Unity and tolerance

Of all the chimeras presented by some laymen via speeches or write-ups, unity and tolerance stand out. Well-meaning persons as well as double-dealers frequently make use of these words.

Undoubtedly, the well-meaning ones, though earnest well-wishers of the community, are not very knowledgeable; the double-dealers are, as the term implies, faithless. The aim of the former, though nonviable, is to avoid a break-up in the community; the latter’s objective is to gain publicity and cater to their pathological egocentricity, no matter at what cost. From the viewpoint of traditional orthodoxy, the former have a claim to be discussed; the latter deserve nothing but proscription. We shall discuss here the well-meaning ones who are annoyed with goings-on in the community.

The bones of contention are: any other mode of disposal of the dead at places where the traditional system is available; interfaith marriages; initiation of children of a woman who, prior to undergoing a civil marriage with a non-Parsi, was a Zoroastrian; conversion/acceptance of non-Zoroastrians; management of properties owned by Parsi charity trusts; and toeing the theosophical line by superimposing theosophy on the Zoroastrian doctrine of death and afterlife.

Regarding the first, the well-meaning ones say that if a sizeable number of Parsis are desirous of establishing a Parsi crematorium or a cremate-ni-bungli they may be allowed to do so in order to maintain unity. They are totally at a loss to opine regarding interfaith marriages and acceptance of progeny from such unions. They are appalled by the very idea of conversion or acceptance. The management of properties owned by Parsi charity trusts is a cause of great concern for them. Regarding the doctrine of death and afterlife, their approach is "Why bother about afterlife while we are alive?” Behind the approach to all these bones of contention is the absence of a clear ideology which, more often than not, turns them into vacillators.

As we see it, the rift in our community is irreconcilable. The heterodox and the pseudo-orthodox seem to think that they can prettify themselves by pretending to walk out on us. These menacing forces supply purposive direction for un-Zoroastrian outlook and behavior. Also, they are those who speak/write of themselves excessively and boastfully and carry an inflated sense of their importance. In other words, they accept and venture to live by precisely what is rejected by the Zoroastrian frame of reference. Hence any attempt, no matter how sincere it may be, to resolve (if the term be allowable) the crisis is doomed to come to naught.

Nevertheless vain attempts have been made to build a bridge during the last three or four decades. Even today, with the areas of controversy increasing, some overoptimistic but well-meaning ones seem keen to mediate. With what sort of tools do such mediators look forward to override a manifest impossibility? First of all, to invite both the parties for a dialog is like bringing the two poles together at the equator. Secondly, the only tools on which the mediators can rely to achieve their objective are unity and tolerance. Apart from sentimentality, how can one think of "uniting” people who, to use a Miltonic phrase, take delight in saying "Evil, be thou my good” with the rest of the community?

Tolerance is a tool with which some mountebanks appear before the masses as amiable, kind and sympathetic. By pampering a heterodox or pseudo-orthodox Press any blusterer could transform himself into a savior! On this account, a few words to map out the characteristics of tolerance are called for. As a rule, the more literate a man the greater the chances of him being an advocate of striking at the very foundation of our religion in the name of "purely social reforms.” Though his knowledge of the scripture, Iranian history, art and culture would be almost nil, he would make desultory attempts to defend his stand with disingenuous interpretations subtly mixed with the chimera of tolerance!

We must bear in mind that the religion we have been following for the last 12 centuries or so is the religion of the Sasanian times. Comparatively, we know precious little about the pre-Sasanian and pre-Achemenian state of affairs. According to the religion of the Sasanian times, not only is Ahura Mazda to be worshipped, but Ahriman is to be vanquished; not only are good deeds to be performed but bad ones are to be undone; not only are the Yazatas to be adored and propitiated but the daevas are to be cursed and ill-treated; not only are we supposed to pray for the prosperity of the good rulers but also for the ill that would overcome the evil ones, and so on.

In Sasanian times religion became so identified with the state that for a Zoroastrian any departure from the state religion was tantamount to heresy (treason). In such a situation, any reference to tolerance could only be ruled out. And same is the case with platitudes like "let us agree to disagree,” or "let us disagree without being disagreeable,” "let us bury the past and move ahead.” Hypocritical expressions such as "a civilized approach,” "justice for all,” "humanitarian values,” etc can have no place in socio-religious functioning.

The ideal remedy would be deferential submissiveness on the part of the laity to ecclesiastical fiats. But this would be wormwood to double-dealers and individualists whose arrogance and insolence know no bounds. Also, the secular laws of various countries where Parsis have settled may not permit excommunication of heretics. Hence, the only alternative, as legitimate as it is efficacious, is to ostracize the latter as a testimony and evocation of timeless truth. This, and only this, would act as a deterrent.

FARIBOURZ NARIMAN

faribourz_nariman@yahoo.com