“Be wary of ‘worshipers’”

As prelates, our responsibility is to safeguard our religious institutions from untoward instances which are brought to our notice from time to time. With greater emphasis, we stand by what we have said in our earlier letter about the unfortunate Karani Agiary incident (see "Be wary of ‘worshipers,’” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, March 2002).

Ardeshiri and many others like him have been visiting India to seek acceptance from the Parsi Zoroastrian community as they have not succeeded in gaining acceptance from any of the Zoroastrian anjumans in Iran. Does Ardeshiri have the right to enter our fire-temples without proving his Zoroastrian antecedents, which, one is entitled to know, if one suspects his Zoroastrian credentials? In fact, we have been given to understand that this person is not a Zoroastrian and has a political agenda which he wishes to promote for his own ends, under the guise of claiming to be a Zoroastrian. Clearly, we have to safeguard our holy institutions from such untoward intrusions.

Prof Rustom Fuzaylov may be a distinguished academic in Tajikistan and we have nothing to say about his professional or personal interest in Zoroastrianism, as an academic wanting to transliterate the Avesta into the Cyrillic Tajik script.

Our objections are directed towards the fact that we have no incontrovertible proof of Fuzaylov being a Zoroastrian, having been properly initiated into the Zoroastrian faith by a priest who has the authority to do so from the Kankash-e-Mobedan in Iran. Moreover, if he is of Iranian origin, then he should carry some sort of shanas nameh (identity card) or a letter of admittance into the Zoroastrian fold duly given by the Kankash-e-Mobedan in Iran, accepting such a person.

We require to have clear proof that the Tajiks truly profess the Zoroastrian religion, as it is not good enough to state that due to the Communist rule over the last 80 years, they have been unable to practise Zoroastrianism. In fact, in our view, when there is religious persecution of any form, in any country of the world, the true followers of the faith practise the religion with greater zeal and determination. This does not seem to be the case with the Tajiks. Moreover, two respected Zoroastrians from London visited Tajikistan some years ago, with a questionnaire prepared by the University of London and they visited various places in order to find out, factually, as to whether the Tajiks who claim to be Zoroastrians hold any beliefs and practices which one could identify as being those of Zoroastrian Iran, either ancient or modern. The UK Zoroastrian gentlemen did not find any Zoroastrian traces in their travels in Tajikistan in terms of manuscripts, books, fire-temples, the living traditions, customs or ritual practices, etc, which clearly belie Meher Master-Moos’ claim of these people being flesh and blood Zoroastrians, practising their faith from ancient times. Clearly, if that was the case, then we should find solid evidence going back to the pre-Communist days, if it is a mere three generations back. But it does not so appear. For us, as prelates, to accept the genuineness of the Tajiks being Zoroastrians, we require incontrovertible proof of living Zoroastrianism, albeit cloistered, to have existed before the Communist era. Until such evidence is presented to us we are unable to accept the claims of Master-Moos and her Tajik supporters and well-wishers.

In our opinion, the so-called Zoroastrian College run by Master-Moos does not conform to the rigorous requirements of a recognized institute of higher learning. The degrees so given by the Zoroastrian College should be recognized at accredited institutions which teach Iranian studies as part of their regular degree programs, like the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, or the University of Cambridge, UK or Harvard University, USA or the Universities of Gottingen and Heidelberg in Germany, to name but a few. These are some of the key centers of Zoroastrian studies which we are confident do not accept students passing out from the Zoroastrian College degree program run in Sanjan. Just because some institutions based abroad accept the bonafides of the so-called Zoroastrian College does not mean that we should lower our scholarship standards and accept the claims made by Master-Moos about her institution.

In our opinion, every Zoroastrian does not have an automatic right to enter our places of worship, as merely professing to be a Zoroastrian is not good enough. Tomorrow, anybody can claim to be Zoroastrian and so does it mean that they can walk into our agiaries and/or atash behrams? Moreover, admittance is open to someone who has to be a Parsi/Irani by lineal descent and is a duly initiated Zoroastrian by religion, in order for that person to enter the fire-temple, legally; and even then, the panthakies and/or the trustees of the fire-temples have the right to debar such a person wanting to enter our place of worship.

There is no question of violating the Constitution of India as has been alleged by Master-Moos in her letter to the Press; but common sense tells us that what we have stated is the normal custom and practice followed in India and therefore one’s nationality plays no part in this matter. Indeed Parsi/Irani Zoroastrians who live in Canada and have Canadian citizenship will be permitted to enter the fire-temples in India by virtue of the fact that they are Parsis/Iranis as of race and they have been duly admitted as Zoroastrians, as of the religion. Clearly, Master-Moos’ "friends” from Tajikistan do not fall into this category.

It would help if Master-Moos adhered to proper religious scholarship and sought to run courses based upon accredited academic standards, rather than seeking to give us advice which we believe to be erroneous and misleading, in the first instance. In our opinion, there is no shortcut one can take if one wants to be a true scholar of the religion, for which full-time studies at a proper university are required. Unfortunately, no amount of ‘anointed titles’ before one’s name can give one credibility of true learning and scholarship.

It is unfortunate that at a time when the community is riddled with controversy another storm is being created by Master-Moos who has sought to promote her own agenda against the well-established practices and customs of the Parsi/Irani Zoroastrian communities in India. Incidentally, the word ‘dastur’ is derived from Pahlavi dastwar which means ‘one who wields authority,’ especially a Zoroastrian priest [in Avestan, dastvaan (Y.46.7)] and not as Master-Moos has wrongly interpreted ‘to lead by the hand.’

We sincerely hope that in the future Master-Moos will desist from misleading our people about the customs and practices of the Zoroastrian faith preserved and followed by the Parsi/Irani Zoroastrian communities living in the traditionally known pockets of the world.

Dastur (Dr) KAIKHUSROO M. JAMASPASA

High Priest, Anjuman Atash Behram

Dastur (Dr) FIROZE M. KOTWAL

High Priest