Archive

Parsi politics has never been short of strategists. The orthodox defendants identified a "Rajput lady in a much humbler sphere of life,” in the now politically incorrect words of Justice Davar, who had had children from her Parsi paramour. Like Suzanne Tata, she too was navjoted by making her wear the sudreh and kusti and claiming that she was a Zoroastrian. The orthodox wanted to whip up mass hysteria that if Suzanne were to be permitted to avail of the benefits of Parsi trusts including consignment to the Towers of Silence, it would result in the opening of Pandora’s box, as evidenced by the Rajput’s claim. The latter was represented before the judges, but in a rather lackluster manner. The stunt failed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The liberals were not too far behind. They arranged for a 25-year-old woman called Soonabai from Surat, both of whose parents were not Parsis, to visit three atash behrams in Bombay unchallenged by anyone, and then testify in this case, purely for the purpose of creating evidence. This made the conservative, never bareheaded Davar, furious ("I cannot sufficiently express my sense of disapprobation of tactics such as these”). Remember, this was nearly 120 years ago.
Many learned and illustrious witnesses also did flip flops in giving testimony. Jivanji Modi was an orthodox religious scholar, Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) secretary, prolific author, writer of reports on conversion. Davar adored him; Beaman disliked him ("I suppose few witnesses of equal eminence, character, and I hope, I may add, sincere honesty, have made a more deplorable exhibition of themselves in the witness box than Mr Modi”). Strong words indeed.
For that matter, the two judges barely tolerated each other. Beaman, of the Indian Civil Service, without formal legal education or training, theosophist, Freemason, pro caste system and anti women’s emancipation, went blind during his judgeship and died in 1928, after diving into an empty swimming pool. Davar, from a wealthy priestly family, London barrister, first Parsi Bombay High Court judge and acting Chief Justice, died suddenly of a heart attack at 59, and was highly controversial. Though he had earlier, when he was a lawyer, advised the BPP trustees, the defendants in this case, he still heard the case as a judge since, oddly enough, both sides had no objection against his doing so. He was known for his extrajudicial outbursts in court. After the hearing of the Petit case was over, every evening he deliberately took the long route home in order to wave to crowds of orthodox Parsis who lined the streets outside Allbless Baug to honor him. His son was married into the family of Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy, the principal defendant in Petit vs Jeejeebhoy. Davar was a close friend of the rabble rousing fundamentalist orator, solicitor Jehangir Vimadalal, who was consulted privately by both the judges during the hearing of the case, and who played a principal role in convincing Davar in favor of the conservative view.
The visually handicapped Beaman was content to play second fiddle to the senior judge who did most of the work in the case. Davar, in turn, was greatly influenced by Modi and Vimadalal, and was later hailed as a savior of Zoroastrianism by the orthodox. Some offensive passages in his judgment are almost unprintable today.
Despite all these seemingly insurmountable odds against the liberals, the judges went on to state, in a famous sentence, that "conversion was not only permitted but enjoined by Zoroastrianism.” The evidence of conversion being widely prevalent in Zoroastrianism, before the Parsis came to India, was so overwhelming that even the most biased judicial mind had no alternative but to agree.
However, the issues to be decided were: Whether the trustees of the BPP had been validly appointed; and whether Suzanne, a convert, was entitled to the benefit of the Parsi trusts including a right to be consigned to the Towers of Silence. Both issues were answered in the negative.
Suzanne and the Rajput lady were both outright converts. This case was not about whether conversion was permissible or not. That is a theological issue, not a legal one. What the judges had to decide was whether such converts had a right to Parsi trusts in the same manner as natural born Parsis. This had to be answered by ascertaining what the intention of the settlor, the creator, of the trust was when he formed the trust. Would he have wanted such converts to be beneficiaries of his trust? Let us remember that almost all these settlors held orthodox views. This, along with the fact that there was not a single proven conversion after the Parsis came to India, obviously made the judges conclude that converts were not entitled to the benefits of Parsi trusts. Hence, the orthodox are right when they contend that the above cited famous proposition was only an expression of opinion, an obiter dicta, and not a binding precedent. Beaman put it succinctly when he stated, "That question is not whether the Zoroastrian religion permits conversion, but whether, when these trusts were founded, the founders contemplated and intended that converts should be admitted to participate in them.”
Assume now a situation where a reformist settlor were to create a trust and provide in the trust deed that beneficiary includes any person converted to Zoroastrianism even if neither parent was a Parsi. And if this trust were to consecrate an agiary, then Suzanne and the Rajput would be entitled to worship in such an agiary. Of course, this is a hypothetical, but not impossible, situation.
This controversy was therefore not about treating children of an interfaith married Parsi woman on par with the children of similarly placed Parsi men. Seventeen years later, another case would come before the Privy Council in London, about the entitlement of Bella, a girl born of a Parsi mother and a non-Parsi father. In the next column titled "Bomanji ni Bella,” we shall discuss this controversy.
However, we owe a debt of gratitude to Davar and Beaman for an entirely different but most important matter, namely, their decision that BPP trustees were not validly appointed and a scheme for election of BPP trustees be framed and sanctioned by the High Court. This scheme was framed in 1908 and has been amended several times over the years including very recently by the order of Justices Shahrukh Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav, under which seven new trustees will be elected on May 29 this year.
In holding that the then sethia trustees of the BPP, including the venerable Jejeebhoys, in-laws of his son, were not validly appointed, Davar must have died a thousand deaths ("We have been drawn to these conclusions with much regret and great reluctance; we should not be taken to cast the smallest reflection on their integrity or honor”). After so holding against the BPP trustees, Davar quickly went on to appoint them as trustees for life. Thus the decision had the salutary effect of resulting in democratization of the process of appointing BPP trustees. A Parisian romance though not successful in admitting converts unwittingly resulted in putting an end to the BPP being a hereditary fiefdom. Well, almost.
Suzanne gave birth to five children, including Sylla who married the son of her father’s protagonist, Sir Dinshaw Petit, and a son called Jehangir, more popularly known as J. R. D. Tata. Suzanne died at age 43, leaving Ratan heartbroken once again, until his death three years later.