Editorial Viewpoint
Clothes maketh the Parsi?
The visible symbols of Zoroastrianism are few and commonplace. Every second logo on a community organization’s letterhead is either an asho farohar (the winged creature) or an afargan (a metal vessel) with a flame atop. Other objects while not visually depicted but held in reverence include a burning diva (a small flame in a glass filled with water and oil), unevenly cut sticks of sandalwood, the sudreh, the sacred garment worn as an undershirt and the kusti, the wool thread tied around the waist three times.
Religious symbols are considered sacred and any attempt to desecrate them, especially in countries and places where religious leanings run deep, can result in civil unrest, mob violence and even death. Normally religious symbols are attacked by members belonging to other faiths or sects.
At a public talk at the Framjee Cawasjee Hall some years ago, the Surat High Priest, Dastur Cyrus Dastur chanted that the true Zarathushti was one who wore a sudreh and kusti. He did not amplify on the religion’s moral and ethical teaching as being the definitive criteria for judging who is a bona fide Zoroastrian but only by the garments one wore.
Sir Jivanji Modi in his opus The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsis writes of the origins of the white cambric garment. French scholar Anquetil Du Perron says the word originates from the Zend language and means “useful clothing” while Dastur Edalji Darabji Sanjana derives the word similarly but ascribes its meaning to be “an advantageous path.” Some scholars trace the word to Avesta while K. E. Kanga believes the origins to be Arabic (horrors!). Irrespective of its origins, Modi states, “The sudreh is a symbol that reminds one of purity of life and righteousness.”
Thus it was with some consternation that one came to hear that a group of 40 led by Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) chairman Dinshaw Mehta ripped off the sudreh worn by the initiate into the Zoroastrian priesthood, Mikhail Chistyakov and then bragged about the sacrilegious act. While the attackers persistently deny they physically assaulted the Russian Zoroastrian or Meher Master-Moos who organized the navar ceremony at her college in Sanjan (Chistyakov and Master-Moos claimed they were attacked) none of the raiding party believed the charge of desecrating the sudreh was something they should repudiate. Why do self-styled defenders of the faith who brag about their belief in orthodoxy glorify such an irreligious act? Had they not earlier complained to the Sanjan police of their religious sentiments being hurt by Chistyakov’s initiation into the Zoroastrian priesthood?
This was not an isolated incident. When Roshni Maloo and Savio D’Souza wished to perform the navjote of their two children, the BPP trustees, or at least four of them, approached the police, the state’s home minister and the Christian order that manages the reception grounds to prevent the ceremony. And their supporters threatened to tear the children’s sudrehs at the venue should the ceremony occur. The priest performing the navjote was told his jaamo (priestly robe) would be set aflame and his white headgear, the pugree, knocked off his head.
One would anticipate such acts of blasphemy being performed by pagans, non-believers, reformists, agnostics. Instead these feats were carried out or threatened to be done so by some of the most rabidly conservative members of the Bombay Parsi/Irani community with support from some disgruntled elements of Surat and a generous financier in Ahmedabad. (It’s akin to the Taliban burning copies of the Koran.)
At the BPP sponsored Holiday Programme for Youth some years back a prominent entrepreneur who subsequently was elected a BPP trustee extolled the virtues of donning the sudreh and kusti. The gathering of around 200 youngsters listened patiently and when he had concluded asked why his wife, who had attended the May Queen Ball at Rustom Baug the night prior, had not worn a sudreh with her strappy dress. The question, we are told, was ignored.
Even the much hyped Zoroastrian Youth for the Next Generation, a body sponsored by the BPP, sees young ladies arrive in spaghetti tops and similar outfits minus their sudrehs. In contrast, Modi states the sudreh should “reach down to the knees!”
But if the BPP trustees and their supporters go around desecrating the sudreh should not their spiritual leaders, the High Priests raise an objection? After all the clergy should be the preservers of the faith. While the dasturs are quick to rubber stamp letters drafted on their behalf by the BPP or the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis, not once have they objected to sudrehs being torn, leave aside people being physically assaulted.
Why is that? Because like their political mentors the High Priests also believe the garment is sacred only when worn by a Parsi/Irani. It is the race of the wearer that gives the sudreh its special status. On a non-Parsi it’s just a piece of stitched cloth. Thus for them, dishonoring the vestment is honoring the race.
Religious symbols are considered sacred and any attempt to desecrate them, especially in countries and places where religious leanings run deep, can result in civil unrest, mob violence and even death. Normally religious symbols are attacked by members belonging to other faiths or sects.
At a public talk at the Framjee Cawasjee Hall some years ago, the Surat High Priest, Dastur Cyrus Dastur chanted that the true Zarathushti was one who wore a sudreh and kusti. He did not amplify on the religion’s moral and ethical teaching as being the definitive criteria for judging who is a bona fide Zoroastrian but only by the garments one wore.
Sir Jivanji Modi in his opus The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsis writes of the origins of the white cambric garment. French scholar Anquetil Du Perron says the word originates from the Zend language and means “useful clothing” while Dastur Edalji Darabji Sanjana derives the word similarly but ascribes its meaning to be “an advantageous path.” Some scholars trace the word to Avesta while K. E. Kanga believes the origins to be Arabic (horrors!). Irrespective of its origins, Modi states, “The sudreh is a symbol that reminds one of purity of life and righteousness.”
Thus it was with some consternation that one came to hear that a group of 40 led by Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) chairman Dinshaw Mehta ripped off the sudreh worn by the initiate into the Zoroastrian priesthood, Mikhail Chistyakov and then bragged about the sacrilegious act. While the attackers persistently deny they physically assaulted the Russian Zoroastrian or Meher Master-Moos who organized the navar ceremony at her college in Sanjan (Chistyakov and Master-Moos claimed they were attacked) none of the raiding party believed the charge of desecrating the sudreh was something they should repudiate. Why do self-styled defenders of the faith who brag about their belief in orthodoxy glorify such an irreligious act? Had they not earlier complained to the Sanjan police of their religious sentiments being hurt by Chistyakov’s initiation into the Zoroastrian priesthood?
This was not an isolated incident. When Roshni Maloo and Savio D’Souza wished to perform the navjote of their two children, the BPP trustees, or at least four of them, approached the police, the state’s home minister and the Christian order that manages the reception grounds to prevent the ceremony. And their supporters threatened to tear the children’s sudrehs at the venue should the ceremony occur. The priest performing the navjote was told his jaamo (priestly robe) would be set aflame and his white headgear, the pugree, knocked off his head.
One would anticipate such acts of blasphemy being performed by pagans, non-believers, reformists, agnostics. Instead these feats were carried out or threatened to be done so by some of the most rabidly conservative members of the Bombay Parsi/Irani community with support from some disgruntled elements of Surat and a generous financier in Ahmedabad. (It’s akin to the Taliban burning copies of the Koran.)
At the BPP sponsored Holiday Programme for Youth some years back a prominent entrepreneur who subsequently was elected a BPP trustee extolled the virtues of donning the sudreh and kusti. The gathering of around 200 youngsters listened patiently and when he had concluded asked why his wife, who had attended the May Queen Ball at Rustom Baug the night prior, had not worn a sudreh with her strappy dress. The question, we are told, was ignored.
Even the much hyped Zoroastrian Youth for the Next Generation, a body sponsored by the BPP, sees young ladies arrive in spaghetti tops and similar outfits minus their sudrehs. In contrast, Modi states the sudreh should “reach down to the knees!”
But if the BPP trustees and their supporters go around desecrating the sudreh should not their spiritual leaders, the High Priests raise an objection? After all the clergy should be the preservers of the faith. While the dasturs are quick to rubber stamp letters drafted on their behalf by the BPP or the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis, not once have they objected to sudrehs being torn, leave aside people being physically assaulted.
Why is that? Because like their political mentors the High Priests also believe the garment is sacred only when worn by a Parsi/Irani. It is the race of the wearer that gives the sudreh its special status. On a non-Parsi it’s just a piece of stitched cloth. Thus for them, dishonoring the vestment is honoring the race.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive