response from you.

PHIROZE B. BHARDA

President, The Bangalore Parsee Zoroastrian Anjuman

The editors reply

Rustom Gae wrote in his personal capacity to the Disawalla family without any intention of seeing his letter published. We take full responsibility for publishing extracts from his letter. Even though it has no direct reference to the Anjuman, as it has caused discomfort to both the Anjuman and Gae, we apologize for the inadvertence. The purpose of the write-up was to draw attention to Disawalla’s contribution to the medical field and community affairs with reference to his disagreements with the Anjuman. Our intention was not to malign The Bangalore Parsee Zoroastrian Anjuman against whom we have not received any complaints of financial impropriety.

People who are elected to public office have to face criticism justifiably or unjustifiably from the community. One can endlessly debate whether a particular sentence or reference is derogatory or not. It is far better to put these irritants to a side and continue directing one’s energies to the common weal.