“Doongerwadi bunglis”

With reference to the letter "Doonger­wadi bunglis” (Readers’ Forum, Parsi­ana, April 21, 2007), I am surprised that my friend Eruch B. Desai, eminent solicitor and former Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) president, whom I hold in high esteem, has not read my letter in the spirit in which it was written. I assure Desai that I am as close to this vexed issue today as I was years ago and that the views I have aired are not contrary to my known convictions. I am all for upholding and strengthening the system of dakhmenashini, with or without vultures. I believe that the system can function quite effectively even without vultures if there is adequate and unobstructed sunlight falling on the pavis.

In smaller towns and even cities like Bangalore, where there are fewer deaths, the problem is not as magnified as it is in Bombay where on an average 800 corpses are consigned to the dakhmas every year and natural sunlight is considerably obstructed.

I am not in favor of cremation or burial. However, considering the presently weakened system of dakhme­nashini, if some Parsis opt to cremate or bury their loved ones at any place outside Doongerwadi, I view this as lessening the load on the three operating dakhmas in Bombay. Had the system been functioning at optimum level, I would have been the first to show the door to Parsis demanding prayer facilities after opting for alternate systems for disposal of the dead. Though, for legal and other reasons, I am not in favor of giving the bunglis at Doongerwadi to those who exercise the option of burial or cremation, I support the idea of offering prayer facilities outside Doonger­wadi. In fact, at an emergency meeting called at Minoo Shroff’s office, even Homi Ranina [a staunch orthodox and founder of The World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ)] had offered to give the Framjee Cawasjee Hall for prayer ceremonies to the "pro-cremation lobby.”

In any case, now that Dr Aspi Gol­walla, former BPP chairman, Jamsheed Kanga, former BPP trustee and Homi Khusrokhan have taken this matter to the court, the proposal for offering any separate facility outside Doongerwadi is no longer under consideration. The demand now is for the existing bunglis.

Desai has also raised the issue of Dhun Baria who had rightly or wrongly raised a stink in the cosmopolitan media. He feels that it can only be wrongly. That’s exactly what I felt until the day I confronted the lady at a meeting held in the BPP boardroom. Desai may recollect that I was among those who had strongly criticized Baria for washing the community’s dirty linen in public. However, after the emergency meeting called at Shroff’s office it was suggested that some of us should meet Baria and persuade her to soften her stand. I readily volunteered.

I opened the conversation with the words: "Mai tahmé ghèr no jagro bahar kai lai jaoch? Tahmé Mid Day ané Mumbai Mirror jéva cosmopolitan paper ma kai évi vato karoch? (Why are you taking a family feud out on the streets? Why did you go to cosmopolitan newspapers like Mid Day and Mumbai Mirror?)” She was quick to respond, "WAPIZ was the first to write nasty things about me and print my photograph in the Afternoon Despatch and Courier (ADC). Is ADC not a cosmopolitan newspaper?”

She also confronted the trustees with: "When I first came to the BPP boardroom the door was shut in my face. When I threatened to go on radio and television one orthodox trustee even mocked at me. Now that I have done what they thought I was incapable of doing they want to sit and reason with me.” I believe that it is the BPP and the orthodox lobby who are to a great extent responsible for creating a Frankenstein they could not subsequently control.

Desai has orthodox leanings. However he is also a rational, thinking man and there have indeed been times when as a trustee of the BPP he has taken a stand that did not go down well with the orthodox section of the community. Two classic examples come to mind. Despite stiff resistance from staunch orthodox groups and resolutions passed at public meetings convened by the now defunct Committee of Vigilant Parsis (COVP), Desai actively pushed for the BPP to rejoin the Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India.

Also, despite protests from orthodox groups and the religious opinions of some high priests and learned scholars, Desai stood firm on the issue of the legal rights of Parsi women married to non-Parsis under the Special Marriage Act. It is largely thanks to this stand that the late Kumud Babubhai Shah’s mortal remains were consigned to the dakhma in Bombay.

Desai waxes eloquent on the virtues of courage and not submitting to blackmail and pressure tactics. This is all very well. But the real challenge before us is to look at the total picture, come to grips with reality and be absolutely honest regarding the circumstances the community finds itself in. It is also about listening, if not understanding the other point of view. It is not about negotiating peace out of fear, but about not fearing to negotiate peace — for the greater good of all concerned.

NOSHIR H. DADRAWALA

In his letter "Doongerwadi bunglis” (Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, April 21, 2007) Eruch B. Desai uses the phrase ‘time-tested tradition’ for the dakhma system. The same phrase has been used a number of times by other traditionalists in the past.

How honest and truthful are we in describing dakhmenashini (which has failed completely and has not been able to stand the test of time with the unfortunate change of circumstances), with the phrase ‘time-tested tradition?’ Are we hoodwinking ourselves or are we trying to hoodwink innocent community members? Often the failure is described as ‘not totally failed’ or ‘weakened’ or some such camouflaging words. How long will we keep fooling ourselves?

I would like to offer a couple of quotes from two of our most eminent scholars for the benefit of your readers. The first one is from The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees by Dr Sir Jivanji Jamshedji Modi. This book, which may be considered as our Bible on rituals and ceremonies, has a full chapter on death ceremonies. Rather interesting in today’s situation are the author’s own comments in the preface: "The times are rapidly changing. The ‘new’ has been springing rapidly upon the ‘old.’ As often said, the heresy of today becomes the orthodoxy of tomorrow; the liberalism of this year, the conservatism of the next. The reader will find that many a ceremony, ritual and custom has been spoken of as having become obsolete or as being more honored in the breach than in the observance. Many more will be obsolete in the course of the next few years. Customs are often as despotic as fashions, but they also change as fashions.”

Does this not clearly bring out the acceptance of the fact that customs and rituals cannot be permanent; that they will have to keep changing as per the needs of the times and other compulsions?

The second quote is from the Autobiography of Dastur (Dr) M. N. Dhalla, the late high priest of Parsis in Sind and North-West Provinces: "Dakhmenashini is not a system created by Almighty — it is a man-made system. The system of disposing the corpse has been rendered sacred custom because of its practice for 3,000 years. Yet, even its 3,000-year-old tradition of sanctity has not endowed it with immortality. With the change of times and circumstances its sway has come to an end. Dakhmenashini is merely a tradition. The demolition of tradition is not destruction of religion. Tradition is not religion. In understanding, digesting and acknowledging this fact lies the wisdom of all concerned.”

So, my dear ‘traditionalist’ friends, let us be clear that time-tested or otherwise, tradition is not religion and non-observance of tradition does not mean non-observance of religion.

KERSEE KABRAJI

Poona

Perhaps your readers, particularly those in favor of the Towers of Silence and vultures (however polluting), may be interested to know that the Gimi (aborigines of New Guinea) placed the dead body on a platform so that it could decompose. The relatives then dragged off the corpse, dismembered it and shared the portions over meals for several days.

What a simple solution to a contentious issue that is dividing the Parsis, a community regarded by fellow Indians as broad-minded and progressive.

For those readers wishing to pursue this idea further, please read Death to Dust: What Happens to Dead Bodies, by Dr Kenneth Iserson. "Funerary cannibalism springs from a profound and human impulse: the desire to incorporate the essence of a loved one into your own body.” Hence those wishing to go to the tower and vultures now have a viable option.

NAWSHIR KHURODY