One would think the opening of a new fire temple would be a cause for public celebration. In the United States of America there is much rejoicing when a new Zoroastrian dar-e-meher is inaugurated. The structure symbolizes not only the Parsi and Zoroastrian presence in the town/city/province/state/country but also the perseverance, grit and enterprise of the local community. A religious institution also stands testimony to the community’s commitment to preserving their religious identity, be it in a Hindu majority India or a Christian majority America.
Democracies permit and encourage religious diversity. The ability to practice one’s beliefs, religious or otherwise, is the basis and hallmark of a free society. The construction of a house of worship is a reminder that one lives in an unfettered, tolerant and hospitable environment.
But still controversies abound. When the Pundolites wanted to open an adarian in Udvada over 45 years ago, their justification was that the king (the Iranshah fire which nestles in the south Gujarat coastal town) must have a vazir (a prime minister). Several, including a high priest, opposed the move. They argued that in 1,253 years the king "never felt the need for a vazir" (see "Udwada: The King and the Vazir," Parsiana, September 1974). The dispute went before the collector at Bulsar who granted permission to build the fire temple as did the Gujarat government, before whom an appeal was filed. Finally the adarian was built and exists to this day with devotees harmoniously visiting either or both places of worship.
Asha Vahishta, The Zoroastrian Centre which opened in Poona on December 25 last year attracted some flak, as was expected. It is open to people of all faiths. Still the condemnation on the whole was subdued. After all the traditionalists have for decades egged the liberals on to create their own places of worship. How could they now criticize the reformers for following the conservatives’ advice?
The Shirinbai and Khurshedji Doongaji Daremeher, created from scratch in New Bombay, is a great tribute to the small band of Parsis residing just outside the Bombay municipal district. In the past the 70 or so families residing there would have to travel an hour or more to reach the nearest fire temple around 20 kilometers away in Dadar or Thana. But on May 14 this year all that changed. After toiling for over a decade, managing to convince CIDCO (City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra) to grant them a plot at a concessional rate, scouring the community for donors, searching unsuccessfully for a consecrated fire to shift, their dream came true. Sharukh Doctor, managing trustee of The New Bombay Zoroastrian Association Charitable Trust, his co-trustees, the local residents and largehearted donors made the vision fructify. They deserve the community’s laurels. But did they get them?
Here’s what the Bombay Parsi Punchayat (BPP) chairman Yazdi Desai wrote to the New Bombay trustees: "Your trust deed states only Zoroastrians and not Parsi Irani Zoroastrians (are) beneficiaries… Any person can claim to be a Zoroastrian, every Zoroastrian need not be a Parsi. In simple words it means that entry to your dadgah is NOT restricted to Parsi Irani Zoroastrians as per your trust deed… any undertaking by your current board of trustees can neither change what’s in your trust deed nor bind your successors. Therefore… what you will be having in New Bombay will not be a Parsi Irani Zoroastrian dadgah but a cosmopolitan dadgah… Please don’t fool the community."
Doctor explained to Parsiana that the trust deed was framed about 25 years ago by a local lawyer in the New Bombay area. He, like the trustees, was unaware of the nuances between the terms Parsi and Zoroastrian, assuming them to be synonymous. There are also the intricacies of the tax liabilities for trusts. The trustees had consulted both noted chartered accountant Yezdi Bhagwagar, an expert on trust matters, and Noshir Dadrawala, chief executive officer of the Centre for Advancement of Philanthropy that educates trustees on the intricacies of laws pertaining to trusts and trust management. They noted that after 1961, if a charitable trust is created for Parsi/Irani Zoroastrians, they would receive no tax benefits. An exemption, however, is given to trusts created for women and children. Wholly religious trusts, which have no purpose other than religion can also avail of tax benefits.
Whatever the trust deed specifies, according to the Privy Council judgment of 1915 in Saklat vs Bella, the trustees have the discretion to admit non-Parsis. Accordingly the agiaries in Delhi and Karachi permit entry to the children of Parsi women married to non-Parsi men.
Many if not most agiaries hire non-Parsi staff to swab the premises, after the kebla doors are closed. Non-Parsi electricians and plumbers are called when required. And non-Parsis can and do, if they so wish, surreptitiously enter.
The New Bombay trustees, however, have given assurances and placed a plaque that only Parsi Irani Zoroastrians will be permitted entry. In a letter to the Parsi Times (May 12, 2018) editor, the trustees stated that "under the guidance and with the permission and blessings" of Dasturs Kaikhusroo JamaspAsa, Firoze Kotwal and Khurshed Dastoor the "dadgah saheb will be consecrated… We are not reformers as alleged and reiterate that this dadgah saheb will be accessible only to Parsi and Irani Zoroastrians for prayers… Some miscreants are trying to obstruct (the daremeher) by spreading fake rumors on social media."
How many regular visitors the daremeher will have to begin with is a question mark. The Doongaji Agiary in Bharuch, whose fire was to be shifted to the New Bombay daremeher but was blocked pending litigation, languishes without a visitor in a year, Dastoor told the august gathering on May 14. This was corroborated by a Doongaji family member. The BPP run Godavra Agiary in Bombay’s Fort area has few footfalls. Desai says he refused to shift the flame to New Bombay, again unmindful of the fact that when the Jokhi Agiary was inaugurated in Godrej Baug in 1999, the BPP was unable to move the fire there because people objected and went to court. Both agiaries are under BPP management. The trustees are not the final arbitrators on what happens to a consecrated fire. The beneficiaries are.