Editorial Viewpoint
Content and the congresses
What makes for a successful world Zoroastrian congress? Is it the organization, the social programs, the networking opportunities, the content and quality of the talks? It’s all of the items mentioned. The first three items require good logistics and a dedicated team of volunteers/workers to see things through. But the fourth item on the list of requirements for a worthwhile congress, content, is the most difficult to tackle.
As the next congress is to be hosted in Bombay by the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) in 2013, probably in December, there should be no dearth of qualified people to help out with the first three requirements. At the Dubai Congress, Meher Bhesania and a handful of volunteers managed to host a successful meet judging by the feedback received from several delegates. One even stated that the Houston and Dubai congresses have set benchmarks for such future gatherings.
In Dubai, contentious issues were given the go by. They were simply not permitted. Not that there are many controversial issues for discussion at a world meet. Each area has its own set of problems and conflicts and often these issues are not pertinent to those residing elsewhere.
In Dubai, for example, Zoroastrianism is not even recognized as a religion according to the Emirates constitution. So the question of who qualifies for membership in the local association does not arise because there is no formal Zoroastrian body. Hence there is no constitution, no membership, no fire temple and no dakhma. Whether conversion to another religion is even permitted is a question mark.
For the Zoroastrian residents of Dubai the issues are of finding jobs in a sliding employment market, identifying sponsors to validate visas and migrating to another country once their work stint is completed. The Emirate does not accord citizenship to outsiders.
For the Zoroastrians in North America healthcare, looking after the aged, safeguarding their investments, meeting their mortgage payments, holding on to jobs are more vexing issues than those pertaining to the community. Most Zoroastrian associations, if not all, permit non-Zoroastrian spouses and children of interfaith marriages membership of the association. No longer do they look to India for religious leadership. They have developed their own scholars and scholar-priests.
With no fire temples or towers of silence to feud over and no baugs to maintain or flats to allot or transfer tenancies to, they are more concerned about setting up dar-e-mehers or renovating or expanding existing ones. Their donors in the past have been the philanthropic Iranians, Arbab and Madam Rustom Guiv and the Zartoshty brothers, Faridoon and Mehraban.
As the fledgling communities there take deeper roots the local residents have contributed substantial amounts for building and looking after their centers.
A delegate from Australia spoke of dropping the nomenclature Parsi and keeping only Zoroastrian to define themselves in their host country.
After hijacking the 2013 Congress from Singapore to whom it was originally assigned, the BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta stated the congress would no longer be termed only Zoroastrian but a Parsi Irani Zoroastrian Congress. Like all our local politicians who whimsically change the names of roads, towns, cities, railway stations, airports and historic monuments to suit their fancy and to pander to their electoral base, the BPP believes likewise. The trustees had fought and won their elections on the basis of orthodoxy, Mehta informed the Dubai gathering. Now they were going to change the nomenclature of the global meet. Mehta and some of his co-trustees view the BPP as a world body and therefore believe their writ runs in all the four corners of the Zoroastrian universe.
Since the BPP did not prepare any presentation for hosting the next Congress, we do not know which venues are suitable for such a gathering, what the facilities will be for translating from Farsi into English and vice versa.
All this should give an indication of the thinking that is preceding the international meet. At least the Dubai congress favored the status quo. The Bombay congress appears to want to set the clock back. Will they, therefore, confine participation to only Parsi Irani Zoroastrians or permit Zoroastrians and non-Zoroastrians also to attend?
Will the committee that decides on subjects and speakers be restricted to the trustees and their confidants or will input from others, within and without India, also be considered? Will the committee act as censors, vetting all the papers and deleting portions they consider unacceptable or will speakers have a free rein?
Issues that are considered controversial can be discussed in a non-contentious manner. One can focus on the facts and figures, on percentages and probabilities, on forecasts and projections, on the plethora of options and so on. When Parsiana first began to list interfaith marriages in our Milestones column, many alleged we were encouraging Parsis/Iranis to wed outside the faith, that we were condoning and lending legitimacy to such unions.
We may have been doing all that they alleged. But we were also enlightening the community as to the number of Parsis/Iranis that were looking and finding spouses outside the fold. Without our publishing the statistics with names and dates, no one would have believed that one in three marriages was with a non-Parsi/Irani and that an equal number of men and women marry out.
By citing authorities on demographics we were able to show that as more male births than female occur, the number of marriageable men was more than women. Hence it was not possible for every male Parsi to find a Parsi bride.
Surely issues such as this could be dealt with in a congress without being considered “controversial.” Similarly it would be of interest to know how many Zoroastrian associations in India and abroad permit non-Zoroastrian spouses membership. If the number is significant the BPP would have to reconsider its objections to the formation of a world body on the grounds that spouses of other faiths are enrolled as members by certain Zoroastrian associations.
In December the World Zoroastrian Organisation underwent a schism when the India chapter changed the membership form to specify only Parsi/Irani Zoroastrians could join as versus Zoroastrians. That too allegedly without the knowledge of the parent body in the United Kingdom.
On the issue of disposal of the dead, statistics could be collected on how many Zoroastrians worldwide opt for dakhmenishini, burial or cremation. Solutions could be invited for alternatives to the solar concentrators during the monsoons when the rain prevents dehydration of corpses.
Also on the agenda could be suggestions to make Zoroastrianism more environmentally friendly and reduce our carbon footprint.
The number of relevant topics and issues is limitless. The question is of finding speakers who will rigorously research the subjects honestly and transparently so one may not doubt the bona fides of their findings.
Whether the 10th World Zoroastrian Congress will undertake any of these ventures is a question mark. Everything depends on whether the trustees desire to host a truly global meet or just a four-day election campaign.
As the next congress is to be hosted in Bombay by the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) in 2013, probably in December, there should be no dearth of qualified people to help out with the first three requirements. At the Dubai Congress, Meher Bhesania and a handful of volunteers managed to host a successful meet judging by the feedback received from several delegates. One even stated that the Houston and Dubai congresses have set benchmarks for such future gatherings.
In Dubai, contentious issues were given the go by. They were simply not permitted. Not that there are many controversial issues for discussion at a world meet. Each area has its own set of problems and conflicts and often these issues are not pertinent to those residing elsewhere.
In Dubai, for example, Zoroastrianism is not even recognized as a religion according to the Emirates constitution. So the question of who qualifies for membership in the local association does not arise because there is no formal Zoroastrian body. Hence there is no constitution, no membership, no fire temple and no dakhma. Whether conversion to another religion is even permitted is a question mark.
For the Zoroastrian residents of Dubai the issues are of finding jobs in a sliding employment market, identifying sponsors to validate visas and migrating to another country once their work stint is completed. The Emirate does not accord citizenship to outsiders.
For the Zoroastrians in North America healthcare, looking after the aged, safeguarding their investments, meeting their mortgage payments, holding on to jobs are more vexing issues than those pertaining to the community. Most Zoroastrian associations, if not all, permit non-Zoroastrian spouses and children of interfaith marriages membership of the association. No longer do they look to India for religious leadership. They have developed their own scholars and scholar-priests.
With no fire temples or towers of silence to feud over and no baugs to maintain or flats to allot or transfer tenancies to, they are more concerned about setting up dar-e-mehers or renovating or expanding existing ones. Their donors in the past have been the philanthropic Iranians, Arbab and Madam Rustom Guiv and the Zartoshty brothers, Faridoon and Mehraban.
As the fledgling communities there take deeper roots the local residents have contributed substantial amounts for building and looking after their centers.
A delegate from Australia spoke of dropping the nomenclature Parsi and keeping only Zoroastrian to define themselves in their host country.
After hijacking the 2013 Congress from Singapore to whom it was originally assigned, the BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta stated the congress would no longer be termed only Zoroastrian but a Parsi Irani Zoroastrian Congress. Like all our local politicians who whimsically change the names of roads, towns, cities, railway stations, airports and historic monuments to suit their fancy and to pander to their electoral base, the BPP believes likewise. The trustees had fought and won their elections on the basis of orthodoxy, Mehta informed the Dubai gathering. Now they were going to change the nomenclature of the global meet. Mehta and some of his co-trustees view the BPP as a world body and therefore believe their writ runs in all the four corners of the Zoroastrian universe.
Since the BPP did not prepare any presentation for hosting the next Congress, we do not know which venues are suitable for such a gathering, what the facilities will be for translating from Farsi into English and vice versa.
All this should give an indication of the thinking that is preceding the international meet. At least the Dubai congress favored the status quo. The Bombay congress appears to want to set the clock back. Will they, therefore, confine participation to only Parsi Irani Zoroastrians or permit Zoroastrians and non-Zoroastrians also to attend?
Will the committee that decides on subjects and speakers be restricted to the trustees and their confidants or will input from others, within and without India, also be considered? Will the committee act as censors, vetting all the papers and deleting portions they consider unacceptable or will speakers have a free rein?
Issues that are considered controversial can be discussed in a non-contentious manner. One can focus on the facts and figures, on percentages and probabilities, on forecasts and projections, on the plethora of options and so on. When Parsiana first began to list interfaith marriages in our Milestones column, many alleged we were encouraging Parsis/Iranis to wed outside the faith, that we were condoning and lending legitimacy to such unions.
We may have been doing all that they alleged. But we were also enlightening the community as to the number of Parsis/Iranis that were looking and finding spouses outside the fold. Without our publishing the statistics with names and dates, no one would have believed that one in three marriages was with a non-Parsi/Irani and that an equal number of men and women marry out.
By citing authorities on demographics we were able to show that as more male births than female occur, the number of marriageable men was more than women. Hence it was not possible for every male Parsi to find a Parsi bride.
Surely issues such as this could be dealt with in a congress without being considered “controversial.” Similarly it would be of interest to know how many Zoroastrian associations in India and abroad permit non-Zoroastrian spouses membership. If the number is significant the BPP would have to reconsider its objections to the formation of a world body on the grounds that spouses of other faiths are enrolled as members by certain Zoroastrian associations.
In December the World Zoroastrian Organisation underwent a schism when the India chapter changed the membership form to specify only Parsi/Irani Zoroastrians could join as versus Zoroastrians. That too allegedly without the knowledge of the parent body in the United Kingdom.
On the issue of disposal of the dead, statistics could be collected on how many Zoroastrians worldwide opt for dakhmenishini, burial or cremation. Solutions could be invited for alternatives to the solar concentrators during the monsoons when the rain prevents dehydration of corpses.
Also on the agenda could be suggestions to make Zoroastrianism more environmentally friendly and reduce our carbon footprint.
The number of relevant topics and issues is limitless. The question is of finding speakers who will rigorously research the subjects honestly and transparently so one may not doubt the bona fides of their findings.
Whether the 10th World Zoroastrian Congress will undertake any of these ventures is a question mark. Everything depends on whether the trustees desire to host a truly global meet or just a four-day election campaign.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive