“Back to the basics”

While I always applaud your editorials I was rather taken aback by your comment that "historically also violence is part and parcel of Parsi life” ("Back to the basics,” Editorial Viewpoint, Parsiana, July 7, 2011). In 1832 the Parsis turned against the British for rounding up all stray dogs and killing them. In those days Parsis rarely kept dogs as house pets, but each Parsi street would have dogs of its own and even the poorest Parsi would not eat without feeding the first morsel to a street dog. I have often been privy to this practice in mofussil areas. There are two chapters in the Vendidad about the care of dogs and the British had resorted to a very brutish technique to get rid of them.

It is creditworthy that the Parsis stood up to the British even though they were otherwise on very friendly terms with them. But an incipient awareness regarding animal welfare prompted the Parsis for the first — and perhaps the only — time to take to the streets to save the lives of helpless street dogs. For this they deserve a posthumous award and not your unfortunate swipe at them. The Parsis acted at a time when there were no animal rights organizations. For me, their bold protest belies the claim of American psychological anthropologist Tanya Luhrmann and others who depict Parsis as blind followers of the British, a subject I have extensively written about.

I may add that so profound is the love for dogs even among Iranians today despite the religious fatwa against them, that the Wall Street Journal of July 18, 2011 carried a long article titled "A craze for pooches in Iran dogs the morality police.” It describes how much hardship Iranians willingly suffer to own dogs even though that country’s parliament has criminalized the ownership of the animals and levied a fine of up to $ 500 "if the dog is seen in a public place” or cars are temporarily confiscated "if the dog is not contained in a carrier inside the car.”

When the morality police tried to kill a 24-year-old Iranian’s dog, he told them: "You have to shoot me before you kill him.” The man was fined but the dog was spared. However, the same cannot be said about the British police in the 1800s.

You also refer to "the two Parsi-Muslim riots that took place around the 1800s,” without providing validating data. The riot in the 1800s was simply due to the Parsi editor of a newspaper, trying with the best of intentions to educate the public about different religions, unwittingly reprinting a picture purported to be of Prophet Mohammed published in an article in England without realizing that it was taboo in Islam to do so. The editor readily apologized for this but the Press reports of the day suggest some goondas (unsocial elements) found it a convenient reason to go after the Parsis, until leading Muslims intervened on their behalf.

Another incident occurred in the 20th century when the Parsis did not join the boycott by the Congress of the visit of a member of the British monarchy. But in both cases Parsis were not the perpetrators or initiators but rather the victims and do not deserve your comments which I find to be so on-the-mark for the most part.

Dr KERSEY H. ANTIA

Illinois, USA