Indian Political Discussion
- Thread starter Parul
- Start date
Don't know about Hindus, but it is against the tenets of our faith.
Hindus also do not allow non Hindus into the Jagannath Temple.
In addition to being a democracy, India is a secular democracy.
Which means that the state is (should be) not supposed to meddle in the matters of faith.
It is overreach.
Cheers, Doc
That, I think of the BJP as a rosy innocent infant?
I have no illusions. No man with power is. They are all extreme. But thats the point. That there is no point in chanting APALT "all parties are like this". Scams? APALT Crimes? APALT. Selfish shits? APALT.
And its true enough. But We have to choose one. And so it becomes a matter of dissecting which is the lesser evil not the greatest good.
Ex-Chairman of the BPP, Mr. Dinshaw R. Mehta, clears the misconceptions aired on Mirror Now and NDTV
Dear community members,
Late Monday evening of 23-10-2017, I received a call from one Trupti Parekh of NDTV inviting me as ex-Chairman of BPP to be a panellist on the discussion of Goolrukh Gupta case pending before the Supreme Court and on my agreeing was told to attend their office at ELPHINSTONE Road at 6pm next day for the taping of the interview and panel discussion. Unfortunately at around 4.30 pm on 24-10-17, I was again informed by Trupti of NDTV that I was dropped from the slot due to space constraints.
I saw the 10pm show aired by NDTV under the banner “The Buck Stops Here” and was quite disappointed at its contents as the show tried to bring in gender equality questions as well as children of Parsi females married out when however the Goolrukh Gupta case which is before the Supreme Court has only one limited prayer that – she should be allowed to perform the Parsi rites and rituals at Bulsar Doongerwadi of her aged parents.
To capitulate, the BPP when I was Trustee and Chairman allowed women married out under Special Marriage Act without conversion and continues to practise the Zoroastrian religion to be consigned to our Doongerwadi and our two Agiaries on a simple Affidavit declaring the same.
Thus all Goolrukh Gupta at this point, has to do is to state on Affidavit that she has not converted on marriage and continues to follow the Zoroastrian faith and she then cannot be barred from all her rights to Doongerrwadi and Agiaries.
I am aware of the facts of this case, However the rumour is that Goolrukh Gupta married under Hindu Vedic rites of Phera, she changed her name from Goolrukh Adi Contractor to Neha Gupta on marriage and became a member of her Joint Hindu family and filed her Income Tax returns as HUF under the name Neha Gupta implying thereby that she converted on marriage and hence was no longer entitled to Parsi rites and rituals if true. It is for Gtoolrukh/Neha to confirm by Affidavit what religion she follows and accordingly she would get her rights to Doongerwadi or not. Her case is not about gender equality or rights of her children which she has not claimed.
As regards children of inter-married couples, The community must be made aware that in the past all the High Priests have unanimously opined that the inter marriage rule applies equally to both males and females and their children. There is gender equality as far as High Priests are concerned. So the vilification of our High Priests and Dasturji Kookadaru on national television is most unjustified and morally wrong and I humbly request all to retract your statements against them.
I must bring to your attention that the right of the male marrying out and their children allowed to have their Navjots done emanates from the 1908 Davar Beamon Judgement even though it is obiter dicta and the practise, though religiously untenable as per High Priests, has been followed since then of males getting this preference over females. This judgement in orbiter has laid down the law as it stands right upto date.
Further, there is no need to rake up a non issue. The law as it stands is quite clear that females marrying ‘without conversion under Special Marriage Act’ continue to be Zoroastrians and can be consigned to Doongerwadi. All that is required is an Affidavit confirming that she has not converted and continues to profess the Zoroastrian religion. You will be pleased to know that during my tenure as trustee and Chairman, many Parsi ladies married to non-Parsis under the special marriage act have given the BPP affidavits stating that they have NOT converted to any other religion, been married under the special marriage act and continue to profess our faith. Such ladies are permitted to visit all the BPP agiyaries and can be confined to our towers of silence.
Unfortunately as the law stands today, the children of women married out cannot become Parsi Zoroastrians under the current law. I am very communal and religious minded as far as my community is concerned. You might recall that I was the only Trustee to go to Sanjan with other supporters to stop the conversion of a Russian tourist into a Mobed by Meher Master Moos for which I faced criminal action from her but the High Court dismissed her application.
When I first became Trustee, the AIMZ group was beginning to garner attention. At that time many of us inquired with our Parsi lady friends and their non Parsi husbands whether, in principle the non Parsi father would permit their children to be parsi. Unfortunately then and also now many of the non parsi husbands still say that they will allow their daughters to be parsi but not their sons. ‘Mera beta mera hi dharam le ga’ is what I was told. This according to me was a proposition not worth considering.
Another very important aspect one needs to understand here is that whilst today the discussion of navjotes of children of Parsi women married to non Parsi men is very much religious based, it could turn into economics very quickly. If one was to allow children of non Parsi fathers into the faith today, it would mean that the children could very well upon attaining majority seek the same rights as those of full Parsi children or children of Parsi fathers. Today the BPP has till date held it’s ground, however if this preferential treatment to Children of non Parsi fathers is challenged, there is a very serious possibility that this could lead to a serious spiral at us losing our parsipanu in a matter of a few decades.
Whilst the children in essence would be Parsi by navjote, they would still have their non Parsi fathers last name, possibly living in our colonies. This can have catastrophic effects to the long term longevity of our colonies and Baugs which we as a community have protected all these decades.
I am aware this is a very sensitive topic and many women of the younger generation will call my views barbaric and ancient but this has been the law since 1908 and it remains the law as we speak. If challenged, there will be definitely a majority of our population who will vehemently oppose this attempt to change the law – because changing the current law is to very large extent changing the face of our community.
Warm Regards,
Dinshaw Mehta
Dear community members,
Late Monday evening of 23-10-2017, I received a call from one Trupti Parekh of NDTV inviting me as ex-Chairman of BPP to be a panellist on the discussion of Goolrukh Gupta case pending before the Supreme Court and on my agreeing was told to attend their office at ELPHINSTONE Road at 6pm next day for the taping of the interview and panel discussion. Unfortunately at around 4.30 pm on 24-10-17, I was again informed by Trupti of NDTV that I was dropped from the slot due to space constraints.
I saw the 10pm show aired by NDTV under the banner “The Buck Stops Here” and was quite disappointed at its contents as the show tried to bring in gender equality questions as well as children of Parsi females married out when however the Goolrukh Gupta case which is before the Supreme Court has only one limited prayer that – she should be allowed to perform the Parsi rites and rituals at Bulsar Doongerwadi of her aged parents.
To capitulate, the BPP when I was Trustee and Chairman allowed women married out under Special Marriage Act without conversion and continues to practise the Zoroastrian religion to be consigned to our Doongerwadi and our two Agiaries on a simple Affidavit declaring the same.
Thus all Goolrukh Gupta at this point, has to do is to state on Affidavit that she has not converted on marriage and continues to follow the Zoroastrian faith and she then cannot be barred from all her rights to Doongerrwadi and Agiaries.
I am aware of the facts of this case, However the rumour is that Goolrukh Gupta married under Hindu Vedic rites of Phera, she changed her name from Goolrukh Adi Contractor to Neha Gupta on marriage and became a member of her Joint Hindu family and filed her Income Tax returns as HUF under the name Neha Gupta implying thereby that she converted on marriage and hence was no longer entitled to Parsi rites and rituals if true. It is for Gtoolrukh/Neha to confirm by Affidavit what religion she follows and accordingly she would get her rights to Doongerwadi or not. Her case is not about gender equality or rights of her children which she has not claimed.
As regards children of inter-married couples, The community must be made aware that in the past all the High Priests have unanimously opined that the inter marriage rule applies equally to both males and females and their children. There is gender equality as far as High Priests are concerned. So the vilification of our High Priests and Dasturji Kookadaru on national television is most unjustified and morally wrong and I humbly request all to retract your statements against them.
I must bring to your attention that the right of the male marrying out and their children allowed to have their Navjots done emanates from the 1908 Davar Beamon Judgement even though it is obiter dicta and the practise, though religiously untenable as per High Priests, has been followed since then of males getting this preference over females. This judgement in orbiter has laid down the law as it stands right upto date.
Further, there is no need to rake up a non issue. The law as it stands is quite clear that females marrying ‘without conversion under Special Marriage Act’ continue to be Zoroastrians and can be consigned to Doongerwadi. All that is required is an Affidavit confirming that she has not converted and continues to profess the Zoroastrian religion. You will be pleased to know that during my tenure as trustee and Chairman, many Parsi ladies married to non-Parsis under the special marriage act have given the BPP affidavits stating that they have NOT converted to any other religion, been married under the special marriage act and continue to profess our faith. Such ladies are permitted to visit all the BPP agiyaries and can be confined to our towers of silence.
Unfortunately as the law stands today, the children of women married out cannot become Parsi Zoroastrians under the current law. I am very communal and religious minded as far as my community is concerned. You might recall that I was the only Trustee to go to Sanjan with other supporters to stop the conversion of a Russian tourist into a Mobed by Meher Master Moos for which I faced criminal action from her but the High Court dismissed her application.
When I first became Trustee, the AIMZ group was beginning to garner attention. At that time many of us inquired with our Parsi lady friends and their non Parsi husbands whether, in principle the non Parsi father would permit their children to be parsi. Unfortunately then and also now many of the non parsi husbands still say that they will allow their daughters to be parsi but not their sons. ‘Mera beta mera hi dharam le ga’ is what I was told. This according to me was a proposition not worth considering.
Another very important aspect one needs to understand here is that whilst today the discussion of navjotes of children of Parsi women married to non Parsi men is very much religious based, it could turn into economics very quickly. If one was to allow children of non Parsi fathers into the faith today, it would mean that the children could very well upon attaining majority seek the same rights as those of full Parsi children or children of Parsi fathers. Today the BPP has till date held it’s ground, however if this preferential treatment to Children of non Parsi fathers is challenged, there is a very serious possibility that this could lead to a serious spiral at us losing our parsipanu in a matter of a few decades.
Whilst the children in essence would be Parsi by navjote, they would still have their non Parsi fathers last name, possibly living in our colonies. This can have catastrophic effects to the long term longevity of our colonies and Baugs which we as a community have protected all these decades.
I am aware this is a very sensitive topic and many women of the younger generation will call my views barbaric and ancient but this has been the law since 1908 and it remains the law as we speak. If challenged, there will be definitely a majority of our population who will vehemently oppose this attempt to change the law – because changing the current law is to very large extent changing the face of our community.
Warm Regards,
Dinshaw Mehta
I have no dog in either of those fights.
But I will just point you to the most relevant mistake in your statement.
You say "tenets of OUR faith" but you actually mean "tenets of YOUR faith". The lady's faith surely doesn't say so. And therein lies the issue. And Hindus have always acquiesced to faithless, non hindu judges passing judgement. Its your time to take the medicine. The court will decide whose faith is the fairer one.
Please read the letter posted above.
My faith and her faith (if she remained a Zoroastrian) is the same.
Are you going to force Hindus to eat beef?
Are you going to force Sikhs to cut their hair?
Are you going to force Jains to eat flesh?
She won the case when it was proven that she had married under the Special Marriages Act and continued to follow the Zoroastrian faith. Most Parsi women hyphenate their Parsi surnames to their Hindu/non-Parsi husband's surnames for precisely this reason.
Cheers, Doc
My friend, You are the only Parsi I know. My personal sympathies are with you. I know how it feels when your culture and way of life is attacked and disappearing. But hey, the leftists need to sell their debauchery agenda and a lot of our society including our judges are brainwashed. Whattooodooo?
The article clearly says that all the lady needed to give was an affidavit. And that the whole thing is already allowed. I fail to see why the judgement offends you. In principle you argue against equal treatment of men and women because of practical considerations. Put your best fight up in court. Maybe pay the BJP, as you insinuate they are all bought over. I will support whatever judgement. Again, I have no dog in this.
I never said the judgment offended me. Please follow the discussion more carefully.
I said more that once that I agreed with the judgment (till experts can show me some proof that it is unlawful per our texts) and was in favor with it in principle.
The caveat I added was that it had set a precedent, and that it was a case of overreach by the state. Being private religious spaces with Right of Entry clearly defined by our community and its laws, the state had no business adjudicating on it.
Same for the Haji Ali Dargah.
Cheers, Doc
The third paragraph is the part which I allude to as offended.
It was all jasmines and roses when judges of Parsi and other faiths were legislating on Hindu religious places and issues. I am not aware of any directive to make sure that only Hindu judges were allowed to handle Hindu faith cases.
Whats good for the goose...
You've been repeating this for some time.
Some concrete examples with the religion of judges would help.
As such you are indulging in classic whataboutery. Instead of saying whether the state is overreaching or not. Regardless of the specific faith.
Cheers, Doc
When You're Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression.
Thats the point. The majority has not dug into the religion of the judges rather argued on the merit of the case. You continue doing identity politics.
I am no judge.I can't say if the court is overreaching. I simply stand by it, trusting its fairness. Thats a duty of every Indian.
Hello! What identity politics?
I never once mentioned the religion of the judges hearing the case.
On the other hand, you did more than once. With regard to Hindus. And now us minorities getting a "taste" (whatever that means .... no identity politics there I suppose).
Now you want to throw it at me as me playing identity politics? LOL
Sorry, but you're all over the place buddy.
Cheers, Doc
Last edited:
The point is, you are questioning the right of the court to judge on Parsi matters. You have Parsi community leaders who have passed judgement against other Parsis. And you expect the court to not interfere.
But in principle, this has happened to Hindus too. Why was it okay for you that the courts passed judgements on temples? Are you saying that its a hindu rashtra that the courts can legislate on hindus? Because thats what you mean. There was no principled opposition then. But now I am telling you, your Parsi community leaders are not the law. The Indian judges are the law. We both best listen . There aint no minority.
Because technically there is no such thing as overreaching by a court on Indian soil. Anywhere can be entered with a warrant. If you commit a crime inside your private house, you are still under Indian jurisdiction.
I have to leave now.
I said it before if you want to counter CBN offer reservation for Kapu caste in AP whose population is 15% largest grouping, They were promised reservation by CBN, but was not delivered till now, the violence that erupted burned trains. If you want to corner those 15% votes and dent CBN in AP, this is the way of paying back CBN's opportunism.
The last elections TDP got 45% votes while YSRCP got 44% the difference was 1.5% it won't be a cakewalk for CBN this time with three parties inn fray, if BJP wants to become king maker in AP ,follow the above strategy.
But the state controls our 1 lakh temples, So Secualr demorcracy my foot.
As I've told you before, you also get the Lions share of reservation in this country.
Not to mention benefits for the poor and downtrodden - since most of them.are also yours.
Think of it as paying for all of that.
Cheers, Doc
Bingo.That answers your long stated doubts on this country's secularism . Do remember when these reservations were written into the Constitution by the Constituent Assembly chaired by Dr. Ambedkar , the bulk of the CA was comprised of the INC along with other minor parties with token presence and eminent public personalities notably jurists.
Also written into the Directive Principles were a ban on cow slaughter , the desirability of an UCC and tough norms on conversion .
There was little or no presence of the so called Hindu political outfits here except some members of the Hindu Mahasabha.
Hope this puts paid to the theory we are a genuinely "secular" country for such a genuinely "secular" country doesn't exist .
To extrapolate from a previous post in a thread , the Constitution of any nation bears the imprint of the ethos of the majority grouping in any liberal Westminster style democracy be it the US or UK or France which bears the imprint of a Judaeo Christian world view or the Indian Constitution which reflects it's Hindu ethos .
Never denied our Hindu culture. Which most of us embrace voluntarily.
There is nothing voluntary or shared about the Sangh.
There was little presence of Hindu hardliners because they were fringe, never involved, and collaborators for the most part, sucking up to the Brits for favors.
Which is why their newfound nationalism disgusts those who know their origins and history in the freedom struggle.
Cheers, Doc