There are few places in Bombay where one can sit on a pier surrounded on three sides by the sea. Therefore, the jetty of the Radio Club at Apollo Bunder is an ideal location to hold a religious function commemorating the day when Parsis venerate Avan Yazad, the angel presiding over water. The crowd gathering at this annual function and other such events has gradually dwindled as the community ages and its numbers diminish.
Thus it was odd that anyone would call for a boycott of such an occasion. But that is exactly what happened for the annual Avan mah, Avan roz parav (when the name of the day and month coincide) function on March 22, 2024. Some traditionalists objected to the selection of the speaker, noted lawyer and chronicler of community history, quirks and legends, Berjis Desai.
"The organizers of this year’s function have already ruined the pristine environment at the venue by asking the twice intermarried (following the death of his first wife, he married a second time) and avid reformer to be the religious speaker. How ridiculous can that be?” noted a WhatsApp post from the Traditionalist Zoroastrian Mailing List (TZML) Admin.
Addressing a letter dated March 13 to the trustees of the M. J. Wadia Agiary Trust that organized the get-together this year, Ervad (Dr) Rooyintan Peer noted, "It is the choice of the main speaker this year to deliver a ‘religious talk’ on the said occasion that has surprised a considerable number of the members of the Parsi community...
"Not only (are) his religious views rabidly reformist, but in his columns (in Parsiana), he regularly presents distorted versions of our religious, historical and cultural matters, often citing some random references of some western writers here and there, without having his own proper understanding.”
To add to Peer’s condemnation, another community activist, Arzan Ghadially, pointed out that Desai "should NOT be allowed to dabble in matters of religion and in community matters…With folded hands a humble request. Please by all means boycott the Yazad Parav function today if the speaker does not recuse himself. This is the least we can do for our community.”
Yet another anonymous post stated, "Actually as per Ilm-e-Khshnoom both the males and females of our Mazdayasni Zarathushti kom who marry a juddin out of their choice are NOT ELIGIBLE to be counted as a Zarathushti and cannot enter our holy places of worship or partake in any religious ceremonies be they for sagan (auspicious occasions) or for the ravaans (deceased).”
The request to boycott the event appeared to fall on deaf ears. Not only did many grace the occasion but the pre-publicity may have goaded some to attend out of curiosity and also to possibly launch a broadside against the speaker should their sensitivities be offended. The traditionalist leaning Parsi Junction fortnightly financed by Desai’s friend, former Bombay Parsi Punchayet chairman Dinshaw Mehta, reprinted Desai’s talk over two-and-a-half pages in its March 24 issue. And contrary to any apprehensions about people heckling or tossing eggs [as once happened over 50 years ago at the Sir Cowasjee Jehangir Hall when the liberal priest, Dastur (Dr) Framroze Bode spoke], the talk was well received.
Many who attend religious functions may not absorb or fully comprehend what the speaker has to say (a sample: "Modern scholars agree that one of the major causes of the decline of the Sasanian Empire and the falling apart of the Sasanian Parthian confederacy was Mihr worship by the Parthians who were simmering from being overthrown by the Sasanians, and which was frowned upon by the Sasanian aristocracy who were Ahura Mazda exclusivists.”) But lay people want to attend and participate in religious events. It’s akin to visiting a fire temple and praying without a full comprehension of what the words mean but believing they are in a sacred place in the presence of a divine force which sympathetically hears their gratitude, concerns, requests…
Parsis may be more interested in attending a propitious occasion than being concerned about the speaker’s antecedents or religious leanings. Desai was a liberal but over the past years has veered towards traditionalism, albeit minus the underlying racism and misogynistic leanings that mar much orthodox thinking.
Desai’s embrace of orthodoxy should have been welcomed by the traditionalists. Aside from being a qualified priest, he is articulate and knowledgeable in religious and community matters. But his refusal to adhere to caste based biases makes him suspect in the eyes of the hardened orthodoxy. Of course in his past liberal avatar as columnist for the Bombay Samachar’s weekly "Parsi Tari Arsi (A mirror to the community)” English column he has blasted the traditionalists, referring to them as "fruitcakes,” among other uncomplimentary appellations. People don’t easily forget slights or insults.
In one of his columns in Parsiana, Desai said some Parsis would like their bodies to be consigned to the Towers of Silence but wanted non Parsis to be permitted to enter the bunglis when the funerary ceremonies were taking place. His stand offended those who prize racial segregation. But where there are no dakhmas and bodies are buried in aramgahs, some anjumans such as Delhi and Ooty allow non Parsis to be present for the prayers. Abroad, non Parsis are permitted though in London over 40 years ago some Parsis objected to the presence of non Parsis at muktad ceremonies. This led to a split in the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe and was one of the triggers for the formation of the World Zoroastrian Organisation.
So did the traditionalists misread the sentiments of the community? Were they out of tune with the times? With 50% of Parsis in Bombay marrying non-Parsis, disqualifying such persons from attending religious ceremonies would only alienate moderate Parsis and further deplete the meager attendance at our agiaries and public religious functions. And why assume one’s religious views are shaped or altered depending on who one marries?
Orthodox leaning individuals who veer towards liberalism have traditionally been welcomed into the fold. Why should the liberals espousing traditionalist thought be treated differently? The traditionalists should view Desai as an ally, not an antagonist. If they are to remain relevant, they need to rethink their strategy and approach.