Editorial Viewpoint
It’s a small world
“Peace cannot come by treading on the toes of others, hurting the sentiments of people and destroying precious legacy,” states the Code of Civil Conduct (CCC) adopted by the nine-month-old Global Working Group (GWG) formerly termed the Coming Together Round Table (see “Global gateway” page 12).
The purpose of the GWG (couldn’t they have selected a name that would at least make for a better acronym?) is to serve as a forum for leaders from various countries to meet and discuss community issues.
The CCC speaks of respect, tolerance and obedience, the third term being an ominous one. But surprisingly the commentary for obedience states, “for obedience to set in, we should realize that our sense of ‘right’ may not always be correct and hence other’s sense of right has to be respected.”
From where has this voice of reason come? The CCC is said to have been drafted by the soft-spoken, scholarly priest Ervad (Dr) Ramiyar Karanjia, principal of the Dadar Athornan Institute. Karanjia, along with Dastur Khurshed Dastoor of Udvada and with the tacit support of Dastur K. N. Dastoor Meherjirana of Navsari act as counterweights to the more strident fundamentalist high priests who are under the sway of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) and the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) trustee Khojeste Mistree.
Thus it was no surprise that Mistree was absent from the GWG at which the representatives of the UK (and presumably Europe), the federation of the North American associations and the Indian federation of anjumans were present. One reason cited for Mistree’s absence was that he did not want to be present in London at the same time as BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta who was there to present a memento to His Royal Highness Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh on his first visit to the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe’s (ZTFE) center. BPP trustee Jimmy Mistry, who is allied with Mistree and BPP trustee Yazdi Desai, was present only at the GWG to probably keep an eye on developments, and especially on Mehta to see he toed the trio’s line. The CCC talks of learning “to be at peace in concentric circles,” though for the two warring trustee factions parallel lines would be a more appropriate geometric metaphor. The Press was barred from the meet.
The “concentric circles starting from our own self,” referred to in the CCC, obviously did not reach the pinnacle stage of “progressing… to the world at large.” Associations in Iran, Pakistan, Middle East, Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand and Australia either received their invitations too late or did not receive them at all. None of their representatives were present.
The GWG meetings thus give the impression of being an add-on function. Because some of the global leaders are meeting for some other significant event, why not hold a “global” summit as well? With no secretariat, with leaders enmeshed in their own associations or professional commitments, even the most basic administrative functions are lost sight of. When the GWG was formed it was viewed as euphemism for the world body that was never constituted due to the opposition from the various Indian factions that later united to form WAPIZ.
To refer to the GWG as a “world” body would be ludicrous. It is little more than an ad hoc meeting of a few leaders who may or may not have the mandate of their constituencies. For example, would the WAPIZ dominated Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI) accept a CCC drafted by Karanjia who is loathed by Mistree? The Code has not been discussed at any FPZAI meeting and even if it is, would they adopt statements such as “empathy for others, irrespective of their beliefs and leanings?” Hasn’t the WAPIZ chairman funded and continued to fund the misconceived Valsad Parsi Anjuman’s legal efforts to uphold their pernicious ban on entry to the fire temple to Parsi Zoroastrian women married to non-Parsis under the Special Marriage Act 1954 even though they continue to profess the Zoroastrian faith?
Pray what “respect” and “tolerance” have WAPIZ or its members ever shown to co-religionists who disagree with their point of view? At Mistree and Desai’s instigation two priests were termed “renegades” and barred from praying at Doongerwadi and two agiaries managed by the BPP because they performed funerary ceremonies for those opting for cremation.
And when Mehta attacked Parsiana during the Press interaction with the GWG leaders which section of the CCC was he adhering to? He stated “Parsiana has twisted things to suit their agenda. Their agenda is ‘Zoroastrian.’ I don’t think it is in the larger interest of the community. We are very clear that the community identity should be ‘Parsi/Irani Zoroastrian’… The BPP elections have shown that the community in India as in the UK is very orthodox... Parsiana is doing a disservice to the community.”
According to Mehta and those who think like him, Zoroastrians are to be disdained. Only those racially qualified as Zoroastrians are to be given countenance. To bolster his faulty argument he mentions that recent BPP elections have demonstrated the orthodox leanings of the electorate. If so then why did the middle-of-the-road candidate Muncherji Cama defeat the orthodox spouting WAPIZ candidate Anahita Desai and that too by a large margin? And why did Mehta support Cama, the less orthodox candidate? And what explains BPP trustee Armaity Tirandaz’s narrow win over the more liberal Maneck Engineer? If Mehta’s observation were true, she should have won by a landslide.
The GWG’s primary objective, as stated, is to “protect and enhance the interests of Parsi/Irani Zoroastrians worldwide.” This means the children of Parsi women married to non-Parsis are excluded from “protection and enhancement.” Yet the same press release states the GWG respects “the autonomy of each region.” Thus the GWG would strive to assist the Parsi Zoroastrians in North America but not the Zoroastrians, even when they are members of the local community associations. Would this racial qualification not be violative of USA laws barring racism?
All the time, effort and funds for the GWG will be utilized primarily for the Parsis in India. Any other country that avails of their services or subscribes to their “objects” would be discriminating against a section of their constituency.
The purpose of the GWG (couldn’t they have selected a name that would at least make for a better acronym?) is to serve as a forum for leaders from various countries to meet and discuss community issues.
The CCC speaks of respect, tolerance and obedience, the third term being an ominous one. But surprisingly the commentary for obedience states, “for obedience to set in, we should realize that our sense of ‘right’ may not always be correct and hence other’s sense of right has to be respected.”
From where has this voice of reason come? The CCC is said to have been drafted by the soft-spoken, scholarly priest Ervad (Dr) Ramiyar Karanjia, principal of the Dadar Athornan Institute. Karanjia, along with Dastur Khurshed Dastoor of Udvada and with the tacit support of Dastur K. N. Dastoor Meherjirana of Navsari act as counterweights to the more strident fundamentalist high priests who are under the sway of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) and the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) trustee Khojeste Mistree.
Thus it was no surprise that Mistree was absent from the GWG at which the representatives of the UK (and presumably Europe), the federation of the North American associations and the Indian federation of anjumans were present. One reason cited for Mistree’s absence was that he did not want to be present in London at the same time as BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta who was there to present a memento to His Royal Highness Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh on his first visit to the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe’s (ZTFE) center. BPP trustee Jimmy Mistry, who is allied with Mistree and BPP trustee Yazdi Desai, was present only at the GWG to probably keep an eye on developments, and especially on Mehta to see he toed the trio’s line. The CCC talks of learning “to be at peace in concentric circles,” though for the two warring trustee factions parallel lines would be a more appropriate geometric metaphor. The Press was barred from the meet.
The “concentric circles starting from our own self,” referred to in the CCC, obviously did not reach the pinnacle stage of “progressing… to the world at large.” Associations in Iran, Pakistan, Middle East, Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand and Australia either received their invitations too late or did not receive them at all. None of their representatives were present.
The GWG meetings thus give the impression of being an add-on function. Because some of the global leaders are meeting for some other significant event, why not hold a “global” summit as well? With no secretariat, with leaders enmeshed in their own associations or professional commitments, even the most basic administrative functions are lost sight of. When the GWG was formed it was viewed as euphemism for the world body that was never constituted due to the opposition from the various Indian factions that later united to form WAPIZ.
To refer to the GWG as a “world” body would be ludicrous. It is little more than an ad hoc meeting of a few leaders who may or may not have the mandate of their constituencies. For example, would the WAPIZ dominated Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI) accept a CCC drafted by Karanjia who is loathed by Mistree? The Code has not been discussed at any FPZAI meeting and even if it is, would they adopt statements such as “empathy for others, irrespective of their beliefs and leanings?” Hasn’t the WAPIZ chairman funded and continued to fund the misconceived Valsad Parsi Anjuman’s legal efforts to uphold their pernicious ban on entry to the fire temple to Parsi Zoroastrian women married to non-Parsis under the Special Marriage Act 1954 even though they continue to profess the Zoroastrian faith?
Pray what “respect” and “tolerance” have WAPIZ or its members ever shown to co-religionists who disagree with their point of view? At Mistree and Desai’s instigation two priests were termed “renegades” and barred from praying at Doongerwadi and two agiaries managed by the BPP because they performed funerary ceremonies for those opting for cremation.
And when Mehta attacked Parsiana during the Press interaction with the GWG leaders which section of the CCC was he adhering to? He stated “Parsiana has twisted things to suit their agenda. Their agenda is ‘Zoroastrian.’ I don’t think it is in the larger interest of the community. We are very clear that the community identity should be ‘Parsi/Irani Zoroastrian’… The BPP elections have shown that the community in India as in the UK is very orthodox... Parsiana is doing a disservice to the community.”
According to Mehta and those who think like him, Zoroastrians are to be disdained. Only those racially qualified as Zoroastrians are to be given countenance. To bolster his faulty argument he mentions that recent BPP elections have demonstrated the orthodox leanings of the electorate. If so then why did the middle-of-the-road candidate Muncherji Cama defeat the orthodox spouting WAPIZ candidate Anahita Desai and that too by a large margin? And why did Mehta support Cama, the less orthodox candidate? And what explains BPP trustee Armaity Tirandaz’s narrow win over the more liberal Maneck Engineer? If Mehta’s observation were true, she should have won by a landslide.
The GWG’s primary objective, as stated, is to “protect and enhance the interests of Parsi/Irani Zoroastrians worldwide.” This means the children of Parsi women married to non-Parsis are excluded from “protection and enhancement.” Yet the same press release states the GWG respects “the autonomy of each region.” Thus the GWG would strive to assist the Parsi Zoroastrians in North America but not the Zoroastrians, even when they are members of the local community associations. Would this racial qualification not be violative of USA laws barring racism?
All the time, effort and funds for the GWG will be utilized primarily for the Parsis in India. Any other country that avails of their services or subscribes to their “objects” would be discriminating against a section of their constituency.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive