Editorial Viewpoint
“A little learning...”
As much as enmity, prejudice or racism, it is ignorance that drives people, even well intentioned ones, to break the law. Or to believe that they are above it. The misguided assault on the 48-year-old Russian Zoroastrian Herbad Mikhail Chistyakov in Sanjan on February 19, 2010 in the cause of defending the faith best exemplifies Alexander Pope’s line “a little learning is a dangerous thing.”
Just as Muslim terrorists wreak havoc in the name of Islam so also the marauding party justified their attack on the amiable priest in the name of Zoroastrianism. Had they been even remotely acquainted with the principles of this 3,300-year-old religion they would have known that Zoroastrianism not only permits but enjoins conversion. And this is not the findings of some radical reformists. It is part of the judgment of the Bombay High Court case of Petit vs Jeejeebhoy stated by an orthodox judge, Dinshaw Davar, who bathed in the glow of conservative adulation.
How then can any Parsi/Irani object to a person of any nationality, creed, color, sex, age choosing to becoming a Zoroastrian or opting for the priesthood? Some will ignorantly counter that we told the mythical local ruler Jadi Rana while seeking sanctuary in India that we would not convert others to our faith. Conversion is not one of the five conditions laid down in the Kisseh-i Sanjan. And any way the book is folklore, not history.
But to safeguard and assuage orthodox sentiments, Davar added a proviso to his judgment, as did his brother judge Frank Beaman. They said while anybody could convert, only those born of a Parsi/Irani Zoroastrian father could avail of trust benefits specified for them. In Saklat vs Bella the Privy Council ruled that the trustees of a fire temple could admit non-Parsis into the portals of an agiary if they so wished. So far no trustees of a fire temple in Maharashtra or Gujarat have done so. Only the adarians in Delhi and Jamshedpur officially permit entry to the children of Parsi women married to non-Parsis.
So even if someone were to convert they would not be entitled to enter a fire temple in India (save the above two), have their body consigned to a tower of silence, occupy a bed at the B. D. Petit Parsee General Hospital, apply for housing from the Bombay Parsi Punchayet, and so on. And if a Russian Zoroastrian undergoes the requisite ceremonies and becomes a navar, he or she could not even enter a Parsi fire temple, leave aside practice mobedi in its sacred precincts.
So then why the fuss over Chistyakov’s navar ceremony? Because Parsis believe that Zoroastrianism is their monopoly, their sole prerogative. They believe no one else is entitled to follow the religion save them and their co-religionists in Iran. They are blissfully unaware or unconcerned that Christianity has thousands of churches. That every major religion has its factions, sects, divisions. That non-Hindus can convert to Hinduism, ordain priests, build temples, chant bhajans. That nearly all religions welcome and encourage conversion to their faith. That in Iran if a Zoroastrian converts to Islam, the family wealth is inherited by him at the cost of other members. That fire temples in that country are open to all.
They are also unaware that Zoroastrianism probably had its roots in Russia and that Prime Minister (then president) of Russia Vladimir Putin had stated in an interview with IRNA Information Agency and Iranian State Television and Radio that “there is evidence suggesting that Zoroastrianism first emerged on Russian soil — in the southern Urals — and that the population migrations took this religious culture to other places, including to Iran.” So much for Chistyakov not having Zoroastrian roots.
Even assuming he had converted from another religion to Zoroastrianism he is only harking back to his ancient heritage. We take so much pride in the Achemenian dynasty, in Cyrus and Darius, and claim them for our own even though there is no proof they were Zoroastrians. So why object to a Russian who wishes to follow the religion?
When one of the ring leaders was told the tactics adopted were akin to the fascist Shiv Sena and the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, he replied that the Sena’s objectives were to corner wealth for the Marathi manoos. If they hammered north Indian taxi drivers it was to ensure jobs for the locals. The Parsi raiding party in contrast was defending the faith, not seeking material gain. When asked why due legal process was not followed he answered the courts were already bogged down with litigation and they didn’t want to further clog the judicial arteries. Thus roughing up a foreigner who opted to follow the religion of his choice was the best manner to ensure their objective of securing Zoroastrianism exclusively for Parsis. Another leader claimed that if a foreigner stated he or she was a Zoroastrian and assuming this information was known from his travel documents, who would be responsible if he or she committed a crime? Why should the Parsis take the onus for a non-Parsi’s offense?
The fact is that even if a Parsi commits a crime or is charged with doing so, the community does not defend him or pay for his legal defense. Instead scorn is heaped on the individual, guilty or not, and he or she is spurned by fellow members.
The mayhem that occurred at Sanjan may have been a spur of the moment, knee jerk reaction when what was required from the community’s leadership was a thoughtful and educative response. Perhaps instead of denigrating Chistyakov and his beliefs we can draw a lesson from this Zoroastrian neophyte. For when asked his reaction to the assault on him he replied in halting English with one word: “Forgive.”
Just as Muslim terrorists wreak havoc in the name of Islam so also the marauding party justified their attack on the amiable priest in the name of Zoroastrianism. Had they been even remotely acquainted with the principles of this 3,300-year-old religion they would have known that Zoroastrianism not only permits but enjoins conversion. And this is not the findings of some radical reformists. It is part of the judgment of the Bombay High Court case of Petit vs Jeejeebhoy stated by an orthodox judge, Dinshaw Davar, who bathed in the glow of conservative adulation.
How then can any Parsi/Irani object to a person of any nationality, creed, color, sex, age choosing to becoming a Zoroastrian or opting for the priesthood? Some will ignorantly counter that we told the mythical local ruler Jadi Rana while seeking sanctuary in India that we would not convert others to our faith. Conversion is not one of the five conditions laid down in the Kisseh-i Sanjan. And any way the book is folklore, not history.
But to safeguard and assuage orthodox sentiments, Davar added a proviso to his judgment, as did his brother judge Frank Beaman. They said while anybody could convert, only those born of a Parsi/Irani Zoroastrian father could avail of trust benefits specified for them. In Saklat vs Bella the Privy Council ruled that the trustees of a fire temple could admit non-Parsis into the portals of an agiary if they so wished. So far no trustees of a fire temple in Maharashtra or Gujarat have done so. Only the adarians in Delhi and Jamshedpur officially permit entry to the children of Parsi women married to non-Parsis.
So even if someone were to convert they would not be entitled to enter a fire temple in India (save the above two), have their body consigned to a tower of silence, occupy a bed at the B. D. Petit Parsee General Hospital, apply for housing from the Bombay Parsi Punchayet, and so on. And if a Russian Zoroastrian undergoes the requisite ceremonies and becomes a navar, he or she could not even enter a Parsi fire temple, leave aside practice mobedi in its sacred precincts.
So then why the fuss over Chistyakov’s navar ceremony? Because Parsis believe that Zoroastrianism is their monopoly, their sole prerogative. They believe no one else is entitled to follow the religion save them and their co-religionists in Iran. They are blissfully unaware or unconcerned that Christianity has thousands of churches. That every major religion has its factions, sects, divisions. That non-Hindus can convert to Hinduism, ordain priests, build temples, chant bhajans. That nearly all religions welcome and encourage conversion to their faith. That in Iran if a Zoroastrian converts to Islam, the family wealth is inherited by him at the cost of other members. That fire temples in that country are open to all.
They are also unaware that Zoroastrianism probably had its roots in Russia and that Prime Minister (then president) of Russia Vladimir Putin had stated in an interview with IRNA Information Agency and Iranian State Television and Radio that “there is evidence suggesting that Zoroastrianism first emerged on Russian soil — in the southern Urals — and that the population migrations took this religious culture to other places, including to Iran.” So much for Chistyakov not having Zoroastrian roots.
Even assuming he had converted from another religion to Zoroastrianism he is only harking back to his ancient heritage. We take so much pride in the Achemenian dynasty, in Cyrus and Darius, and claim them for our own even though there is no proof they were Zoroastrians. So why object to a Russian who wishes to follow the religion?
When one of the ring leaders was told the tactics adopted were akin to the fascist Shiv Sena and the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, he replied that the Sena’s objectives were to corner wealth for the Marathi manoos. If they hammered north Indian taxi drivers it was to ensure jobs for the locals. The Parsi raiding party in contrast was defending the faith, not seeking material gain. When asked why due legal process was not followed he answered the courts were already bogged down with litigation and they didn’t want to further clog the judicial arteries. Thus roughing up a foreigner who opted to follow the religion of his choice was the best manner to ensure their objective of securing Zoroastrianism exclusively for Parsis. Another leader claimed that if a foreigner stated he or she was a Zoroastrian and assuming this information was known from his travel documents, who would be responsible if he or she committed a crime? Why should the Parsis take the onus for a non-Parsi’s offense?
The fact is that even if a Parsi commits a crime or is charged with doing so, the community does not defend him or pay for his legal defense. Instead scorn is heaped on the individual, guilty or not, and he or she is spurned by fellow members.
The mayhem that occurred at Sanjan may have been a spur of the moment, knee jerk reaction when what was required from the community’s leadership was a thoughtful and educative response. Perhaps instead of denigrating Chistyakov and his beliefs we can draw a lesson from this Zoroastrian neophyte. For when asked his reaction to the assault on him he replied in halting English with one word: “Forgive.”
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive