Editorial Viewpoint
Two different worlds
In a community where the energy levels are generally tepid, it’s seldom that two major meetings are held within 15 days of each other.
Yet on February 15, the orthodox, in response to the meeting held by the Association for Revival of Zoroastrianism (ARZ) and Association of Inter-Married Zoroastrians (AIMZ) on February 2, rallied their forces at Bombay’s Framjee Cawasjee Institute Hall whose premises incidentally house the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) office.
Organized by the energetic North American orthodox activist Pervin Mistry, there was a no-nonsense air about the function. All the main speakers were from the priestly class and those that overshot their allotted time were politely urged to wind up their ponderous discourses.
As compere Adi Doctor rightly pointed out, vilifying North American Zoroastrians for not being as devout as their Indian counterparts as some speakers did is wrong. He pointed out how Mistry and Silloo Mehta of the Ilm-e-Khshnoom movement were taking the lead in religious issues. Mehta has organized annual exhibitions in Bombay, portraying the mystical aspects of Zoroastrianism and published several books on the religion.
[At the Nowroz Baug centenary celebrations on February 8, 2008 when speaker Dastur (Dr) Peshotan Mirza derided overseas Zoroastrians for being lax in following their religion, Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) chairman Minoo Shroff countered the allegation noting he saw more divas burning in North American Zoroastrian homes than in Bombay.]
When the 800 or so strong audience that filled the Framjee Cawasjee Institute Hall was asked to raise their hands to adopt resolutions opposing conversion/acceptance, nearly all did. One agitated middle-aged woman wanted to know why the three Parsiana members present did not raise their hands in support or against the resolution. Even when she was informed by the WAPIZ Page (alleged) editor Tannaz Parakh “they are journalists” the lady was not pacified. Instead she started shouting “Adi, Adi” trying unsuccessfully to catch the attention of Doctor on the stage. After the meeting she said she was considering canceling her subscription to Parsiana to which she received a Gathic response, “That’s your choice.”
Ilm-e-Khshnoom spokesperson Ervad K. N. Dastoor, the last speaker, said the show of hands was essential should the matter ever reach the courts of law. The video/photos of the raised limbs would show where the community’s sympathies lay, he reasoned.
But one wonders which court would be influenced by a show of hands at a public meeting? The Shiv Sena and like-minded political parties could easily fill stadiums, if not parks, with their faithfuls saying non-Maharashtrians cannot seek employment in Bombay/Maharashtra or that cow slaughter should be banned. Are the courts influenced by popular demonstrations or by the rule of law and the fundamentals of jurisprudence?
The orthodox contention that there is no conversion in Zoroastrianism and that the Prophet intended to win over only members of a particular sect is a pathetic absurdity. Zoroastrian monarchs resorted several times to forceful conversion of peoples of other nations. Ironically, the very placard placed on the stage quoted Cyrus the Great of Iran proclaiming he was a Parsi. But the organizers did not state that one of his wives was a Jew and that his body was entombed instead of being consigned to a dakhma (there is no historical evidence to prove that Cyrus was a Zoroastrian. His inscriptions refer to Ahura Mazda but there is no reference to Zoroaster or Zoroastrianism).
The assertions that no other religion existed at the time is blatantly false. The Encyclopedia Britannica (EB) talks of the “nearly 4,000 years of historical development (of) the Jewish people and their religion.” Zoroastrianism in contrast is around 3,400 to 3,500 years old at the most.
The EB also notes, “Before Zoroaster the Iranians had a polytheistic religion and Mithra was the most important of their gods.”
What about all the hogwash of Zoroaster only converting Mazdayasnis into his faith? The EB does not refer to any Mazdyasnis but “the later Zoroastrian religion (Mazdaism) of the Sassanian period (AD 224-651).” That’s about 1500 to 1800 years after Zoroaster.
The EB dates Hinduism at around 1,500 BC though parts of the Rigveda were composed earlier. Zoroaster’s birth date is put around 1,300 BC by scholars today.
One disturbing factor at Dr Kersey Antia’s talk on acceptance at the Y. B. Chavan Auditorium was heckling of the speakers by the orthodox. Dastoor and about 50 or so others briefly disrupted the proceedings with their taunts and shouts. (Samples: “Go back to Chicago.” “Don’t come here and teach us.”) Only the substantial presence of police ensured that matters did not get out of hand and the meeting could proceed.
Before Antia’s talk WAPIZ founder trustees Khojeste Mistree and Yazdi Desai reportedly approached the auditorium officials and the Colaba Police Station, in whose jurisdiction the hall lies, to ban the meet on the grounds that it could disturb the peace. No one from the liberal groups resorted to such underhand techniques to deny the orthodox their say. Nor did they create a rumpus at the talk. They could have easily done so had they wished.
Most of the orthodox speakers refrained from personal attacks and also mercifully from voicing their ignorance on genetics. Only Dastur Cyrus Dastoor from Surat, in his reference to interfaith marriages, spoke about the community tendency to check pedigrees before purchasing dogs or horses but not doing so when selecting a spouse.
In Australia where the Fourth World Zoroastrian Youth Congress was held December-January 2008, co-sponsored mainly by WAPIZ and the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe, one Congress executive committee member, Khushroo Patel, in an e-mail made disparaging remarks about the suitability of “admitting perverts, prostitutes, homosexuals and sex-deviants (sic) into the Zoroastrian fold.” He apparently was not aware that one of the invited speakers, Dr James Russell of Harvard University, was gay. Reacting to Patel, Russell remarked in an e-mail: “I am gay and make no secret of it; and the great Commonwealth of Australia celebrates its large and vibrant gay community and welcomes gay visitors from all over the world. More to the point, there are many gay Parsi Zoroastrians, dedicated members of your community and faithful worshippers of Ahura Mazda. There are also many openly gay scholars of Ancient Iran, including colleagues of mine at Harvard. Though I did not meet any other gays at the Congress, it was my sense that for most younger Zoroastrians being gay is not an issue, provided one lives in the same honest and decent manner that would be expected of anybody else.”
Russell, of course, goes on to narrate the laudable work Patel did for the Congress and observes, “Khushroo’s kindness and hospitality… seem to me the gold standard of Parsi Zoroastrian character and values.”
Blessed with such sterling qualities, perhaps all the orthodox need to do is mend their manners.
Yet on February 15, the orthodox, in response to the meeting held by the Association for Revival of Zoroastrianism (ARZ) and Association of Inter-Married Zoroastrians (AIMZ) on February 2, rallied their forces at Bombay’s Framjee Cawasjee Institute Hall whose premises incidentally house the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) office.
Organized by the energetic North American orthodox activist Pervin Mistry, there was a no-nonsense air about the function. All the main speakers were from the priestly class and those that overshot their allotted time were politely urged to wind up their ponderous discourses.
As compere Adi Doctor rightly pointed out, vilifying North American Zoroastrians for not being as devout as their Indian counterparts as some speakers did is wrong. He pointed out how Mistry and Silloo Mehta of the Ilm-e-Khshnoom movement were taking the lead in religious issues. Mehta has organized annual exhibitions in Bombay, portraying the mystical aspects of Zoroastrianism and published several books on the religion.
[At the Nowroz Baug centenary celebrations on February 8, 2008 when speaker Dastur (Dr) Peshotan Mirza derided overseas Zoroastrians for being lax in following their religion, Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) chairman Minoo Shroff countered the allegation noting he saw more divas burning in North American Zoroastrian homes than in Bombay.]
When the 800 or so strong audience that filled the Framjee Cawasjee Institute Hall was asked to raise their hands to adopt resolutions opposing conversion/acceptance, nearly all did. One agitated middle-aged woman wanted to know why the three Parsiana members present did not raise their hands in support or against the resolution. Even when she was informed by the WAPIZ Page (alleged) editor Tannaz Parakh “they are journalists” the lady was not pacified. Instead she started shouting “Adi, Adi” trying unsuccessfully to catch the attention of Doctor on the stage. After the meeting she said she was considering canceling her subscription to Parsiana to which she received a Gathic response, “That’s your choice.”
Ilm-e-Khshnoom spokesperson Ervad K. N. Dastoor, the last speaker, said the show of hands was essential should the matter ever reach the courts of law. The video/photos of the raised limbs would show where the community’s sympathies lay, he reasoned.
But one wonders which court would be influenced by a show of hands at a public meeting? The Shiv Sena and like-minded political parties could easily fill stadiums, if not parks, with their faithfuls saying non-Maharashtrians cannot seek employment in Bombay/Maharashtra or that cow slaughter should be banned. Are the courts influenced by popular demonstrations or by the rule of law and the fundamentals of jurisprudence?
The orthodox contention that there is no conversion in Zoroastrianism and that the Prophet intended to win over only members of a particular sect is a pathetic absurdity. Zoroastrian monarchs resorted several times to forceful conversion of peoples of other nations. Ironically, the very placard placed on the stage quoted Cyrus the Great of Iran proclaiming he was a Parsi. But the organizers did not state that one of his wives was a Jew and that his body was entombed instead of being consigned to a dakhma (there is no historical evidence to prove that Cyrus was a Zoroastrian. His inscriptions refer to Ahura Mazda but there is no reference to Zoroaster or Zoroastrianism).
The assertions that no other religion existed at the time is blatantly false. The Encyclopedia Britannica (EB) talks of the “nearly 4,000 years of historical development (of) the Jewish people and their religion.” Zoroastrianism in contrast is around 3,400 to 3,500 years old at the most.
The EB also notes, “Before Zoroaster the Iranians had a polytheistic religion and Mithra was the most important of their gods.”
What about all the hogwash of Zoroaster only converting Mazdayasnis into his faith? The EB does not refer to any Mazdyasnis but “the later Zoroastrian religion (Mazdaism) of the Sassanian period (AD 224-651).” That’s about 1500 to 1800 years after Zoroaster.
The EB dates Hinduism at around 1,500 BC though parts of the Rigveda were composed earlier. Zoroaster’s birth date is put around 1,300 BC by scholars today.
One disturbing factor at Dr Kersey Antia’s talk on acceptance at the Y. B. Chavan Auditorium was heckling of the speakers by the orthodox. Dastoor and about 50 or so others briefly disrupted the proceedings with their taunts and shouts. (Samples: “Go back to Chicago.” “Don’t come here and teach us.”) Only the substantial presence of police ensured that matters did not get out of hand and the meeting could proceed.
Before Antia’s talk WAPIZ founder trustees Khojeste Mistree and Yazdi Desai reportedly approached the auditorium officials and the Colaba Police Station, in whose jurisdiction the hall lies, to ban the meet on the grounds that it could disturb the peace. No one from the liberal groups resorted to such underhand techniques to deny the orthodox their say. Nor did they create a rumpus at the talk. They could have easily done so had they wished.
Most of the orthodox speakers refrained from personal attacks and also mercifully from voicing their ignorance on genetics. Only Dastur Cyrus Dastoor from Surat, in his reference to interfaith marriages, spoke about the community tendency to check pedigrees before purchasing dogs or horses but not doing so when selecting a spouse.
In Australia where the Fourth World Zoroastrian Youth Congress was held December-January 2008, co-sponsored mainly by WAPIZ and the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe, one Congress executive committee member, Khushroo Patel, in an e-mail made disparaging remarks about the suitability of “admitting perverts, prostitutes, homosexuals and sex-deviants (sic) into the Zoroastrian fold.” He apparently was not aware that one of the invited speakers, Dr James Russell of Harvard University, was gay. Reacting to Patel, Russell remarked in an e-mail: “I am gay and make no secret of it; and the great Commonwealth of Australia celebrates its large and vibrant gay community and welcomes gay visitors from all over the world. More to the point, there are many gay Parsi Zoroastrians, dedicated members of your community and faithful worshippers of Ahura Mazda. There are also many openly gay scholars of Ancient Iran, including colleagues of mine at Harvard. Though I did not meet any other gays at the Congress, it was my sense that for most younger Zoroastrians being gay is not an issue, provided one lives in the same honest and decent manner that would be expected of anybody else.”
Russell, of course, goes on to narrate the laudable work Patel did for the Congress and observes, “Khushroo’s kindness and hospitality… seem to me the gold standard of Parsi Zoroastrian character and values.”
Blessed with such sterling qualities, perhaps all the orthodox need to do is mend their manners.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive