“What distinguishes us”

In my earlier letter I had pointed out how Mehlli Bhagalia in his long and educative (!) missive had failed to respond to the specific questions I had raised on D. Wadia’s letter ("What distinguishes us,” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, July 21, September 21, November 7 and December 7, 2007). I would now like to respond to some additional points made by him.

Bhagalia mentions "Kabraji should thank Wadia for trying to open his eyes to the inner meanings and understanding of our most pristine religion and scriptures. He may not get such a chance again.” Thank you, but I am quite capable of deciding whom to be thankful to. I am grateful to those who give me enlightenment based on rationality and logic. Wadia and Bhagalia are free to keep any "inner meanings” to themselves.

Bhagalia quotes Ha 32 from the Gathas. I do not know whose translation he is following. I have with me a book containing translations by Insler, Taraporewala, Duchesne-Gullemin, Moulton, Jafarey, Sethna, Bode and Nanavutty where each stanza appears alongside its translation. I find that Ha 32 refers to those who are followers of daevas, spreading lies and falsehood, and does not apply to honest and straightforward people like us. And since we do not propagate worship of multiple gods, we are not committing any sin and have nothing to fear!

Different people see different meanings in the stanzas. For instance, E. J. Divecha writes: "Zoroaster was the first rationalist in the world. His doctrines stand the test of reason, scientific facts and human experience.” Most of his chapters begin with: "Listen with your Best Mind;” "Pray for the bounteous Words of Reason;” "Think over what I say giving supremacy to Reason;” "Choose what ye will;” "The good chooseth the Right, the wicked the Wrong.”

I agree with Bhagalia that Ha 30.2 refers to the choice between good and bad. However, I do not agree that Zarathushtra was addressing this to "highly developed souls and Yazatas with all the timeless knowledge of the unseen world, Vohuman” and not referring to "ordinary ignorant humans like us.” I think Zarathushtra was addressing the common man.

Bhagalia states that there is no hint of conversion in the Gathas as there was no organized religion other than Mazdayasni Deen. The answer is to be found in history books. Since we call ourselves Aryans, a part of the same group which came to India, it is reasonable to assume that we had the same religion as theirs and that these people worshipped the same divinities like Mithra, Homa, Verethagna, Vayu, Nairyosangha, etc.

So much has been written earlier about conversion that I do not wish to dwell on the subject any more. Bhagalia can refer to earlier issues of Parsiana (March 21, 2006; May 7, 2006; July 7, 2007) wherein there are numerous quotes from Avesta and Pahlavi scriptures as well as from Rivayats supporting conversion.

The orthodox group claims that Dastur (Dr) Maneckji Dhalla came under western influence. To me it does not matter under what influence he was — western, eastern, southern or northern. What matters is "Does what he say make sense?” I am trained to think "What is right is important and not who is right.” The only yardstick I use is my common sense (which I consider as God’s divine gift — Vohuman in the Gathas — as given to all of us, though few choose to use it). Though I am not a reformist I accept Dhalla’s writings because they make sense to me and because they are based on facts and truth.

I feel this bogie of Dhalla being under western influence must have been created by our priestly class because he pointed out that undue importance is given by behdins to ceremonies, rituals and tarikats which could have affected the priests’ livelihood. Dhalla was honest and straightforward enough to state that our priestly class is largely uneducated and ignorant about our religion. In this he was in the company of none less than Dadabhai Naoroji who in his paper read before the Philomathic Society in Liverpool, in 1861, stated: "As a body, the priests are not only ignorant of the duties and objects of their own profession, but are entirely uneducated except that they are able to read and write, and that, also, often very imperfectly. To read and write they must learn, as they have to prepare by rote a large number of prayers and recitations, which in the performance of their usual avocations, they are required to recite. Their work chiefly consists of reciting certain prescribed prayers on various religious occasions; to go to the fire temple or the seashore, and say a prayer for anybody that chooses to give a halfpenny; and to depend upon charities distributed on various joyous or mournful occasions. They do not understand a single word of these prayers or recitations which are all in the old Zend language.” There has been considerable change in the last 150 years, but the last line still holds good!

During his study stay in Columbia University, Dhalla also attended classes (apart from theology), in ethics, sociology, anthropology and philosophy which eradicated his religious misconceptions. He started talking in rational and logical language, preaching "enlightened faith” which seems to have offended the followers of "blind faith.”

Regarding Dhalla’s refusal to perform the navjote ceremony of juddins, one needs to only read his views in Chapter 40 of his autobiography (before defaming him) wherein he explains that most of the requests were for children born out of illegitimate relations (perhaps leading to problems of inheritance later on), and that if the community was not prepared to "accept” these children, what meaningful purpose would be served by performing their navjotes? Also, if the trustees of fire temples are not in favor of such navjotes, will the priests employed by them go against the trustees’ wishes and jeopardize their own jobs? In the instances quoted by Bhagalia, it is clear that Dhalla refused to perform such navjotes as "it would be against the conscience of the community” and not because it was not permitted by the tenets of the religion.

Bhagalia rightly states we have been able to maintain our identity in India because of not marrying outside the community. However, at a time when the community’s numbers are dwindling fast, when conditions have changed considerably, should we not take a fresh look at the stand we had taken in the past? Do our common sense and intelligence say that we should continue to follow this self-defeating policy? Are we not becoming our own enemies? Will it be surprising if we become extinct one day? If we fail to think of ways of how to support and keep our great religion alive — the main reason why our forefathers came to India — will we not be guilty of failing to carry on their mission?

KERSEE KABRAJI

Poona