The racial divide

Two incidents that came to light in the past month have once again focused on a crucial community issue: the status of interfaith married couples.

The first was the case of a Parsi lady married to a non-Parsi who was denied entry in the Sir J. J. Agiary in Poona. The concerned priest justified the action proclai­ming he had the right to decide who could enter or not depending on whether he viewed their presence as a perceived threat to the "holy fire."

The second, which is featured in this issue, is the ban on a non­Parsi spouse from attending a gahambar in Secunderabad.

In the Poona case the priest was in violation of the laws of the land and the trustees of the Agiary were his accomplices. The

aggrieved lady apparently does not want to pursue the case in the courts and thus an illegal practice may continue.

In the Secunderabad episode, the association hosting the gahambar may have been within their legal rights to deny entry to non-Parsis, but their action was divisive. The object of a gahambar is to bring the community together. But what constitutes the "community" is the question.

Are we to go on the basis of racial purity? Then any Parsi with a G6PD enzyme deficiency should be barred from all trusts, amenities, socials, etc meant for Parsi Zoroastrians. The gene causing the. deficiency is not found among Zoroastrians in Iran but among the tribals in India. The inference is clear.

In Bombay almost one in three marriages is outside the faith. One

in three Parsis are unmarried. So only one third is procreating "pure" Parsis. Minus those with the G6PD deficiency enzyme and the figure may fall from one-third to one-tenth, if not less.

Outside of Bombay and certain towns in Gujarat, the interfaith marriage rate may be 50 percent or more. So fire temples and associations that opt for racial purity as the basis for admission may find their agiaries empty and gahambar tables lined with unoccupied chairs.

In Iran where Zoroastrianism was born and nurtured, no restrictions are placed on the presence of non-Parsis, either in the fire temple or at funerals or at community get-togethers. In Delhi, Jamshedpur and Madras, amongst other places in India, non-Parsi spouses are included in socio­religious events. The children of Parsi women married out of the community can enter the fire temple in Delhi and Jamshedpur. In North America (NA) most Zoroastrian associations permit the non-Parsi spouse membership in the organization and participation in all events. Of course North America does not have any fire temples but even if it did, it is doubtful that the laws of the land would permit racial discrimination. Nor would the NA Zoroastrians wish to discriminate. After all they owe a debt of gratitude to their new homeland and its citi­zens.

The Parsis in India seem to be ambivalent towards their host country. Would Jadi Rana or any other monarch or princeling, real or mythical, have permitted the Parsi boat people sanctuary if they were told the presence of Hindus would "pollute" or "weaken" the spiritual aspects of Zoroastrianism?Would the king have accorded hospitality if he knew that Hindu men and women who married into this band of refugees would be treated as outcastes?

How many Zoroastrians have flourished in Iran in the last 100 years? Contrast that with the accomplishments of Parsis in India. From industry to military service, from politics tci medicine, from law to social reform, Zoroastrians have been pioneers.

Why did this not happen in Iran? Why do we remain a discriminated minority in our country of origin while here we are permitted to excel? Because we live in a free country. Because the majority of Indians are broad-minded and tolerant. Because we have not been discriminated against.

Bombay has 50 fire temples. How many are there in Iran? The

Indian constitution not only guarantees fundamental human rights for all citizens, it also accords minorities further rights and safeguards. And how do we repay these large-hearted people and country for giving us protection and freedom?

We had asked two high priests for their opinion on the gahambar ban, wondering if the grievance of a hurt spouse would move them to reconsider discriminatory prac­tices. Unfortunately they have justified the exclusion. If priests and lay men think along these lines, the possib(lity of socioreligious change becomes remote. How then do we right the wrongs?

Islam faces the same dilemma. Clerics and fundamentalists justify terrorism in the name of religion. Similarly we justify discrimination on religious grounds. Yet neither Islam nor Zoroastrianism preached violence or discrimination as a way of life.

Where did we go wrong? How do we go back to the original

teachings of the religion? The answer eludes us.