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