Talk:Jamshedji Sorab Kukadaru

Untitled
created talk page

I have further edited this page and put sections and changed wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deenparast (talk • contribs) 03:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Have done the needful to clean up further by removing caps etc. Deenparast (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit-War
Dear Porushh, Please refrain from edit-warring on Jamshedji Sorab Kukadaru, I understand he has great religious singificance for you but it is is not for you to unqiuely decide to call my facts controversial or even that are doubted by most of the Parsi community. Parsi Prakash recorded the Mazgon Dock navjotes, as a historian of Parsi history I can tell you it is the one of the best primary sources for anything vaguely Parsi related. There is NO historical debate as to whether Mazagaon Navjotes took place. Additionally, it is well established that Kukadaru was not an Dastur until after his death, he was simply an Ervad further elucidation of this has been made by Michael Stausberg and Ramiyar P. Karanjia in Enclyopedia Iranica. --Failosopher (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Failosopher, my apologies, but my views are not "unique" as you put it. Many Parsis do object to using this page of a Parsi saint for furthering the controversial topic of conversion. This page was non controversial for many years, someone later added these words about the Mazgaon incident, and made this simple devotional page honouring a great saint of our religion into a place for furthering the contentious topic of conversion. This seems to be a misuse of the page. We request you kindly to please remove the contentious words and leave this page as it was first created, a devotional page in honor of a great saint and his miracles, and not a place to further conversion, which is a controversial topic for the Parsis. Many Parsis do not believe in conversion. God Bless you and yours. User:Porushh (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Porushh, I cannot be more emphatic in stating that the Mazgon conversions occured. It is backed up Parsi Prakash, and heaps of Gujarati sources, I understand your orthodox opposition to this but Kukadaru saheb did participate in the navjotes and your feelings wont change what is largely presumed as a fact. I would say the most traditional Parsi priest I know, would be Marzban Hathiram who had written about the navjotes. As a compromise, I will change the position of the text in the article and move it further down. I also suspect you are creating multiple accounts to edit this page, please be aware that this is disruptive editing and is against Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not an outlet for 'devotional pages' but an enclyopedia detailing facts. The article has a generally NPOV, not supporting conversion, which I agree most Parsis do not agree with (despite considerable historical evidence for). Thank you for your kind wishes. I hope we can resolve this without resorting to creating multiple accounts, if you havent created these accounts and are not the same user as deenparast, fidubaba, Yazad23- I apologise.Failosopher (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Failosopher, thanks for your reply. The most traditional Parsi priest would reply that the saintly Dasturji was a God-realized saintly soul and had the spiritual authority to do certain things which none of us have today, indeed we are all waiting for the Rainidar Behram Varzavand. The Mazgaon incident may have occured in those days as a one-off event, Dasturji may have participated as an impartial observer, but you are using that innocent incident to propagate "Universal" conversion on this devotional page about a saintly person, which is somewhat wrong, if you look at it yourself objectively. The page was set up for devotional purposes about a great saint and not for traditional-liberal controversy. Many Parsis would feel your use of this devotional topic to further the idea of conversion is somewhat wrong. You can mention the Mazgaon incident lower down but as a compromise kindly remove all reference to the reformist lobby or universalism or conversion which are highly contentious topics for our community. This is our sincere request, we feel a devotional page about a Parsi saint should not be used for such contentious topics. About the recent edits by Fidubaba or Yazad23, they are born Parsi-Zoroastrians like myself from our motherland India. God Bless you and yours. PorusHH 00:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Failosopher, these are the edits we request from you to put an end to the re-editing of this page:

Make a new section at the very end saying "Mazgaon Navjots" In this section, please put: "Dasturji Kukadaru was reported to have participated in the Mazgaon Navjots of people born of inter-religious marriages in 1882, as per the records in Parsi Prakash, an Orthodox Zoroastrian newsletter. In 1882, a group of poor dock workers living and working in Mazgaon Docks appealed to various Priests & High Priests and also petitioned the Bombay Parsi Panchayet (BPP) for being admitted to the Parsi fold, as being born to inter-married parentage. About 200 prominent Parsis collected funds and eminent Dasturjis performed the Navjote ceremony, in the presence of a large gathering on 26 June 1882. Eleven navjotes were performed (4 males & 5 females, age ranging from 35 years to 77 years & two children) on persons born of inter-married parentage. This one-off event was duly reported in the Mumbai Samachar, Jam-e-Jamshed and ‘Parsi Prakash’."

The above reports the facts without propagating conversion, and this compromise would be fair and satisfactory. Hope you will agree. God Bless you and yours. PorusHH


 * Porushh, I have put up an edited version of the exiting text as to comply with Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. Thank you for resolving this dispute in both a sensible and timely manner. Failosopher (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Failosopher, thanks for moving the section, but the section still seems to have some conversion words so it is not fully neutral. I will edit it as per what I suggested and then please see if it is ok since it will be reporting the Mazgaon incident. I am not against reporting the incident on this page, but the reporting should be neutral, neither speak in favor of or against conversion. Hope that is fair. This was a one-off event in those days so it should be treated as such. PorusHH 03:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * porusHH, no it was not a one-off event. Read the rivayats, especially the Itthoter Rivayat of 1773. Failosopher (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Failosopher, it was a one-off event in recent history. Mass conversions were certainly not the norm in our community in 18th century India. I have agreed to the inclusion of the Mazgaon incident instead of removing it altogther, but on the provision that it is not used to push conversion, which your version certaily does. We can agree to leave out any reference to conversion. I will edit the article again to that effect. As I mentioned before, I will not be against reporting the incident on this page, but the reporting should be neutral, neither speak in favor of or against conversion. I think this is a fair compromise. This would be in line with Wikipedia principles. You must be fair to both sides, not just the conversion side. I do know that many Parsi friends would support me in this, and we should not have continual edits and rollbacks. God Bless you and yours. PorusHH 04:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The only 'push' for conversion the passage contains is the statement that "Reformist Parsi groups often cite this as an example of Universal acceptance of all in Zoroastrianism." which is a neutral statement, that is factual. You could also say something to the effect of 'conservative elements within the community dismiss this as a one-off event' (if you can find sources). Failosopher (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Failosopher, if you see all the previous edits, some of us did try to keep that statement and add the traditional view point twice, but that was deleted. It seems someone wanted only the liberal viewpoint to remain on this page. So it is better if the conversion topic is left out all together, no space to either the traditional viewpoint or the liberal viewpoint. That would be fair. One more point, note that http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kukadaru-jamshedji-sorab does not mention this incident at all. By the way, when children of inter-religious marriages were accepted in this incident, it does not imply conversion, these were poor people and it would have been done out of sympathy and humanity, and that may be why Dasturji participated. We dont know what happened in those days, but we shouldnt use the name of a great Parsi saint to propagate something like conversion which is not practiced by the majority of the Parsi community and is not accepted by our Vada Dasturjis (High Priests). Also note that no God-realized saints or masters have ever okayed conversion, all have spoken against changing a person's religion. As an example, the saint Sai Baba of Shirdi once slapped a man who had changed his religion, saying, "So you have changed your father!!" This is how great saints feel. They know that all religions lead to God, and man should find God in his own religion by loving God in that religion, and that conversion and changing the religion God has given you birth in, is wrong. God Bless you and yours. PorusHH 02:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear PorusHH, 'some of us'- I'm sure refers to the accounts that conviently seem to edit the same pages as you (e.g. the Saga of the Aryan vanity piece which was deleted after I tagged it for speedy deletion). I agree that a NPOV is essential but then again I am not the person who repeatedly tried to remove the concerned paragraph. Whilst Enclyopedia Iranica is authoritative it obviously is not pefect and will not contain every important event in Kukadaru's life. Also I do not understand the point you make that a navjote ceremony is not coversion? and that the priests felt sympathy for poor people and let them become Zoroastrian?. Have you heard of Darab Sanjana, Jivanji Modi, Shehryarji Bharucha, Khurshedji Rustamji Cama, Tehmurasp Dinshahji Anklesaria who were all scholars that were in favour of conversion. Also note that the notion of 'god-realized saints' is pretty subjective, furthermore orthodox Zoroastrianism dosen't have anybody who can declare a saint (i.e. we have no formal beatification process). Yet again, I am sure you will use your favourite strawman of the 'majority of the community agrees with me'. Sai Baba of Shirdi also that Mohammed (pbuh) should be worshipped by all, let's see how this fits in with your pseudo-universalism. Also I find it distatesful that you condescendingly keep defining words, I am a Parsi too. NAMC (North American Mobed Council) at its 13th AGM 2000 passed following resolution unanimously with one abstention. This was during the tenure of presidency of Ervad Jal Birdy, present vice-president of the Traditional Mazdayasni Zoroastrian Anjuman. The resolution reads:

I will cut my loses as this conversation is neither relavant nor a sound use of my time. You refer to the same strawmen over and over again. You dont properly understand NPOV and you cant see things from another point of view. Be happy with the resolution we agreed to. Persistant disprutive editing will land you in hot water. Failosopher (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Parsi is a race.
 * 2) Zoroastrianism is a religion.
 * 3) The term “Parsi” applies to the descendents of the original migrants who left Iran to settle in India to preserve Zoroastrianism
 * 4) A “Parsi” is a person born of both Parsi parents who has an inalienable right to practice the Zoroastrian religion.
 * 5) A “ Zoroastrian” is a person who believes and follows the teaching of Zoroaster.
 * 6) It is recognized that “Zoroastrianism” is a universal religion.
 * 7) It is further recognized that a Zoroastrian is not necessarily a Parsi.


 * Failoshoper, if you look on it objectively, and maybe we should get a neutral non-Parsi opinion on this, I think what we agreed on is fair, we leave out the topic of conversion altogether. That would be in line with NPOV since it avoids a controversial topic. NPOV signifies neutral reporting, it does not mean taking the side of conversion/universalism or its opposite. We have mutually agreed on this page retaining the topic of the Mazgaon Navjots and Dasturji's attendance. However, it must be totally neutral without mentioning conversion or universalism, that would be true NPOV. The other discussion on this talk page about conversion is not related to this page, but just for our personal discussion about these matters. To clarify, a Navjot of a child of an inter-married Zoroastrian is certainly not conversion, currently it is done in India for children of Zoroastrian fathers (although the traditionals do not believe in any inter-marriage). Zoroastrian fathers who have married outside currently do get their children Navjotted since the last 100 years, and they definitely do not call it conversion. If you think about it with a neutral mind, this may have been what happened in the Mazgaon Navjots, they were children of Zoroastrian fathers. You do mention a few scholars favouring conversion, thanks for that, but there are actually many other scholars who do not support the conversion theory, like Dasturji Mirza, Roni Khan or Pervin Mistry or our current Vada Dasturjis who are also Avesta Pahlavi scholars. So there are always two sides to the story. About our religion being "universal", that is debatable, as per Roni Khan's scholarly article series on universalism at http://tenets.parsizoroastrianism.com/roni33a.html . About Sai Baba of Shirdi, he was a great saint (our Indian definition of a saint is not beatification, it is of a man/woman who has realized the oneness of God with the Creation, like Sant Kabir, Tukaram or Mirabai) and has never said anything like what you have said, it is certainly not in the Sai SatCharitra which is an authorative source on the life of Sai Baba. Please do check it out. I wish you the best. God Bless you and yours. PorusHH 08:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Anjuman Atash Behram.gif