“Dealing with dissent”

In his rather lengthy response titled "Dealing with dissent” (Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, December 7, 2009) Faribourz Nariman says the function of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustees is also "to act as guiding lights in religious and socio-religious matters.” He writes that "in religious and socio-religious matters, the judgment of lawyers, medical doctors, civil servants, men of big business are to be discounted because they can provide no standard measurements for appraising the solutions to the problems facing the community, problems not only related to the visible institutional aspect of the BPP but also to the nucleus of very existence... Let it be said with all emphasis at our command that only orthodox scholars can act as guideposts and benchmarks in a community...”

My reading of dissent in the BPP is somewhat different. We should understand that in any democratic set-up there will be dissent. Is it not the very essence of democracy? The system builds into itself checks and balances and we should not look upon dissent as weakness.

What exactly does Nariman mean by "religious and socio-religious matters” in which he expects the BPP to be "guiding lights?” What can be achieved if the members of the community do not wish to follow these "guiding lights?”

Most of our religious scholars have confirmed — by quoting from specific scriptures — that there is simply no bar to accepting a person of another faith into our religion and that the dakhme­nashini system should not be used if there are no scavenging birds. But our high priests keep coming out with fatwas which are against our holy scriptures and our BPP trustees support these. How can matters be resolved without a proper and solution-seeking dialog?

Nariman is concerned about "the problems related to the nucleus of our very existence,” but fails to suggest any remedy or any concrete steps to be taken. How will just electing "orthodox” trustees solve the problem? Why should eminent and professional Parsis who are lawyers, ICS (Indian Civil Service) officers, journalists, engineers, scientists, etc not be elected as trustees? Are they not capable of applying their minds rationally and logically to the problems of the community? In my opinion a good heterogeneous professional BPP board will be able to do a far better job.

It is amply clear that the community is heading towards extinction. What specific steps are being taken by the community or the BPP board to prevent this? A community does not become extinct because of lack of resources, nor because its members are uneducated. A community becomes extinct when its members are not able to see the writing on the wall (which is the fast dwindling number of its members), when its members are totally indifferent about facing the vital problem of survival, when its leaders have lost a sense of "mission” in life.

I doubt whether even Ahura Mazda can help this community which refuses to help itself. KERSEE KABRAJI

Poona

kerseekabraji@gmail.com