I read your article "Rites at residence” (Parsiana, October 7, 2006) and not only regret but am shocked that a magazine like yours misleads our community on religious matters. I believe that you have not performed your duty as a journalist to verify facts from proper sources.
I deny that an informal meeting of trustees and office bearers was held when priests and pallbearers on the payroll of the Valsad Parsi Anjuman Trust Funds were threatened.
Regarding the general meeting held on January 9, 2005 our Trust had issued a circular — one handbill — to all the community members in Valsad, specifying the agenda in which item no. 5 was to consider the ceremonies and procedure followed at the fire temple and Tower of Silence. Our Trust had also issued a public notice regarding the general meeting in Jam-e-Jamshed (December 12, 2004) mentioning the agenda and the work to be done in the said meeting. On the day of the meeting, item no. 5 was duly discussed and the president of the Anjuman gave details regarding the religious ceremonies and discussed what policy be followed when social, economic and geographical circumstances were changing. Our Anjuman also invited religious scholar Ervad (Dr) Rooyintan Peer to give an explanation and direction based on religious tenets for the ceremonies and procedure to be followed on the death of a Zoroastrian. Members of our community were present in good number on that day, and as per my belief the highest ever in the last 75 years.
I deny that the charity commissioner, Valsad, had given status quo order for application made by Minocher Dastoor. No such order was given. In fact no application was made by Dastoor and the assistant charity commissioner has given direction not to change the trust deed and advised Rusi Mirza and Jesi Dastur u/s 41A (sic) of Bombay Public Trust Act was rejected as the assistant charity commissioner had no power to deal with the same.
The allegation regarding the death of the mother of trustee Bomi Mahernose on April 28 2005 is misleading because the resolution came into force effective September 7, 2005 as clearly stated in the resolution, given in the form of a public notice.
The Anjuman wants to protect our customs and has taken the opinion of Dastur (Dr) Peshotan H. Mirza, Dastur Meherji Meherjirana, Dastur (Dr) Firoze M. Kotwal, Dastur (Dr) Kaikhusroo JamaspAsa, Ervad Asphandiar Dadachandji and Peer. All these religious leaders support our resolution. Our Anjuman circulated the views of all religious leaders to members of our community in Valsad.
The practice of performing ceremonies at the bungli is followed in Bombay, Surat, Udvada, Nargol and as per the letter of Meherjirana of Navsari they are also building a new bungli for the same reason. So, my belief is more than 85 percent of the Zoroastrian community in India accepts this practice. In short our Anjuman has not changed any customs, but changed only the practice to protect our customs.
I sincerely hope that respected Dastoor and his family also realize this fact and respect the general meeting resolution as personal views and belief have no place in religion.
SAM R. CHOTHIA
Managing trustee, Valsad Parsi Anjuman Trust Fund
Minocher Dastoor replies:
The Valsad Parsi Anjuman Trust Fund has denied its high-handed action in refusing the right of people to perform the last rites at their residence. Whether the office bearers threatened the priests and pallbearers will always be a matter of dispute and no useful purpose will be served by reiterating the same.
The trustees’ belief that they can force a change of custom, thereby denying me the right to follow my religion under the guise of the so-called meeting held on January 9, 2005, is taking things too far. The trustees have no right to change, with or without majority, a religious custom which has been in use since the time Parsis arrived in India. The very idea that after my death ceremonies should be performed at a place chosen by the trustees is untenable. The civilized way is to accept the wish of the deceased as being paramount. If some people want the death ceremonies to be performed at the Tower of Silence they are welcome to do so, but they cannot compel the rest of the community to do as they dictate. Religious scholars and revered members of society may express their opinion but this remains an opinion and cannot be thrust upon an individual in a free nation where citizens have the right to practice their religion.
The mother of trustee Bomi Mahernose expired on April 28, 2005, after the resolution of January 2005 was passed, so how could her death ceremonies be performed at her residence? The double standards are evident. It is wrong to say that the practice has been changed to protect the custom. I want my death ceremonies to be performed as per my ancestral custom and I do not believe that any person or organization, much less the Panchayat of Valsad, has the right to prevent me from doing so. I have no objection to other members of the community opting for change if they think it proper.
As a old man of 80 years, I do hope that our great religion does not need so-called protectors as our age old customs are still capable of taking care of themselves. The approach of the Panchayat should be to ensure that each Parsi of Valsad lives and dies happily as per the tenets of Zoroastrianism and does not suffer at the time of his death because of their dictats.