“Talibanization of the BPP”

I refer to "Talibanization of the BPP” (Parsiana, September 21, 2009) about the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustees debarring Ervads Khushroo Madon and Framroze Mirza from practicing at Doongerwadi and the two agiaries under its control. The high priests, in a letter commending the BPP for this, have referred to Madon and Mirza as renegades "whose actions are impacting our religion and community negatively (sic).”

The two WAPIZ (World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis) trustees Khojeste Mistree and Yazdi Desai have steamrolled new trustees Jimmy Mistry, Arnavaz Mistry and Armaity Tirandaz into directly intervening in a matter of religious practice. Noshir Dadrawala, the only trustee with the courage to stand up against WAPIZ, is isolated. Chairman Dinshaw Mehta was one of the six earlier BPP trustees who had passed a resolution allowing the use of one bungli for prayers of those who were cremated, which was kept in abeyance. He had assured that he would support implementation of this if reelected, but did not do so.

Having tasted success, these trustees will try to further their Taliban-like agenda and may even deny flats to persons whose children are married out unless the other trustees who have been silent spectators have the guts to stand up against them. It is time the intelligentsia of our community realizes how dangerous the situation is.

The denial of the right to decide how ones body is disposed of is something we must fight against. No one is prevented from using Doongerwadi, if they choose to do so, but many devout Parsis opt for an alternate method as they are convinced that in the absence of vultures the system has broken down, despite the BPP’s claims to the contrary. They do not want the remains of their loved ones to be dumped in a mass grave as is being done today after a long period of exposure to the sun. The foul smell is a clear indication and residents of Spenta building across the road will confirm this. Even the Vendidad prohibits exposure when there are no vultures or flesh eating animals.

I commend Madon and Mirza for boldly standing up to this tyranny and assisting those Parsis who prefer cremation. Their role should be publicly acknowledged. Perhaps it may be necessary to approach the Charity Commissioner, protesting against the denial of our rights, because Doongerwadi is non functional, so that he can investigate whether the claim of the trustees is correct that bodies are being hygienically disposed of in a dignified way.

I recently attended the uthamna prayers of a Parsi lady who was cremated. The ceremony was at the Scouts Hut and people of all religions witnessed the prayers by six priests led by Madon. It was such a wonderful feeling to see them together paying homage to the deceased lady, her distinguished husband and family. It showed the true spirit of our community.

Obviously the high priests have not realized that by their own definition they can themselves be categorized as renegades because they unanimously agreed to perform the navjotes of Neville and Nusli Wadia, calling it re-conversion and therefore permissible. This is sheer hypocrisy. Neville’s mother was born a Christian and his father, Ness Wadia, had converted to Christianity. Neville was baptized as a Christian and for 75 years remained one. His son Nusli had a Christian father and a mother who was the daughter of a Muslim father, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Yet the high priests performed their navjotes, calling it re-conversion.

High priest Dastur Jamaspa Minocherji Jamas Asana had performed the navjote of a Christian lady, Suzanne Briere, the mother of J. R. D. Tata in 1904. Jamaspa was more learned and eminent than any of the present high priests, a fellow of the Bombay University, and a Doctor of Laws of the Oxford University. But according to the present definition he could be termed a renegade. The only difference is that he was intellectually honest and did not try to cover up by calling it re-conversion.

Please note, I approve whole heartedly of these actions, but do they not contradict the high priests’ present fatwa? Is praying for those who are cremated or performing the navjote of a child of a Parsi mother married outside the community a more serious breach than converting the Wadias? The high priests’ policy is "it is so because we say it is so, and we are not required to explain the basis of our opinion.” But they forget that be they ever so high, the law is above them.

At the last Federation of Parsi Zoroastrians Anjumans of India meeting WAPIZ member Tannaz Parekh stated that she had asked Dastur (Dr) Firoze Kotwal why he was not replying to queries raised by me and others regarding conversion, etc. Kotwal’s reply was, to quote her, "Dikra, even if we explain they will continue to make the same statements, so what is the use of explaining?” A very convenient escape route!

Instead of wasting money by writing repeatedly about those whom WAPIZ condemns, the WAPIZ Page in the Free Press Journal, bought at considerable cost, should be used by the high priests to explain various issues that have been raised about the correct interpretation of matters that remain unanswered. It is the duty of high priests to educate and guide the community, and we cannot be condemned for asking questions and expressing honest doubts. Otherwise why should the community continue to look up to them?

JAMSHEED KANGA

jgkanga@vsnl.net

This refers to "Talibanization of the BPP” (Parsiana, September 21, 2009) regarding the controversy currently raging within the community about Ervads Khushroo Madon and Framroze Mirza who pray for the souls of those who have not opted for dakhmenashini and perform navjotes for children of inter-married Zoroastrian women.

I do not see anything even remotely wrong or irregular about this, and if I think differently from those who do it is not because I do not understand their viewpoint but because I do not agree with them.

Why do we have prayers for our dead? I am willing to accept the well-established and widely held tenet that prayers for the dead are said in order to facilitate the transit of the soul — which even the bitterest critics of the two fearless priests will agree is really the essential self of the human being created in the image of the divine — towards its blissful, transcendent and eternal union with the creator.

Madon and Mirza are focusing unerringly on the progress of the unaccompanied soul to its highest abode. They realize with valid insight that prayers must be said independent of the manner of physical disposal, since the soul must unite with its own larger identity, only to be incorporated in another body with a quickness determined by the supreme reality in his ineffable wisdom.

Madon and Mirza are not renegades, not by the most unimaginably extended stretch of imagination, not by the most convoluted twist of interpretation. If anything — and this is of the first importance and is also to their great credit — they are running towards true religion, since they are doing whatever needs to be done to re-connect the human soul with God. It is of the greatest significance to note that the word "religion” is derived from its Latin root "religare,” which means "to bind back to the source.”

Madon and Mirza are hence helping the soul to be re-united with its source, the Almighty. Far from deserting their own religion for another, they are performing, most competently and sincerely, their chosen duty as priests by realizing the true meaning of religion.

They are reformers for sure, since they do not, as in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, see the moving tree-trunks and therefore conclude that the forest is marching towards them. Their vision is clear, quite untrammeled by the confusion born of crass ignorance, utter stupidity, unforgivable bigotry and insufferable self-importance. Let us therefore salute their courage and vision and pay them the vociferous tributes that they so richly deserve. They know what they are doing, are eminently aware of the validity and essential truth of their actions, and are hence quite beyond the censure, hostility and sanctions recently imposed on them by those who can surely understand, but do not seem to wish to do so.

Those who condemn and vilify these two noble priests display an utterly deplorable lack of confidence in the unshakable power of the great Zarathushti faith, and are thereby influencing many others of the community with the same feeling.

To elaborate, I would simply throw a handful of interrogatory seeds into the air and then hope that a few of them germinate fruitfully in the minds of a few. The questions I raise are: How firm is our faith in Zoroastrianism? Is it based on clear and dispassionate thinking? Is it deeply founded upon a true insight into the spirit of the transcendental, liberal being that Zarathushtra indisputably was? HOSHANG DASTOOR

hdastoor@vsnl.com

The Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) has banned Ervads Khushroo Madon and Framroze Mirza from praying at Doongerwadi and the two fire temples which it manages. Apparently Madon’s crime is that he has been performing navjotes for children from mixed marriages and offering after-death prayers for cremated Parsis. Madon has retaliated by saying that he will continue to offer religious services regardless of the ban. Not surprisingly, the BPP’s arbitrary action has sparked off a heated — sometimes vicious — debate among Parsis with opposing points of view.

Belonging to an older generation, I remember an era when Parsis were renowned for their civility, their sophistication and, above all, their tolerance. There was none of this nonsense about bans and excommunications. Such unconstitutional practices can easily degenerate into unhealthy actions like fatwas which we rightly abhor in some extremist societies.

BPP trustee Khojeste Mistree has rather pompously stated, "He may say whatever he wants to. But does he have the scholarship to make the contention that his actions are not irreligious? Madon is welcome to his personal point of view, but we have to look in terms of what the community wants and the majority are with us,” What Mistree is implying is that he and his fellow trustees will decide what the community wants; and disputing their opinion constitutes a form of heresy.

Let us now come to the issue of "scholarship.” Mistree has long made capital from his claim that he has spent years in the study of Zoroastrian texts and that makes him an almost infallible authority on the religion. No one disputes that he is well read, but the reality is that Zoroastrianism is not a monolithic entity. The religion’s ancient origins — in the absence of convincing written evidence — are shrouded in mystery and conjecture. Moreover, in the course of several centuries of evolution Zoroastrianism has undergone many permutations. Subsequent ruling dynasties modified it to further their political ambitions. In this, they were willingly abetted by the clergy of the time who, after all, were dependent on the largesse of the kings and emperors. This, incidentally, is true of all religions.

The point here is that no individual or group can claim to be the sole arbiters of our ancient religion. Indeed, it is this rigidity and refusal to accommodate conflicting points of view that has led to not just a quantitative, but a qualitative decline in the Parsi community.

The BPP is the apex representative body of Parsis in India. In decades gone by community members could justifiably point to their trustees with pride for they were indeed men of vision, understanding and tolerance. And what is the BPP today? During the recent Punchayet elections, the BPP was indistinguishable from any political party in this country. Personal attacks, innuendo and scurrilous e-mails were the order of the day. There were even thinly-disguised efforts to buy votes by throwing lavish dinners for residents of Parsi colonies. It is said that we get the leaders we deserve — and so we have. And these same gentlemen are now presuming to issue bans and pontificate that they alone know what is best for us. Well I, for one, do not buy it — and I hope I am not alone.

FIROZE HIRJIKAKA

leonardo8_99@yahoo.com