“Hurting the feelings”

Eruch Desai, solicitor and former Chairman of BPP has asserted that no other method of disposal of the dead is permissible at Doongerwadi because of the provision of the relevant trust deeds, and that those who want to opt for any alternative method of disposal should seek burial ground or crematorium elsewhere (Parsiana, September 21, 2006).

In this connection I am quoting here the observations of two legal luminaries. Soli Sorabjee, then Attorney General of India after studying the trust deed dated September 25, 1884, has categorically stated that the bunglis at Doonger­wadi are only for performing the funeral rites of the dead and have nothing to do with the exposure of the dead bodies in the Tower of Silence (Jam-e-Jamshed, April 22, 2001). Rafiq Dada, a non-Zoroastrian senior counsel in the Bombay High Court was engaged by the Bombay Parsi Punchayet to give his opinion on the dakhmenashini issue. He has unambiguously stated that according to the trust deed of the Doonger­wadi properties, the land can be used for the purposes of performing any religious ceremony and is not restricted to funeral ceremonies of only those who are consigned to the dakhmas (Jam-e-Jamshed, November 25, 2001).

The sum and substance of the two eminent legal experts cited here is that the bunglis are for the whole Parsi community for reciting the prayers for the departed and irrespective of their choice for the mode of disposal of the dead.

His grouse that the reformists’ attempt to have freedom of choice at Doongerwadi is hurting the feelings of a preponderantly large section of the community indicates that this fundamentalist lawyer does not realize that dakhmenashini has now become a hygiene and sanitation problem and the old humbug often drummed-up that the souls of the departed cannot cross the Chinvat Pool without dakhmenashini should be relegated to the dustbin.

Citing the opinions of foreigners made when the vulture species was flourishing does not indicate that the system is working efficiently even now. In my opinion, what is required now is a challenge in the Bombay High Court, citing the opinions of legal luminaries, supported by photographic evidence provided by Dhun Baria.

Dr P. D. SUNAVALA