“Doongerwadi bunglis”

In his letter "Doongerwadi bunglis” (Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, March 7, 2007), Noshir Dadrawala observes that dakhmenashini is the ancient and time-tested Zoroastrian system for the disposal of the dead. But, as a result of the disappearance of vultures, he concludes that the system is working far from effectively. At the same time, he also says that there are highly intellectual scholars in our community who feel that a large number of crows and kites have effectively replaced the vulture vacuum created in nature, and the system is in fact working quite effectively.

The system may not be working effectively, but work it does, possibly not to the same extent as it did when this controversy was raised by two of the then trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) nearly 40 years ago, when vultures were aplenty. At that time a majority of the trustees took a firm stand to preserve and protect the traditions and institutions of the community, and the impending damage was nipped in the bud.

Dadrawala himself says that during the earlier part of the last century there was a move by wealthy and influential sections of the community in Bombay to establish a crematorium for Parsis, though not on the Doongerwadi lands. The then BPP trustees put up stiff opposition to this ‘reform’ movement which was given a ‘quiet funeral.’ The present trustees (barring one, or maybe two) are taking the same line, in conformity with their sworn affidavit that they are bound to preserve and protect the traditional methods and institutions, as handed down to the community from generation to generation. Their hands should therefore be strengthened, rather than weakened.

Dadrawala also conveys that ‘a workable solution’ to the controversy was discussed at a meeting in the office of BPP chairman Minoo Shroff to offer prayer facility on one of their plots, outside the Doongerwadi complex, to those seeking alternate systems for disposal of the dead. He concludes, from the silence of the high priests to this proposal, that they were not opposed to it. He also says that the proposal was torpedoed when ‘messiah’ Khojeste Mistree returned from abroad. To give one man all the credit for bombarding this so-called ‘viable, peaceful, and sustainable solution’ would be to undermine the BPP trustees’ intellectual attainment, courage of conviction to act according to conscience, and urge to perform their duties and responsibilities honorably.

He says the rejection of this proposal has turned back ‘the wheels of progress.’ Is this turning the wheels of progress backward or not submitting to pressure tactics? The trustees are right when they think that those who propagate changes should go their own way and establish a crematorium or a burial ground at some other place of their choice, but certainly not on any of the properties under the control of the BPP. Surely a vociferous and influential minority cannot force the trustees to commit a breach of trust?

Dadrawala says that Dhun Baria ‘rightly or wrongly’ raised a stink in the cosmopolitan media. It can only be ‘wrongly.’ Here the trustees faltered and disregarded the advice to approach the court and obtain an injunction.

It is unfortunate that two former trustees of the BPP should have moved the court with an Originating Summons. While the move may not be wise, they have at least done this long after they ceased to be trustees; a worthy example to follow for sitting trustees propagating this so-called reform. One cannot and should not sabotage the boat from within.

I am not sure how long these court proceedings will take to be finally disposed of. Many of us may not be able to see the ill-gotten fruits of this misplaced labor, as it will take years for the matter to receive the final seal of the highest court in the country. If at all they succeed they will be doing some service to a minuscule minority of like-minded people, but they will have inflicted irreparable damage to the community’s interests and institutions. Nor by conceding to their demand for use of the bunglis will a miracle occur to dramatically improve the working of the existing system.

Regarding the call for ‘brokering peace in the community and healing frayed nerves,’ would that not expose the trustees to the charge of submitting to blackmail and pressure tactics under the threat that the problem will, sooner than later, ‘go totally out of control?’

We have indeed not lost the will to solve the problem peacefully and amicably, and we have also not lost the will to preserve and protect our time-tested traditions and institutions.

ERUCH B. DESAI