Editorial Viewpoint
The spoilers
For all their bluster about being the defenders of the faith, the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) have placed the sanctity and solitude of Zoroastrianism’s most sacred site in India in jeopardy. By opposing and thereby thwarting a proposal to declare the area around the Iranshah atash behram a heritage site, the town was left without any institutional safeguards. Now a party has purchased around 200 acres in the close vicinity of the revered fire temple and reportedly intends to convert the land from agricultural to a non-agricultural category and develop a residential or industrial complex.
The WAPIZ Page of October 29, 2010 after boldly proclaiming “Precious Iranshah needs to be safeguarded” goes on to suggest that a “two kilometer radius around the Paak Iranshah (be declared) a no development zone to prevent similar problems in the future.” The editors, WAPIZ activists Tannaz Parakh and Anahita Desai then go on to elaborate “why a no development zone status is preferable to heritage status” claiming “it will have the same effect as heritage but without the pitfalls of heritage in Udvada’s case.” The heritage status they allege will be used “as a stepping stone to Udvada being declared a world heritage site under UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) which will attract ‘converts’ from all over the world.”
But then why did WAPIZ opt for heritage status for the Bombay agiaries? Would not converts flock here also? Pat comes the reply: “Heritage status for Bombay agiaries safeguards them from unnecessary development and the builders’ lobby.” Presumably out-of-Bombay fire temples face no such threat!
Whatever the status accorded Udvada (WAPIZ subsequently agreed to “heritage village” ) the nomenclature in no way changes the legal requirements for admission into a fire temple. This is governed by the trust deed of the fire temples or by the rules set down by the trustees. The WAPIZ editors not being lawyers — nor professional journalists — one can forgive their ignorance of the law.
To cover up their gaffe in initially denying Udvada heritage status while opting for a similar status in Bombay, WAPIZ has exposed its hypocritical approach to community issues. They followed a contradictory policy in this instance because of their enmity towards the people behind the Udvada heritage movement: former Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustee Dinshaw Tamboly and Dastur Khurshed Dastoor, one of the two Iranshah high priests, in particular, and hotelier Jehangir Cama of Ahmedabad. A proposed two-kilometer radius would not protect the lands surrounding the local Doongerwadi estate on the outskirts of the town from intrusion or development, notes Udvada resident and hotelier/developer Manek Tadiwala.
In a press release dated October 21, Dastoor on behalf of the Udvada Samast Anjuman has stated that “if this change in (categorization of the land) is permitted… it will completely destroy the sanctity of our holiest place of worship.” Udvada’s infrastructure being “very limited” the proposed complex would “create havoc,” he warns.
Dastoor states “we have already written to (Gujarat chief minister) Narendra Modi… the collector of Valsad district and other government departments” opposing any change in classification and urges “individuals and institutions to write letters to the concerned authorities.” For the present the permission to change the status of the land to nonagricultural has been revoked.
But having spent a considerable amount of money and being business people instead of a nongovernmental agency, the Udvada party may either fight tooth and nail to develop the plot or look for a buyer.
Though the land reportedly changed hands several times in the past and was once owned by Parsis, of late there were no buyers till now. According to a local source, the official agreement to date showed a sale price of 22 crore rupees (a little under $ 5 million) and the board on the land carries the new owners’ name as Nucleus Developers based in Parel.
Readers will recall a similar controversy arose over a decade ago when a public toilet was built a short distance from the Bhikha Behram Well in Bombay’s Fountain area. Here a hue and cry was raised and the toilet built at considerable expense by a Rotary Club (since disbanded) lies in disuse while the case lingers in the courts.
In both matters the community’s political and social clout may prove superior to their opponents’.
In the early 1970s the property adjacent to Bombay’s Doongerwadi was sold to a developer who put up three skyscrapers and several row houses. At the Mancherji Joshi Parsi Colony in Dadar non-Parsi developers bought over several buildings in the late 1970s-early 1980s and constructed flats above them using reinforced concrete scaffolding. The Parsi association there went to court and fortunately obtained a stay in the City Civil Court on the grounds that the plots were covered by a Parsi-only covenant. Nearly all the disputed flats were subsequently resold to Parsis.
Efforts were also under way to rename Khodadad Circle in Dadar and Lady Jejeebhoy Road in Mahim Causeway after non-Parsis. Both moves were thwarted. In Nagpur the University tried to rename a hall named after a member of the Tata family who had donated money for its construction. Here also local community opposition put paid to the proposed substitution.
At some point our luck or our capacity to fight or even our knowledge of such developments taking place will diminish. What happens then? How much longer can we hold on to properties and past heritage? How many courts and governments can we keep appealing to? Why is it that on one hand we treat non-Parsis with scorn and on the other we go scurrying to them for succor? The community, the government and the courts can only do so much for us. The rest of civil society is our best protection against the onslaught of time and urban sprawl.
The WAPIZ leaders and their ilk deride non-Parsis yet at the same time hamper any Zoroastrians they dislike from performing their duties. They have to mend their ways if the community is to preserve whatever goodwill it has left.
The WAPIZ Page of October 29, 2010 after boldly proclaiming “Precious Iranshah needs to be safeguarded” goes on to suggest that a “two kilometer radius around the Paak Iranshah (be declared) a no development zone to prevent similar problems in the future.” The editors, WAPIZ activists Tannaz Parakh and Anahita Desai then go on to elaborate “why a no development zone status is preferable to heritage status” claiming “it will have the same effect as heritage but without the pitfalls of heritage in Udvada’s case.” The heritage status they allege will be used “as a stepping stone to Udvada being declared a world heritage site under UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) which will attract ‘converts’ from all over the world.”
But then why did WAPIZ opt for heritage status for the Bombay agiaries? Would not converts flock here also? Pat comes the reply: “Heritage status for Bombay agiaries safeguards them from unnecessary development and the builders’ lobby.” Presumably out-of-Bombay fire temples face no such threat!
Whatever the status accorded Udvada (WAPIZ subsequently agreed to “heritage village” ) the nomenclature in no way changes the legal requirements for admission into a fire temple. This is governed by the trust deed of the fire temples or by the rules set down by the trustees. The WAPIZ editors not being lawyers — nor professional journalists — one can forgive their ignorance of the law.
To cover up their gaffe in initially denying Udvada heritage status while opting for a similar status in Bombay, WAPIZ has exposed its hypocritical approach to community issues. They followed a contradictory policy in this instance because of their enmity towards the people behind the Udvada heritage movement: former Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustee Dinshaw Tamboly and Dastur Khurshed Dastoor, one of the two Iranshah high priests, in particular, and hotelier Jehangir Cama of Ahmedabad. A proposed two-kilometer radius would not protect the lands surrounding the local Doongerwadi estate on the outskirts of the town from intrusion or development, notes Udvada resident and hotelier/developer Manek Tadiwala.
In a press release dated October 21, Dastoor on behalf of the Udvada Samast Anjuman has stated that “if this change in (categorization of the land) is permitted… it will completely destroy the sanctity of our holiest place of worship.” Udvada’s infrastructure being “very limited” the proposed complex would “create havoc,” he warns.
Dastoor states “we have already written to (Gujarat chief minister) Narendra Modi… the collector of Valsad district and other government departments” opposing any change in classification and urges “individuals and institutions to write letters to the concerned authorities.” For the present the permission to change the status of the land to nonagricultural has been revoked.
But having spent a considerable amount of money and being business people instead of a nongovernmental agency, the Udvada party may either fight tooth and nail to develop the plot or look for a buyer.
Though the land reportedly changed hands several times in the past and was once owned by Parsis, of late there were no buyers till now. According to a local source, the official agreement to date showed a sale price of 22 crore rupees (a little under $ 5 million) and the board on the land carries the new owners’ name as Nucleus Developers based in Parel.
Readers will recall a similar controversy arose over a decade ago when a public toilet was built a short distance from the Bhikha Behram Well in Bombay’s Fountain area. Here a hue and cry was raised and the toilet built at considerable expense by a Rotary Club (since disbanded) lies in disuse while the case lingers in the courts.
In both matters the community’s political and social clout may prove superior to their opponents’.
In the early 1970s the property adjacent to Bombay’s Doongerwadi was sold to a developer who put up three skyscrapers and several row houses. At the Mancherji Joshi Parsi Colony in Dadar non-Parsi developers bought over several buildings in the late 1970s-early 1980s and constructed flats above them using reinforced concrete scaffolding. The Parsi association there went to court and fortunately obtained a stay in the City Civil Court on the grounds that the plots were covered by a Parsi-only covenant. Nearly all the disputed flats were subsequently resold to Parsis.
Efforts were also under way to rename Khodadad Circle in Dadar and Lady Jejeebhoy Road in Mahim Causeway after non-Parsis. Both moves were thwarted. In Nagpur the University tried to rename a hall named after a member of the Tata family who had donated money for its construction. Here also local community opposition put paid to the proposed substitution.
At some point our luck or our capacity to fight or even our knowledge of such developments taking place will diminish. What happens then? How much longer can we hold on to properties and past heritage? How many courts and governments can we keep appealing to? Why is it that on one hand we treat non-Parsis with scorn and on the other we go scurrying to them for succor? The community, the government and the courts can only do so much for us. The rest of civil society is our best protection against the onslaught of time and urban sprawl.
The WAPIZ leaders and their ilk deride non-Parsis yet at the same time hamper any Zoroastrians they dislike from performing their duties. They have to mend their ways if the community is to preserve whatever goodwill it has left.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive