Superb letter exposing ANTI-Zoroastrian side of Dinshaw Tamboly

By Karl K. Sahukar

Karl K. Sahukar has written the following superb letter exposing the ANTI-Zoroastrian side of Dinshaw Tamboly, in which he says about this BPP Trustee "he has no qualms in abetting the conspiracy to kill off the Dokhmenashini system!"

This is very shameful. A BPP Trustee aiding those who want to destroy our sacred system of Dakhmanashini!

Tamboly, then calling his Traditional Zarathushtri brothers and sisters as "religious fanatics", insults and degrades his very own Zoroastrian forefathers who were all staunch Traditionals. The Fravashis of the Zoroastrian forefathers must be very sad due to the words and actions of this man, who is going against the very religion he was born in.

Karl, irrespective of whether the Jame publishes your letter or not, it has been placed on the Traditional Zoroastrianism Home page at for future reference by the Zoroastrian community worldwide.

As we say in India, may Truth prevail: Satyameva Jayate. May falsehood be defeated.

This letter has been sent to:

"BPP" E-mail:
"Dinshaw Mehta" E-mail:
"Minoo Shroff" E-mail:
"Dinshaw Tamboli" E-mail:
"Dadi Engineer" E-mail:
"Keki Gandhi (FOPZAI)" E-mail:

From: "Karl Sahukar"
Subject: Plain Speak or Plain Fibbing???
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 12:26:26 +0000


Dear Friends,

It was interesting to read BPP Trustee Mr. Dinshaw K. Tamboly’s letter titled “Plainspeak!!!” in the Jam-e, dated 31st August 2003, and compare it with a similar letter written by him on 25th August 2003 to the “Anjuman Committee” and “Fellow Zoroastrians” (abroad).

At the outset, let me assure you that the contents of both these letters are, to a very large extent, identical. However, here, I only wish to draw your attention to certain inclusions and omissions that have been (un)intentionally(?) made by our Trustee who is so fond of facts and figures!

It is apparent that Mr. Tamboly knows exactly how he should portray himself to the audience at hand. Conservative/traditional leanings whilst addressing the local humdins in India (via the Jam-e), and ‘pragmatic’ leanings whilst addressing our “progressive” brethren abroad! How else does one explain the following paragraph, which is for the eyes of the “Anjuman Committee” and “Fellow Zoroastrians” (abroad), and a strict no-no for the local populace?

“Over 6 billion human beings reside on our planet, out of which, Zoroastrians as we understand and accept are barely 150,000. The ratio of non Zoroastrians to Zoroastrians is 40,000:1. Inter-marriages are thus a stark reality of our times. No one encourages such unions, neither is anyone happy when they occur. However, at some stage or the other, the non Zoroastrian spouse is accepted as a member of the family. If a non Zoroastrian spouse can be accepted as a member of a Zoroastrian family what is so disastrous about their being accepted as a member of an organization?”

I wonder why this paragraph was left out of the article printed in the Jam-e? Unintentional omission or “Editor’s privilege”? As Mr. Tamboly considers this (intermarriage) to be a “micro issue”, as he mentions elsewhere in his letter, perhaps he feels that the Jam-e readers should not be burdened with this extra statistic? Or is it that he knows fully well that the local populace in India, who, by a large majority still hold “traditional” views, would be displeased by reading his words which shrug off intermarriage lightly, and thus lead them to question, to a certain extent, his personal leanings in the matter? For though his supporters proudly proclaim Mr. Tamboly to be a “traditional”(!), perhaps in his heart of hearts, Mr. Tamboly knows of the mask he wears!In his subsequent subtitle, the “Cosmopolitan Agiary”, Mr. Tamboly continues in the same vein of subterfuge. The next omission in the Jam-e, cleverly side steps the confrontational stand taken in his letter to the ‘select audience’ (abroad). At the outset he mentions that the “very heading is ridiculous” and that the assumption is “preposterous”. To the Jam-e readers he states: “I do not believe that any Zoroastrian institution or individual would ever consider undertaking such an outrageous undertaking.”

Now see what he writes to the ‘select audience’ only, cleverly omitting the above-mentioned line: “If the intention of EZFTT was really to establish a cosmopolitan agiary at London, who could have stopped them from doing so?”

Mr. Tamboly knows that the Jam-e readers in India would rightly consider any thought of establishing a cosmopolitan agiary, simply outrageous, and hence soft-peddled the former line. But what about the EZFTT (The European Zarathushtri Fire Temple Trust) Trust Deed, which Mr. Rohinton Irani displayed whilst on his fund-raising trip to India, where it clearly stated otherwise? Since the EZFTT plans went kaput, Mr. Tamboly calls them ‘outrageous’, ‘preposterous’ and ‘ridiculous’, but then how does one explain him being party to such “outrageous”, “preposterous” and “ridiculous” plans in the first instance! In fact, one of Mr. Tamboly’s campaign managers had even volunteered that Mr. Tamboly was “not aware” of the cosmopolitan nature of this Agiary, and that when he found out, he backed out of the project!

Now, aren’t they talking at cross-purpose? So whom do we believe, Mr. Tamboly, or his staunch supporters? I’d say neither, simply because Mr. Tamboly has, in the past, lied with a straight face to more than 3,000 people at the Samast Anjuman Meeting at Rustom Baug. Surely, a person who feels he is competent enough to stand for a second term at the BPP, a person who claims to have disbursed Crores of Rupees to help Parsi folks “get back on their feet”, should have known the raison d'être of our community leaving Iran to land on Indian shores! And if he truly isn’t lying when he claimed ignorance of the fact why the Parsis left Iran for India, he has no business holding any position of ‘trust’ within the community!

On the Doongerwadi imbroglio, Mr. Tamboly has no regrets siding with the DDD-AG, in aiding the crematorium lobby. In fact in his letter to the ‘select audience’, he goes on to state that should the circumstances arise once again in the future, he “as a mature and responsible Trustee”, would “have no option but to go through the same motions as earlier”!! This means that he has no qualms in abetting the conspiracy to kill off the Dokhmenashini system! Friends, I urge you to ask community members supporting Mr. Tamboly, if this is the kind of person we want at the helm of our community affairs? No prizes for guessing why this particular paragraph was omitted by the Jam-e!

As mentioned earlier, Mr. Tamboly plays to the gallery, and if the audience wants drama, so be it. In the next show if the demand is for comedy, no problem ­ we’ll change the script! And that’s exactly what has been done. A line here, and a paragraph there, on fund disbursement (which we all applaud, time and again), have found its way in the Jam-e, but are strangely missing elsewhere! Isn’t the ‘selected audience’ interested in this, or are they too busy looking for something else?

Of course, in his last paragraph to the ‘select audience’, the icing on the cake is Mr. Tamboly’s loud and clear reference to us, the Parsi Traditionalist, as the “lunatic fringe”, which, in the Jam-e, he politely calls the “religious fanatics”!

Thank you Mr. Tamboly, for letting us know your brand of charade!


Karl K. Sahukar

Zoroastrian Matrimonial Page

Traditional Zoroastrianism Home Page

Saga of the Aryans Home Page