Readers' Forum
“Supporting women’s rights”
In the article "Supporting women’s rights” (Parsiana, August 7, 2013), it is mentioned that the Goolrookh Gupta case will be heard in the Supreme Court (SC) in February 2014. The apex court will have a chance to see the who’s who of the palav-daar bawa community. The battle lines are drawn and the armies and ammunition being readied. It will be interesting to watch.
The Valsad Parsi Anjuman has come up with the bogey of religion, whereby the courts cannot interfere and have no jurisdiction in the matter. A sound argument indeed. But then, as per the Hindu religion the Shudras were untouchables, and discriminated against in many ways. They had to be very particular when walking so that their shadow was not cast over a Brahmin; if it did the Shudra would be severely punished. They could not drink water from the wells which were meant for others. While walking, Shudras had to tie a broom at waist level behind the back so that their footprints were rubbed off and Brahmins were not polluted. However, laws were enacted to put an end to this humbug and nonsense in the name of religion. People ill-treating Shudras now can be sent to jail. So much for interference in religious matters!
Religion is like a gun which one can use to kill someone or use to save lives. By and large, religion has been used as a tool to exploit the gullible.
Extracts from the interveners in Gupta’s case were interesting. Unfortunately I am neither a high profile person like these worthies, nor am I a poor Parsi with a monthly income of Rs 90,000. So I shall intervene via Parsiana. My humble plea is that should the SC decide not to intervene in religious matters in this case, the Valsad Parsi Anjuman, the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) and all other self-styled bawa religious authorities should give an undertaking that Parmeshwar Godrej, Maureen Wadia, Dastur (Dr) Firoze Kotwal’s and Dinshaw Mehta’s daughters-in-law, in fact the wives of all bawas married to non-Parsis, will become Parsis with their navjotes being performed by the six Popes. These women shall then be licensed to enter fire temples and Doongerwadi, as also be consigned in the latter on their demise. Since the SC has not granted any stay order on this judgment, it is humbly submitted that it pass such ad-interim orders.
Talking about the law and the judiciary, no legal opinion or judgment is sacrosanct. It all depends on the judges’ mental make-up, personal belief and various other factors.
According to Ambrose Bierce’s The Devil’s Dictionary a litigant has been defined as "a person about to give up his skin for the hope of retaining his bones” and litigation as "a machine which you go into as a pig and come out as a sausage.” Bierce defines justice as "a commodity which, in more or less adulterated condition, the State sells to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance” and a lawyer as "one skilled in circumvention of the law.”
So we must wait to find out who will give up his skin and who comes out as a sausage.
The Valsad Parsi Anjuman has come up with the bogey of religion, whereby the courts cannot interfere and have no jurisdiction in the matter. A sound argument indeed. But then, as per the Hindu religion the Shudras were untouchables, and discriminated against in many ways. They had to be very particular when walking so that their shadow was not cast over a Brahmin; if it did the Shudra would be severely punished. They could not drink water from the wells which were meant for others. While walking, Shudras had to tie a broom at waist level behind the back so that their footprints were rubbed off and Brahmins were not polluted. However, laws were enacted to put an end to this humbug and nonsense in the name of religion. People ill-treating Shudras now can be sent to jail. So much for interference in religious matters!
Religion is like a gun which one can use to kill someone or use to save lives. By and large, religion has been used as a tool to exploit the gullible.
Extracts from the interveners in Gupta’s case were interesting. Unfortunately I am neither a high profile person like these worthies, nor am I a poor Parsi with a monthly income of Rs 90,000. So I shall intervene via Parsiana. My humble plea is that should the SC decide not to intervene in religious matters in this case, the Valsad Parsi Anjuman, the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) and all other self-styled bawa religious authorities should give an undertaking that Parmeshwar Godrej, Maureen Wadia, Dastur (Dr) Firoze Kotwal’s and Dinshaw Mehta’s daughters-in-law, in fact the wives of all bawas married to non-Parsis, will become Parsis with their navjotes being performed by the six Popes. These women shall then be licensed to enter fire temples and Doongerwadi, as also be consigned in the latter on their demise. Since the SC has not granted any stay order on this judgment, it is humbly submitted that it pass such ad-interim orders.
Talking about the law and the judiciary, no legal opinion or judgment is sacrosanct. It all depends on the judges’ mental make-up, personal belief and various other factors.
According to Ambrose Bierce’s The Devil’s Dictionary a litigant has been defined as "a person about to give up his skin for the hope of retaining his bones” and litigation as "a machine which you go into as a pig and come out as a sausage.” Bierce defines justice as "a commodity which, in more or less adulterated condition, the State sells to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance” and a lawyer as "one skilled in circumvention of the law.”
So we must wait to find out who will give up his skin and who comes out as a sausage.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive