A matter of rights

Goolrukh Adi Contractor of Bulsar, who married Mahipal Gupta in 1991, has filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Gujarat High Court on March 25, 2010 seeking the court’s intervention to assert her fundamental right to worship at and access the religious places of Parsis which had been denied to her by the community post her marriage to a non-Parsi.

Gupta was not permitted entry to the agiary and stopped from participating in religious rituals after she married, reported The Times of India (TOI) dated March 26, 2010. She has approached the Court seeking directions to the authorities of the fire temple in Bulsar’s Mota Parsiwad and to members of the community to permit her to enter the premises and worship there.

Earlier, she had written a letter which was published in Parsiana ("Is this justified?” Readers’ Forum, October 21, 2009) in which she had made an impassioned plea to the head priests of the community, Zoroastrian religious scholars, editors of the Parsi Press, the Bombay Parsi Punchayet, World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis, World Zoroastrian Organisation and others asking for their valued opinion on her predicament. "I have continued to practice the Zoroastrian religion even after my marriage. I wear the sudreh and kusti as I have done since my navjote, and I pray daily to Ahura Mazda and Asho Zarathushtra. I wish to pray at dadgahs, agiaries and atash behrams. I wish to attend the paidust, uthamna and other after-death ceremonies of my relatives and friends. I wish to attend religious ceremonies such as navjote, jashan, baj, nirangdin, vendidad, fareshta and muktad... I wish my name to be recited (farmayasni) in religious prayers for departed family members.

"I am unable to fulfill these wishes as some of the orthodox anjuman members and trustees of the punchayet at the place of my birth consider me a non-Zoroastrian, ignoring the laws of the land. Can any anjuman member, trustee of a punchayet, head priest, panthaky of a fire temple or custodian of the Tower of Silence restrict my right as a Parsi Zoroastrian to enter such places?” is what Gupta had asked then.

(from left): Ambika Soni, Pratibha Patil and Sooni Taraporevala; (right) Patil with Dinaz Stafford

In the court matter the respondents claim that Parsi tradition bars women married outside the community from entering religious places such as the agiary and the Tower of Silence. These women are also restricted from performing certain rituals. Gupta therefore feared that the trustees of the agiary, which belongs to the Valsad Parsi Anjuman Trust (VPAT), would deny her entry even when her elderly parents die and would restrain her from performing their last rites, TOI notes.

In her PIL Gupta avers that she has not changed her religion, that she has continuously practiced Zoroastrianism both before and after her marriage. Barring her from following her religion and enjoying the privileges flowing from that are in violation of her constitutional rights as an Indian citizen. Also, there is no scripture or textbook denying Parsi women religious rights after marrying outside the community, she contends in the PIL.

A few years back the VPAT had also sought to deny an elderly Parsi, Minocher Dastoor, the right to have his funeral prayers anywhere other than at Doongerwadi. The court had on August 30, 2006, stayed the trustees’ action. Dastoor was keen to have his last rites performed at his residence, as was the custom until 2005, when the VPAT passed a resolution prohibiting this and insisting that the ceremonies be performed only at Doongerwadi. Justice Akil Kureshi ruled: "It may be open for (VPAT) to pass a resolution indicating its understanding of the custom of the community. It would however not be open for (them) to have the same enforced against a person who does not share the same belief,” while granting Dastoor interim relief (see "Rites at residence,” Parsiana, October 7, 2006).