Jam-e-Jamshed: Return to the fold
With a new editor taking over Jam-e-Jamshed, the recently acquired reformist views of the 177-year-old Parsi weekly may be toned down
By Manoj R Nair / Mumbai Mirror
On Sunday, readers of Jam-e-Jamshed, a Parsi community weekly and one of the oldest newspapers in the country, were surprised at the sudden change in its editorial line.
For the last few years, the 177-year-old newspaper had been the voice of what is the ‘reformist’ section of the community. The latest subject of debate in the Parsi-Zoroastrian community has been the ban on two priests from praying for the dead at the Towers of Silence.
These priests were restricted from the cemetery by the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP), the community’s apex representative body, for offering after-death prayers for members opting for non-traditional methods of funerals such as cremation and burial. The priests have also been accused of conducting Navjotes or initiation ceremonies of children with mixed parentage. A group of eminent Parsis has petitioned the Bombay High Court against the ban.
The Jam-e-Jamshed had always been critical of the ban on the priests. However, the latest edition of the paper featured articles written by orthodox priests supporting the ban. Community members said that many of them were taken by surprise at the change in the newspaper’s stance. The sudden shift in the editorial tone has been attributed to a change in the paper’s editorial leadership.
Jehangir Patel, Editor, Parsiana, a liberal weekly for the community, said, “There is bound to be a change, as the new editor is considered to have more orthodox views on community issues. Jam-e-Jamshed has always been orthodox in its views. It is only in the last decade that it had become liberal.”
Solicitor Berjis Desai, who also writes a weekly column on Parsi issues in Mumbai Samachar, another venerated community institution said, “The new editor is considered somewhat orthodox in their leanings. There will definitely be a change in the paper’s policy. One could already see the changes in the latest edition of the newspaper. The orthodox section has staged a coup of sorts by getting a person empathetic to their views to head the editorial.”
Jam-e-Jamshed’s new editor Shernaaz Engineer said that the paper had no editorial comment or article on the ban on the two priests. “However, a question recently arose – is there an established practice of “High Priests” among Parsis? A couple of readers responded via letters – which were the only letters received on the topic. To read politics into ‘Letters to the Editor’ is uncalled for. Jam-e-Jamshed will maintain a fair and balanced editorial policy,” Engineer said. “It is a 177-year-old newspaper. It has a long legacy. I would request the community elders not to turn it into a political battleground.”
During its nearly two-century-old existence, the Jam-e-Jamshed has seen changes in ownership and content. It was a daily, though now it only publishes weekly. The Gujarati-language paper now has an English section to cater to the new generation, most who do not read the community’s adopted language.
The publication is now owned by the Dubash family, believed to be liberal in their views on issues such as inter-community marriages. However, they are also not known to interfere with the editorial content of the paper.
During the 2008 polls to elect trustees to the BPP, the newspaper was a vociferous opponent of the orthodox group that eventually won the first election where all adult members could participate. While the reaction from its general readers to the sudden editorial shift has been that of surprise, orthodox leaders facing intense criticism from the newspaper are hoping for a respite.
Dinshaw Mehta, BPP Chairman said, “Jam-e-Jamshed had always been very orthodox in matters of religion. It had suddenly taken a U-turn and started propagating the reformist line. Hopefully, with the change in editorial leadership, the BPP-bashing will stop.”



Has anyone heard of Double Standards ? If not, there is a lot to learn from our Deformist friends on Parsi khabar
If the Traditionals are called names such as Bigots, racists, Taliban, myopic, closed minds that is perfectly OK since it has come from the mouth of the “progressive and modern” thinkers. But come what may, the orthodox are supposed to keep their mouth shut and not utter a word in their defence in spite of all these expletives and adjectives. A deformist blogger has even said —>I am increasingly of the mindset that perhaps it may be just as well at the former die out. Times have changed and they refuse to budge one inch. (The former meaning the orthodox)
I would like to ask this blogger that God forbid if the orthodox had died out, would the religion ever survive ? Would the religious institutuions ever survive ? Would the Pav Mahel which the priests have so painstakingly guarded and preserved would they have survived ?All this would be a thing of the past and there would be no religion left.
If Rustom passes a comment to Behram or vice versa on the forum it goes against all rules, they are supposed to discuss things at five gardens (whatever that means) but if Dhongi, Anti Religious and Anti Rational, saf, Piloo, Pirojshah (one and the same ID) Silloo, True Orthodox Zoroastrian discuss and pass congratulatory messages scratching each other’s backs on the forum that is allowed and acceptable. Different strokes for different folks.
So far the Traditionals have always been kind, courteous, peaceful and dignified in their comments and criticisms towards the deformists but the deformists on the other hand go out of their way to hurt the feelings and sentiments of the traditionals. Why they do so is anybody’s guess.
The liberals were originally called reformists until one smart alex from the reformist camp came up with the suggestion that our prophet was also a reformist of the highest order. Following and giving due respect to his view we have decided that the liberals / reformists obviously cannot share the same level as our prophet, so have been assigned the term deformists as their main aim has been to deform what has been reformed..
Dhongi..I can always talk to anyone on the phone or at any place…ofcourse since your n urs groups false mis leading information cannot cannot cut thru,me writing here must be a grave concern for you…
Then ure groups figment of imagination statement like that Parsis betrayed India!!, Vendidad is not a zoroastrian text, that archeological evidence is not evidence at all!!!! armchair pghilosophy that Persians didnt have tools to dog n construct etc etc etc…the blame game of belittling others including scholarly priests, nitpicking and findign loo-pholes to end/change zoroastrian systems with that wisdom, and ofcourse with that wisdom, your group being divorced from reality and thus misrepresenting non conversion, not forcing anyone etc etc with talibanisation…
And lastly tear jerking…when academically proven completely wrong…
Dhongi…Like one dosnt become a Ghandhi by wearing a Ghandhi topi, ARZ and AZA can try and fool others and jump bandwagon and advertising strategies but their core of anti dakhma, and thrusting its demand to change on Zoroastrianism and zoroastrians is quite evident….
As evident as ure thirst to make others wear horse blinds on others with such false campaigns..
Just like you being a Dhongi but having a suffix contrary to it, trying to once again fool others….after all ure groups have to be the mouth piece taking over from Jame that has come back to its roots!!!
Dear True Orthodox Zoroastrian.
Thanks for your note.
Here at Parsi Khabar we try to tread a fine line between publishing news and opinion and not doing so. I agree with your concern that it does not portray the best image of us Parsis to the outside world. However in trying to safeguard this “image” I fear that we will lose the opportunity to debate and argue out points.
There are many a comments that we need to filter and edit, and some that we don’t.
I will try to be more stringent in what gets approved and what does not. However, not publishing opinion is not really an option that we would consider.