Editorial Viewpoint
Publish and perish?
Earlier this month a lady who had kindly sponsored an issue of Parsiana last June regretted not doing the same this year. “I have gradually come to the conclusion that I shall not renew my (sponsorship of) Parsiana, because of the continual news of conflict and bad behavior within the community. I know my husband used to find such accounts very saddening and now I think I’d be much happier not reading them.”
Another reader, referring to the article on psephologist Dorab Sopariwala (“A risky business,” Parsiana, June 7, 2009), said Parsiana should heed his counsel: “The important thing is to win the undecided. Most people are open and want to be universal. Nobody wants extreme positions.”
Several years ago a lady subscriber advised us not to be “wishy-washy. Take a stand,” she exhorted. When we did, she disapproved of the stance wishing the publication be more orthodox in its leaning.
Over two decades ago a retired Inspector General of Police lamented that Parsiana did not focus sufficiently on professionals.
The question arises as to how much of the contents of the magazine should be determined by the editors and how much by the course of events.
As one reader pointed out, the Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India meeting in Ahmedabad in December 2004 was a turning point, a watershed for Parsiana. At that meet the orthodox group disrupted the all-India body’s proceedings for over half an hour (some allege the time was less. The ruckus raised was for a shorter period but the total disruption caused to the gathering was longer).
The orthodox group had led an attack on the middle-of-the-road, liberal leaning leaders of the Federation. That the policies of the Federation were unanimously agreed to by all members did not lessen the backlash. The orthodox alleged member anjumans were not informed of the dangers lurking in the formation of a Zoroastrian world body which they termed “cosmopolitan.”
In May 2005 Parsiana changed its frequency from a monthly to a semi-monthly believing that 24 issues a year would result in more timely news being disseminated. A year later the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) was launched espousing the orthodox cause and attacking the liberals, real or imagined.
Shortly thereafter the fortnightly WAPIZ Page made its debut in the Afternoon Despatch and Courier daily (the WAPIZ Page now appears in the Free Press Journal).
Then came the resignation (and reinstatement) of the four Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustees and the move for universal adult franchise (UAF), over two years of bitterly contested court cases with WAPIZ opposing both the return of the four trustees as well as the introduction of UAF. Next followed the election campaigns, the results, the untimely death of one trustee, a fresh election and finally in May 2009, normalcy.
Thus in the last three issues Parsiana has been able to focus on events and personalities not directly linked to community politics and institutions. Artist Gieve Patel, poet Keki Daruwala, psephologist Dorab Sopariwala graced our covers.
We were able to return to writing about scholarly talks given at the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute. (Two of the trustees had voiced concern at our not giving coverage to the talks held at the Cama and wondered if Parsiana had any grievance against the Institute. We assured them that was not the case but it was only pressing political stories that compelled us to put other articles on the backburner.)
Don’t irritate your readers by writing despairingly of their beliefs, counseled a reader.
We concurred there was merit in that advice but should we keep quiet on rights being denied to children of Parsi women married to non-Parsis, or the freedom to have one’s funerary prayers performed at Doongerwadi if one opted for alternate means of disposal to dakhmenashini? Or be silent on the thousands of trees being cut each year to feed the fires in our agiaries?
True, but one could state the objections dispassionately, we were advised.
Ah! we said, the most controversial item in Parsiana for years was the listing of the interfaith marriages. We had broken a taboo and readers and non-readers loathed us for it. We had not written favoring interfaith marriages. We had only stated the names of the newlyweds. But that resulted in enormous ill will.
So even when we did not fan the fires, so to say, we were scorned. But why indeed should we have published this data, one may ask? Why not let inconvenient truths (to borrow from former US vice president Al Gore’s movie title on environmental degradation) remain secret?
Perhaps this raises the fundamental question of the role of media. Are we to sit in judgment on news and shield our readers from it or do we print the information and let them judge its merits?
In 1977 Parsiana was faced with such a dilemma. What we titled “The Pateti Papers” — copies of jottings made by trustees on BPP files — anonymously surfaced at our office. The notings centered round who should be thanked for getting August 27, 1976 declared a bank holiday. Three trustees exchanged vituperative notes on the official records of the BPP (subsequently these notings were struck off and destroyed).
After verifying the authencity of the sheras, as they are referred to, and examining the aspect of libel, etc, we decided to go ahead and publish the material.
This created a stir. Some accused us of muckraking, others of doing the community a great disservice while some approved of the exposé. Whatever the outcome, we believed that the public should be the sole and final judge of the manner in which the trustees — all honorable people —behaved.
Interestingly the Delhi Parsi Anjuman (DPA) publication Dipanjali reprinted the jottings, largely due to the enmity between the DPA president Shiavax Nargolwala and BPP chairman B. K. Boman-Behram. The BPP had stomped out of the Federation following an exchange of words at the Third World Zoroastrian Congress in 1978 between the acerbic Nargolwala and retired Bombay High Court judge and BPP trustee Jal Vimadalal.
Interestingly a few weeks prior to the publication, Parsiana had discussed the issue of whether to publish the sheras or not with two eminent editors. One, a Parsi, questioned what purpose would be served by publishing the jottings. The other, the editor of a prestigious national daily, was less concerned about the outcome. “Publish and be damned,” was his creed, he said.
Willy-nilly it has become our tenet as well.
Another reader, referring to the article on psephologist Dorab Sopariwala (“A risky business,” Parsiana, June 7, 2009), said Parsiana should heed his counsel: “The important thing is to win the undecided. Most people are open and want to be universal. Nobody wants extreme positions.”
Several years ago a lady subscriber advised us not to be “wishy-washy. Take a stand,” she exhorted. When we did, she disapproved of the stance wishing the publication be more orthodox in its leaning.
Over two decades ago a retired Inspector General of Police lamented that Parsiana did not focus sufficiently on professionals.
The question arises as to how much of the contents of the magazine should be determined by the editors and how much by the course of events.
As one reader pointed out, the Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India meeting in Ahmedabad in December 2004 was a turning point, a watershed for Parsiana. At that meet the orthodox group disrupted the all-India body’s proceedings for over half an hour (some allege the time was less. The ruckus raised was for a shorter period but the total disruption caused to the gathering was longer).
The orthodox group had led an attack on the middle-of-the-road, liberal leaning leaders of the Federation. That the policies of the Federation were unanimously agreed to by all members did not lessen the backlash. The orthodox alleged member anjumans were not informed of the dangers lurking in the formation of a Zoroastrian world body which they termed “cosmopolitan.”
In May 2005 Parsiana changed its frequency from a monthly to a semi-monthly believing that 24 issues a year would result in more timely news being disseminated. A year later the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) was launched espousing the orthodox cause and attacking the liberals, real or imagined.
Shortly thereafter the fortnightly WAPIZ Page made its debut in the Afternoon Despatch and Courier daily (the WAPIZ Page now appears in the Free Press Journal).
Then came the resignation (and reinstatement) of the four Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustees and the move for universal adult franchise (UAF), over two years of bitterly contested court cases with WAPIZ opposing both the return of the four trustees as well as the introduction of UAF. Next followed the election campaigns, the results, the untimely death of one trustee, a fresh election and finally in May 2009, normalcy.
Thus in the last three issues Parsiana has been able to focus on events and personalities not directly linked to community politics and institutions. Artist Gieve Patel, poet Keki Daruwala, psephologist Dorab Sopariwala graced our covers.
We were able to return to writing about scholarly talks given at the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute. (Two of the trustees had voiced concern at our not giving coverage to the talks held at the Cama and wondered if Parsiana had any grievance against the Institute. We assured them that was not the case but it was only pressing political stories that compelled us to put other articles on the backburner.)
Don’t irritate your readers by writing despairingly of their beliefs, counseled a reader.
We concurred there was merit in that advice but should we keep quiet on rights being denied to children of Parsi women married to non-Parsis, or the freedom to have one’s funerary prayers performed at Doongerwadi if one opted for alternate means of disposal to dakhmenashini? Or be silent on the thousands of trees being cut each year to feed the fires in our agiaries?
True, but one could state the objections dispassionately, we were advised.
Ah! we said, the most controversial item in Parsiana for years was the listing of the interfaith marriages. We had broken a taboo and readers and non-readers loathed us for it. We had not written favoring interfaith marriages. We had only stated the names of the newlyweds. But that resulted in enormous ill will.
So even when we did not fan the fires, so to say, we were scorned. But why indeed should we have published this data, one may ask? Why not let inconvenient truths (to borrow from former US vice president Al Gore’s movie title on environmental degradation) remain secret?
Perhaps this raises the fundamental question of the role of media. Are we to sit in judgment on news and shield our readers from it or do we print the information and let them judge its merits?
In 1977 Parsiana was faced with such a dilemma. What we titled “The Pateti Papers” — copies of jottings made by trustees on BPP files — anonymously surfaced at our office. The notings centered round who should be thanked for getting August 27, 1976 declared a bank holiday. Three trustees exchanged vituperative notes on the official records of the BPP (subsequently these notings were struck off and destroyed).
After verifying the authencity of the sheras, as they are referred to, and examining the aspect of libel, etc, we decided to go ahead and publish the material.
This created a stir. Some accused us of muckraking, others of doing the community a great disservice while some approved of the exposé. Whatever the outcome, we believed that the public should be the sole and final judge of the manner in which the trustees — all honorable people —behaved.
Interestingly the Delhi Parsi Anjuman (DPA) publication Dipanjali reprinted the jottings, largely due to the enmity between the DPA president Shiavax Nargolwala and BPP chairman B. K. Boman-Behram. The BPP had stomped out of the Federation following an exchange of words at the Third World Zoroastrian Congress in 1978 between the acerbic Nargolwala and retired Bombay High Court judge and BPP trustee Jal Vimadalal.
Interestingly a few weeks prior to the publication, Parsiana had discussed the issue of whether to publish the sheras or not with two eminent editors. One, a Parsi, questioned what purpose would be served by publishing the jottings. The other, the editor of a prestigious national daily, was less concerned about the outcome. “Publish and be damned,” was his creed, he said.
Willy-nilly it has become our tenet as well.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive