“The Nagpur incident”

Having read "The Nagpur incident,” (Parsiana, November 2001) I’d like to add my voice from Toronto to the community’s furore.

Ervad Marzban Hathiram’s usage of the term "bastards” to describe the offspring of intercommunity marriages is inexcusable. Then again he makes a pathetic attempt to defend his position by offering a lamentable apology. To quote the scripture "that the greatest grief is caused to Ahura Mazda by the mingling of the seed of a Parsi Zoroastrian with that of a non-Parsi” sounds ridiculous and laughable. There are scores of far weightier, abhorrent issues vexing the world today which must cause the good Lord far more grief.

DINA AUSTIN

Ontario, Canada

I wish to take the liberty of replying to Ervad Marzban Hathiram’s response in justifying the use of the word "bastard,” for children born of intercommunity marriages ("The Nagpur incident,” Par­siana, November 2001).

To begin with, it must be made clear that, whereas Zoroastrianism is a religion, the word Parsi refers to a sect of that religion living in India who have since introduced a lot of Hindu customs in our Parsi traditions and ceremonies, but which have nothing to do with Zoroastrianism. There were no Parsis in Iran. It appears that Hathiram has mixed up the two terminologies. One can be a Zoroastrian without being a Parsi.

Hathiram states that the Zoroastrian religion does not recognize any marriage except those between descendants of Parsi Zoroastrians. In his defence he quotes the Avesta, Vendidad and Pahlavi texts. There is nothing in our true religious scriptures like the Gathas, as taught by Zoroaster, to this effect.

Hathiram then goes on to say that we are the descendants of the 2,000 Aryan men and women who left Iran to come to India to preserve our unique identity. Even by basic schoolboy arithmetic, one cannot visualize how we could have managed at one time to grow to a population of nearly two lakhs by procreation within our own fold only. More than 40 percent of our pure Aryan Parsi community has Hindu blood in it. Even with my fair skin I believe I have also some mixed blood in me, but am not ashamed of it.

Hathiram says that even amongst the Christians (only the Catholics) the Church does not recognize marriages outside its denomination. This may be true, but children of such marriages are not called "bastards” but are made Catholics, as they are all legitimate as per the civil law of the land, and enjoy all its privileges and freedom. We should also do the same, accept such children into the Zoroastrian fold if they wish to do so.

Hathiram forgets that in any country, the law of the land always supercedes the law of any religion, and that applies to marriages as well. In the past, Parsis have always been proud to be Indians first and then one of its various religious denominations, and let us stay that way.

It is bad enough that the dakhma issue has raised a lot of bigotry problems which has made us the laughingstock of the world. However, this was contained within the Parsis and it didn’t affect any other community. On the other hand, the bigoted statements made by Hathiram at Nagpur have a far-reaching ramification in that it will unnecessarily antagonize other communities against us. Such statements must be condemned by all as it goes against the basic concept of the state policy of secularism.

Brig NOSHIR B. GRANT

Poona

I was both amazed and appalled to read "The Nagpur incident” (Parsiana, November 2001). Notwithstanding all the literary and religious clarifications given by the learned man of God on the usage and derivation of the word "bastard,” I feel that as a guest speaker at the Gymkhana function, he should have used his sagacity (a quality normally associated with priesthood!) before making such an outrageous announcement. I sometimes wonder if a similar outlandish remark would have ensued had a late dynamic prime minister of the country or a departed pioneer of civil aviation in India attended such a function! Would these ‘greats’ also have been peremptorily banished to the confines of illegitimacy being the offspring of intercommunity marriages? That would call for real guts and an absolute courage of conviction.

People of my generation constantly find fault with our youngsters in the community for using swearwords at the drop of a hat. Why not, when they have such role models to emulate? Such outbursts by members of the clergy reek of a form of Talibanization and do not augur well for the community.

SOLI CANTEENWALA

I am neither a Zoroastrian scholar nor a dogmatic believer. To me good thought, good word and good deed are the tenets of our religion — simple and straight! Therefore, I am deeply shocked and repulsed at the usage of the word "bastard” by none other then a priest himself! Sad indeed is our plight if we have such a spokesman for the teachings of Lord Zarathushtra. A man who can’t realize the derogatory meaning of a word used cannot be a dharampita (protector of the religion). Shame, is the word that comes to my mind. No amount of justification in the form of dictionary meaning, or disobeying the commandment of our religion, can ever allow anyone, and least of all a priest, to call anyone by that name!

The utterance of that single word has literally unlegitimized the whole Parsi kom. Every single Parsi family today has mixed marriages, and this has been going on since centuries. Does this mean all of us are the recipients of that title?

Unfortunately Parsiana had to give us this sordid episode of Nagpur, along with the awesome dedicated work of a Parsi doctor, Firuza Parikh who incidentally is married outside our pure community.

See the light, Parsis. Don’t get bogged down by the darkness of bigoted minds.

RODA D. HAKIM

Baroda