Editorial Viewpoint
A clash of cultures
If there is one major, positive accomplishment of the new board of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP), their family members and their World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) allies it has been to unite and galvanize the liberal opposition. The overwhelming response (over 2,213 till July 30) to the online petition Against Parsi Conservatism in support of the two priests banned by the BPP from performing religious ceremonies at Doongerwadi and two fire temples is indicative of the resentment felt by many Zoroastrians globally at the BPP’s high-handedness.
Initiated by the college and school going sisters, Camille and Zeenia Framroze, the signature campaign touched a compatible chord amongst numerous Parsis and others connected with the community. They were repulsed by the treatment meted out to the two priests, Ervads Khushroo Madon and Framroze Mirza, termed “renegades” by the trustees. And unlike other signature campaigns where people are physically approached by volunteers and often sign to avoid embarrassment or a confrontation without reading the petition or understanding its contents, an online appeal can be a truer indication of people’s sentiments. And it is not restricted to a particular geographic area.
Of course some signatories may badger their friends and relatives to respond and fake e-mail identities can be created. Still the apparent large numbers are indicative of strong emotions felt by people.
The public outpouring is also indicative of the community’s unwillingness to accept the authority of the trustees or the high priests where they believe they have exceeded their mandate. The trustees being elected officials may take the opposition in their stride, but for the high priests the universal opposition to their diktat is a major setback. They have only themselves to blame for the predicament they are in. They are only too willing to sign letters drafted by traditionalists and liberal-baiters without adequate discussion, thought or objective evaluation of the consequences.
It is time the dasturs notified the trustees of the BPP and WAPIZ to fight their own battles instead of seeking a fig leaf to hide their naked transgressions. Politicians as a rule do not go scampering to the clergy every time they want to justify their legislation or unconstitutional acts. Elected assemblies are secular bodies and their laws ofttimes run counter to religious dictums.
The clergy is a conservative body intent on preserving tradition but priests cannot do so at the expense of truth, civil liberties, fundamental rights, equality of sexes. Nor can their fatwas be on the basis of discrimination on grounds of race, color, caste or creed. When the high priests opposed the initiation of a Russian Zoroastrian into the priesthood, they also should have counseled against any physical assault. But they kept quiet. While opposing the navjote of children of a Parsi mother and non-Parsi father on racial grounds, they should have advised their supporters to desist from taking the law into their own hands. Authority is fused with responsibility. The priests cannot have one without the other. At present they appear to have neither.
The BPP Review of July 18, 2010 criticized former solicitor general Tehmtan Andhyarujina and former Supreme Court justice Sam Variava for participating in the BPP convened function to honor the new Chief Justice of India Sarosh Kapadia while supporting the two barred priests. Andhyarujina and Variava’s wife Dilnavaz, along with Anu Aga, Dr Keki Grant and Dr Rustom Soonawala are party to an intervening suit filed in support of the original application made by Jamsheed Kanga and Homi Khusrokhan in favor of the priests. The BPP were apparently served the notice subsequent to the function. The papers are sent by the courts. “It is expected of these honorable men to have informed the BPP of their intention especially as they were to speak under the BPP’s auspices,” the Review stated. “Perhaps our prominent Parsis need to take a leaf out of the Chief Justice’s book and learn from him how to honor one’s religion and the high priests.”
On the contrary, the two attended due to their respect for Kapadia and despite their anathema for the wilful policies of the BPP. They demonstrated they could put aside their personal animosities for a greater public cause. The trustees and the high priests should learn about Zoroastrianism from the five interveners, Kanga, Khusrokhan, Camille and Zeenia.
Instead the contemptible WAPIZ Page of July 23, 2010 launched a frontal attack on them all alleging “both ‘petitions’ are clearly based on scant religious knowledge.” The five were labeled “self-styled community intelligentsia” and the two girls were accused of “leading the community members on the wrong path…In contrast our learned high priests are storehouses of knowledge.”
Critics allege the online petition was initiated by overseas Zoroastrians while in fact the two girls are from Bombay and are only studying abroad. Ironically, Jimmy Doctor from the USA who initiated the counter online campaign on behalf of the traditionalists, stated in an email reproduced on the WAPIZ Page, “I fail to understand why the liberals who have a stronghold in North America feel compelled to dictate terms to the conservatives in India.”
His solution to the divide between the liberals and the conservatives: “both…would be better off if they just went their separate ways” with the entire infrastructure remaining with the traditionalists!
But one thing the online petitions demonstrate is that while there are deep fissures in the community, the geographical boundaries are disappearing. An injustice done in Bombay does not remain a local topic. A Parsi woman being denied admission to a fire temple in Valsad becomes a global story. Technology is changing the community’s approach to issues. And we are just scratching the surface of what is possible with modern telecommunications. Perhaps the divide may widen between the warring factions. Or possibly the conflict between the two sides may metamorphose, like two galaxies colliding with one another to form a single, new entity.
Initiated by the college and school going sisters, Camille and Zeenia Framroze, the signature campaign touched a compatible chord amongst numerous Parsis and others connected with the community. They were repulsed by the treatment meted out to the two priests, Ervads Khushroo Madon and Framroze Mirza, termed “renegades” by the trustees. And unlike other signature campaigns where people are physically approached by volunteers and often sign to avoid embarrassment or a confrontation without reading the petition or understanding its contents, an online appeal can be a truer indication of people’s sentiments. And it is not restricted to a particular geographic area.
Of course some signatories may badger their friends and relatives to respond and fake e-mail identities can be created. Still the apparent large numbers are indicative of strong emotions felt by people.
The public outpouring is also indicative of the community’s unwillingness to accept the authority of the trustees or the high priests where they believe they have exceeded their mandate. The trustees being elected officials may take the opposition in their stride, but for the high priests the universal opposition to their diktat is a major setback. They have only themselves to blame for the predicament they are in. They are only too willing to sign letters drafted by traditionalists and liberal-baiters without adequate discussion, thought or objective evaluation of the consequences.
It is time the dasturs notified the trustees of the BPP and WAPIZ to fight their own battles instead of seeking a fig leaf to hide their naked transgressions. Politicians as a rule do not go scampering to the clergy every time they want to justify their legislation or unconstitutional acts. Elected assemblies are secular bodies and their laws ofttimes run counter to religious dictums.
The clergy is a conservative body intent on preserving tradition but priests cannot do so at the expense of truth, civil liberties, fundamental rights, equality of sexes. Nor can their fatwas be on the basis of discrimination on grounds of race, color, caste or creed. When the high priests opposed the initiation of a Russian Zoroastrian into the priesthood, they also should have counseled against any physical assault. But they kept quiet. While opposing the navjote of children of a Parsi mother and non-Parsi father on racial grounds, they should have advised their supporters to desist from taking the law into their own hands. Authority is fused with responsibility. The priests cannot have one without the other. At present they appear to have neither.
The BPP Review of July 18, 2010 criticized former solicitor general Tehmtan Andhyarujina and former Supreme Court justice Sam Variava for participating in the BPP convened function to honor the new Chief Justice of India Sarosh Kapadia while supporting the two barred priests. Andhyarujina and Variava’s wife Dilnavaz, along with Anu Aga, Dr Keki Grant and Dr Rustom Soonawala are party to an intervening suit filed in support of the original application made by Jamsheed Kanga and Homi Khusrokhan in favor of the priests. The BPP were apparently served the notice subsequent to the function. The papers are sent by the courts. “It is expected of these honorable men to have informed the BPP of their intention especially as they were to speak under the BPP’s auspices,” the Review stated. “Perhaps our prominent Parsis need to take a leaf out of the Chief Justice’s book and learn from him how to honor one’s religion and the high priests.”
On the contrary, the two attended due to their respect for Kapadia and despite their anathema for the wilful policies of the BPP. They demonstrated they could put aside their personal animosities for a greater public cause. The trustees and the high priests should learn about Zoroastrianism from the five interveners, Kanga, Khusrokhan, Camille and Zeenia.
Instead the contemptible WAPIZ Page of July 23, 2010 launched a frontal attack on them all alleging “both ‘petitions’ are clearly based on scant religious knowledge.” The five were labeled “self-styled community intelligentsia” and the two girls were accused of “leading the community members on the wrong path…In contrast our learned high priests are storehouses of knowledge.”
Critics allege the online petition was initiated by overseas Zoroastrians while in fact the two girls are from Bombay and are only studying abroad. Ironically, Jimmy Doctor from the USA who initiated the counter online campaign on behalf of the traditionalists, stated in an email reproduced on the WAPIZ Page, “I fail to understand why the liberals who have a stronghold in North America feel compelled to dictate terms to the conservatives in India.”
His solution to the divide between the liberals and the conservatives: “both…would be better off if they just went their separate ways” with the entire infrastructure remaining with the traditionalists!
But one thing the online petitions demonstrate is that while there are deep fissures in the community, the geographical boundaries are disappearing. An injustice done in Bombay does not remain a local topic. A Parsi woman being denied admission to a fire temple in Valsad becomes a global story. Technology is changing the community’s approach to issues. And we are just scratching the surface of what is possible with modern telecommunications. Perhaps the divide may widen between the warring factions. Or possibly the conflict between the two sides may metamorphose, like two galaxies colliding with one another to form a single, new entity.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive