In his letter (Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, September 21, 2012) Farrokh Vajifdar seems to consider my article ("Traitors to their teachers,” Parsiana, August 7, 2012) as some sort of tirade against Dasturs Maneck Dhalla, Framroze Bode and Khurshed Dabu. This is not so. I may add that Dhalla and Bode were anti-traditional, whereas Dabu was counter-traditional. There is plenty of material available on the strength of which a book can be written, but that would be polemical. In addition to what I had briefly mentioned about Dabu, Vajifdar has been discreet enough to put in a word about Blavatsky, the Russian adventuress (according to The Oxford Reference Dictionary). I wish he had mentioned the Blavatsky Lodge where Dabu’s bedfellow, Irach Taraporewalla, used to give sermons on theosophy and reincarnation in Zoroastrianism.
However, it appears that Vajifdar is supportive of Dhalla and Bode. According to him, the latter was a "pragmatist” and the former a "great man.” This compels me to say that while I am appreciative of Dhalla’s translation of Niyaeshis, the type of evidence he gave at the time of the Bangalore Dakhma Case is reprehensible. Also, we need to consider the stamp of individualism his autobiography (in Gujarati) betrays. And Bode is not just notorious for the Vansda navjotes performed by him with Jamshed Katrak and Fali Master as his collaborators and Barjorji Bharucha as their guardian; one should remember also the scandalous movements like Mazdaznan, Mazdazva and the "sixth Gatha.”
Besides, it may be recalled that scholar Robert Zaehner rightly calls Bode and Piloo Nanavati’s Song of Zarathushtra (London 1952) as "a tendentious interpretation rather than a translation of the Gathas.” How pragmatic were all the above mentioned movements? And the dastur who is dubbed "great " by Vajifdar reminds us of the following observation by Nietzsche (1844-1900): "Many a one have I found stretched and inflated himself and people cried ‘behold, a great man!’ But what good do all bellows do, the wind cometh out at last.”
My article was intended to expose the sophistry of some present day scholars who call themselves "khshnumists” and whose speeches/writings come perilously near to rant. Further, while avoiding preaching theosophy themselves, they remain in league with theosophists. But even among the khshnumists there are different sects. The sect governed by two retired bank officers and supported by half a dozen yes men who equate themselves with the "voice” of the community. Mind, by no means am I referring to khshnumists of yesteryears like the Chiniwala brothers (Framroze and Jehangir), Behram Bharucha, Dosabhai Desai (popularly known as ‘master sahib’) and Dhanjishah Niramwala. Any knowledgeable person who reads the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of my article cannot fail to realize this.
"It is time we eschew the theory of the ‘pure Parsi,’ as this only exists in the fertile imagination of some people ”
RODA D. HAKIM
Vajifdar refers to "Nariman’s long cherished chimeras of orthodoxy and tradition” and then wants me to (re)define the last two terms. Moreover, he assumes that "for Nariman, ‘traditions’ appear to be perpetuations of past errors regardless of their outcomes.” No wonder, he is baffled! As regards "chimeras,” orthodoxy, tradition, and progressive worsening, we would request Vajifdar to have some patience till he sees an article from my pen dealing with these issues in one of the forthcoming issues of Parsiana. I hope my senior colleague will find the delay bearable.