Tamboly's Trapeze - A Rejoinder
by Ervad Adi Doctor
Fellow Traditional Mazdayasni Zarathushtris,
Kudos to Ervad Adi Doctor - this is indeed a powerful rejoinder to the BPP Trustee Tambolly - who is also a high official of the non-Zoroastrian inter-married "world" organization based outside India.
No wonder then, that Tambolly calls himself "pragmatic" and "not traditional", instead of proudly using the latter term as we all do, and as his own forefathers have done.
The juniormost trustee of the BPP, Dinshaw Kaiki Tamboly, has issued a press note giving the "rationale" behind his anti-Zoroastrian stand of openly supporting those opting for cremation!
From the tone and tenor of his note, it is obvious that he is repeating ad nauseum not just the words, but whole sentences of his old journalist friend, Jehan Daruwalla. In the first three pages, the burden of his argument is that the SDAC, and all those who support it, depend on emotions and sentiments and not on "hard facts", that the DDD-AG are worldly and practical and that the SDAC members are allergic to change.
It's a pity that Tamboly did not attend the public meeting on the 28th December, like his two colleagues, Dady Engineer and Dinshah Mehta. It would have come as a revelation to him that every speaker had made extremely valid, cogent points, with pertinent quotes from the scriptures. But Tamboly does not - dare not - see the truth in the face. His agenda and programme originate from London, where his mentors are.
Tamboly talks of Dokhmenashini as a custom or tradition. This is where his abysmal ignorance of the religion he is born in, is so evident! For any person who claims to be a Zoroastrian, it is abundantly injuncted in the scriptures that his body has to be put in a Dakhma, after death. This is the mandate and commandment of Lord Ahura Mazda Himself! There is no choice whatsoever for a Zoroastrian regarding the manner in which his body is to be "disposed of". Thus, if Tamboly and the DDD-AG members wish to plump for cremation or burial, they forfeit the right to call themselves Zoroastrians! No BPP trustee in his senses, therefore, can even dream of providing a so-called "Prayer Hall" for those who brazenly flout the commandment of the Lord.
Where did Tamboly get the fib that the present "system of dokhmenashini" "is a dilution of the system as was practised in the days of yore"? It is exactly the same that has been in vogue for thousands of years. However, Truth has a way of erupting at the most unexpected of places: Tamboly spills the beans and contradicts himself when he writes further that, "This is clear if one reads the injunctions in the Vendidad" (Emphasis supplied.) And who did he consult for this little gem? His friend, J. Daruwalla, or his Man Friday in the BPP, B.T. Dastur, who may have "researched" it for him!
Tamboly pontifically states, repeatedly, that "some other religious injunctions have been compromised" through the years, why didn't anyone protest then? Once again, echoes of "Jehan" in his columns in The Bombay Samachar of yore. Tamboly is himself blissfully oblivious of two factors: (a) two wrongs do not make a right, or nine wrongs committed in the past cannot justify the tenth wrong; and (b) in Tamboly's mind, one of the Vendidad injunctions being compromised today is the strict segregation to be observed during menstruation (once again, echoes of "Jehan"). What this "sitting trustee" conveniently forgets is that the likes of Tamboly in the past, openly encouraged the Parsee girls to flout this religious discipline. Again, with many households shrinking to the size of 350 sq. ft., it is well nigh impossible for those ladies willing to practise this discipline. This injunction has been given as illustration here, as it is Tamboly's favourite one. It is reported that in a recent youth meet called by Tamboly, when two girls protested at Tamboly calling Dokhmenashini "barbaric", he chided them by asking if they followed the segregation during menses. Tamboly should be told once and for all that there is a world of a difference between what an individual Zoroastrian can or cannot do, and what a whole community is enjoined to do: between what, at times, is just not possible and what is possible and unavoidable.>
Tamboly talks of a Pandora's box being opened if the matter goes to court. Or is it that he's scared that many skeletons will tumble out of BPP's cupboard?
The "sitting trustee" doth protest too much. The rate at which he is going, it won't be long, perhaps, before he becomes a "quitting trustee"!
- Adi Doctor.