When the Nagpur Parsi Punchayet (NPP) translated their 1893 Gujarati constitution into English the words dharam khata were erroneously translated as "religious” instead of "account for religious purposes.” As a result of this misinterpretation, the children of Parsi men married to non-Parsis were denied "any religious rites or ceremonies,” explained NPP vice-president Navroze Daver in a telephone talk with Parsiana on October 23, 2018.
The error came to light after the translated copy was circulated to members and NPP member Silloo Buhariwala objected to the ceremonies being denied. In an email dated September 20, 2018, addressed to "Friends,” Buhariwala has stated the proposed amendment "has filled us with anguish and outrage.
Hirabai Mulla Daremeher, Nagpur
"We know of several children of Parsi fathers and non-Parsi mothers who attend the agiary regularly and participate in the ceremonies and various rituals. How can one suddenly deny them the right to practice their faith and participate in the ceremonies and rituals which they have been doing unhindered? The right of freedom of religion is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and no self-appointed trustee can suddenly snatch that away from them...
"It is our considered view that religion should not be mixed up with racial prejudice. The idea that a child of a non-Parsi should not be admitted to the faith has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with bigotry.”
Writing in his "personal capacity” to NPP members on October 3, 2018 Daver assured them the objectionable clause "has been deleted from the draft.” The constitution had been translated at the behest of the Charity Commissioner, he noted.
While the children of Parsi fathers and non-Parsi mothers will therefore continue to participate in "religious rites and ceremonies” they will still be denied "any privileges or benefits of Parsi Punchayet Funds and Properties.” This is because clause 5 (a) 1 of the NPP constitution defines a Parsi/Irani Zarthosti "as a man or woman whose biological parents (father and mother) are Parsi/Irani and who are followers of the traditional Zorastrian (sic) religion.”
The NPP definition goes against the Bombay High Court decision of Justices Dinshaw Daver and Frank Beaman in the Petit vs Jeejeebhoy case which includes in the definition of a Parsi, "The children of a Parsi father by an alien mother, if such children are admitted into the religion of their fathers and profess the Zoroastrian religion.”
As the Daver-Beaman definition does not include the children of a Parsi mother married to a non-Parsi father, the NPP constitution bars them from any "privileges,” notes Daver. "The status of Parsi women married to non-Parsi men is sub judice and till the highest court in the land passes a final order the status quo will be maintained. Parsis being law-abiding citizens, (we) will surely abide by the final order of the law of the land.”
This implies the NPP intends to observe the court order in the Goolrookh Gupta vs Valsad Parsi Anjuman matter before the Supreme Court of India. Gupta and other interfaith married Parsi women were denied the right to enter the Valsad agiary and doongerwadi. The NPP will also have to contend with the decision of the Originating Summons filed by Calcutta resident, Prochy Mehta before the Calcutta High Court. Mehta has asked the court to opine on who is entitled to enter the Dhunjeebhoy Byramjee Mehta’s Zoroastrian Anjuman Atash Adaran. Her two grandchildren had been denied admission on the grounds that their father was a non-Parsi. This matter too is likely to eventually land up before the Supreme Court.
When asked via email on October 22, why the NPP would observe the final decision in Gupta and Mehta’s case and not Davar and Beaman, Daver said the last amendment to the Constitution was made in 1949. Once the feedback was received regarding the translated copy, they would examine other clauses.