In your thoughtful Editorial Viewpoint ("Taking the lead,” Parsiana, July 21-August 6, 2022) you have wisely observed the forward thinking prevalent among the North American Parsi Zoroastrian diaspora. You also acknowledged what appears to have been an extremely successful 12th World Zoroastrian Congress in New York. I will always regret my hesitation to attend it for fear of exposing my octogenarian frame to cross-continent travel, and the ever-present fear of Covid exposure.
Your editorial also educates us about the recent history of internecine quarrels among the so-called leaders of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP), and the obvious lack of influence of The Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI) in the national debate on the sociocultural issues that divide our community in India.
I also watched a video of the keynote speech by Justice Rohinton Nariman, retired judge of the Supreme Court of India, which you referred to. Nariman painstakingly narrated all the legal wranglings of the past couple of centuries when Parsis, unable to resolve disputes internally, have attempted to challenge each other in civil courts in England and India to resolve their squabbles. Since so many cases are now on the legal books in India, Nariman sadly concludes that "the only route is for the Constitutional bench to pronounce…looking at the vision of the Gathas.” This is a sad conclusion to draw, given the irony that all these disputes arise from a section of our community that wants to ban non-Parsis from the community, yet seeks to resolve the cases through litigation in non-Parsi civil courts!
Such convoluted thinking of the leaders of the BPP clearly describes the trap into which the community has fallen. As Pogo creator Walt Kelly wrote in his cartoon strip, "We have met the enemy and he is us.” (It is a take-off on American naval officer Oliver Perry’s quote: "We have met the enemy and they are ours” — editors)
It behooves Parsi Zoroastrians, in Bombay and across the subcontinent, to step forward and assume the responsibility to overcome the sociocultural taboos forced upon the community. A first step may well be the creation and empowerment of an entity that reframes questionable social traditions that have encroached into the practice of the faith — starting with re-educating our priests away from their adherence to Vendidad dictats and to focus on their responsibilities to lead their flock to live as Zoroastrians. This can be started by boldly challenging the social claims of so-called racial purity of the Parsis which is driving most of the misrepresentations.
The North American model, as you rightly pointed out, is easy to replicate. Members in communities like the Zoroastrian Association of Houston with its Library Committee have already taken the lead and are participating in efforts to propagate a proper understanding of the faith.
In conclusion, while the Bombay community may have a larger percentage of the microscopic Parsi population of India, it is important to separate the community from the stranglehold of the BPP, a property management trust that has been dictating the community’s sociocultural practices. That vacuum may well be filled by a focused national body representing all Parsi Zoroastrian communities across the country. This can be an opportunity that can give the FPZAI a new mission and purpose!
Thank you Parsiana for your continued efforts to bring sanity into the community’s deliberations!
YEZDYAR S. KAOOSJI
Fresno, California, USA
yezdyk@gmail.com
The editors’ reply:
The Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) has limited influence. Deep-rooted prejudices, dislikes and distrust among many community members are what hinder a constructive approach to controversial issues. Sadly, the FPZAI is too emaciated a body to offer any leadership.