“Gupta’s gumption”

We are devout Parsi Zoroastrians both in faith and in practice. Our prayer Ashem Vohu teaches us that the only path to happiness is through truth. By this letter, we seek the truth.

We have read what the venerable High Priests have said with interest and concern in the side piece "Accept the consequences” to the main article "Gupta’s gumption” (Parsiana, April 21, 2010). Since it will affect so many Parsi Zoroastrian women who are married to non-Zoroastrians, it would be fair if the High Priests quote the exact verses of the Gathas or other religious texts, which set out what is quoted in their opinion.

One reason for our concern is that when this issue was raised earlier and there was an attempt by the Bombay Parsi Punchayet to bar intermarried Parsi ladies, the matter was resolved with the intermarried ladies being required to file an affidavit stating that they were practicing Zoroastrians.

Another reason for concern is that in the past we had seen a similar statement in respect of intermarried men, which the High Priests in their wisdom, withdrew within a short while.

We are advised that a Parsi Zoroastrian lady who undergoes a civil marriage with a non-Parsi under the Special Marriage Act 1954 does not cease to be a Parsi Zororoastrian. We assume that the High Priests would have nothing to say on the legal and constitutional aspects of this matter.

MEHER AMERSEY

President

Association for Inter-Married Zoroastrians

milton1@mtnl.net.in

According to the High Priests Goolrookh Gupta (née Contractor) of Valsad cannot remain a Zoroastrian because she has married a Hindu (although under the Special Marriage Act 1954) and having changed her name to Neha, her Hindu name and husband’s name cannot be said in the prayers. While using a Hindu name seems prohibited, we have been using western names like Mary, Pansy, Susan without such a problem.

The High Priests claim that our religion forbids marriage with a non-Zoroastrian and according to our customs and traditions, a Zoroastrian woman leaves her religious title and religious identity, the religion of her father and family irrevocably, whether she adopts her husband’s religion or not. Of course which of our scriptures impose such draconian punishment on only a woman is not mentioned and if asked to cite will evoke no reply, because none exists. Also, why this rule is not applicable to males if it is a religious edict, is not explained. Perhaps the much misquoted Vendidad paragraph about mixing of the seed of the pure and impure being a sin would be the only fig leaf they can rely upon. Further they claim that the Special Marriage Act cannot force us to accept such a person as a Zoroastrian. We cannot expect the High Priests to interpret the law of the land when they do not even interpret our scriptures correctly!

The Special Marriage Act 1954 allows a person to continue to practise his/her religion even when married to a person of another faith. If such a person continues to do so the burden of proof is on those who claim that it is not so. A presumption that she has given up her faith because she has adopted a Hindu name cannot be drawn and can be legally challenged.

This position was accepted by the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) in 1989 and use of Doongerwadi was permitted to intermarried Parsi ladies following the Roxan Shah episode. Since the position was not clear, the trustees decided to seek the opinion of retired Chief Justice of India Y. V. Chandrachud. The trust deed of Doongerwadi says: "Doonger­wadi is to be used and frequented as heretofore by every member of the Zoroastrian community as a place for exposure of the dead and for the performance of religious rites and ceremonies.”

Chandrachud advised that if the lady is married under the Special Marriage Act 1954, and continues to practise the Zoroastrian faith she cannot be denied the right to use the Doongerwadi. The trustees require an affidavit from the lady, or after her demise from a near member of her family, to this effect. This opinion was in writing.

Accordingly since then the BPP has allowed the use of Doongerwadi for intermarried ladies in the Modi Dakhma (as a sop to the orthodox who insisted on a separate place). It is not known why after over 20 years the High Priests and trustees have woken up to stop this when earlier this was allowed without any protest from the High Priests. No doubt it is the influence of the Taliban trustees in the BPP. What a pity that our High Priests have no fixed opinion and interpret scriptures as they please, and are even prepared to make exceptions in special cases. To insist that the law cannot be forced upon our religion is naïve, to say the least.

To understand whether, according to our scriptures, an intermarried Zoroastrian automatically ceases to be a Zoroastrian or can be thrown out or can renounce the religion, at that time I had asked Prof Kaikhosrov Irani, a learned Zoroastrian scholar of unimpeachable integrity. He said there was no such provision in our scriptures and gave the example of Iran where the law stipulates that if one member of a Zoroastrian family were to become a Muslim he inherits the entire family wealth. This led some Zoroastrians to become Muslims. Even the Muslim Imams were worried and wanted evidence that the conversion to Islam was genuine, not a subterfuge for monetary gain. They insisted that proof should be given of renunciation of the Zoroastrian faith. Since there was no other way of renunciation in our scriptures, the person was made to overtly show his contempt for the Zoroastrian faith by desecrating our symbols such as fire, kusti and religious instruments used in ceremonies. Irani further pointed out that conversion was not prohibited. What a shame our High Priests are now busy only debarring and defrocking Zoroastrians and their warriors, the BPP trustees, are busy tearing sudrehs and threatening priests. I feel that our great religion is becoming a laughing stock before other communities thanks to the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis making our internal differences public.

Isn’t it time we, the decent, progressive Zoroastrians, stand up against the steady Talibanization of our glorious religion? What answer will we give our children when they ask us five or six years later why we did not stand up to this and say "Enough is enough?”

JAMSHEED KANGA

jgkanga@vsnl.net