Editorial Viewpoint
Breaking the law?
After performing her children’s navjotes despite fierce opposition from the trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet and their dyed-in-the-wool supporters, Roshni Maloo has boldly taken her children to various fire temples, including four atash behrams in Bombay. The scurrilous WAPIZ (World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis) Page has accused her and her two children of “surreptitiously attend(ing) a jashan in a South Bombay fire temple” during the muktads. Maloo is married to Savio D’Souza.
Undeterred by the accusation the intrepid lady informed the WAPIZ editorial (propaganda would be a more appropriate nomenclature) department that she did not “slyly” attend the house of worship as alleged but did so openly. And furthermore that she intended to continue worshipping thus, children in tow.
The WAPIZ Page further lamented that her children’s entry into a house of God was against the judgment of Bombay High Court Justices Dinshaw Davar and Frank Beaman in 1908 which required a person to be born of a Parsi father in order to enter a fire temple. Thus a person would have to be both a Parsi and a Zoroastrian to qualify for entry.
In another sidepiece the WAPIZ propagandists ask, “What do the liberals really believe in?” and go on to proffer an answer, “the liberals want a religion with no rules, no discipline, no structure and no regulations.” That definition would better suit the marauding party that went to Sanjan and allegedly assaulted a Parsi woman and a Russian Zoroastrian rather than to Maloo. They functioned like vigilantes, taking the law into their own hands, coercing the aggrieved party to agree to their diktats.
The WAPIZ copywriters (more copy-wrongers in fact) allege no coercion took place because the woman “signed the consent terms in the presence of the police officers” (the last six words being printed in bold in case any reader was unfamiliar with the role of the police as upholders of civil liberties). The WAPIZ publicists are probably blissfully unaware that even confessions made before the police are not admissible as evidence as there is a possibility the person accused may have suffered third degree treatment. The confessions have to be recorded before a magistrate who first inquires if the accused was subjected to torture.
Of course in the Sanjan matter the police behaved with utmost caution and decency, probably aware they were dealing with a community better known for its cantankerousness than wit. The reason for signing the consent terms was so that the Russian gent could return to St Petersburg instead of having to spend the next 20 years of his life attending the courts in the various talukas, districts and cities of Maharashtra.
But to give the devil her/his due, the WAPIZ Page did raise an important issue. Whether and when should one break the law? During prohibition many drank despite the ban on liquor. In the dark days of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s emergency dissenters published and circulated literature unfavorable to the government even though the punishment – if caught — could mean imprisonment. Some people protested publicly and were carted off to prison.
In Europe, East Germans fled to the West at the risk of being shot to death. In Holland, a Dutch lady sheltered Anne Frank and her family from the Nazis till a “law abiding” citizen informed the authorities and they were incarcerated in concentration camps where all of them save one were killed. In South Africa Nelson Mandela remained in prison rather than give up his struggle for a free and equal country.
People do not break the law non- chalantly, even if the law is unjust. It is a matter for grave consideration. And most people are law abiding. But you cannot fault one party for breaking or bending the rules if the other party does likewise. You can’t go around tearing someone’s sudreh for being initiated into the Zoroastrian faith when Davar and Beaman clearly state “Zoroastrianism not only permits but enjoins conversion.” And you can’t reason that for 1,000 years there was no conversion hence it is against tradition. Can you have a tradition of “not doing something?”
Maloo was legally entitled to have her children’s navjote performed. She was within her legal rights in holding a reception to celebrate the joyous occasion. Many powerful forces tried to stop her. She had to even seek police protection for herself and her family. When others have not obeyed the law who are they to sermonize on legalities?
Non-Parsis surreptitiously enter fire temples and tell others about it. Should we now bar the children of Parsi mothers married to non-Parsis admission? We think not.
Maloo is a gutsy lady. But that does not mean some zealot will not attempt to bar her entry to a fire temple. If in disgust she ceases to enter the agiaries and her children are also kept out, the loss will be greater for the community than her. From our shrinking number we would have needlessly and foolishly minused another three.
When the trust deeds were drawn up the settlors probably did not envision illegitimate children of Parsi men spawned from non-Parsi mistresses entrance in the agiaries. But the Davar and Beaman judgment granted them entry. If they could do so then, why should the legitimate children of Parsi women married to non-Parsis be denied the same right now, 102 years later? Till this gender apartheid is removed, women are bound to defy this odious fettering of their moral and religious rights.
Undeterred by the accusation the intrepid lady informed the WAPIZ editorial (propaganda would be a more appropriate nomenclature) department that she did not “slyly” attend the house of worship as alleged but did so openly. And furthermore that she intended to continue worshipping thus, children in tow.
The WAPIZ Page further lamented that her children’s entry into a house of God was against the judgment of Bombay High Court Justices Dinshaw Davar and Frank Beaman in 1908 which required a person to be born of a Parsi father in order to enter a fire temple. Thus a person would have to be both a Parsi and a Zoroastrian to qualify for entry.
In another sidepiece the WAPIZ propagandists ask, “What do the liberals really believe in?” and go on to proffer an answer, “the liberals want a religion with no rules, no discipline, no structure and no regulations.” That definition would better suit the marauding party that went to Sanjan and allegedly assaulted a Parsi woman and a Russian Zoroastrian rather than to Maloo. They functioned like vigilantes, taking the law into their own hands, coercing the aggrieved party to agree to their diktats.
The WAPIZ copywriters (more copy-wrongers in fact) allege no coercion took place because the woman “signed the consent terms in the presence of the police officers” (the last six words being printed in bold in case any reader was unfamiliar with the role of the police as upholders of civil liberties). The WAPIZ publicists are probably blissfully unaware that even confessions made before the police are not admissible as evidence as there is a possibility the person accused may have suffered third degree treatment. The confessions have to be recorded before a magistrate who first inquires if the accused was subjected to torture.
Of course in the Sanjan matter the police behaved with utmost caution and decency, probably aware they were dealing with a community better known for its cantankerousness than wit. The reason for signing the consent terms was so that the Russian gent could return to St Petersburg instead of having to spend the next 20 years of his life attending the courts in the various talukas, districts and cities of Maharashtra.
But to give the devil her/his due, the WAPIZ Page did raise an important issue. Whether and when should one break the law? During prohibition many drank despite the ban on liquor. In the dark days of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s emergency dissenters published and circulated literature unfavorable to the government even though the punishment – if caught — could mean imprisonment. Some people protested publicly and were carted off to prison.
In Europe, East Germans fled to the West at the risk of being shot to death. In Holland, a Dutch lady sheltered Anne Frank and her family from the Nazis till a “law abiding” citizen informed the authorities and they were incarcerated in concentration camps where all of them save one were killed. In South Africa Nelson Mandela remained in prison rather than give up his struggle for a free and equal country.
People do not break the law non- chalantly, even if the law is unjust. It is a matter for grave consideration. And most people are law abiding. But you cannot fault one party for breaking or bending the rules if the other party does likewise. You can’t go around tearing someone’s sudreh for being initiated into the Zoroastrian faith when Davar and Beaman clearly state “Zoroastrianism not only permits but enjoins conversion.” And you can’t reason that for 1,000 years there was no conversion hence it is against tradition. Can you have a tradition of “not doing something?”
Maloo was legally entitled to have her children’s navjote performed. She was within her legal rights in holding a reception to celebrate the joyous occasion. Many powerful forces tried to stop her. She had to even seek police protection for herself and her family. When others have not obeyed the law who are they to sermonize on legalities?
Non-Parsis surreptitiously enter fire temples and tell others about it. Should we now bar the children of Parsi mothers married to non-Parsis admission? We think not.
Maloo is a gutsy lady. But that does not mean some zealot will not attempt to bar her entry to a fire temple. If in disgust she ceases to enter the agiaries and her children are also kept out, the loss will be greater for the community than her. From our shrinking number we would have needlessly and foolishly minused another three.
When the trust deeds were drawn up the settlors probably did not envision illegitimate children of Parsi men spawned from non-Parsi mistresses entrance in the agiaries. But the Davar and Beaman judgment granted them entry. If they could do so then, why should the legitimate children of Parsi women married to non-Parsis be denied the same right now, 102 years later? Till this gender apartheid is removed, women are bound to defy this odious fettering of their moral and religious rights.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive