Commendable or condemnable?

The proposed advertising campaign for the ambitious 10 crore rupee Jiyo Parsi program funded by the Government of India at the initiative of the Delhi based Parzor Foundation and the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) may or may not result in more procreation but it has certainly created an impact. The general Press and even television has latched on to the story following a public launch of the media campaign at the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute on November 10, 2014.
While some view the advertisements created gratis by Madison World as sexist or placing undue pressure on young married couples to procreate, others view them as benign, tongue-in-cheek humor to achieve a higher birth rate for a community headed for extinction. But can the objective of increasing the numbers be achieved if the program bars Parsi women married out of the community from availing of the scheme while at the same time permitting Parsi men married to non-Parsis to participate?
Parzor director and moving spirit behind the organization, Dr Shernaz Cama’s rationale that they are bound by the legal definition of a Parsi doesn’t cut much ice with independent minded, liberal thinking community members. If women are to be part of any campaign to benefit the community how can one treat them as second class citizens? How can one ask women to make sacrifices and serve the community while at the same time deny them equal rights?
Cama had told the delegates at the Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India meet on September 13-14 this year that two donors for the Return to Roots program, the Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America and the World Zoroastrian Organisation, stipulated there could be no discrimination on the basis of sex. Parzor could have recommended to the Government to do likewise. This would have lessened the criticism and wry comments voiced in the media about the program. And even assuming Parzor could not have asked for equality on account of the sexist majority on the BPP board, should not the Government have insisted on sexual equality? Why should the children of Parsi women married to non-Parsis be considered inferior? Do they lack the qualities that Parsi men’s children seemingly possess? Has any scientific study been done to show they are genetically inferior?
In a recent judgment, Supreme Court (SC) Justices Dipak Misra and U. U. Lalit struck down a bar on women being classified as make-up artists in the Indian film industry. Until then only men could be make-up artists; women could be hair dressers. The justification for the discrimination "the trade unions say is to ensure that men are not deprived of work,” states The Indian Express (IE) of November 4, 2014.
"How can this discrimination continue?” the outraged justices queried. "We will not permit this. It cannot be allowed under our Constitution. Why should only a male artist be allowed to put make-up? How can it be said that only women can be hair dressers? We don’t see a reason to prohibit a woman from becoming a make-up artist if she is qualified. You better delete this clause on your own. Remove this immediately. We are in 2014 not in 1935. Such things cannot continue even for a day,” IE quoted them as observing.
What would the justices have exclaimed if they were hearing a similar appeal by a Parsi woman married to a non-Parsi? That this is 2014 and not 1908 when the Davar-Beaman judgment defined a Parsi as being the child of a Parsi father? Would they have expressed outrage and horror that a supposedly enlightened community treats its women so deplorably?
Taking shelter under the guise that the Constitution safeguards the rights of minority communities to manage their own affairs cannot be a justification for sexism. Not when the very core of the document bars sexual discrimination. In the Shah Bano case the SC upheld the rights of a divorced Muslim woman to alimony. Unfortunately the Rajiv Gandhi led Congress government legislatively attempted to nullify the judgment to appease orthodox Muslim lobbies. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act was passed in 1986.
In 2001 in the case of Danial Latifi vs Union of India the justices citing Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex, held that the intention of the legislators could not have been to deprive Muslim women of their rights. Alimony was awarded to divorced Muslim women.
Well known gynecologist Dr Rustom Soonawala mentioned at the Jiyo Parsi media launch how his Hindu daughter-in- law taught her children the Zoroastrian prayers and accompanied them to the doorstep of the fire temple. But being a non-Parsi she could not enter. The discrimination against non-Parsis reflects a lack of gratitude for the hospitality India extended to Zoroastrian refugees/traders over 1,000 years ago.
Should the emphasis be on preserving an ethnic race or perpetuating the ethical and moral values that distinguish the community? Perhaps both objectives could be striven for. The Jiyo Parsi campaign stresses on biological reproduction of ethnically pure Parsis without addressing the issue of gender bias. That is why the backlash from a section of the community.
In the make-up artists case a gutsy woman, Charu Khurana, moved the courts to end the discrimination. Parsi women bemoan the treatment meted out to them but are often too cowed down to approach the courts for justice. That’s why the punchayets, anjumans and trusts get away with what they do. Many Gujarat anjumans bar women from holding office.
Time and again members of the legal fraternity have urged Parsi women to come forth, stating the case would be fought pro bono as they have done for Goolrookh Gupta in her battle against the Valsad Parsi Anjuman. Now we need another Goolrookh to take the fight to its logical conclusion.