The Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustees have reportedly written a four-paragraph letter to the Law Commission seeking total exemption for Parsis from the proposed Uniform Civil Code (UCC) after purportedly consulting "high priests, senior legal advisors and other community leaders.” This was done ostensibly to preserve our culture, traditions and beliefs. They intend to make a detailed representation to the Law Commission. For trustees who frequently squabble, this was a unanimous decision. It is also a preposterous one.
The UCC is the proposed national civil code which applies to all Indian citizens irrespective of their religion. These laws relate to marriage, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, adoption, succession. It is based on the well accepted principle that there is no connection between personal laws and religion. Goa is the only state which has a sort of Portuguese origin UCC. For an avowedly secular country like ours, UCC is therefore a logical extension. Whatever may be the merits or otherwise of the UCC, the manner in which the BPP trustees have dealt with it is unacceptable.
BPP is just another public trust for Parsis. It has no higher locus or standing than any other Parsi trust or any other Parsi citizen. Its trustees being elected by adult franchise does not confer any right upon them to speak for the community. When the issue of introducing the adoption bill came up in 1980, anjumans sent letters to the government voicing differing points of view. The then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi counseled them to "speak with one voice.” The community’s opposition to the bill was then conveyed through The Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India.
Who were the worthies the BPP consulted? What were the criteria for selection? Was expertise the reason for selection, or their religious views? The grapevine has it that several who were invited did not attend, including Udvada High Priest Dastur Khurshed Dastoor, former member of the National Commission for Minorities. No person having liberal views was present. The consultations appear to be orchestrated to reach the conclusion desired by the trustees, namely, total exemption. Not a single cogent reason was given for such total exemption other than to preserve religious customs and beliefs.
If a single issue can make the ever differing trustees unanimous with such alacrity, then it surely has a Parsi political angle. What exactly is the reason for this knee jerk reaction and why are the orthodox sections allergic to the UCC? Most probably because of the issue of adoption.
Unlike the Hindu Adoption Act, Parsis have no legislation which empowers a Parsi to adopt a child. It is nothing but backdoor conversion, they claimed. Since then, some Parsis have become guardians under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 (since amended) of non-Parsi orphan children. A couple in a BPP colony adopted their domestic help’s child, navjoted her, and assimilated the bouncy girl into the baug culture. However, unlike adoption, where the adopted child automatically acquires the same status as a natural born child, the Guardians Act does not confer similar legal status. For instance, if the guardian parent dies without a will, his child under the Guardian Act will not have the same rights of inheritance to his estate as his natural born would.
If, under the UCC, Parsis are allowed to adopt like Hindus, imagine a Parsi colony where a childless Parsi couple who are BPP tenants adopts a child born of a non-Parsi father who, upon the death of his adoptive parents, will acquire tenancy rights under the Rent Act and claim to be legally entitled to enter an agiary. She can even become a trustee of the BPP. That in time these adoptive children may acquire such rights gives sleepless nights to the orthodox. And also offends the refined sensibilities of the BPP trustees.
Apart from adoption, there are less controversial subjects like marriage and divorce where no purported harm will be caused to religious beliefs and customs should the UCC usher in uniform laws. The Parsi Matrimonial Court (PMC), which is a part of the Bombay High Court, with its archaic jury system — that comprises gerontocratic delegates nominated by the BPP for a 10-year term who contribute nothing — will become much faster and efficient if Parsi divorces are shifted to the Family Court. Contested divorces in the PMC take decades to obtain, as members of the so-called jury of delegates are mostly unavailable when a judge is free to hear the evidence. Of course, mutual consent divorces are granted faster as there is no six months’ cooling period, as required by the Family Court.
It is distressing to contemplate how an obdurate Parsi spouse can refuse to liberate the other to pursue a new life. "If I cannot have you, Tehmi, nor will Tehmul.” Naomi Irani has petitioned the Supreme Court, challenging the PMC as constitutionally invalid and discriminatory, and the Court has issued notice to the government. It is highly likely that this anachronism shall be struck down.
The same goes for inheritance and succession; there is no longer much difference or justification for having separate laws to govern Parsis who die intestate, that is, without a will. No considerations of preserving culture and customs apply. Reportedly none of these issues was even debated or discussed by the worthies who had gathered to advise the trustees. Their single point agenda was a paranoid dislike for any change without even bothering to understand the issues involved.
If the trustees fancy themselves to be self-appointed guardians of religious beliefs and traditions, and are so eager to write to and visit the Law Commission, they should first elicit views in an unbiased manner from across the spectrum, consult experts in these areas, and then report the consensual views to the government. In the meanwhile, the BPP’s letter lacks legitimacy and any Parsi can write to the Law Commission that the BPP’s views are not necessarily representative of the community.
If the trustees think they or their supporters will lose votes in future trusteeship elections if they don’t vigorously oppose the UCC, they are mistaken. The orthodox minority may be vocal but many want change which is in any event creeping in all the time, both through the front and back doors. Paranoia will hasten, and not save us, from extinction.
We have always been an exemplary minority community. This has been deeply appreciated by successive governments. Such half-baked reactions to the UCC, without any application of mind, only to play to the gallery, amount to a shocking dereliction of duty and responsibility by the BPP.
Berjis Desai, lawyer and author of Oh! Those Parsis and Towers of Silence, is a chronicler of the community.