Editorial Viewpoint
The key questions
There was a time when we came across Irani Zoroastrians in all parts of Bombay. They were identifiable by their robust and ruddy appearance, their bonhomie and their quaint Gujarati dialect. They were business-minded yet generous, warmhearted and often, hotheaded.
Their numerous eateries dotted across south Bombay provided nutritious food at reasonable rates. From budget conscious students to the well-to-do, a snack or a meal at an Irani restaurant was something to look forward to. But today the Irani Zoroastrians are even rarer than Parsis. Many, especially the young, have migrated to the West. The possibility of a better quality of life and the company of a sizable number of their brethren who fled Iran under the Ayatollahs' reign and now reside there, attracted them.
While the Parsis have been in India over 1,000 years, the Iranian Zoroastrian migration goes back probably to the past 300 years or less. Religious intolerance and persecution coupled with limited avenues to earn a living lured many of them to India's shore. And thereby hangs a tale. The country that spawned one of the oldest religions in the world, not only turned its back on the practitioners of the faith but also discriminated against them.
Even though Islam did not germinate in Iran, the fervor of its adherents saw it slowly but surely take root. Why Zoroastrianism and Zoroastrians failed to hold their own will always be a contentious issue. Had they lost their moorings? Had materialism replaced religiosity? Had the priests failed to nurture and guide their flock?
Jamsheed Choksy, professor of Central Eurasian Studies at Indiana University in his book Conflict and Cooperation: Zoroastrian Subalterns and Muslim Elites in Medieval Iranian Society writes about the gradual inroads Islam made in Iran. Everyone did not convert to the new religion on account of the sword or persecution alone. Many hankered for the pecuniary advantage, the material benefits the new faith offered. Others may have found solace in Islam that they did not in Zoroastrianism. Just as today people turn to other religions and god men and women for spiritual peace.
For India, Zoroastrianism was an alien religion. It should have been opposed, banished, hounded out. And yet our Hindu brethren let us stay, let us practice our faith in a manner we could not in our homeland.
Why did they permit us to do so? One obvious reason is that we were small in number, a band of refugees who posed no threat to the status quo. While in Iran for Islam to succeed Zoroastrianism had to be supplanted, in India there was no such compulsion. Which sane person would convert to a religion that offered no institutions, no security and no tangible benefits? The Zoroastrian immigrants were at the bottom of the Indian social, economic, political and religious hierarchy.
To quote Justice Frank C. O. Beaman in the historic Petit vs Jeejeebhoy case of 1908: "When the Zoroastrian exiles fled from the Mussulman persecution, they brought with them to India, as their common bond - and practically their only common bond - their ancient religion. They needed help, they needed countenance, they needed, above all things, powerful allies. And no allies were likely to be better disposed to them than such as had been converted to their own faith. They were not then a dominant, but a (sub) servient, timid and scattered people, the mere remnant and straggling fugitives of an overturned kingdom. They were in a strange land, surrounded by strange peoples, professing an unknown religion. In these circumstances, it is easy to understand that while they dared not proselytize, they would have been only too glad to welcome influential converts from Hinduism and Mahomedanism."
The first Zoroastrians who came to India were probably traders who when they found that a better way of life existed here than in Iran, set down their roots. Similarly Parsis and Iranis today<
Their numerous eateries dotted across south Bombay provided nutritious food at reasonable rates. From budget conscious students to the well-to-do, a snack or a meal at an Irani restaurant was something to look forward to. But today the Irani Zoroastrians are even rarer than Parsis. Many, especially the young, have migrated to the West. The possibility of a better quality of life and the company of a sizable number of their brethren who fled Iran under the Ayatollahs' reign and now reside there, attracted them.
While the Parsis have been in India over 1,000 years, the Iranian Zoroastrian migration goes back probably to the past 300 years or less. Religious intolerance and persecution coupled with limited avenues to earn a living lured many of them to India's shore. And thereby hangs a tale. The country that spawned one of the oldest religions in the world, not only turned its back on the practitioners of the faith but also discriminated against them.
Even though Islam did not germinate in Iran, the fervor of its adherents saw it slowly but surely take root. Why Zoroastrianism and Zoroastrians failed to hold their own will always be a contentious issue. Had they lost their moorings? Had materialism replaced religiosity? Had the priests failed to nurture and guide their flock?
Jamsheed Choksy, professor of Central Eurasian Studies at Indiana University in his book Conflict and Cooperation: Zoroastrian Subalterns and Muslim Elites in Medieval Iranian Society writes about the gradual inroads Islam made in Iran. Everyone did not convert to the new religion on account of the sword or persecution alone. Many hankered for the pecuniary advantage, the material benefits the new faith offered. Others may have found solace in Islam that they did not in Zoroastrianism. Just as today people turn to other religions and god men and women for spiritual peace.
For India, Zoroastrianism was an alien religion. It should have been opposed, banished, hounded out. And yet our Hindu brethren let us stay, let us practice our faith in a manner we could not in our homeland.
Why did they permit us to do so? One obvious reason is that we were small in number, a band of refugees who posed no threat to the status quo. While in Iran for Islam to succeed Zoroastrianism had to be supplanted, in India there was no such compulsion. Which sane person would convert to a religion that offered no institutions, no security and no tangible benefits? The Zoroastrian immigrants were at the bottom of the Indian social, economic, political and religious hierarchy.
To quote Justice Frank C. O. Beaman in the historic Petit vs Jeejeebhoy case of 1908: "When the Zoroastrian exiles fled from the Mussulman persecution, they brought with them to India, as their common bond - and practically their only common bond - their ancient religion. They needed help, they needed countenance, they needed, above all things, powerful allies. And no allies were likely to be better disposed to them than such as had been converted to their own faith. They were not then a dominant, but a (sub) servient, timid and scattered people, the mere remnant and straggling fugitives of an overturned kingdom. They were in a strange land, surrounded by strange peoples, professing an unknown religion. In these circumstances, it is easy to understand that while they dared not proselytize, they would have been only too glad to welcome influential converts from Hinduism and Mahomedanism."
The first Zoroastrians who came to India were probably traders who when they found that a better way of life existed here than in Iran, set down their roots. Similarly Parsis and Iranis today<
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive