Editorial Viewpoint
Big Brother is watching you
By barring two allegedly “renegade” priests from performing religious ceremonies at Doongerwadi and the Godavara and Godrej Baug agiaries, the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustees have infringed on the jurisdiction of the clergy. While the trustees have to manage the three properties, the ecclesiastical functioning has to be left to the priests. The two mobeds are being penalized for performing navjotes of children of interfaith marriages and funerary rites for those opting for alternative means of disposal of the dead. To justify their transgression the trustees have cited a letter from a high priest entreating other priests not to perform ceremonies jointly with the duo and also to bar them from the portals of religious institutions.
Firstly, such letters are normally written at the behest of interested parties. There was a time when under pressure from warring factions the high priests wrote contradictory letters. As the credibility of the missives nosedived so did the requests for such letters. Hence not much significance should be given to these written communiqués.
But assume that the letter was an expression of genuine priestly concern, is it not for the priests themselves to decide whether they agree with the fatwa or not? If the mobeds at the three institutions have no objection to the two participating in clerical ceremonies why should the BPP take up cudgels against them? The trustees’ action smacks of vindictiveness and high-handedness. Vindictive because one of the two priests contested the October BPP trusteeship elections on a liberal platform and therefore needed to be put in his place. And arrogant because the trustees have exceeded their brief.
The role of the laity and the clergy may not be clearly or legally defined. But certain assumptions are made. We presume that the trustees of a religious institution are responsible for the financial and physical well-being of the structure and property, that it is their duty to hire a panthaky or a manager to tend to the day-to-day affairs of the fire temple. By no means do we expect the trustees to instruct the priests how to conduct religious ceremonies, enunciate prayers, tend to the fire and so on.
Nor do we expect the trustees to tell the laity how or when to pray or indeed what to pray. These are matters of individual choice or where the lay person may consult the clergy.
But there is a tendency amongst the trustees to tread on matters beyond their sphere of influence. During the October 2008 elections some of the candidates promised to convert leave and license agreements into tenancies. But two candidates opposed the move. Why? So it would be a deterrent to occupants from marrying non-Parsis. Under a leave and license contract the landlord can refuse to renew the lease after the expiry of the license and the licensee has no option except to vacate the premises. So if a resident’s son or daughter were to marry outside the faith, the family could be evicted, more so if the couple decided to stay with the Parsi/Irani parents.
Tomorrow a trustee may claim that being gay is unZoroastrian and similarly refuse to renew the lease on a flat.
Citing the excuse that there is no consensus on scrapping leave and license agreements, the other candidates went back on their electoral promise.
Nearly 20 years ago some trustees voiced an opinion that female students who wished to study abroad should not be granted scholarships because if they married non-Parsis there, their children would not be considered Parsis. Hence they should remain here. Fortunately this sexist recommendation was never acted on. But that genre of thinking still prevails. Once the trustees have tasted blood there is little to restrain them from further usurping the rights and privileges of those who they believe are marginalized or unable or unwilling to fight back.
So how does one put a brake to the trustees’ fondness for transgressing the rights of others? The Delhi High Court order decriminalizing homosexuality between consenting adults shows what determined individuals can accomplish if they are willing to fight for their rights. The Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA) took on the BPP in regard to allocation of community housing. Several years and lakhs of rupees later the matter is still hanging fire in the courts. Whichever party loses will probably approach the Supreme Court.
Does that mean one should not approach the court for relief? No, it only means one must be prepared for the long haul and should have deep pockets or wealthy supporters.
The trustees know there are not many with this type of gumption and resources. They also know that the trust bears the legal cost, not the trustees. Either way it is community money that is spent/lost.
Should the two priests take the trustees to court? It is a question they alone can answer. Today there is a dearth of priests. Not only punchayets and anjumans outside of Bombay but also fire temples within the city are in desperate search of mobeds. Atash behrams are bereft of high priests. Rather than the two priests suffering economic hardship it is the functioning of Doongerwadi and the two agiaries that is likely to be hampered.
Perhaps another alternative is to pressure the trustees where they hurt most: financially. Already the prolonged litigation with AZA over allotments has resulted in all flat transfers being frozen, thereby denying the BPP of its main source of income: deposits. This May the BPP sent out a letter to potential donors stating the trustees “have pledged to uphold and strengthen our age old system of dakhmenashini” by
“revamp(ing) our vast Doongerwadi lands and to endeavor to make it a heaven on earth for the near and dear ones of the deceased...
“In maintaining this 56-acre estate the Bombay Parsi Punchayet suffers an annual loss... of one-and-a-half crore of rupees. Therefore we would earnestly request you (to donate) handsomely to the kitty.”
Potential donors should write to the trustees stating they are ready to donate money but only if the trustees change their bullying and populist ways. That may prove to be as effective as a court case and certainly less time-consuming and expensive.
The trustees may well want to create “a heaven on earth” but they should desist from forging a hell for all those who differ from their point of view.
Firstly, such letters are normally written at the behest of interested parties. There was a time when under pressure from warring factions the high priests wrote contradictory letters. As the credibility of the missives nosedived so did the requests for such letters. Hence not much significance should be given to these written communiqués.
But assume that the letter was an expression of genuine priestly concern, is it not for the priests themselves to decide whether they agree with the fatwa or not? If the mobeds at the three institutions have no objection to the two participating in clerical ceremonies why should the BPP take up cudgels against them? The trustees’ action smacks of vindictiveness and high-handedness. Vindictive because one of the two priests contested the October BPP trusteeship elections on a liberal platform and therefore needed to be put in his place. And arrogant because the trustees have exceeded their brief.
The role of the laity and the clergy may not be clearly or legally defined. But certain assumptions are made. We presume that the trustees of a religious institution are responsible for the financial and physical well-being of the structure and property, that it is their duty to hire a panthaky or a manager to tend to the day-to-day affairs of the fire temple. By no means do we expect the trustees to instruct the priests how to conduct religious ceremonies, enunciate prayers, tend to the fire and so on.
Nor do we expect the trustees to tell the laity how or when to pray or indeed what to pray. These are matters of individual choice or where the lay person may consult the clergy.
But there is a tendency amongst the trustees to tread on matters beyond their sphere of influence. During the October 2008 elections some of the candidates promised to convert leave and license agreements into tenancies. But two candidates opposed the move. Why? So it would be a deterrent to occupants from marrying non-Parsis. Under a leave and license contract the landlord can refuse to renew the lease after the expiry of the license and the licensee has no option except to vacate the premises. So if a resident’s son or daughter were to marry outside the faith, the family could be evicted, more so if the couple decided to stay with the Parsi/Irani parents.
Tomorrow a trustee may claim that being gay is unZoroastrian and similarly refuse to renew the lease on a flat.
Citing the excuse that there is no consensus on scrapping leave and license agreements, the other candidates went back on their electoral promise.
Nearly 20 years ago some trustees voiced an opinion that female students who wished to study abroad should not be granted scholarships because if they married non-Parsis there, their children would not be considered Parsis. Hence they should remain here. Fortunately this sexist recommendation was never acted on. But that genre of thinking still prevails. Once the trustees have tasted blood there is little to restrain them from further usurping the rights and privileges of those who they believe are marginalized or unable or unwilling to fight back.
So how does one put a brake to the trustees’ fondness for transgressing the rights of others? The Delhi High Court order decriminalizing homosexuality between consenting adults shows what determined individuals can accomplish if they are willing to fight for their rights. The Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA) took on the BPP in regard to allocation of community housing. Several years and lakhs of rupees later the matter is still hanging fire in the courts. Whichever party loses will probably approach the Supreme Court.
Does that mean one should not approach the court for relief? No, it only means one must be prepared for the long haul and should have deep pockets or wealthy supporters.
The trustees know there are not many with this type of gumption and resources. They also know that the trust bears the legal cost, not the trustees. Either way it is community money that is spent/lost.
Should the two priests take the trustees to court? It is a question they alone can answer. Today there is a dearth of priests. Not only punchayets and anjumans outside of Bombay but also fire temples within the city are in desperate search of mobeds. Atash behrams are bereft of high priests. Rather than the two priests suffering economic hardship it is the functioning of Doongerwadi and the two agiaries that is likely to be hampered.
Perhaps another alternative is to pressure the trustees where they hurt most: financially. Already the prolonged litigation with AZA over allotments has resulted in all flat transfers being frozen, thereby denying the BPP of its main source of income: deposits. This May the BPP sent out a letter to potential donors stating the trustees “have pledged to uphold and strengthen our age old system of dakhmenashini” by
“revamp(ing) our vast Doongerwadi lands and to endeavor to make it a heaven on earth for the near and dear ones of the deceased...
“In maintaining this 56-acre estate the Bombay Parsi Punchayet suffers an annual loss... of one-and-a-half crore of rupees. Therefore we would earnestly request you (to donate) handsomely to the kitty.”
Potential donors should write to the trustees stating they are ready to donate money but only if the trustees change their bullying and populist ways. That may prove to be as effective as a court case and certainly less time-consuming and expensive.
The trustees may well want to create “a heaven on earth” but they should desist from forging a hell for all those who differ from their point of view.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive