Dialog, not diktats

The resolution passed by the High Priests on the ides of March has raised a controversy not only in the community but also amongst the general populace.

Interfaith marriages are a phenomenon common to all strata of society internationally. Their occurrence is not comparable to an exotic religious custom or archaic system for disposal of the dead that affects a minority. This is a topic that touches nearly each and every individual.

A Hindu marries a Muslim, an Afro-American marries a white Anglo-Saxon, a Catholic marries a Protestant, a Jew marries a Gentile, a high caste Hindu marries a scheduled tribe person... the world has seen and experienced it all.

And yet what makes the Parsis unique in this regard is that while other faiths are keen to encompass the spouse and the children of such unions into their folds, the High Priests and their fundamentalist supporters not only want to keep the spouse and children out, they don’t even want the Parsi Zoroastrians to continue in their fold!

They offer no explanation for their beliefs except to state that "The High Priests are strongly of the view that our religious scriptures disapprove the marriage of Zoroastrians with members of other communities and faith and consider it to be a transgression of the tenets of the religion.”

"Strongly of the view” implies that this statement is only a point of view. And that is correct. Because over the years priests have given contradictory ‘views’ and the community has been subject to their erraticism. Circumstances and events appear to dictate what the priests will state at a particular time and place.

But they cannot change facts as easily. Zoroastrianism not only permits but enjoins conversion. Thus in ancient Iran if a Zoroastrian wished to marry a non-Zoroastrian, he or she would have been urged to convert the spouse to the faith and then marry. By stating that conversion is not the tradition in India amongst the Parsis and by citing that practice to justify their stand the Priests are contradicting the original tenets of the religion which enjoin conversion. They can be thereby charged of selectively citing scriptures to suit their convenience.

And this unfortunately is the charge being brought against them in the case of Neville Wadia. Five High Priests permitted the octogenarian businessman’s initiation into the Zoroastrian faith despite both his parents being Christian (his father Sir Ness had converted to Christianity and married a Christian lady). But nine years later they turn around and say that children born even of a Parsi Zoroastrian father are unwelcome, that their navjote ceremony should not be performed, that the parents’ marriage under the civil act "cannot be considered as religiously valid marriage under the Parsi Zoroastrian faith.”

Perhaps this is a new nomenclature, the ‘Parsi Zoroastrian faith.’ Or even a new religion. We knew of Zoroastrianism and we know that followers of this religion who came to India were referred to as Parsis. But we have never heard of a ‘Parsi Zoroastrian faith.’ Is this the faith that the High Priests are referring to? And has the community confused this new faith with Zoroastrianism? Are they the High Priests of Zoroastrianism or of Parsi Zoroastrianism? And who is their prophet then?

Just as the High Priests allege Zoroaster converted Mazdayasnis to Zoroastrianism and therefore it was a modification of the religion followed by the Mazdayasnis, so also Parsi Zoroastrianism could be a modification of Zoroastrianism. So now in addition to the terms Zoroastrian, Parsi, Parsi Zoroastrian and Irani Zoroastrian we have a fifth category, ‘Parsi Zoroastrian faith.’

The priests then should not cite Zoroastrian scriptures in support of their claims. They should cite the literature written only after 1908, when the judgement of Justices Dinshaw Dhanjibhoy Daver and Frank C. O. Beaman distinguished between the terms Zoroastrian and Parsi. On the basis of these recent ‘scriptures,’ they could make out a case for the new caste system they wish to enforce.

The question that most people asked when the Priests issued their diktat was, why now? What sparked off the letter? Why was an issue, that was not rankling in the minds of the community, suddenly projected onto center stage? After all interfaith marriages and the navjotes of children of such unions have been taking place overtly for decades. One answer may be that the orthodox camp, flush with their victory in stymieing the decision of the Bombay Parsi Pun­cha­yet trustees to offer space on the Doongerwadi premises for a prayer hall for those opting for cremation or burial, may have believed this was the time to strike.

But Doongerwadi became a topical issue for two reasons: the absence of vultures and the proliferation of residential buildings around the area. The stench of rotting corpses, the viewing of the naked bodies from the adjoining highrises, all cried out for attention. The solar concentrators provided an alternative and the proposed aviary, if it succeeds, may further alleviate the problem. In this case the community was able to offer a partial solution to a vexing and ‘burning’ problem.

But what about interfaith mar-riages and navjotes of children born of such a union? What is the solution here? A blanket ban that is non-enforceable? Name calling? Barring priests from blessing such unions? Denying initiation into the faith?

The High Priests’ letter was in the making for over six months to a year. There was obviously discussion, debate and differences on the issue. The fact that the Udvada High Priest did not sign shows there was dissent. And here Dastur Khurshed Dastoor, for whatever reasons he chose to abstain (he refused to elaborate when asked by Parsiana), deserves credit for taking an independent and sensible stand. So much criticism has been levelled at the six Dasturs — including questioning the right to the title of some of them — that sufficient commendation has not been given to Khurshed Dastoor for opposing the majority opinion.

It is not that the Priests have no other problems to occupy their minds. The dearth of Parsi employees in many agiaries results in non-Parsis sweeping and cleaning the premises (outside of the kebla). In places away from Bombay where Parsi electricians and plumbers are not available, non-Parsis have to be called in to repair fixtures. It is not that the trustees of the agiaries are against the ‘Parsi Zoroastrian faith’ but the practical difficulties remain. Should an out-of-town agiary spend Rs 1,000 to send for a Parsi electrician from Bombay to change a tube light fitting? Many agiaries are unclean. The dirt stains on the floors are easily visible. And yet Zoroastrianism advocates cleanliness.

What about the chronic shortage of priests? A situation has arisen where one agiary or anjuman snatches priests from another. Some unscrupulous priests take advantage of the desperation of the trustees and laity to ride roughshod over the local community. Surely these issues deserve collective attention?

How did the Priests so completely misread the mind of the community? On the issue of Doongerwadi they had support. But on this issue, which touches each and every Parsi household in one way or the other, they were deservedly chastised.

Perhaps they will now channelize their energies to constructive themes. They are after all men of integrity and intellect. The community is fortunate to have High Priests of such fine caliber, devotion, dedication and honesty. Most of them are scholar priests having studied in India and abroad and are held in high esteem in academic circles. They make no monetary demands. They live modestly on modest incomes.

They are people who, if you approach for guidance, help, reassurance, comfort, willingly give their time. They have devoted their lives to the community. If they have made an error it is not from any other motive than to serve what they believed to be the best interests of the community.

We are too small a community to divide between the liberals and the orthodox, the progressives and the conservatives. If the Priests want to put forth a point of view they have to do it through dialog, not diktats. They have to function as the High Priests of the entire Zoroastrian community, not only a portion of it.