The weaker sex?

Both at the PARZOR meet in Bombay in October and the Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI) meet at Bardoli in November 2003, the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India J. K. Banthia sounded the warning of a momentous demographic decline. "The time may come when the birth of a Parsi child will be a cause for national celebration,” he stated. Banthia warned that the 2001 census figures would be below the 1991 figures and that the "writing was on the wall.” Despite decades of census figures pointing to the decreasing Parsi population and in spite of the figures being collected by an objective third party that has no monetary or religious motive, many Parsis still believe the reducing numbers are a myth. They say that out-migration accounts for the diminished figures in India. While migration causes a dent in the numbers, there are no means to gauge the exact numbers that have migrated. It’s pure speculation. The Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) chief executive had written to the US government asking for the figures of Parsis who had migrated to the USA but was informed that statistics are not maintained according to religion.

From 1940 to 1990 the Parsi/Irani population in India has declined from a peak of 1,14,890 in 1940 to 76,382 in 1990, a loss of around 38,500. The 2001 figures are still awaited but in all probability will be less than 70,000. It is unlikely that so many Zoroastrians from India now reside outside the country. There are no overseas Parsi population surveys that we are aware of and the Zoroastrian directories published abroad state that many residents have not responded to the questionnaires or requests for names and addresses. It is unlikely that the total diaspora constitutes more than 30,000 to 35,000 and there is every chance the figure is much lower. This of course does not include the Zoroastrians in Iran or those who have migrated from there to the West.

Of those who have migrated from India, many have started families in their new homelands. Hence the figure of 30,000 or so would represent not only Parsi migrants but their children born in the new country. Thus even allowing for migration, the numbers in India are declining.

But even assuming that 38,000 Parsis migrated from India and this accounts for the dwindling numbers here, what consolation is that to the community? Finally we will be left with no Parsis in India. Who then will live in our baugs, worship in our fire-temples, avail of the scholarships and medical assistance, etc? The claim that out-migration has resulted in the fall in numbers does not make any greater difference than if we were dying out for other reasons.

In Bombay around 10,000 deaths take place every year as per the figures and names of the deceased released by the BPP. The number of births is difficult to gauge as the Bombay Municipal Corporation no longer mentions religion on the birth certificate. But even when the religion was mentioned, the numbers were in the 400 to 500 range.

Today around 300 marriages take place in Bombay every year. Of these nearly 100 individuals marry out of the faith (50 percent of them being men). Thus around 250 couples whose children would be considered Parsis are united every year. If they all had a child each, we could have 250 births a year.

Of course everyone does not have a child and many delay childbirth for economic, social, professional or other personal reasons. People also space out their families. Hence the annual birth figures would be around 250 to 350 at the most. This means the Bombay population would lose around 650 to 700 Parsis every year. This is also Banthia’s estimate.

The figures from places like Poona and Hyderabad are equally distressing. At the Federation meeting in Bombay in June 2003 the representatives of these anjumans gave alarming statistics: 27 births and 76 deaths in Poona in 2002, and 14 births and 60 deaths in Hyderabad from 2000 to 2003.

The orthodox stance is to deny the decline in numbers as they deem it a pressure tactic to admit the children of non-Parsi fathers and Parsi mothers to the fold, amongst others. But adding another 50 births a year to the declining numbers will not reverse the trend.

Indeed the very question of acceptance has to be viewed not from a demographic angle alone but as a step to improve the quality of life of the intermarried and their progeny.

Unfortunately Zoroastrian women have proved to be very un-Zoroastrian in fighting for their rights. They have suffered, though not always, in silence. But aside from nursing a genuine grievance they have done little constructively to end the discrimination and injustice they are subjected to. And the greatest sufferers are their children who are not considered Parsis. The Association of Inter-Married Zoroastrians was formed to battle discrimination against the intermarried but it has belied that expectation.

One can sympathize with intermarried Parsi women in Bombay or Gujarat being hesitant to file a case challenging the 1908 Bombay High Court Petit vs Jejeebhoy ruling that did not include their children in the definition of Parsis. They would face considerable verbal abuse and harassment from the cruder elements in the community (and we have plenty of evidence of that judging by the behavior exhibited at BPP elections). But Parsis residing in Delhi or Jamshedpur or Madras would not be so incessantly targeted.

The former Chief Justice of India Sam Bharucha had stated in his speech at the inauguration of the FPZAI meeting in Jamshedpur in December 2000 that the "anjumans and pun­chayets should consider the ad-mission into the faith, by the performance of the navjote, of a child born to a Parsi mother and a non-Parsi father, provided such child is the product of wedlock and the father is a consenting party. I know that a judgment delivered long back by the Bombay High Court would seem to be standing in the way, but if the anjumans and punchayets all resolve that this is the appropriate practice to adopt and the practice is challenged on the strength of that judgment, it can, given the change in circumstances, be overruled” (see "Seeking new directions,” Parsiana, January 2001).

In 1981 when the orthodox groups tried to bar Parsi women from registering to vote, they moved the Bombay High Court and won.

In 1990 when Roxan Shah was denied the right to have her body consigned in the Towers of Silence, the liberal Parsis rallied together and pressured the Punchayet to permit Parsi women married to non Parsis the right to be consigned to the Towers of Silence, subject to certain conditions. So why the hesitation here? For a community that has fought foreign occupation, battled social injustice, espoused women’s education and rights, this reticence is incomprehensible. True, there may be opposition from the non-Parsi husband’s family. Yes, there would be social embarrassment. But surely there must be at least one Parsi woman who will brush aside all these genuine concerns and assert her constitutional rights?