Editorial Viewpoint
The enforcers
There has been much heated discussion among the seven Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustees over whether legal fees should be paid for representing five high priests as interveners on behalf of the BPP before the Supreme Court in the so-called "renegade” priests case. The amount of Rs 11,00,000 (US $ 18,333) is small compared to the Rs 3,00,00,000 (US $ 5,00,000) the Bombay apex trust has already frittered on this ego-fuelled litigation (some trustees claim the figure is lower, between two to two-and-a-half crores but no official figure is being divulged).
Two other interveners also supporting the BPP, former trustees Burjor Antia and Homi Ranina are bearing the legal costs personally. As BPP trustee Muncherji Cama observed in a note to his co-trustees: "I have consistently opposed the BPP footing the bill of the interveners... My objections have been outvoted by a majority of the trustees despite my pointing out that this act would be tantamount to collusive litigation. I am given to understand that our auditors have also advised some of the trustees constituting the majority which wants to pay for the interveners, not to do so.”
Referring to the "great sum of money” the BPP must have spent on the litigation former BPP trustee Dinshaw Tamboly in a letter to the trustees dated July 14, 2014 notes the "actual figure, had it been spent on the actual objects of the trust, it would have been enough to feed, shelter, clothe, medicate and educate several financially challenged members of our community.”
He notes the ban "has been fuelled by the misplaced and misconceived religious beliefs and orthodox egos of some individuals… Ultimately, poor Parsi/Irani Zoroastrians are not going to be better equipped in life whether the two priests in question are allowed to or disallowed from performing ceremonies/offering prayers at BPP managed agiaries or at the Doongerwadi.”
The five high priests’ [Dasturs (Dr) Kaikhusroo JamaspAsa, (Dr) Firoze Kotwal, (Dr) Peshotan Mirza, Cyrus Dastur and Kaikhushro Meherjirana] grouse with Ervads Khushroo Madon and Framroze Mirza is that they were also performing obsequies for those choosing to be cremated. The Dasturs’ so-called "fatwa” forbade other priests and fire temples from utilizing the duo’s priestly services or performing religious ceremonies along with them.
While the genesis of the case lies in the personal enmity between one or two of the BPP/World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis trustees towards the two priests many trustees see themselves as enforcers of priestly edicts. As the BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta repeats ad nauseam, "We have to do what the high priests say.” They therefore barred the duo from performing religious ceremonies at Doongerwadi and two agiaries controlled by the trust. High on their electoral victory end-2008, the BPP trustees were ever eager to pander to the traditionalists by donning the robes of crusaders.
Should the trustees be dabbling in ecclesiastical matters? A division bench of the Bombay High Court ruled the trust deed of the BPP did not empower the trustees to ban the priests who after all were performing Parsi Zoroastrian religious ceremonies for Parsi Zoroastrians who opted to have their bodies consigned to the Towers of Silence.
The recent judgment of Justices Chandramauli Prasad and Pinaki Ghose of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Vishwa Lochan Madan vs Union of India should be an eye-opener for our blinkered leaders. More so for they are the bench slated to hear the priests case this month.
The Justices note: "as the fatwa gets strength from the religion, it causes serious psychological impact on the person intending not to abide by that… In our opinion, one may not object to issuance of fatwa on a religious issue or any other issue so long it does not infringe upon the rights of individuals guaranteed under law…”
The dispute pertained to a fatwa given by Dar-ul-Uloom of Deoband to Imrana, a 28-year-old mother of five who was allegedly raped by her father-in-law. The Dar-ul-Uloom declared "the wife of the son will become unlawful forever to him that is the son. The woman with whom father has copulated legally or had sexual intercourse illegally in both ways, the son can’t keep physical relationship with.’”
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board which comprises Ulemas, "a body of Muslim scholars recognized as expert in Islamic sacred law and theology” states that Dar-ul-Qazas are an "informal justice delivery system aimed to bring about amicable settlement of matrimonial disputes between the parties... Dar-ul-Qazas have no authority, means or force to get their fatwas implemented and the writ petition is based on ignorance and/or misconception that they are parallel courts or judicial system.”
The Deoband Dar-ul-Uloom states "It is within the discretion of the persons or the parties who obtain fatwas to abide by it or not. However … God fearing Muslims being answerable to the almighty, obey the fatwas, others may defy them…”
State the judges, "No religion including Islam punishes the innocent. Religion cannot be allowed to be merciless to the victim. Faith cannot be used as (a) dehumanising force.”
In this case it has. According to an article in The Indian Express (IE) of July 13, 2014 titled "Looking for Imrana,” she "can’t live down the case, only hide from it.” Her husband who pulls a handcart is hostile to the media. The father-in-law was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment and is out on bail. His house is deserted most of the time. The family’s lives are in turmoil.
The Union of India stated in the case that "fatwas are advisory in nature and no Muslim is bound to follow those.”
The BPP trustees however do not observe this stance. They do not believe in a separation of state and church, opting for a subservient role for themselves, quite unlike the apex body they claim to be!
As a result, the community is poorer by three crore rupees, two priests have been victimized, the community divided and Parsi Zoroastrians who have the right to choose how their bodies are disposed of are ostracized if they opt for cremation.
The trustees must leave religious diktats to the clergy. When their own house is in disarray, dabbling in extraneous matters is disastrous.
Two other interveners also supporting the BPP, former trustees Burjor Antia and Homi Ranina are bearing the legal costs personally. As BPP trustee Muncherji Cama observed in a note to his co-trustees: "I have consistently opposed the BPP footing the bill of the interveners... My objections have been outvoted by a majority of the trustees despite my pointing out that this act would be tantamount to collusive litigation. I am given to understand that our auditors have also advised some of the trustees constituting the majority which wants to pay for the interveners, not to do so.”
Referring to the "great sum of money” the BPP must have spent on the litigation former BPP trustee Dinshaw Tamboly in a letter to the trustees dated July 14, 2014 notes the "actual figure, had it been spent on the actual objects of the trust, it would have been enough to feed, shelter, clothe, medicate and educate several financially challenged members of our community.”
He notes the ban "has been fuelled by the misplaced and misconceived religious beliefs and orthodox egos of some individuals… Ultimately, poor Parsi/Irani Zoroastrians are not going to be better equipped in life whether the two priests in question are allowed to or disallowed from performing ceremonies/offering prayers at BPP managed agiaries or at the Doongerwadi.”
The five high priests’ [Dasturs (Dr) Kaikhusroo JamaspAsa, (Dr) Firoze Kotwal, (Dr) Peshotan Mirza, Cyrus Dastur and Kaikhushro Meherjirana] grouse with Ervads Khushroo Madon and Framroze Mirza is that they were also performing obsequies for those choosing to be cremated. The Dasturs’ so-called "fatwa” forbade other priests and fire temples from utilizing the duo’s priestly services or performing religious ceremonies along with them.
While the genesis of the case lies in the personal enmity between one or two of the BPP/World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis trustees towards the two priests many trustees see themselves as enforcers of priestly edicts. As the BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta repeats ad nauseam, "We have to do what the high priests say.” They therefore barred the duo from performing religious ceremonies at Doongerwadi and two agiaries controlled by the trust. High on their electoral victory end-2008, the BPP trustees were ever eager to pander to the traditionalists by donning the robes of crusaders.
Should the trustees be dabbling in ecclesiastical matters? A division bench of the Bombay High Court ruled the trust deed of the BPP did not empower the trustees to ban the priests who after all were performing Parsi Zoroastrian religious ceremonies for Parsi Zoroastrians who opted to have their bodies consigned to the Towers of Silence.
The recent judgment of Justices Chandramauli Prasad and Pinaki Ghose of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Vishwa Lochan Madan vs Union of India should be an eye-opener for our blinkered leaders. More so for they are the bench slated to hear the priests case this month.
The Justices note: "as the fatwa gets strength from the religion, it causes serious psychological impact on the person intending not to abide by that… In our opinion, one may not object to issuance of fatwa on a religious issue or any other issue so long it does not infringe upon the rights of individuals guaranteed under law…”
The dispute pertained to a fatwa given by Dar-ul-Uloom of Deoband to Imrana, a 28-year-old mother of five who was allegedly raped by her father-in-law. The Dar-ul-Uloom declared "the wife of the son will become unlawful forever to him that is the son. The woman with whom father has copulated legally or had sexual intercourse illegally in both ways, the son can’t keep physical relationship with.’”
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board which comprises Ulemas, "a body of Muslim scholars recognized as expert in Islamic sacred law and theology” states that Dar-ul-Qazas are an "informal justice delivery system aimed to bring about amicable settlement of matrimonial disputes between the parties... Dar-ul-Qazas have no authority, means or force to get their fatwas implemented and the writ petition is based on ignorance and/or misconception that they are parallel courts or judicial system.”
The Deoband Dar-ul-Uloom states "It is within the discretion of the persons or the parties who obtain fatwas to abide by it or not. However … God fearing Muslims being answerable to the almighty, obey the fatwas, others may defy them…”
State the judges, "No religion including Islam punishes the innocent. Religion cannot be allowed to be merciless to the victim. Faith cannot be used as (a) dehumanising force.”
In this case it has. According to an article in The Indian Express (IE) of July 13, 2014 titled "Looking for Imrana,” she "can’t live down the case, only hide from it.” Her husband who pulls a handcart is hostile to the media. The father-in-law was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment and is out on bail. His house is deserted most of the time. The family’s lives are in turmoil.
The Union of India stated in the case that "fatwas are advisory in nature and no Muslim is bound to follow those.”
The BPP trustees however do not observe this stance. They do not believe in a separation of state and church, opting for a subservient role for themselves, quite unlike the apex body they claim to be!
As a result, the community is poorer by three crore rupees, two priests have been victimized, the community divided and Parsi Zoroastrians who have the right to choose how their bodies are disposed of are ostracized if they opt for cremation.
The trustees must leave religious diktats to the clergy. When their own house is in disarray, dabbling in extraneous matters is disastrous.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive