HC lifts ban on priests

When my colleagues decided to issue a fatwa against Ervads Khushroo Madon and Framroze Mirza I had immediately written and placed on record a letter dated August 5, 2009 wherein I had stated:

"As one who has never been in favor of religious conversions, mixed marriages or cremation I hold no brief for priests like Mirza and Madon who have chosen to defy long established customs and tenets of our community in India.

"However, I have two points of caution for the Board which I have been pointing out ever since colleague trustee Khojeste Mistree first tabled the matter before the Board for consideration at our meeting on June 9, 2009.

"(1) Legally, can we prevent a Parsi Zoroastrian priest (renegade or otherwise) from praying for the soul of a deceased Parsi Zoroastrian whose body is to be consigned to the dakhma? Will our argument that we are ostracizing them because in private life these two mobeds perform marriage ceremonies for inter-married couples hold good in a court of law?

"(2) There are many other such ‘renegade’ priests, so why are we targeting just two of them? Legally, would this not tantamount to discrimination.

"This issue may be contested by the ‘reformist lobby’ in a court of law and in my view we should be prepared to fight — and fight on a sound and firm footing — both religiously and legally.

"Religiously we may have a good case but I am not so sure from the legal point of view.”

The recent verdict of the Bombay High Court has vindicated what I wrote. But Dinshaw Mehta forgets that despite recording my dissent I did join my colleagues in opposing the Originating Summons.

And, at this stage I may add a caveat that if on the fatwa issue my colleagues decide to go into appeal all the way to the Supreme Court and waste further charity funds, I may not join them unless they find lawyers who are willing to appear pro bono or raise funds from private sources (preferably from their own pockets) to pursue this needless litigation.

Mehta is peeved that I had filed an application u/s 41A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Pray, tell me, if as a duly elected trustee Mehta and the rest of my colleagues deny me access to basic records such as minutes of the Wadia Committee and the audited accounts, what other recourse does that leave me with? The fact is, to date I have not been furnished with minutes of the Wadia Committee nor the accounts.

Mehta alleges that I am opposing the Board on their decision to sell the new Godrej Baug building flats on ownership basis. The fact is that though I placed some very serious legal concerns before the Board, I signed all the papers lest I be accused of obstructing progress. At the appropriate time, I shall bring these issues into the public domain.

Mehta and some of my colleagues on the Board dislike me for not always aligning myself to their line of thinking and for speaking my mind. However, I have always believed in active resistance to wrongs while they are happening and not intellectual post mortem after it is all over.

NOSHIR H. DADRAWALA

Trustee, Bombay Parsi Punchayet

noshir101@gmail.com

This is a landmark judgment which will withstand any appeal in the higher court. In fact, the most significant part of the order which has not been stayed pending appeal has divested the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) of its presumed powers in all matters pertaining to our religion. This has virtually castrated the messiah so far as his importance in religious matters is concerned. Now the ball (pardon the coincidental association of the word) will be in the court of the vada dasturs. Let’s see if they can swing a bat of their own.

All Parsis should compel the BPP trustees to pay from their own pockets for his vexatious litigation. Or get their self-declared crorepati patron to foot the bill. There should be no further appeal at the cost of the community.

The trustees have defrauded us by claiming authority over religious matters when such authority is not bestowed on them by the trust deed. They stand exposed to criminal charges if they persist in fighting for their personal power and ego by utilizing trust funds.

PHIROZE B, JAVERI

phiroze.javeri@gmail.com

The judgment of the Bombay High Court (HC) against the Bombay Parsi Pun­chayet’s (BPP) ban on two priests was reported in major national dailies making all other communities in India aware of the state of affairs within our tiny community. Recently I even happened to read about this in a Marathi daily, Pudhari.

Firstly, was it prudent for the BPP to issue such a fatwa? Both the priests had been offering these services for over a decade. It appears that the fatwa was issued just to please two of the BPP trustees who are also founder members of WAPIZ (World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis) and to get a pat on the back from the high priests.

What has been the financial cost, besides the loss of man-hours, to defend this whimsical resolution? The media reported that Rs 26 lakh was the cost of the first stage where the BPP had been successful. In the current matter there were several hearings before the judgment was delivered. God alone knows how much community money was wasted to pander to the egos of some trustees and the fruit juice concentrate emperor of Ahmedabad.

Since the judgment was that of a bench and there is not a single loophole left for BPP and WAPIZ to appeal, the trustees should not contemplate doing so, squandering further funds. Should the appeal not be held maintainable, the trustees would suffer further loss of face. If despite the writing on the wall the trustees attempt to try their luck in the Supreme Court, would they not be digging their own graves?

These very trustees who must have spent at least two crore rupees or more (closer to one crore by now — editors) on this issue had the audacity to say that they could not comply with the order of the Charity Commissioner for audit of accounts for the previous 10 years as that would be a drain on the finances of a charitable trust! Perhaps the plea is specious so that the skeletons in their cupboards do not spill out. One Parsi has written on Facebook that not only are there skeletons in their cupboards, they have graveyards in the gardens.

The BPP, in an attempt to project itself as an apex body of Parsis, is poking its nose in the suit of an intermarried lady of Valsad. The Ahmedabadi "emperor” is talking of affidavits from high priests without understanding that even the contents of affidavits are subject to cross examination.

HOMI DALAL

homeedalal@gmail.com