The great divide

At various social functions and more recently at a talk that I delivered in Thana on the occasion of the 228th anniversary of the agiary there, a number of Parsis asked me to comment on Dr Kersey Antia’s lecture and the subsequent meeting which was held at the Framjee Cawasjee Institute Hall. At the function in Thana one Parsi publicly declared that he was totally confused after hearing both sides. I don’t blame him.

If I am allowed to express my views in just one line, I would simply borrow it from Shakespeare and say: "Much ado about nothing!” And this applies to both the warring camps.

To begin with, the issue is not new and neither are the arguments. These arguments have dogged the community for nearly a century – literally from Dr Maneckji Dhalla, High Priest of Karachi to Antia, High Priest of Chicago.

From sheer curiosity I tried to attend Antia’s lecture at the Y. B. Chavan Auditorium, but as the auditorium was packed to capacity and people were literally sitting in the aisles and on the steps, I turned back. Later, friends in both the warring camps told me that the lecture was dry and boring.

What about the reactive meeting that took place at Dhobi Talao (what an appropriate address to wash linen – dirty or otherwise)? Well, I didn’t go for it – not even out of curiosity. In fact, at one point of time, I was approached by the organizers to be master of ceremonies, which I politely declined, making it very clear to all of them that I could not share the stage with hypocrites who practice double standards.

I may not agree with reformist Parsis, but at least I have respect for many of them. However, I can neither agree with, nor respect the so-called orthodox who think it is fine if a male Parsi marries outside the community or if a very wealthy and influential person born of both Christian parents is to be "converted” or "accepted” into the Zoroastrian faith.

I am a conservative by upbringing and choice and my views on the issue of conversion and acceptance are very clear and in the public domain. I am not in favor of conversion or the more refined theory of acceptance. But, at the same time, I clearly disassociate myself from people who pretend to be traditional while selectively breaking tradition according to individual or group convenience, which in my view is most un-Zoroastrian. Asha, truth and righteous conduct, is a basic and fundamental principle of Zoroastrianism.

As expected, Antia’s visit created another storm in a tea cup. The liberals sent out a very clear signal that they are now well organized and want to get more aggressive, at least with their avowed mission. No doubt, both sides managed to flex their muscles and pack their hired auditoriums. But after all this hype and media glare have we progressed or regressed?

It has now become standard practice to allow the community’s dirty linen to be washed in cosmopolitan newspapers and television. Can we not as an enlightened community agree to disagree in an agreeable way? Instead of Antia speaking at the Y. B. Chavan Auditorium and some of our other scholars speaking separately at Dhobi Talao, would it not have been better to have a public debate at one venue where both sides could have aired their views from a common platform? That would have been a truly enlightening and electrifying experience.

NOSHIR H. DADRAWALA