An inconvenient truth?

Over the last few years several of our Zoroastrian brethren, both in India and overseas, have been asking questions or raising issues in order to obtain clarifications or to seek deeper knowledge about our revered religion as propounded by Prophet Zarathushtra. They are keen to know the truth about the basic tenets of our great religion — explanations and answers that are based on ashoi, truth/righteousness — that are authentic, corroborated by our scriptures and the views of eminent past scholars and religious heads.

Much of the progress of humanity has been based on raising questions — child to mother, student to teacher, and so on through various stages of life. When answers are given in a compassionate, tolerant and meaningful way, the sum total of mankind’s knowledge bank is enhanced, leading to the greater good of all.

So why can’t the laity raise questions pertaining to religious matters for consideration of those who are, by virtue of their position, deemed religious leaders? Who else can they turn to? Not raising questions and clearing doubts or getting at the right answers invariably limits the spread of knowledge and encourages false and half-baked explanations to flourish. And as is rightly said: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

Today, it is a matter of bewilderment, pain and regret that by and large our vada dasturs — who are the focal point to take the lead and guide us about the core essence of our noble religion — have chosen to maintain a stony silence whenever any layman raises questions on issues pertaining to the religion. And that is what is stifling the religious fervor of the seeker of the core tenets of Zarathushtra’s teachings. Is this too much to ask of those who are supposed to lead in matters of religion based on their vast learning and exposure to our great religion?

Why have they chosen to maintain a stony silence? Is it because they do not know the answers? Is it because they do know the answers but do not want to share their knowledge? Is it because they feel that those asking honest questions in the layman’s quest for better appreciation of our religion should be treated with the kind of contempt reserved for infidels? Is it because they are beholden to some higher authority whose writ determines whether and when and what explanation they can give to the laity that is thirsting for knowledge?

If they feel they themselves cannot or do not want to reply to queries of those seeking to know the truth underlying the Zoroastrian religion, can they not at least suggest to us the source from where one can obtain the best/most authentic response? Are the vada dasturs unable to sense the pain and frustration of those raising bonafide questions who have been consistently stone-walled? It is not a matter of semantics, how the questions have been worded; the underlying message of the questioner is clear: the relentless efforts to get at the truth about the core of Zoroastrianism.

To end a painful and vexing topic in a lighter vein — I wonder whether the vada dasturs are the votaries of that age-old axiom "Ask no questions and you will be told no lies.” I learnt this, over the years, to be a smart defence when awkward questions were asked:

Where one does not know the answer and does not want to expose one’s Foolishness, Ignorance or Guilt (I define this as the FIG-leaf response).

Where one knows the answer but chooses not to reply as the question raises too personal a matter or a matter the questioner is not really concerned with (I define this as the nosey-parker response).

Where one knows the answer but chooses not to reply as the answer would expose an inconvenient truth (in present-day context may I define this as the Al Gore response).

In the context of this letter, could one be blamed for guessing that the Al Gore response is crowned the winner?

RUSTOM K. J. KHAMBATA

russikjk@gmail.com