“On further reflection...”

"We have, on further reflection, reconsidered our position...” These much awaited words from Dasturs Kaikhusroo JamaspAsa, Firoze Kotwal and Noshir­wan Dastur formed the content of their letter which was made public on May 4, 2003. It helped to temporarily set to rest the discontent simmering within certain sections of the community since March 2003 when six High Priests denounced interfaith marriages and debarred children of such marriages from entering the fold.

A spate of letters and editorials in the community and general media, much debate and considerable acrimony, persuasion and pressure tactics were deployed to get the High Priests to retract their original proclamation (see "To safeguard the survival...” Parsiana, April 2003). But while Dasturs Hormazdyar Mirza, Meherji MeherjiRana and Nadirshah Unvalla held on to their original edict the three others sought to clarify, "It is not our intention to create disharmony nor is it our desire to add to the misconceptions prevailing in the community (see box, "Clarification from three High Priests,” for letter in its entirety).” The seventh High Priest Dastur Khurshed Dastoor who was not a signatory to the original resolutions did not therefore have to face the wrath of the community which was disappointed with the fundamentalist approach of the six others. Dastoor though continues to adhere to his Udvada Anjuman’s "clear-cut policy” of performing navjotes only if both the child’s parents are Parsi Zoroastrians. "I have only stuck by my Anjuman’s resolution,” he clarified on May 14, 2003. He had kept away from the High Priests’ resolutions because he did not agree with the wordings therein.

As per the "restated position” of JamaspAsa, Kotwal and Dastur, meant to "clear many a doubt and misconception raging presently in the community... if a Parsi/Irani Zoroastrian man marries out, then his children are treated to be Parsi/Irani as of race and Zoroastrian as of religion if they have been duly admitted into the faith through a traditional navjote ceremony performed by an ordained priest. This is provided that the Zoroastrian father of such children has married as per the civil law of the land and has not undergone a marriage ceremony involving the rituals of another faith.”

Former Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) chairman Eruch Desai’s article which appeared in the Jam-e-Jamshed of April 13, and their discussions with other Zoroastrians prompted them to revise their stand, acknowledge the three Dasturs. Desai had respectfully pointed out to the High Priests that their stand on intercommunity marriages was against the prevailing usage and law applicable in the country. Citing the history of the community and the views of scholars of yore to support his arguments, Desai’s impartial analysis of the situation had concluded with: "It would therefore be an act of statesmanship on the part of the concerned High Priests if they were to rethink on this aspect and issue an appropriate clarification keeping in view the above legal position and the practical difficulties.”

Viewing the three High Priests’ clarification as "an act of high statesmanship,” Desai’s letter in The Bombay Samachar of May 11 noted, "These are remarkable leadership qualities which should be a shining example for posterity too. The three High Priests have indeed guided the community in the right direction and I trust that the three others will follow suit in their own way on further consideration.”

"Let us all look at these three High Priests in a new light with respect. They have shown moral courage, character and rectitude in remaining flexible and not turning this matter into a prestige issue,” commended the front page editorial in the Jam-e-Jamshed of May 4. "By providing the necessary clarifications our High Priests have shown that they are men who respect the law and the sentiments of the community, that they not only have vision and knowledge but also good grace... the three High Priests have diffused a very volatile situation.”

The Parsi tari arsi column, edited by Berjis Desai, in The Bombay Samachar of May 4 noted, "Needless to say that we all make mistakes but it requires courage to publicly accept that one’s view was incorrect. With the publication of this letter this controversy should end. Of course, it is true that only three of the High Priests have addressed this letter thereby making it evident that the other three continue to stick to their stand. But the heartening news is that it is the three High Priests who really matter have addressed this letter...We think that all of us must, in a spirit of give and take and forgive and forget, treat this resolution to be history...”

Easier said than done for already a week later, in its issue of May 11, the Parsi tari arsi column refers to the Association of Inter-Married Zoroastrians contemplating legal action with a battery of eminent counsel as "they want that once and for all the courts must decide whether the children of non-Parsi fathers and Parsi mothers are Parsis or not.” The ladies who have married out are, according to Desai, apparently not content that the three High Priests’ clarification, as per the law of the land, restores the rights and privileges of males married out of the community. They would like similar courtesies extended to outmarried females too.

In the Jamé of May 11, former BPP trustee Jamsheed Kanga had raised certain relevant issues: "Since only three out of the six High Priests have reconsidered their resolution, what will be the effect on the priests? Which High Priests are the priests and laity to follow? Will that not mean further confusion in the community?”

The three High Priests declared that they have reconsidered their position "as stated in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Resolution with respect to the children of Parsi/Irani Zoroastrian fathers married to non-Zoroastrian women; the status of these children should continue as per the established practice and legal convention.” This prompted Kanga to further question, "Since only paras 4 and 5 of the resolution are cancelled while para 6 remains, it may be argued that any such marriages or navjotes done in the future would not be valid as this para 6 of the original proclamation forbids priests from carrying out such weddings and navjotes. This also needs to be withdrawn otherwise there will be more confusion and misconception. I request that a clarification be issued to remove all doubts and give a clear signal to the panthakis and priests.” Hoping that an informed decision can be reached Kanga believes "it is necessary to have an open discussion on this important issue.”

Following the proclamation of the six High Priests, the Borivli and Suburban Zoroastrian Association (BASZA) organized a three-hour colloquium on April 19 to ascertain the "views of the Parsi man in the street as opposed to the views of some high-profile, high-income individuals...The meeting overwhelmingly endorsed the Vada Dasturjis’ resolution though no formal vote was taken.” A write-up from the Association noted that the participants were divided into four groups which had to discuss for five-seven minutes the arguments for and against provided to them. The group spokesman then presented the summarized group opinion after which anybody from the house could have his/her say, the moderator, BASZA secretary Khurshed Pastakia passed further comments and the chair, BASZA president Noshir Paghdiwalla summed up the discussion (see "The Borivli discussions”).

Although willing to respect the law of the land, the three High Priests maintain in their letter, "We would like to reiterate clearly that in the long-term interests of the identity of our community, intermarriage should not be encouraged for the survival of our community and for the preservation of our religion.”

The Borivli discussions

According to the report submitted by BASZA, 18 issues were raised with the participants:

•whether Parsis have had a history of intermarriage since their coming to India — It was held that for almost 1,200-1,300 years intermarriage was never an issue, the few cases of cohabitation with locals and the navjote of their illegitimate progeny were stray exceptions to the rule. In the last century patrilineality found acceptance following the Daver-Beaman judgment and the ensuing silence from the then Dasturs who failed to provide clear guidance and leadership. It is the intermarrieds who eventually lose out and not the rest of us. The fact that intermarrieds want to stay within the Zarathushti fold is evidence that they realize their mistake.

•whether the prohibition on intermarriage had scriptural backing — It was held that the gathering was not competent to judge the merits or demerits of scriptural interpretations and hence would accept what the High Priests say as they are best placed to be our spiritual guides.

•whether the resolution is timely — It was held that ideally such a resolution should have come a hundred years ago to prevent the present imbroglio. This resolution attempts a cure, better late than never, to return to the right path. This controversy should not negatively affect our interpersonal relationships with those who have married out. We should not disrespect or shun them; just ask them not to interfere in our religious practices or thrust themselves on our institutions.

•whether the resolution would have adverse consequences on males married out and their children who after their navjotes had been practising Zoroastrians — It was held that the Vada Dasturs should provide suitable guidance on this ambiguity.

•whether the increasing clamor for permitting intermarriages was an indicator of the community’s vote — It was held that no religion has ever functioned based on adult franchise or democracy.

•whether there were valid reasons that provoked people into intermarrying — It was decided to organize separate workshops in the future to address the problems raised by the youth: complaints of Parsi boys being unenterprising, girls being over ambitious and seeking material comforts, deterioration in morals and ethics among the Parsi youth as against the non-Parsis who being equally westernized sometimes show more ‘class,’ aversion to the system of kaaj-w­allas (matchmakers), preference to live in nuclear families so that adjustment with a different life-style becomes easier, non-availability of good prospects who are already hooked.

•whether it is only religious injunction that mandates the prohibition against intermarriage — It was held that more than religious injunction is the need for self preservation. It is anthropologically proved that small tribes that have chosen to intermarry have invariably lost their ethnic identity. Unlike our forefathers who made sacrifices for communal benefit, we blatantly disobey the Zarathushti religion for personal convenience.

•whether the Wadia navjotes were justified — It was held that although the authorization was fundamentally wrong, this one-off act that has harmed nobody cannot be held as a reason to say that the Dasturs lack the moral authority to pass this resolution.

•whether intermarried households impart religions of both the parents to the children — It was held that if either parent had any respect for his/her religion, an intermarriage would never have occurred. Children of such marriages are culturally and ethnically rootless.

•whether the community should interfere in the individual’s choice of a life partner — It was held that freedom cannot be in conflict with established laws and procedures which have to be obeyed, whether one likes them or not.

•if Iranian kings could marry women of countries they conquered, so could present-day men intermarry — Such marriages occurred without the approval of wise men or the priesthood as gleaned from the sixth century text Gangesayi­gan. In fact intermarriages with the resulting treason, corruption, internal dis­sen­sions and religious rivalry finally weakened the Sassanian empire.

•whether the resolution would affect the mobeds’ bread and butter — It was held that mobeds as spiritual guides must possess morals of the highest order and set an example for the rest to follow. They should be learned, willing to perform the higher liturgical ceremonies, and earn the respect of the laity.

•whether accepting children of intercommunity marriages would lead to an increase in our numbers — It was held that by merging with others we might increase numbers but the resulting race will surely not be Parsi with its distinguishable physical and ethical characteristics.

•whether anyone can prevent the religion of Zarathushtra from being practised universally — It was held that religion is different from race and community.

•whether the Vada Dasturs have the right to issue ‘fatwas’ — It was held that the resolution is recommendatory and not mandatory where an offender againt the religion could be ordered killed.

•whether patrilineality should be accepted — It was held that sexual discrimination has never been part of our religion and the resolution rectifies that anomaly.

•whether intermarriage is a sin which Almighty alone has the right to judge — It was held that since intermarriage is an evil which could destroy the society, the community has every right to safeguard its collective interest.

•whether the resolution is blatantly racist — The adaptable Parsis have blended socially and professionally with other communities but they do not have to sacrifice their individuality and unique identity.