I refer to "Equal rights for men and women” (Zoroastrians Abroad, Par-siana, July 7, 2011) in which it is mentioned that there are less than 1,500 Zoroastrians in Karachi, Pakistan.
I quote from the article: "As long as one of the spouses is a Zoroastrian and still professing the Zoroastrian faith, the children of such unions can be initiated into the religion was the unanimous view of the Karachi Parsi Anjuman Trust Fund (KPATF) board. Further KPATF permits last rites on their properties to all Zoroastrians, even those buried or cremated.”
I have one question for the board of KPATF: Did the board ask all the Parsis in Karachi whether the entire Parsi community there wants the board to implement this decision or did the board take this decision on their own and now wants to ram it down the throats of the entire Parsi community in Karachi and Pakistan whether they like it or not?
JAL S. DESAI
jaldesai@hotmail.com
Byram D. Avari, chairman, Karachi Parsi Anjuman Trust Fund replies
In response to Jal S. Desai’s letter I would like to convey what has been informed to me by one of my trustees that in the Saklat vs Bella judgment delivered by the Privy Council somewhere around 1922, the judges had recorded that the trustees of a fire temple even have the right to admit non-Parsi Zoroastrians to the premises if they think fit. I understand that this judgment has been published in books printed in India.
While each trust board as well as the management of each agiary may have their own views and policies, it is not mandatory for them to follow the decision of the Privy Council. Both the agiaries in Karachi having separate trust boards do not admit non-Parsis into the fire temple.
The board of trustees which manages the affairs of the community is elected by the community. Therefore these trustees like the elected representatives of the Provincial and National Assembly are representatives of the people and have to take actions for the betterment of their community. It is inconceivable that there could ever be 100 percent support for any decision. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of the trustees to take decisions for the good of the community as visualized by them. Very often the community may disagree with the decision of the trustees and it is their right to change the trustees at the next election, as has been witnessed in various anjumans, including Bombay over the last few years.
We are not aware of the policy of the Heerjibhoy J. Behrana Parsi Fire Temple (in Karachi) as its trustees have not announced their decision on this matter. Therefore, if any of the 1,500 members of the Parsi community feel unhappy about visiting the Wadia Dar-e-Meher, which is under the control of the Karachi Parsi Anjuman, they could go to the other agiary.
We are a progressive religion and should be open in our thinking. The children of a Jewish mother are allowed to embrace their mother’s faith. If there had been no conversion there would never have been any Zoroastrian religion. The custom in our religion of having children of a Zoroastrian father following his faith came about as a matter of custom and not as a religious tenet. With men and women having equal rights, including the ability to become voters and trustees, this confers the right on Zoroastrian women to also have their children become Zoroastrians as long as the mothers are practicing Zoroastrians who have not converted through religious ceremonies.
To address the question raised by Desai, the community was not consulted in the decision but till today there has not been a single Zoroastrian in Karachi including any panthaky or mobed who has objected to the Karachi Anjuman’s decision.
I do not wish to enter into a controversy but every anjuman and fire temple has its own views and customs.
The editors reply
The Saklat vs Bella judgment of the Privy Council authorizes the trustees, if they so wish, to permit entry to a non-Parsi Zoroastrian into a fire temple.
Their lordships’ reasoning was as follows:
"The Parsi community had grown up to be such a distinct body, and admissions into it from outside had been so very rare, that at the time when these grants at Rangoon were made the Government must have intended that the temple should be for the benefit of professing members of the Parsi community i.e. racial Parsis or people deemed after a long lapse of ages to be racial Parsis.
"But this does not exhaust the matters to be determined on the present appeal. It determines that the respondent Bella has no right of entering into the temple and may therefore be excluded or extruded from the temple by the trustees. They can treat her as a trespasser. But it does not follow that they are bound to so treat her. Still less does it follow that in an action to which the trustees are not parties, and in which therefore no indirect remedy can be obtained, a direct claim can be supported as if for a tort committed by Bella or her guardian.
The facade and interiors of Karachi’s Wadia Dar-e-Meher
"When property is set apart for public or charitable uses, it will be a malversation to apply any of the funds for persons who are not objects of the trust. Those who are objects of the trust must have all the benefits they require; and if there is surplus, it must be left to the courts to make a cy près application of it. But when the subject matter of such a trust or charity is the rendering of some convenience or service of such a nature that it will not hurt the lawful recipients if others share with them, their lordships are aware of no case in which it has been held that the trustees are bound to exclude persons who have no legal title to share. They may do so; they may treat all such persons as trespassers and say: Sic volo sic jubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas. Thus I will thus I command, let it stand. But if they choose to admit to the benefit of some park or garden established for a particular district some persons from over the border or to admit to a public library destined for a particular municipality persons from outside, or what is perhaps a nearer analogy, admit to the hearing of a lecture by a university professor persons not members of the university, this of itself furnishes no ground for complaint. If the numbers admitted are too large or the persons are disorderly or unpleasant in their habits or in any way substantially interfere with the convenience or benefit of those for whom the endowment was created, the trustees may be required to exclude them. But the mere claim of A that B shall not share in such a benefit because B is not within the terms of the foundation is not one that courts would encourage...
"But for trespass upon land the only person to bring the action is the person in possession of the land, that is the trustee. That a beneficiary or two or three beneficiaries of a trust for public purposes may bring a suit for trespass against an intruder is a novel principle of jurisprudence; and the case is not made stronger by the suggestion that several other beneficiaries agree with them.”