Resolution refrain

Invited to a jashan in a Parsi home, a Hindu friend was im­pressed. It reminded him of a Vedic ‘havan’ and chanting. He had a most favorable opinion of Parsis as a modern, progressive, achieving community. Having borrowed my Parsiana of April and May, 2003, and appalled by the controversy created by the Parsi High Priests, his frank and direct reaction was: "Of what consequence are these High Priests in such a modern, educated community?”

For years the community has tried to retain respect for the High Priests, despite some flagrant statements of a few. Now, as a collective group, they themselves have put that respect and their future credibility in the community on the block! They should take long, conscientious ‘sanyas,’ to seriously consider with a higher ‘Vohuman,’ the self and community damaging conse­quences of their unwise and inhuman resolution; unwise in their own and the larger interest, inhuman to thousands of Parsi fa­milies who have members married outside, and especially to their innocent children. That damage is in four ways.

First, to their discredit, that resolution totally lacked any supportive evidence or reasons in scripture, history or social science for their categoric views. To that extent, it did seem like the Imam’s ‘fatwa’ or authoritarian ‘diktat,’ of which they have been accused. Were they influenced by a few Fundamen­talist elements? They should have known in this time, that any kind of Fundamentalism is hate inspired, and does either physi­cal, or moral, or psychological violence to its victims; though they may disclaim it and state other objectives. Are their per­ceptions of themselves, and the community, and matters on which they arrogantly "hereby declare,” several centuries out of date, and, under the skin, a reflection of caste influence of early centuries in rural Gujarat? If so, what is their relevance to 21st century Parsi Zoroastrians in India and abroad?

How come the High Priests were so divorced from the views of thousands of well educated, responsible and good Zoroastrians? Do they live in an isolated shell of their own, even when they say they are concerned with the survival and identity of the communi­ty? In plain words, these High Priests have landed themselves in a mess of their own making; apart from a realization by half of them, of the harm they have done to the very community in whose interests they claimed to make that rash resolution.

The third amazing damage is the lack of any intellectual understanding of the nature of the problem they claim to remedy, "the survival of the community.” What is their knowledge and competence in the demographic and sociological nature of the problem? When they speak of only "stray instances of past mixed marriages,” they show little scruple for truth or Asha, unfor­tunately. If they had cared for factual truths, they would have found such marriages as high as 30 percent, in places, even higher at about 50 percent and growing. Complex problems require a respect for factual truths first.

The fourth reason for their concern was "the preservation of our religion,” a valid concern of priests especially. A time has come to ask about the role of High Priests and priests in the 21st century of science, stress, conflicts, interfaith times, and multicultural societies. In such a globalizing world, what have Zoroastrian priests done, or should do, at least in a humane, pastoral role to help grow good Zoroastrians beyond the navjote ceremony? What have they done or should do for Zoroastrians who are poor, widowed, orphaned, aged, or in any form of suffering? If mixed marriages are their anathema, what have they done in the suffering of those divorced, and their children when the father or both parents are Zoroastrians? Surely these are meaningful, humane areas of concern for priests claiming to be concerned with people’s lives and souls, their preservation, identity, religion.

It is amazing that in 2003 — not 1003! — our High Priests’ resolution seems in violation of at least four major aspects of Zarathushtra’s message, the true Zoroastrianism. First, respect for ‘Asha’ or Truth of the problems of their claimed concerns, "survival of the community” and "preservation of our religion.” Second, ‘Vohuman’ or application of the higher mind for ‘harmony’ and total community, not sectoral, narrow concerns. Causing dissension and suffering is hardly an example of ‘Vohuman.’ Third, their implied denial of the universality of Zar­athushtra’s message for all humanity, not exclusive for any ethnic or tribal or caste group, and certainly not racial. Fourth, after repeated "hereby declarations” without any evidence or reason, the High Priests forget that Zoroastrianism expects each man to "hearken with his ears to the best councils, reflect upon them with illumined judgement.”

These issues are far bigger. They are crucial for the future of all caring, responsible Zoroastrians. ASPI D. MODDIE

The six High Priests have certainly put "the cat amongst the pigeons” (or should I say "amongst the vultures”). The resolu­tions of the six High Priests only underlines the importance of the clergy, and yet so little is done to ensure that only the best amongst us be trained to become mobeds and dasturs.

Enter the Anglican Church. Admittedly it was not an easy decision, but now this church entertains women priests. So why can we not do so? We need new blood, fresh ideas (liberal, moder­ate and conservative). And on a similar theme why should our priests only come from certain families and "castes?” We want the best, so the market place should be opened up for all Zoroast­rians, male or female, priestly caste or other.

Pay peanuts and you get monkeys. Hence all our priests should be paid competitive salaries. They could be sponsored, either by affluent Zoroastrian organizations or by rich individu­als. Now I’m not suggesting that all dasturs sport a logo on their apparel whilst performing their duties, but mention of the sponsorship could be made in any official literature or at func­tions. Perhaps agiaries in their entirety could be thus sponsored.

Perhaps the single most attractive aspect of living in the West is the concept of "freedom within the law.” So if an indi­vidual wishes to be cremated, that is his choice, as it would be if he wished to donate his body for the benefit of medical re­search or if he chose to become an organ donor.

I think that our religion is rather insular. In the UK for example, there are multi faith committees, action groups, etc comprising leaders of different religions, where topical issues are discussed openly, frankly and amicably. Naturally, one of the benefits of such forums is that leaders have opportunities to pick up ideas, and perhaps for the more enlightened amongst them to actually try and further these ideas. I believe that there is great mileage in learning from other great religions, and borrow­ing good ideas from them, and conversely ensuring that obvious negatives are avoided like the plague. And even more than religi­ous doctrine, I refer to customs and the way these other reli­gions "conduct their business.”

Take Judaism for example. We can learn from Jewish chari­ties, and how these charities ensure that poverty amongst Jews is anything but commonplace. True, there are many wealthy Jewish businesses and foundations, but what is noteworthy is the quality of the charitable activity that works closely with such organiza­tions, and with individuals, both wealthy and not so wealthy. I’m sure that Zoroastrian charities can learn from Jewish charities. Letters in Parsiana always seem to mention the greatness of our religion and of Parsis. However until poverty is eradicated, until the old are looked after with full dignity in their autumn years, until all our agiaries are always well maintained, until our priests are well paid (and which therefore would mean no more shortages), until our infirm can get the best medical attention (overseas, if such treatment is not available locally), until there is a good fostering and adopting process for orphans, (and I daresay there are other areas that I could mention), the word "great” is perhaps overkill.

S. RUSTOMJI

Middlesex, UK