Editorial Viewpoint
Who are the renegades?
The priestly tergiversations would be a source of derision if the dithering did not underline a harsher reality. The high priests’ frequent change of heart and mind is not so much a factor of religious conviction as it is of political and social compulsions. Thus we find in one statement the clergy support the aviary project. Five months later they oppose it. Twelve years later they support it. And so on.
Political leaders like Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) chairman Dinshaw Mehta when faced with ticklish problems pertaining to customs and traditions often state in “such matters (the BPP) can and should only be guided by the unanimous advice of our religious high priests.” This phrase is normally prefaced by the statement, “I certainly wish to confirm …that I am a staunch and loyal Parsi Zoroastrian and passionately believe in upholding our age old customs and traditions.”
The most recent reiteration of this hackneyed phrase appeared in The Bombay Samachar “Parsi Tari Arsi” column of October 7, 2012 in a letter by Mehta addressed to the editor. It was further qualified by the remark that “the entire community” should be taken “into confidence through a referendum or through a Samast Anjuman meeting.”
The issue Mehta was prevaricating on was — you guessed correctly — the contentious aviary project. The fact that Mehta added a rider “unanimous” to his statement professing full faith in the dasturs means the project is in all likelihood doomed to the dustbin of BPP history. The high priests agree on very little. As Dastur Khurshed Dastoor lamented in his article (see “Surprised and perturbed” page 34) on the vulture breeding program at Doongerwadi, “I had requested for a meeting of the Council of Vada Dasturs but was informed that there was no need for the same as they had already made up their minds in the matter.” He along with Dastur K. N. Dastoor Meherjirana oppose the aviary project (see “Vulture venture to take flight? -- III,” Parsiana, September 21, 2012).
But aside from seeking “unanimity,” Mehta should have specified a time frame. Did he mean a unanimous decision taken by the dasturs today? Or 12 years and five months earlier? The high priests’ views change depending on which party is in favor at the time or can assert the most influence on the clergy. Thus it was saddening to read Dastur (Dr) Kaikhusroo JamaspAsa’s letter of June 23, 2000 wherein he states after changing his stance on the aviary “I do not wish to be involved in the present Doongerwadi controversy… I am under great stress and strain and my doctors have advised me complete peace of mind.”
For all his stern and formidable countenance he, like Kotwal and the others, look for social acceptance. They are decent, well intentioned and caring human beings but their public utterances and dogmatic viewpoints paint them as regressive. They aspire to be viewed as the spiritual leaders of the entire Zoroastrian community but they fail in that endeavor.
Over 100 years ago JamaspAsa’s grandfather, Dastur Kaikhooshroo Jamaspji, a learned high priest performed the navjote ceremony of Suzanne (Briere) Tata, the French wife of Ratan Tata and the mother of J. R. D. Tata. Was he wrong in initiating her into the faith? Can he be dismissed as an ignorant mobed who thirsted for money? Did anyone label him “renegade” or bar him from performing religious ceremonies at Doongerwadi or elsewhere?
His contemporary Dastur Maneck Dhalla of Karachi also was a scholar who studied at Columbia University in New York. In his autobiography he noted the futility of practicing dakhmenashini in crowded, developed urban areas. “I came to the conclusion that the Zoroastrian custom of exposing the body to the rays of the sun would be impracticable and impossible in large cities like New York and London.”
Was he wrong? And if he and the others like him are wrong, then who is right? And who is to determine right from wrong?
Mehta talks of a referendum and a samast anjuman meeting to decide controversies. Till date the BPP has never carried out a scientific referendum on any subject or issue. And as for so-called samast anjuman meetings, the one held at Rustom Baug on December 15, 2000 demonstrated how easy it is to pack the gathering with people of a particular persuasion or political leaning and engineer the audience response.
That both the clergy and the Punchayet are viewed with disdain indicates a failure of leadership. The BPP trustees are so absorbed in fighting one another or litigating with sections of the community that they lack the energy to provide guidance. Issues that could be settled with a little give and take, land up in the courts of law. The dispute between the BPP and the Managing Committee of the Parsi Lying-In Hospital over the use of the building and property is a case in point. After holding discussions for close to a year, the BPP is incapable of arriving at a workable solution. The matter now looks headed for the courts.
In the so-called “renegade” priests’ matter — which may not have been the appropriate matter to refer to mediation — the talks have dragged on interminably for over a year at considerable cost to the community coffers and a significant drain on the time and energy of all concerned parties. That matter also appears to be headed back to the Supreme Court.
Could not the high priests, the BPP trustees, the petitioners and the two mobeds concerned have worked out an acceptable compromise on their own before the differences resulted in an originating summons? And why can’t people have the freedom to decide the manner in which their bodies are to be disposed of without having to worry about victimization. Why should they have to produce ridiculous affidavits at the time of bereavement if a female family member has married a non-Parsi? If a Parsi opts for cremation or burial why should the bereaved have to scurry back and forth booking a venue for the ceremonies while the Doongerwadi bunglis lie empty and the BPP wails about the one-and-a-half to two crore rupee (US $ 370,000) annual loss incurred managing the estate?
Why should Parsi women who marry non-Parsis be victimized for celebrating their children’s navjote? Why should they be barred entry to fire temples or bunglis that were meant for use by Parsi Zoroastrians?
If trustees and priests want respect, regard and even the affection of the community, they have to resolve differences of opinion. And that is exactly what the issues evolve around: differing interpretations, not dogma, theology or fact. The eventual danger is that a failure to resolve conflict will result in the establishment itself being viewed as renegade — (“persons who betray an organization, country or set of principles” — Oxford).
Political leaders like Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) chairman Dinshaw Mehta when faced with ticklish problems pertaining to customs and traditions often state in “such matters (the BPP) can and should only be guided by the unanimous advice of our religious high priests.” This phrase is normally prefaced by the statement, “I certainly wish to confirm …that I am a staunch and loyal Parsi Zoroastrian and passionately believe in upholding our age old customs and traditions.”
The most recent reiteration of this hackneyed phrase appeared in The Bombay Samachar “Parsi Tari Arsi” column of October 7, 2012 in a letter by Mehta addressed to the editor. It was further qualified by the remark that “the entire community” should be taken “into confidence through a referendum or through a Samast Anjuman meeting.”
The issue Mehta was prevaricating on was — you guessed correctly — the contentious aviary project. The fact that Mehta added a rider “unanimous” to his statement professing full faith in the dasturs means the project is in all likelihood doomed to the dustbin of BPP history. The high priests agree on very little. As Dastur Khurshed Dastoor lamented in his article (see “Surprised and perturbed” page 34) on the vulture breeding program at Doongerwadi, “I had requested for a meeting of the Council of Vada Dasturs but was informed that there was no need for the same as they had already made up their minds in the matter.” He along with Dastur K. N. Dastoor Meherjirana oppose the aviary project (see “Vulture venture to take flight? -- III,” Parsiana, September 21, 2012).
But aside from seeking “unanimity,” Mehta should have specified a time frame. Did he mean a unanimous decision taken by the dasturs today? Or 12 years and five months earlier? The high priests’ views change depending on which party is in favor at the time or can assert the most influence on the clergy. Thus it was saddening to read Dastur (Dr) Kaikhusroo JamaspAsa’s letter of June 23, 2000 wherein he states after changing his stance on the aviary “I do not wish to be involved in the present Doongerwadi controversy… I am under great stress and strain and my doctors have advised me complete peace of mind.”
For all his stern and formidable countenance he, like Kotwal and the others, look for social acceptance. They are decent, well intentioned and caring human beings but their public utterances and dogmatic viewpoints paint them as regressive. They aspire to be viewed as the spiritual leaders of the entire Zoroastrian community but they fail in that endeavor.
Over 100 years ago JamaspAsa’s grandfather, Dastur Kaikhooshroo Jamaspji, a learned high priest performed the navjote ceremony of Suzanne (Briere) Tata, the French wife of Ratan Tata and the mother of J. R. D. Tata. Was he wrong in initiating her into the faith? Can he be dismissed as an ignorant mobed who thirsted for money? Did anyone label him “renegade” or bar him from performing religious ceremonies at Doongerwadi or elsewhere?
His contemporary Dastur Maneck Dhalla of Karachi also was a scholar who studied at Columbia University in New York. In his autobiography he noted the futility of practicing dakhmenashini in crowded, developed urban areas. “I came to the conclusion that the Zoroastrian custom of exposing the body to the rays of the sun would be impracticable and impossible in large cities like New York and London.”
Was he wrong? And if he and the others like him are wrong, then who is right? And who is to determine right from wrong?
Mehta talks of a referendum and a samast anjuman meeting to decide controversies. Till date the BPP has never carried out a scientific referendum on any subject or issue. And as for so-called samast anjuman meetings, the one held at Rustom Baug on December 15, 2000 demonstrated how easy it is to pack the gathering with people of a particular persuasion or political leaning and engineer the audience response.
That both the clergy and the Punchayet are viewed with disdain indicates a failure of leadership. The BPP trustees are so absorbed in fighting one another or litigating with sections of the community that they lack the energy to provide guidance. Issues that could be settled with a little give and take, land up in the courts of law. The dispute between the BPP and the Managing Committee of the Parsi Lying-In Hospital over the use of the building and property is a case in point. After holding discussions for close to a year, the BPP is incapable of arriving at a workable solution. The matter now looks headed for the courts.
In the so-called “renegade” priests’ matter — which may not have been the appropriate matter to refer to mediation — the talks have dragged on interminably for over a year at considerable cost to the community coffers and a significant drain on the time and energy of all concerned parties. That matter also appears to be headed back to the Supreme Court.
Could not the high priests, the BPP trustees, the petitioners and the two mobeds concerned have worked out an acceptable compromise on their own before the differences resulted in an originating summons? And why can’t people have the freedom to decide the manner in which their bodies are to be disposed of without having to worry about victimization. Why should they have to produce ridiculous affidavits at the time of bereavement if a female family member has married a non-Parsi? If a Parsi opts for cremation or burial why should the bereaved have to scurry back and forth booking a venue for the ceremonies while the Doongerwadi bunglis lie empty and the BPP wails about the one-and-a-half to two crore rupee (US $ 370,000) annual loss incurred managing the estate?
Why should Parsi women who marry non-Parsis be victimized for celebrating their children’s navjote? Why should they be barred entry to fire temples or bunglis that were meant for use by Parsi Zoroastrians?
If trustees and priests want respect, regard and even the affection of the community, they have to resolve differences of opinion. And that is exactly what the issues evolve around: differing interpretations, not dogma, theology or fact. The eventual danger is that a failure to resolve conflict will result in the establishment itself being viewed as renegade — (“persons who betray an organization, country or set of principles” — Oxford).
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive