Behind the ban
The special civil appeal in the banned priests case filed by the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) has been pending admission since 2011. This appeal could be a record of sorts as it has been pending at the admission stage for the last three years! (The Supreme Court had directed mediation, hence the delay — editors)
I understand that the high priests too have filed a separate appeal to give a religious angle to the ban since the BPP is not a religious body as per its trust deed. These priests were reportedly not a party at the High Court stage nor were they made a party to the mediation process.
The community is now informed that the BPP has incurred an expenditure of two to three crore rupees on the litigation. Even the high priests are reported to have incurred a bill of Rs 11 lakhs.
The real intent behind the banning of the two priests was to send a message to other members of the clergy not to follow in their footsteps. Instead, what has resulted is free publicity for the duo, sympathy for their predicament and anger against the BPP trustees from a major section of the community. In reality, the duties performed by the two banned priests are no different from the acts of some of the high priests who authorized the Wadia family navjotes, etc. Incidentally, the sons of two of our high priests are married to non-Parsis. HOMI DALAL
homeedalal@gmail.com
The trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) seem to be spending large sums of money on litigation that does not pertain to governance of charity. These trustees were never installed to be religious leaders. This reckless expenditure on matters outside their jurisdiction should be stopped forthwith, and they should be required to reimburse the trust for moneys already spent on such wasteful litigation. JAMSHED R. UDVADIA
Lansing, Missouri, USA
udvadiajr@att.net
There is an ongoing legal battle between the trustees of the Bombay Parsi Panchayet (BPP) and the two priests who have chosen not to bow down to the BPP’s diktat and follow their own conscience. The common complaint against Indian politicians is that once they are elected, they feel they can pursue their own path and safely ignore the opinions and wishes of the electorate — at least until the next election. The same thing is happening with the elected members of the BPP.
By now, it is very apparent that the majority of Parsis, including some very prominent ones, are appalled at the profligate spending of trust funds on the irrelevant "renegade” priests’ case. Let us be very clear. This case is no longer about religious beliefs or a perceived threat to Zoroastrian traditions. It has become simply an assertion of the overweening ego of a handful of trustees. The more the voice of the community is raised against them on this issue, the more they dig in their heels and dare their electorate to do their worst. The sad truth is that they are right.
Apart from expressing outrage in letters — which are blissfully ignored — there is little the community can do until the next election. The even sadder truth is that these same gentlemen will probably stand for re-election — and win again. It is doubtful if the enlightened and prominent members of the community — the same individuals who write the letters — would be willing to stand for election and expend the time and effort required of them as trustees. And if the elected trustees choose to ignore the sentiments of a sizeable portion of the community whenever it is inconvenient to them, have we really achieved any benefit from the new system of universal adult franchise? The previously nominated trustees may not have been the peoples’ choice, but at least many of them were men and women of sterling character and principles.
Another example of an ego clash is the recent imbroglio between the BPP and the Wadias regarding the administration of the baugs built by the latter. The trustees will fight to the death to retain control, even if it means tying up needed community funds — and another long drawn out legal battle. Already some initiatives like the stipend to mobeds have been cut and more are likely to follow. The trustees are now talking about breaking a substantial interest-earning fixed deposit, citing desperate circumstances. If the circumstances are indeed desperate, they are of the trustees’ own making. Has there been any serious effort by them to sit down with the Wadias and reach a compromise? Confrontation should be the last resort, not the first.
As usual, the interests of the genuinely affected party — the baug residents — do not figure in their calculations. It makes little difference to the residents who administers the baugs, as long as they continue to receive the services that are accustomed to. One could assign motives to the trustees for their reluctance to give up control, but I suspect it is again a question of ego. The trustees cannot stomach the notion that anyone — even the mighty Wadias — would challenge their authority. And so, at a time when the need of the hour for hundreds of Parsis is more affordable housing, any new projects and those in the pipeline will come to a grinding halt. But who cares? The trustees will have demonstrated that they are the bosses — and that is all that matters. God help us all. It seems He is our only recourse. FIROZE HIRJIKAKA
leonardo8_99@yahoo.com