Questions to the WZO

Sir,

HAMAZOR, the official magazine of the WZO makes interesting reading. In its issue 4 of 2002, it gives the WZO Chairman Rumi Sethna's address at the A.G.M held on 29th September 2002.

Membership: "WZO's formally registered membership includes 31 associations and 5000 Zoroastrians 50% of them from India".

Contrast these statistics published in their own journal against the WZO's bombastic claim to represent 320,000 Zoroastrians the world over, made in a letter to the Prime Minister of India written by WZO Chairman Rumi Sethna and published in Jame Jamshed.

It is well known that the WZO enrolls non-Zoroastrian spouses as members with full voting rights including the right to be an office-bearer. In fact anyone professing to be a Zoroastrian can become a member of WZO. That would presumably include neo Zarthushtis like converts from Mexico, Brazil, Latin America, even Ali Jaffery!

WZO's International Board: A list of the WZO International Board Members for the year 2002-2003 is given on p. 30, 31, 32 of this issue of Hamazor. Who elects these Board members, the individual members of WZO or are they handpicked by the oligarchy of a committee. A look at this list reveals that there is one member from Australia, two from Canada, one from France, 6 from India, one each from Iran, Pakistan, Singapore and Sweden, 11 from U.K. and 8 from U.S.A. If as is mentioned that there are 50% members from India, there should be proportionately more Board members from India. In fact out of 33 international board members only 6 are from India which works out to less than 20%. Why this discrimination against India?

A Cosmopolitan Adarian: "But much as the WZO supports religious infrastructural needs, it can claim no credit for the recent effort to build an agiary in U.K. This was a completely personal initiative of two U.K. persons Mr. Rohinton Irani and myself. It had nothing to do with WZO. Lack of funds has now stopped the initiative from advancing."

In 2001 Bombay Samachar had exposed the hypocrisy of this supposedly cosmopolitan Adarian proposed to be consecrated in U.K. by three persons (not two as erroneously mentioned by the WZO chairman in his address) The third trustee of this European Zarthushti Fire Temple Trust was none other than the WZO supremo in India Mr. Dinshaw K. Tamboly. Why did the WZO chairman conceal the fact that Mr. Dinshaw Tamboly was one of the original three trustees of this E.Z.F.T Trust?

The WZO office bearers always brag about transparency, integrity, accountability. Why then this deliberate bluff? Surely the WZO being a public charitable trust both in India and in the U.K. and claiming to be a world body, one would expect it to be more transparent and not playing deceitful games. Mr. Tamboly may now claim that he resigned from the said Trust. The important question is why did he initiate project of an Adarian for persons professing the Zoroastrian faith as against those born into and initiated in faith? Secondly, why does this E.Z.F.T trust deed say that the trustees will be guided by the Dasturjis of India but not be bound to follow their advice? Was it to make a mockery of our Dasturjis that when funds are needed they seek the Dasturjis' blessings and then chose to ignore their advice?

Do these leaders of the WZO have the moral courage to answer these questions publicly or like ostriches will they sulk and hide their faces in the sand? The world community whom they claim to represent awaits their answer.

Hushang Vakil

Hushang,

Excellent article, kudos.

You wrote:

"The important question is why did he (Tambolly) initiate project of an Adarian for persons professing the Zoroastrian faith as against those born into and initiated in faith?"

This is indeed proof that Tambolly and his organization WZO are nothing but liberals. These people are in effect supporting the ali cult by their actions, which also falsely propagates the non-Zoroastrian idea of conversion.

Shame on such people, who are going against what our forefathers believed in - that no one can be "converted" into our religion. As our forefathers did, we true Zarathushtris also firmly believe that no one can start "professing" our religion after discarding their own religion, but have to be born into our religion in order to profess it.

As Dasturji Mirza has said:

"If `conversion' means to discard one's own ancestral religion and to adopt an alien religion, then conversion is unknown in Avesta, in the Zoroastrian religion, and in ancient Iranian history."

You wrote:

"Do these leaders of the WZO have the moral courage to answer these questions publicly or like ostriches will they sulk and hide their faces in the sand?"

Well said.

This hard-hitting article will also be placed on the Traditional Zoroastrianism home page at http://www.ParsiZoroastrianism.com for the reference of tens of thousands of fellow Zarathushtris worldwide.

Regards,

Porus.