“Just a charade”

In his article "Just a charade” (Parsiana, January 7, 2007) Faribourz Nariman writes that no one other than a person who has studied Avesta and Pahlavi and can read the scriptures from their original source is qualified to speak about any aspect of religion. Furthermore, even amongst such persons only those who agree with the views expressed by the orthodox are qualified. Scholars such as Dasturs Dhalla, Bode and Dabu are disqualified.

Agreed, that scholar priests with a high degree of knowledge, as well as honesty and integrity, are the best persons to lead the community in religious matters. This was actually so in the 19th century when eminent scholar priests like Dr K. R. Cama and Dasturs Sanjana, Jamaspi JamaspAsana, Kaikhooshroo Jamaspi and many others were actively guiding the community and were highly respected. As Dr Jivanji Mody says in his biography of K. R. Cama, even those who disagreed with him respected his views and sought his advice. Give us such persons and the community will be more than happy to follow them.

Let us look at the prevailing picture. Intelligent and well educated members of the community are puzzled when they find that while Zarathushtra repeatedly states in the scriptures that the Zoroastrian religion is for all mankind, which was accepted by the eminent scholar priests mentioned above, our current high priests claim that it is only for one lakh inhabitants of this earth, a terrible underutilization of a great religion.

Not one of the high priests has the moral courage to admit that dakhme­nashini has totally collapsed; they still claim that the system is functioning as per the Vendidad. They even forbid the use of a bungli for prayers for those opting for alternate methods of disposing the dead and call them ‘dindushman.’ Is this what Nariman calls their "artless candor(?) and shattering honesty as critics of taste and penetration in the field of religious jurisdiction?”

Unfortunately, the Parsi community is like a rudderless ship and lacks both secular and religious leadership. Power is now in the hands of unscrupulous power grabbers who claim to speak for the poor misguided orthodox.

To a great extent the fault also lies with the intellectuals in the community who have stopped questioning the high priests when they know that something is wrongly interpreted or done because they are afraid of abuse from the fundamentalists. I feel that someone has to speak out and reveal the truth. I request support from those who agree with me. There is real need for participation by the educated, successful Parsi intelligentsia, else the fundamentalists will take over. Without vision a community will perish. After all, the high priests are not selected on merit but are hereditary. They have to earn our respect by their deeds. We should judge them on their achievements, not ancestry.

In 1949 Sir Rustom Masani had organized a conclave of the leading high priests and scholars of the day to discuss and give their findings on various important questions relating to our scriptures. In the covenant signed by14 dasturs it is stated in the last para, "We are of the view that it is the responsibility of the high priests to give proper guidance to the behdins. For examining the various issues concerning the community that arise from time to time, the high priests should form an advisory body, ‘sallakari mijlas.’ This group should also invite educated persons and experienced yoazdathregars from the community, and give expert advice which would be beneficial to the community. It is necessary to take steps for setting up such a body.”

I would sincerely request Nariman to advise the high priests to organize such a body and start a constructive dialog with the lay leaders and educated persons, and thereby perform their duty as teachers and guides to honestly counsel those who are confused and not start whacking anyone for holding ideas with which they do not agree. Only then will they be entitled to respect. Otherwise we will know what the true charade is.

JAMSHEED KANGA

So the natak season has come early this year, for the dhongidox have provided us with their ultimate solutions to our woes: the fatka and the fatwa – how very jolly! Their spokesman Faribourz Nariman haphazardly distributes pseudo-religious labels with some involuted logic attached to his fatkas in his article "Just a charade” (Parsiana, January 7, 2007); another, Com (Retd) Medioma Bhada comes up with the slapping on of fatwas ("Hurting the feelings,” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, January 21, 2007). Why an Arabo-Islamic term when our vadas and whats-its have a potent panoply at their disposal in good Zoroastrian Pahlavi? Shouldn’t we look deeper into them to flush out their creeping Islamism?

The fatwas are being misdirected for sure. Where in our religion does it claim that crossing the Chinwad Pul is dependent on dakhmenashini? Certainly not in our chief sanitary text of the Vendidad (which our priests actually pray!); definitely not in the Hadhokht where all three: the dakhma, the Chinwad Pul and the dog are absent; and only incidentally in the Aogmadaecha, which has sufficient Pazand available to constitute a benediction to be recited before the fourth dawn departure as a testimonial to the bereaved. There are no silver (or other precious metal) threads either, which supposedly link the pure soul with decaying remains; so could this tiresome tomfoolery be brought to a close?

For Dr P. D. Sunavala to therefore say that dakhmenashini is humbug is a clear understatement of the case. In the last-named text it is the good mind, good speech and good work of the departed during life that guarantee the safe crossing of the Chinwad. No pretended final intercession by an ill-equipped priesthood can ever ensure a last moment switch of final destination for the departed, and so the desired fatwa upon Sunavala for spelling out the truth would only boomerang. Zarathushtra’s own teaching, which sends chills down the dhongis, speaks of the soul of the living encountering its beautiful or ugly Self at the threshold of this foremost existence is proof enough, and no amount of fatwa-dealing can gainsay that!

As for the fatka-wallah, the kindest response is to "let the dhongis bray whilst we donkeys pray.” We donkeys are properly directed by both stick and carrot, and while the fatka-wallah assures us plenty of stick, where are our carrots? Are they too to be wrongly dispatched to Coventry? So, if there is to be any meting out of fatkas, that should be redirected upon the dhongis who have visibly and audibly failed our beautiful religion. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to attach a zohr-khaneh (gymnasium for heavies!) to each madressa — just to please Nariman?

A word about arithmetical misdirection: Zenobia Pavri’s computation of 360 degrees ("Matter of circumstances,” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, January 21, 2007) would only result in the dhongis again facing their original prospect; surely, for an about-turn, it should be 180. Agreed?

FARROKH VAJIFDAR

London, UK