Editorial Viewpoint
Vote well and wisely
With the candidates’ standard speeches being repeated at venue after venue, the question and answer session is what adds interest and spontaneity to the campaigning for the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trusteeship elections.
The questions are those that weigh on peoples’ minds but the answers are predictable: Yes ‘we will safeguard our religion, look after our houses of worship, provide housing, carry out repairs, preserve Doongerwadi, look into grievances,’ etc.
So how is the voter to distinguish between the various parties and candidates? The World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) founder trustee Yazdi Desai provided the answer: look at the track record. One has to observe a candidate’s personal achievement and also his/her contribution to society, preferably the Parsi/Irani section of the populace.
But even here with so many claims and counter claims being made, the average voter would be puzzled as to who to believe. At the WAPIZ meet at Khareghat Colony on September 26, 2008 WAPIZ founder trustee Khojeste Mistree whose literature describes him as “a renowned scholar” repeated the inaccurate figure of 2.2 million Zoroastrians in the world.
A lay audience may not be aware the figure is bogus and that the methodology used by the World Christian Encyclopedia that compiled the statistics has no basis in fact. Not only is India’s Parsi/Irani population shown as double the figure of the Government of India census figures, but Afghanistan is purported to have 3,00,000 Zoroastrians, more than even India.
The same text shows that in 1970 there were no Zoroastrians in Afghanistan. That means in an Islamic state where converting to another religion is punishable by death, 3,00,000 or so people converted from Islam without any repercussion! When one Afghani converted to Christianity, he escaped the death sentence on ground of insanity.
Now a scholar is one who carefully scrutinizes material for its authenticity. He or she tries to go to the original sources to study the texts and the methodology applied. The scholar analyzes the bibliography at the end of the book to ascertain which books, manuscripts, etc have been referred to. Footnotes and indexes are examined carefully. Did Mistree do any of these?
Take another statement Mistree made: “For every seven mobeds who die only one enters the profession.” Here he cited no source, for presumably there is none. How would one ascertain how many practicing mobeds die in a particular span of time and how many new entrants emerge? With around 50 fire temples in Bombay, and mobeds working part-time or full-time, a massive exercise would have to be launched to collect such data and even then it would be subject to error.
Even on the issue of dwindling numbers, WAPIZ has steadfastly refused to accept the reality, claiming instead people have migrated. Once again all they have is vague assumptions and dubious statistics to back their claim. The Government of India census figures are dismissed as concealing a hidden agenda.
When a member of the audience asked how long it would take for Mistree’s proposal to set up an aviary and bring the vultures back to Doongerwadi he replied “two to three years.” Even this figure appears to be another tall claim. Allowing that vultures lay one egg or so in a year — assuming they breed in captivity to begin with — the project would take years to fructify. Building an aviary the size of a football field would also require considerable amount of time and expertise.
But perhaps the most outrageous statement was made by Desai. He castigated the Parsi Press for not reporting fairly and accurately on events, claiming only WAPIZ did so! Even a glance at the WAPIZ Page (formerly a fortnightly, currently a weekly in The Free Press Journal) would make most casual readers realize it is little more than a propaganda sheet.
Elections are an appropriate time to enlighten voters on crucial issues and also gauge their responses. But there has been much bluster and bluff in dealing with topics. There is no dispassionate discussion on the methods of disposal of the dead, interfaith marriages, the rights of children of such marriages and most importantly, the dwindling numbers.
The opportunity to have a dispassionate debate on the use of bunglis at Doongerwadi for those opting for alternate means of disposal is lost. Voters could have been better made familiar with the pros and cons to then decide in favor or against. But that discussion never occurred.
WAPIZ and its ally, sitting BPP trustee Dinshaw Mehta, have raised the bogey of a crematorium being constructed at Doongerwadi, conversion being practiced and admitting all and sundry into fire temples. The Adult Franchise for Progress (AFP) panel and independent candidate Jimmy Mistry and most others in turn have all pledged to adhere to the existing religious practices.
Surprisingly it was the audience members at several venues, especially women who voiced criticism of the existing mode for disposal of the dead and the need for change. Lay Parsis took up issues their to-be-leaders shied away from.
Still if one goes by the track record of the candidates, the choice become clear. There are those who have closed their minds to any kind of reason or reform. There are those that are willing to listen and change. It is for the voters to now decide who they want.
The questions are those that weigh on peoples’ minds but the answers are predictable: Yes ‘we will safeguard our religion, look after our houses of worship, provide housing, carry out repairs, preserve Doongerwadi, look into grievances,’ etc.
So how is the voter to distinguish between the various parties and candidates? The World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) founder trustee Yazdi Desai provided the answer: look at the track record. One has to observe a candidate’s personal achievement and also his/her contribution to society, preferably the Parsi/Irani section of the populace.
But even here with so many claims and counter claims being made, the average voter would be puzzled as to who to believe. At the WAPIZ meet at Khareghat Colony on September 26, 2008 WAPIZ founder trustee Khojeste Mistree whose literature describes him as “a renowned scholar” repeated the inaccurate figure of 2.2 million Zoroastrians in the world.
A lay audience may not be aware the figure is bogus and that the methodology used by the World Christian Encyclopedia that compiled the statistics has no basis in fact. Not only is India’s Parsi/Irani population shown as double the figure of the Government of India census figures, but Afghanistan is purported to have 3,00,000 Zoroastrians, more than even India.
The same text shows that in 1970 there were no Zoroastrians in Afghanistan. That means in an Islamic state where converting to another religion is punishable by death, 3,00,000 or so people converted from Islam without any repercussion! When one Afghani converted to Christianity, he escaped the death sentence on ground of insanity.
Now a scholar is one who carefully scrutinizes material for its authenticity. He or she tries to go to the original sources to study the texts and the methodology applied. The scholar analyzes the bibliography at the end of the book to ascertain which books, manuscripts, etc have been referred to. Footnotes and indexes are examined carefully. Did Mistree do any of these?
Take another statement Mistree made: “For every seven mobeds who die only one enters the profession.” Here he cited no source, for presumably there is none. How would one ascertain how many practicing mobeds die in a particular span of time and how many new entrants emerge? With around 50 fire temples in Bombay, and mobeds working part-time or full-time, a massive exercise would have to be launched to collect such data and even then it would be subject to error.
Even on the issue of dwindling numbers, WAPIZ has steadfastly refused to accept the reality, claiming instead people have migrated. Once again all they have is vague assumptions and dubious statistics to back their claim. The Government of India census figures are dismissed as concealing a hidden agenda.
When a member of the audience asked how long it would take for Mistree’s proposal to set up an aviary and bring the vultures back to Doongerwadi he replied “two to three years.” Even this figure appears to be another tall claim. Allowing that vultures lay one egg or so in a year — assuming they breed in captivity to begin with — the project would take years to fructify. Building an aviary the size of a football field would also require considerable amount of time and expertise.
But perhaps the most outrageous statement was made by Desai. He castigated the Parsi Press for not reporting fairly and accurately on events, claiming only WAPIZ did so! Even a glance at the WAPIZ Page (formerly a fortnightly, currently a weekly in The Free Press Journal) would make most casual readers realize it is little more than a propaganda sheet.
Elections are an appropriate time to enlighten voters on crucial issues and also gauge their responses. But there has been much bluster and bluff in dealing with topics. There is no dispassionate discussion on the methods of disposal of the dead, interfaith marriages, the rights of children of such marriages and most importantly, the dwindling numbers.
The opportunity to have a dispassionate debate on the use of bunglis at Doongerwadi for those opting for alternate means of disposal is lost. Voters could have been better made familiar with the pros and cons to then decide in favor or against. But that discussion never occurred.
WAPIZ and its ally, sitting BPP trustee Dinshaw Mehta, have raised the bogey of a crematorium being constructed at Doongerwadi, conversion being practiced and admitting all and sundry into fire temples. The Adult Franchise for Progress (AFP) panel and independent candidate Jimmy Mistry and most others in turn have all pledged to adhere to the existing religious practices.
Surprisingly it was the audience members at several venues, especially women who voiced criticism of the existing mode for disposal of the dead and the need for change. Lay Parsis took up issues their to-be-leaders shied away from.
Still if one goes by the track record of the candidates, the choice become clear. There are those who have closed their minds to any kind of reason or reform. There are those that are willing to listen and change. It is for the voters to now decide who they want.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive