A time to act

Many people who take an interest in community affairs and hold strong views often preface their remarks with the rider, “This is not for publication. I don’t want to start/continue a controversy.” This condition is verbalized even if the conversation is a casual, friendly or social one and there is no intent whatsoever to publish the remarks.
Such reticence is even more from people holding public office. When being interviewed, the person often speaks in generalities, praises the trustworthiness, philanthropy and inherent goodness of the Parsis and wishes the community well. Thus it was a refreshing change to find the recently appointed advocate general of Maharashtra, Darius Khambata, speak his mind forthrightly on community issues [see “Independent and impartial advice” (page 26) and “Truth and tolerance” (page 30)].
Khambata rightly pointed out that the failure of other right thinking people to speak out was hindering the betterment of a community he deeply cares about. Their silence is baffling. Zoroastrianism requires, nay, commands its followers to choose between good over evil and fight for what is moral and right. Keeping silent when grave injustices are being committed is not only going against the most basic tenets of the religion, it is sinful.
There are many ills that afflict the community that need to be tackled head on. Two of the most glaring vices prevalent amongst Parsis are racism and sexism. Incidentally a recent poll amongst 2,000 Britons carried out by the CBS Reality television channel released this September 24 revealed that “74 percent of Brits consider the Seven Cardinal Sins to be outdated and redundant, instead citing racism, domestic violence, terrorism, bullying, tax evasion, bigotry and even binge drinking as the ultimate wrong-doings in today’s society.”
The channel’s website quoted their director of programing Sam Rowden as observing, “It is perhaps unsurprising that society feels so strongly that racism should be considered a modern deadly sin.’ As a matter of fact it was rated the top sin, even above terrorism.”
But amongst the Parsis few people condemn racism. The usual defense trotted out by community leaders/clergymen practicing apartheid is that they don’t discriminate against people on account of the color of their skin. Thus any non-Parsi, white, brown, black or yellow is termed a parjaat (someone outside the faith and community) and is not admitted to the religion or the fold. Even if a non-Parsi is converted, he or she cannot enter a fire temple or be present at Parsi funerary rites or even have his or her body consigned to the Towers of Silence. (Sometimes even Parsis are denied these rights.)
The definitions of racism as defined by the Oxford dictionary and quoted in several newspaper articles pertaining to the CBS survey are, “the belief that each race or ethnic group possesses specific characteristics, abilities or qualities that distinguish it as inferior or superior to another such group (and secondly) discrimination against or antagonism towards other races or ethnic groups based on such belief.”
Thus very clearly the community policy of segregation between Parsis and non-Parsis extends beyond the color of the skin. You can only be a Parsi if you are born of a Parsi father. No other criterion is of any avail. As Justice Frank Beaman so succinctly put it, “they will admit all the illegitimate children of Parsi parents, begotten of prostitutes or kept mistresses, but they will not admit the noblest, most exemplary foreigner. Why? Because the foreigner is outside the caste, and caste is an institution into which you must be born…this is not religion. It has nothing to do with religion.”
Amongst Hindus, a non-Brahmin can become an officiating priest of a temple. There is flexibility. The best a behdin can hope for is to become a paramobed. He can never aspire to be an ervad or a panthaky or a dastur. Dastur (Dr) Framroze Bode’s critics in order to discredit him used to chant, “He is not Dr Bode. He is not Dastur Bode. He is not Ervad Bode. He is Mr Bode.” This taunt despite that Bode was born in an athornan family and underwent the navar ceremony.
At a time when mobeds are advising their sons to abandon the priestly profession is it right to continue barring their daughters and non-athornan men and women from being ordained as priests? Iran and US have shown that it can be done. Why not India? Why must sex and birth determine a person’s right to decide on a profession or calling? And why haven’t enough people spoken against this pernicious practice?
Why have our women shirked their bounden duty to challenge the judgment of Justices Dinshaw Davar and Beaman passed over a 100 years ago. As opined by Khambata, with the Constitution of India being introduced more than 60 years back, the judgment would not stand today. No doubt there will be stiff opposition from the Parsi equivalents of the Ku Klux Klan. There will be controversy, insults, threats, badgering. But is that a reason to shy away from a fray, a fight to assert the most basic rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution and the constitution of probably every democratic country in the world?
Do Parsi women want to be remembered as spineless individuals who stood idly by as grave injustices were and are being perpetrated? Do they want the children of fellow women who are married outside the faith to stand outside a fire temple when the mother enters? Why do they accept the bar on entry into the fire temple for women during their menses?
The Delhi Parsi Anjuman permits the children of Parsi women married to non-Parsis the right of entry to the fire temple. So does the Karachi anjuman. Why is Bombay with 50 fire temples lagging behind? Is there not even one agiary in this city where the trustees are men and women of any mettle and reason? Why do they shelter behind trust deeds written 100 and 200 years ago? When the Privy Council has ruled in the Saklat vs Bella case that the trustees have the power if they so wish to admit non-Parsis into an agiary, why do the trustees not exercise their legal rights?
Some argue people should not “rock the boat. Be patient. Change will come in due time.” But four of the seven Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustees (Jimmy Mistry, Khojeste Mistree, Yazdi Desai and Armaity Tirandaz) voted to bar priests from performing religious ceremonies at BPP properties if they perform navjote ceremonies of the children of Parsi women married to non-Parsis. Three (chairman Dinshaw Mehta, Arnavaz Mistry and Muncherji Cama) opposed the bar. When can we expect any reform from segregationists?
People like Roshni Maloo, Goolrookh Gupta, Jamsheed Kanga, Homi Khusrokhan and others have shown one can challenge the system. Winning or losing is not the issue. The question is whether you fought the good fight.