Landmark Judgments

Parsiana has just made available to the public the judgments in litigation that took place in 1908 and thereafter. I have gone through the book with the same difficulty in putting it down that is generally felt in reading novels and thrillers. The subject of this book relates to Parsihood, Zoroastrianism, and donor intentions relating to trusts administered by the Bombay Parsi Punchayet; and also with the legitimacy of their trusteeship.

The first two judgments, by Justices Dinshaw Davar and Frank Beaman fascinate:

What clarity, what research, what language, what authority, what masterly thought, what logic, what frankness animate the judgments!

What enlightenment, what instruction, what history, infuses the mind of the attentive reader!

What understanding does the reader obtain!

I am not an orthodox, I am not a reformist. I am a rational Parsi, born of Parsi parents, and descended from Parsi ancestors. I was initiated into the Mazdayasni religion when I proclaimed that I would be a good and true follower of it.

Until I read the abovementioned judgments, I had not been able to understand what made the orthodox think the thoughts of the orthodox. Now I do understand. I remain a humanitarian: I respect the humanity of all mankind. I am not and have never been averse to associating with anyone, however humble and (in the words of the orthodox and the elite) physically "dirty” the work they do for a living.

I begin to say to myself: Were I living in the times which are discussed in the judgments, what would I have been, an orthodox or an objector to orthodoxy? I say: How and how much have times changed? What may have been apposite in other centuries is hardly apposite in the 21st. How many "Parsi Zoroastrians,” born and bred, wear sudreh and kusti? How many frequent the fire temples? How many demand to go to the Towers when they depart this life? How many do not deplore that their best friends, being non-Zoroastrian, are prohibited from seeing their faces for the last time?

How many believe that they have an afterlife, or that the afterlife’s quality is dependent on certain observances by, not their surviving dear ones, but by strangers who are priests? Show the statistics if you have them.

Why am I, in the 21st century, an objector to orthodoxy?

At the moment, I go along with the view that, as explained by the learned judges, we Parsis are a "caste;” we became such because we made our abode in a land of castes. Uncomfortable and unhappy as it makes me feel, I cannot but acknowledge that our caste, the Parsi caste began to look down upon persons who were of a lower caste; we thus began to vehemently object to the thought of conversion of persons to our religion. The judges explain the difference between "race” and "caste.” We are told that among us in the original homeland there were no castes, and we were at the most "tribes” if that.

They maintain that conversion to our religion cannot be selective — we may not pick and choose only the good and the beautiful, the refined and the high born to become Zoroastrians, and refuse others who are not. The religion is for all who wish to follow Zarathushtra’s religion: the judges give us chapter and verse for holding that the religion is and was always meant to be for all.

I am writing this letter in order that I may share with your readers and others the excitement, the wisdom, the humanism of our religion, as my reading of this book has revealed.

All the same, the very agitating doubt that remains in my mind is this: What means has science provided for ascertaining whether any individual claiming that everywhere along the way, every male ancestor, (the passer on of the seed), was, indeed, born into the Parsi caste, free of the taint of any other seed? We do not carry authenticated documentary evidence as part of our personal paraphernalia, do we? What do the orthodox have to say in response, when they speak of Parsis only?

All this talk of "Parsi Zoroastrian” vs any other Zoroastrian seems to me to be brainwash. Let us say with as much pride as we feel, "I am a Zoroastrian, I am in no position to deny the religion to any person who wants to lead the good life according to the religion given by God through Zoroaster for all mankind. You are welcome to the portals of our great religion.” Being Zoroastrian is by no means being a member of an exclusive club. Let us not treat it as such.

I happen to be an atheist. I happen also to be a very zealous Zoroastrian, by the reason that I am willing and ready to, and I ceaselessly fight the good fight, as my religion enjoins, against all manner of evil — which, your readers must grant, a large number of Zoroastrians fail to even attempt, standing aloof as they do, with the words "I am not concerned.”

May I, through your columns, recommend your very reasonably priced book to all your readers? I trust they will find (as I do) extremely readable, the matter which you have collected and published, a gift and a favor to all — Parsis and others alike!

FEROZA SEERVAI