The corpse carriers: Parsi untouchability

A news story on untouchability among the Parsis may seem like an anachronism, but this is how the pallbearers in the community are treated.

They are now protesting, not against the untouchability but their pay scales. These khandias have to work at odd hours, live amongst corpses till they decompose completely, and it takes a long time for there are no birds of prey these days at the Doongerwadi Tower of Silence at Malabar Hill. The solar panels leave the bodies "soggy". As one khandia was quoted as saying, “When we go to drag the body, a hand or a leg comes off."

These men are treated with contempt, as the report conveys so well. They can't live in the Parsi baugs, there is separate drinking water, they need to purify themselves before entering a fire temple, and when they are given money they have to open a pouch so that the donors do not get contaminated.

The contamination bit bothers me, and it is not restricted to Parsis and is rampant in all communities. The pallbearers are carrying and cleaning people who were once loved and lived amongst us. How does this defile them? Is it only considerations of infections that might pass? I think not. If that were the case, then long after they have washed and aired themselves, they would not still be ostracised for being who they are.

What is the point of funeral rites and memorials if we cannot respect those who ensure that the deceased have a dignified last image?

There are always exceptions to the rule, but that only emphasises how entrenched these non-scripture, non-legal rules are and also how social norms and prejudices have a greater say than them. It is appalling that we continue to be trapped in fears of contamination.

Some years ago, there was a demand for some purification ritual because actor Arjun Rampal (who is married to a Parsi) had said he had sneaked into a fire temple — as a kid. I had written Parsi Controversies then.

We do pull up Hindus for their practice of untouchability, and rightly so. But Muslims, Christians, and Parsis are offenders too. Muslims have a higher caste of Syeds, and many sects look down on others — including not having water in the house of one or treating another's rituals with contempt. Even if a religion talks about the differences, should we not move with the times? Ages ago, there were probably reasons of survival of the fittest and assertion of territory to be factored in. Today, social mobility makes these redundant.

The hypocrisy makes things worse when there is talk of dignity of labour in public and scant consideration privately for those performing such tasks. Why is it that a person with a degree doing a menial job is seen as honourable but one 'born' into it not so? These prejudices are not ingrained but learned. And such learning is also about some form of intellectual superiority, and therefore slavery.

If we must shun, then shunning these double-faced consciences should be considered good untouchability. 

The discovery of Nehru

On Nehru's birth anniversary, the idea is not to take away from the majesty of the individual, but to bring into focus the dilemmas that human beings who are forced to be what they are not face.

As he could not give them the loin cloth ethnicity that would give them something to talk about, I suspect Nehru used the buzzword 'industrialisation' to make the British feel that they had done a good job of tutoring the natives. He had no agenda for industrialisation (except socialism!) and he was mighty afraid of the spectre he had created and also envious of those who could do so. Therefore, while Gandhi, who had no interest in the subject, happily partook of the hospitality of the Birlas, Nehru the angel of industrialisation stayed away.

It couldn't have been probity. It was contempt for the Marwari community that had the money and the business acumen to take India towards the unholy grail.

It may be difficult to digest the image of Nehru as a communalist, but in a larger sense he was. In that he was aware of where he came from and from where others did. The doyen of the Parsi community, J R D Tata, had an uneasy relationship with him. If Nehru knew his Mozart, had been to Cambridge and used his silverware with a flourish, so did most Parsis. They built an empire, believed in philanthropy and did not think it necessary to hide their westernised thinking. Nehru did not like that.

The final blow came when Firoze Gandhi, no mean parliamentarian himself, swept his daughter off her feet. The father never forgave that. Had he not strictly forbidden Indira during her childhood from reading fairytales?

With Muslims, there was talk of his 'Islamic flavour' and political amity, but when it came to brasstacks, things were different. In 1937, he rejected Jinnah's proposal for a Congress-Muslim League coalition saying that there were only two parties in India - the Congress and the
British. Many believe this was when Pakistan was born.

Another example of his parochialism is evident in his sending his widowed sister Vijayalakshmi's suitor, Syed Hussein, off on an ambassadorial assignment, thus putting an end to the romance. But on the poor man's death Nehru, the public romantic, did not forget to build a mausoleum in his memory. To be fair, he did look after Sheikh Abdullah's family when the latter was in prison, which made the Sheikh weep uncontrollably on the platform where the dead Nehru lay.

Millions may have followed his funeral procession and his popularity in life may been unprecedented, but it is also true that security guards hid behind the bushes of his house and the kitchens of his prospective hosts were examined before he could taste a morsel. His populism put him at risk.

Later in life, he was besotted with "the old Hindu idea that there is a divine essence in the world". His Will stated that his ashes be strewn over the Ganges. It may not have been a religious gesture, but two days before his death he had written about the "concept of dharma".

History judges people in many ways. One is to judge them by their last words. In which case Nehru saw to it that if the divine essence went out of the grasp of his family, divine wrath would turn upon the country. The architect laid the foundation in the form of a magic carpet. He could pull the rug from under our feet anytime he wished.

Did Nehru, then, also believe in voodoo tricks?

---

[This was published in Mid-day, November 13, 1996]

---

Also: Nehru, Ambedkar and a cartoon

Tata’s Serious About Cyrus

It’s a girl…oops, I mean, it’s a Parsi! After the hoopla over a Bollywood star giving birth to a baby, the front pages reverberated with the earth-shaking – or is it game-changing? – news that Ratan Tata, chairman of the Tata Group, has finally found a successor. Cyrus Mistry, besides being humble, intelligent, young, mature, family man, foodie, car-lover, who plays golf, is also bloody rich. He is the son of construction magnate Pallonji Shapoorji Mistry, and already owns an 18.4 per cent share in the company he will now head.

He says he will dissociate himself from the family business to prevent a clash of interests. Socialites who love to throw their danedelion words around are applauding the brave move that does away with dynasty. Idiocy! Cyrus inherited his papa’s business; he is inheriting the chaimanship because besides being humble, intelligent…you get the drift…he also holds the largest outsider stake in the Tata pie.

And while it is sad that he may not have enough time for golf (I am not saying this; it has been quoted), he will still be the good boy who made it better. His being a Parsi is also a sort of dynastic thing considering the dwindling population. I say this because Ratan Tata had mentioned last year that his successor need not be from the community. Not just that, he also said, “In my opinion the successor should be a suitable person for the job. He need not be a pro-Parsi or anti-Parsi.”

Well, from the looks of it, Cyrus will have to walk the razor’s edge. But then, according to an insider, “Mistry is one person who can laugh at himself.” Great. I was kind of worried for this Irish citizen who will have to deal with such Indian things.

- - -
For my take on his earlier Parsi comment, here is Tata, goodbye

Tata, goodbye

So the next head of the Tata group need not be a Parsi. Is it good news? Does it mean that the great big Indian industries are getting out of their little family holes?

Not really. The simple reason for looking for "the right person" is that Ratan Tata has no direct heir. It happened even when JRD was around and poor Rusi Mody had to go back to playing his piano as Ratan was called upon to wear the mantle. This time around, there could be absolutely no right person within the family ranks.

I am quite certain that the Parsi community will be disappointed. The Tatas, for whatever reason, stood for a certain different class of business that got associated with the community. Just as Marwari, Gujarati business houses are. If they can stick to their lineage, why can the Tatas not?

I find it curious that Ratan Tata is emphasising that it is an Indian company. Of course, it is. Does being a Parsi take away from that? It might be considered an extremely liberal attitude on his part, but let us not forget that there is a difference between a stake-holder and the chief. The latter will perform a role; s/he will not inherit the empire.

There is this superficial liberalism that does not amount to much. Narayan Murthy’s son gets engaged and it makes front page news and he and his fiancée, who is also from a business family, are portrayed as royalty of sorts.

Another gem from Ratan:

“In my opinion the successor should be a suitable person for the job. He need not be a pro-Parsi or anti-Parsi.”

If he is not interested in the Parsi angle, then how does it matter? Do head honchos have to take an oath that they don’t care one way or another for Parsis?

Now if he had said he need not be pro-Modi or anti-Modi, then that would be talking.

The Parsi Controversies: Two sides of the coin

There is every reason to respect a community that contributes to society. However, blind belief in the whole community’s abilities and unquestioning attitude towards it makes absolutely no sense.

The Parsis have managed to be seen as the good guys irrespective of anything. The fact that they choose to lead exceedingly ghettoised lives does not seem to concern anyone.

Today’s papers say that they have demanded an apology from actor Arjun Rampal, who is married to Mehr Jessia, a former model, for certain statements he made in an interview about walking into a fire temple pretending to be a Parsi. Rampal clarified that he had walked into the garden of a fire temple when he was eight.

That is not enough. The Parsi Panchayat is livid. They are reacting…Non-Parsis are not allowed inside fire temples. If he was eight, why is he bragging about it now? Yes, they think it is bragging.

Even worse is this:

Everybody in Mumbai knows that non-Parsis are not allowed to enter the fire temple, said Firoza Mistree, a researcher of Zoroastrian studies. Mistree says that the actor should apologise and identify the temple so that it can be purified.

This incident must have occurred at least three decades ago. How many devotees must have prayed there and been born or died in the course of this happening. What purification ritual is possible?

While it is true that a religion must be respected, how do people ascertain who is a Parsi and who is not? There are many people marrying across religions and I do know of the Parsis in such marriages who want their children to be aware of their side of the culture as well.

That too has created problems.

Khushroo Madon, a Zoroastrian priest, has been banned from praying at the Towers of Silence and fire temples for conducting Navjotes (initiation ceremonies) for children from mixed marriages and offering after-death prayers for cremated Parsis. He has been doing it for ten years and said:

“I will continue to offer these services. I am not bothered by the ban. I do not practice at the Towers of Silence or at fire temples. I do not want anything from there. Those who call me for prayers usually decide the place.”

Increasingly, people are opting for cremation. And as I already mentioned, people do wish their children to become Parsi, at least to some extent, since Zoroastrianism forbids conversion to its faith. The report mentions that 40 per cent marry outside.

The priest’s actions do go against the basic tenets, but for those who are using his services outside how legitimate do they think it is? Is this merely a feel-good thing for them? Does he charge more money? Is there a confidentiality clause involved wherein he would not reveal the identity of those who approach them? If so, then what are these believers seeking if they wish to be hidden? Just one more ceremonial religious identity?

These are questions that those indulging in it must ask. Just as the real Parsis must know that no religion is blemish-free and scandals beset even the pure ones. They do know about some priests and their activities at the Tower of Silence, don’t they?

Now, we have a whole bunch of people questioning the newspaper report where the priest himself has been quoted. Will anyone raise a voice and refer to it as ‘backward’ and ‘intolerant’ as they do with other religions? No. Will anyone from outside dare to tell these community leaders it is time to reinterpret their scriptures? No.

Muslims, Hindus, Jains, all have restrictions on outsiders being participants. And their faith is always put to test, which it should be when it goes beyond reasonable limits. The same standards must apply to Parsis.

After all, when they came to India they said they would be like sugar in milk.

- - -

Image of Khushroo Madon from Mumbai Mirror