“Growing fundamentalism”

The prodigious amount spent by the trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) to enforce their ill-conceived ban on two priests from praying at Doongerwadi and two agiaries controlled by the apex Bombay trust has raised howls of protest from eminent and lay community members. In the last issue Parsiana carried articles/letters from former BPP trustee Dinshaw Tamboly, Cyrus Guzder, son of former BPP chairman Jamshed Guzder and Hormazdiyaar Vakil, son of former BPP trustee Shiavax Vakil. Tamboly’s letter published earlier in the Parsi Times (PT) drew an angry response from BPP and World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) founder trustees Khojeste Mistree and Yazdi Desai which was published in the PT (July 26, 2014).

In this issue Parsiana carries extracts from the letters of Anu Aga, member of the Rajya Sabha, Dr Farokh Udwadia, eminent physician, Jamshed Setna, former director of Tata Sons and his wife Fareeda, a joint email from Dadi Mistry, member, National Commission for Minorities (NCM), Keki Daruwalla, Padma Shri awardee, poet and author and former member, NCM, Yezad Kapadia, president, Delhi Parsi Anjuman (DPA), Ava Khullar, vice president, DPA, Dr Noshir Shroff, Padma Bhushan awardeeand senior ophthalmic surgeon, and Maja Daruwala, executive director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative; Jamsheed Kanga, former Indian Administrative Service officer and municipal commissioner of Bombay, Homi Khusrokhan, former managing director of Glaxo Burroughs and director of several Tata companies, Noshir Dadrawala, philanthropy expert and former BPP trustee, and Homi Dalal, community activist along with replies to Aga from Mistree and a reply to Udwadia from Desai.
The ban on Ervads Khushroo Madon and Framroze Mirza has cost the BPP anywhere between Rs 2.5 to three crore rupees. Mistree in one letter puts the figure at Rs 2.09 crores. The exact figures have not been officially disclosed by the BPP. Justice V. M. Kanade of the Bombay High Court (BHC) did not take a decision on the Originating Summons moved by petitioners Kanga and Khusrokhan while a division bench of Justices Dr Dhananjaya Chandrachud and Anoop Mohta said the trustees did not have the power under the trust deed to issue such a ban. The BPP moved a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court (SC) of India which recommended mediation. All mediation efforts having failed, the matter is once more before the SC.

Email dated July 30, 2014 from Aga to BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta

We are all perturbed by the growing fundamentalism in other religions, and yet encourage going back to the so-called rituals of religion rather than following the spirit of our religion which says "good thoughts, good words and good deeds.”
It is a great shame that large sums of community money have been spent on fighting this litigation rather than using it to reach out to the poor Parsis.
The BPP trustees cannot justify their action by saying that they acted as per the direction of the high priest. Individuals are free to follow the opinion of the high priest but the trustees cannot prevent the two priests from praying at Doongerwadi, which is a property that belongs to the entire community. I believe it is the fundamental right of each one of us to select the priest of our choice.
As elected members of the BPP, I expect greater wisdom from the trustees and even at this stage request you to accept the judgment of the BHC and put an end to this meaningless controversy which the media often talks about.

Email dated August 4, 2014 from Mistree to Aga

Hundreds of priests are entitled to pray at the Doongerwadi complex and the BPP trustees have never interfered in their religious services and/or duties.
There is no question of a "fatwa” as you and some others have implied, as I am reliably told by my lawyer friends that the recent SC judgment has nothing to do with the content of our case, as is being wrongly suggested by a powerful elite within our community.
The BPP trustees did not start this litigation, as you well know. In round one, the matter was dismissed by Justice V. M. Kanade in the BHC. Your friends went into appeal and won a judgment totally in their favor. Do we, as responsible trustees, not have the right to appeal against a very unfair and biased judgment, which the majority of the BPP board believes will affect the powers and duties of the trustees and the high priests in years to come?
Do we not have the right to defend a 350-year-old (341 years — editors) institution which has to serve the well-being of the entire community and not a wealthy powerful elite whose religious views are diametrically opposed to the voice of the community who have elected us, in the first place? Yes, Rs 2.09 crores (and rising) has been spent on this litigation to date, but had your friends and you not gone into appeal in round two, then such huge costs would not have been incurred.
As per the SC direction, the mediation route was sought. We have genuinely tried to find a middle ground over a three-year period, but that has not happened to date, as clearly those drunk with victory do not want to compromise towards the smooth running of the institution. After all, we are trustees today and gone tomorrow, but surely we have to think of the well-being of the institution above all else!...
I am afraid that your idea of an individualistic approach towards religion will only breed religious anarchy at a community level, in the long run. As an institution, we are beholden to seek the advice and guidance from our respected and learned high priests who in this litigation have supported the BPP position, totally, and hence their SLP has been prepared to be submitted to the SC.
Clearly, you do not have a good opinion about our high priests because your views and those of the learned high priests are at a tangential variance. If one has a medical problem one goes to a doctor, and if there is a legal issue, then one consults a lawyer, but I find it very illogical that if one has a religious issue at hand, then the clergy and scholars are dispensed with and those with little knowledge opinionate and take the role of becoming religious specialists, overnight!
Unfortunately, over the past eight months, the BPP board has been fractured because of an FIR (first information report) being filed by the majority of the BPP trustees against Mehta for (alleged) grave financial mismanagement and impropriety. Till then, Mehta was a strong proponent to take the matter to the SC and fight it to its logical conclusion. Clearly, financial considerations then were not on the horizon when over a crore of rupees in this case was spent on legal costs in Bombay. Subsequently, another Rs 1.09 crores has been spent to date, on legal costs at the SC level…
History will be the final judge of this entire unfortunate episode, when scholars and academics will read the papers and come to some startling findings and conclusions. I leave it to your good sense as to where the truth lies and which side comes out victorious.

Email dated August 3, 2014 from Udwadia to BPP trustees

I was astonished to read that the BPP has spent around three crore rupees on the irrational and ill-conceived ban on two priests to prevent them from praying at Doongerwadi. I have also seen an excellent letter written to you by one of your former trustees, Tamboly and agree with everything he says. This ban should never have been issued in the first place.
There are so many other worthy causes on which the funds could have been spent such as medical aid for poor and ailing Parsis being treated in the wards of the B. D. Petit Parsee General Hospital or Masina Hospital.
Please ensure that this wastage of charity funds stops forthwith and this matter is brought to a sensible close.

Email dated August 5, 2014 from Desai to Udwadia

I am not at all surprised at your having joined a few people who have written to us asking us to put an end to the renegade priests case; after all your good self, Tamboly, Aga, Khusrokhan, Kanga were all part of the DDD-AG (Disposal of the Dead with Dignity — Action Group) who in 2001 persuaded the then BPP trustees at a meeting at Bombay Gymkhana to allow a ‘cremate ni bungli’ at Doongerwadi for those opting for means of disposal of the dead other than dakhmenashini. Of course, the then BPP trustees had to reverse their decision in the wake of an overwhelming community reprisal.
This renegade priests case is simply not about two priests being banned from praying, professionally, at the Doongerwadi complex and in the two fire temples controlled by the BPP, as is wrongly being projected by some.
Under the guise of seeking an interpretation of the trust deed, a whole lot of other issues have been agitated in the BHC, like the alleged efficacy/failure of dakhmenashini, the alleged legitimacy of cremation and conversion, the role and authority of the BPP trustees, the role and authority of the high priests, etc as the judgment has touched on all of these issues.
Please read the judgment which the BPP trustees are challenging in the SC which, if left unchallenged, would severely undermine the dakhmenashini system, the authority of the BPP trustees, as well as the authority of the high priests and leave utter chaos in its wake. As BPP trustees we cannot allow this to happen.
Incidentally, I hope you are aware that BPP trustee, Muncherji Cama has donated from A. H. Wadia Charities, a huge amount of Rs 1.8 crores to Tamboly for constructing a prayer hall at the Worli Municipal Crematorium complex, for those opting for cremation. Why waste crores of charity funds to build a cremation prayer hall, especially when cremation prayer hall facilities are existing and readily available and accessible in Bombay (facilities are available only for the paidust at the various crematoria in Bombay not the other ceremonies — editors).
Shouldn’t this Rs 1.8 crores of charity funds be used as "medical aid for poor and ailing Parsis being treated in the wards of the B. D. Petit Parsee General Hospital or Masina Hospital?” I sincerely hope you will equally reprimand Tamboly and Cama for senselessly wasting such a huge amount of charity funds.

Email dated July 29, 2014 from Kanga and Khusrokhan to Mehta

An impression is created that the BPP have no option today but to go back to court, which is completely incorrect. The reader has not been given the slightest indication that in the intervening period of three years there have been over 20 settlement meetings and that till recently there was a well-thought-out and painstakingly crafted settlement under consideration between us, which addresses the majority of the concerns (and canards) raised in the said article. In fact, the trustees kept calling us for settlement meetings, which was obviously only a sham.
It makes us wonder why these two gentlemen sat with us and participated in these mediation discussions (often extremely unpleasant) for over three long years. It also amazes us as to how they managed to ‘convince’ three of your other trustees to side with them in favor of returning to court. There is not a single legitimate function of the BPP that your board of trustees has been prevented from discharging by virtue of this judgment during the last three years that the judgment has been in force, viz. since April 2011. Our challenge, to the group of trustees who wish to revert to the court, to show us even one such instance, remains unanswered to this day.
Let us be clear that the trustees issued an unprecedented fatwa and that is what started these proceedings. We have been very clear from the beginning that it was not the banning of the two priests in particular, which we challenged, but the concept behind it viz. the trustees imposing their will on members of the community and taking away the freedom of choice, which is the fundamental basis of the matter. Such a fatwa has never been issued in the past.
The fact that no one can justify the three crore rupees already spent (or rather misused) on this litigation, is no justification for misleading the members of the community and giving an incorrect impression. For three years, the trustees have informed the SC that they wanted a settlement of the matter and sought adjournments. Is this also a false statement made by you to the highest court of this land? From the very outset, we had made it clear that the fundamental basis of the appeal court judgment would remain untouched, viz. that the trustees do not have the power to curtail the right of choice of members of this community. Why then have you wasted time and money on these mediation meetings? Then, please have the courage to say to us that you stand by your illegal, perverse, obdurate view that you have the alleged right to issue such a fatwa and fight the matter out in the SC. Don’t pretend to us and mislead the SC that you want to settle the matter. This article is the final straw, and we will place it before the SC at the appropriate time.
The proceedings were never about, nor does the judgment deal with any religious practices, interfaith marriages, navjote, cremations, etc and yet members of the community are being misled that in some manner the judgment deals with these issues. The judgment only deals with the interpretation of the trust deed of 1884 and the right of every Parsi Zoroastrian to appoint the priests of his choice at the Doongerwadi and the two agiaries...

Email dated August 4, 2014 from Jamshed Setna to BPP trustees

No sane person can possibly comprehend, much less agree with, the stance and action that you have taken so far in this matter.
What is no less appalling is your decision to take the matter further in an appeal to the SC. There needs to be an authority capable of condemning your actions, an authority beyond just the entire Parsi Zoroastrian community which is financially smarting due to your unwarranted and unconscionable expenditure of Punchayet funds merely to fan your personal and collective egos.
I am ashamed with what is being done in the name of religion and, if you care to reflect on this, so should you be.
Retrieve your senses, if ever you had any, and henceforth cease and desist!

Email dated August 4, 2014 from Fareeda Setna to the BPP trustees
I wish you all to note my strong dissent and objections regarding the appalling manner in which you have all decided to publicly conduct the affairs of the Parsi community.
It not only demeans and ridicules all you trustees collectively and individually, but shames the entire community with the undesirable publicity you have chosen to feed the Press with.
Not satisfied with a sound BHC order, as it limited the self-proclaimed Punchayet powers, you have elected to proceed to the SC, thus incurring more unjustified expenses which neither come out of your joint or personal coffers, but that of the public trusts.
You have all conducted yourselves in a highly unprofessional manner which neither befits you all as the trustees nor the Parsi community at large.

Email dated August 3, 2014 from Mistry, K. Daruwalla, Kapadia, Khullar, Shroff and M. Daruwala to BPP trustees

It is high time you put a stop to this meaningless litigation which has been reported to have cost the BPP, a charitable organization, well over three crore rupees to date. Not only is the action taken, of imposing a ban on certain priests with further bans threatened, something that has no merit whatsoever, but it is also a criminal wastage of valuable funds meant for charitable purposes.
We residents of Delhi, as you are well aware, have always had a completely different view of our religion to the one you seem to have and have always opposed any form of discrimination against those who marry outside the community or choose methods of disposal of the dead which are more in keeping with the times. We are liberal in our views and are in fact happy when (interfaith) couples desire to have their children’s navjotes as today dwindling numbers is a major issue for the community.
We also cannot see what problem you as trustees of trust properties could possibly have with the choice of a priest chosen by a family for last rites and other funeral prayers even if the priest has also prayed at cremations or performed wedding ceremonies of mixed couples of different faiths.
The ban on priests was from the beginning an ill-conceived idea and to go on spending sums such as the ones reported in the Press cannot be justified under any circumstances. You are not custodians of the religion and have no right therefore to interfere in matters of religion which must be left to the individual beliefs of the persons concerned.
We strongly urge you to put a stop to these proceedings and accept the verdict of the BHC in this matter.

Email dated July 31, 2014 from Noshir Dadrawala to several community members

I have read with interest the response of sitting BPP trustees, Mistree and Desai to the open letter written by former BPP trustee Tamboly with regard to wastage of trust funds on needless litigations, particularly the litigation around the ban on the two so-called "renegade” priests.
From day one, the question that has bothered many is why just these two priests when there are many others who perform prayers for those who choose an alternate system for the disposal of the dead? But, let’s take it that the trustees were "testing the waters” and therefore targeted just these two.
The bravado of these two self-styled ‘defenders of the faith’ is simply despicable. It is so easy to blow up three crores rupees as long as it is not their hard earned money!
The BPP is a public charitable trust and the trustees are expected to manage the funds judiciously for ‘charitable purposes’ and not over frivolous litigations under the pretext of upholding religious tenets…
If orthodoxy is so important to this duo why don’t they also ban some of the pallbearers who drink, smoke, gamble and indulge in all sorts of vices on the Doongerwadi complex itself? Why do these two self-righteous trustees turn a blind eye to that? Is it out of fear of the trade union to which these pallbearers belong or are they petrified with the thought of who would carry the corpses inside the towers if they are banned from Doongerwadi?
The duo claims that the trustees imposed this ban on the directive of some high priests. The question is which ones? To begin with, the high priests, seldom, if ever, speak with one voice. And, on the rare occasion that they do, one never knows who among them will change his stand within a few weeks to a few months.
But, even assuming the high priests unanimously give such a ‘directive’ to the trustees, where is the ‘discretion’ that every trustee is under legal obligation to exercise?
To cut a long story short, for decades now, the trustees of the BPP have let the community down. However, when history will be written, this particular lot will be seen and written about as the worst among them all.
It has been regime that has wasted funds, rabidly fought with each other and cut the community’s nose in (front of the) general public. They have collectively ushered in an era of disrepute, acrimony and brought the functioning of this august body to a virtual standstill.
Ironically, this lot was elected by a process of Universal Adult Franchise and somewhere, much as I hate to say it, the community gets the leadership it deserves.

Email dated August 1, 2014 from Homi Dalal to Parsiana

The BPP has spent three crore rupees as we are told and the appeal is yet to be admitted. If the appeal is admitted, it will take another three to four years for the case to come up for hearing. By that time, what will be the figure of legal charges? If Mistree and Desai were decided about litigating, why did they participate in mediation for two years?
The BPP trustees are not spiritual heads unlike the Syedna. It is perhaps for this reason that the previous board of trustees did not implement the request/direction or whatever you term from the high priests to officially brand some priests as renegades. It was only after the two from WAPIZ got elected that the Taliban they passed a resolution which has landed the community funds in jeopardy. The BPP trust deed is only for managing trust properties.
The Surat or Poona Parsi Panchayats have not passed such resolutions. What if one of the ‘renegades’ were to render service at Poona or Surat?
If such fatwas are unchallenged the next step would be the religious persecution of behdins…
Another argument to justify waste of charity funds is asking Tamboly why the amount of donation meant for Prayer Hall facility is not being used for poor and the needy. Common sense demands that real estate should be used optimally to generate revenue. By disallowing use of Doongerwadi bunglis to those opting for alternate methods, the trustees are displaying fiscal indiscipline by denying usage of facility and thus losing out on income. Moreover it was your lobby which parroted the chant that those who are not satisfied with the Doongerwadi system should make their own arrangements from their own sources. So why now complain out of frustration?...
If one of the high priests openly allows conversion of an industrialist in his 80s and another performs the uthamna of another industrialist at Doongerwadi though the deceased was buried abroad, then in what way does their conduct differ from that of Mirza and Madon?...
And what about the navjote of a French lady performed by the grandfather of a current high priest. Was that not conversion? Is that not an instance of "different strokes for different folks”?
May good thoughts get converted into good deeds before the term of the current board of trustees ends which the repenting community eagerly awaits.