Zoroastrian ideals

Even a quick glance at a group of Parsis at a wedding function will reveal a considerable admixture with Gujaratis in the long centuries of agrarian backwardness. (This is to say nothing about the fact that a biologist can hardly distinguish between different homo sapiens at the mito­chondrial level, and the DNA difference between a chimpanzee and a human is, I believe, less than one percent.) So trying to preserve "ethnicity” is not just a losing game, but one without any scientific validity.

However, to the extent that some group identity is necessary for the transmittal of culture over time, and across generations, to that extent a tribal identity is fundamental. Once Parsis die out, or the sugar completely disappears into the Indic milk, an anthropological text, or a recording, or a navjote video in a library cannot substitute for the real thing — a living culture. It is not entirely necessary to have the same genetic material transmit culture over the centuries (although that certainly helps). Consider, for example, the Gypsies who left Northern India before the 10th century. Today, if you look at a European Gypsy, there are barely any traces of Indianness in their faces. And yet they have a distinct culture, with songs, values and language that are identifiably Indian.

So under the "Gypsy” scenario, Parsis would intermarry and change their looks (as they already have partially) and yet retain their culture and religion. Having said that, in the 21st century, this appears unlikely. What kept Gypsy and Jewish cul­ture going for so long is persecution and the absence of globalizing forces. For Parsis, neither would seem to apply.

By the way, Jews outside Israel, in Europe or North America, are melting into the main cultures in which they live, in the same way that the Parsi sugar is melting into the Indian milk. (Far from being persecuted, they are today wealthy elites.) The difference in their case is that there were enough of them to form the state of Israel, and after a few bombs such as the one at King David Hotel, planted by future Prime Minister Begin, the British gave up and admitted Jewish refugees into Palestine. None of these conditions apply to Parsis.

So the likely outcome for us is neither the Gypsy case, nor the Jewish case. Parsis will die out, leaving behind the glories of Zoroastrian theology and ideas. No matter. It has been a long and luminous run over two-and-a-half millennia. Zoroastrian theology not only permeated Judaism but also Christianity in terms of teleology, the afterlife, the question of evil, and so on. That is the past contribution, which has profoundly affected human evolution already. What I find even more exciting for the coming centuries is the Zoroastrian notion of "Frasho Kereti” or the gradual remaking of human society and the universe itself with the progress of ideas.

In this sense, Zoroastrian ideals and concepts are not just for the anthropological textbook, but remain an idea still ahead of our time. Nobody worships or glorifies the descendants of Orville and Wilbur Wright. No one prostrates himself at the feet of the grandchildren of Edison or Ford. But their ideas live on and empower our global civilization. We can take similar solace in Parsiness and particularly in Zoroastrian ideas and ideals.

Dr FAROK J. CONTRACTOR

New Jersey, USA