“What’s in a name?”

Why can’t the orthodox and the reformists co-exist? Is it so difficult for a race whose forefathers, like Cyrus the Great, showed immense tolerance toward other beliefs and practices? Why can’t the orthodox show respect and tolerance for the beliefs of the reformists? Reformists should respect the beliefs of the orthodox and let them follow their centuries old customs and practices which have been proven to be a successful model due to the very miraculous fact that we have successfully existed amongst the sea of humanity. By sticking to our rituals, practices and by marrying within the community for the last 1,300 years in India we have been able to hold on to our individual character and keep our racial characteristics intact without being absorbed in the multitude.

Zoroastrianism, though small in number of adherents, is the original religion of tens of millions of Shia Iranians (who converted to Islam after the Arab conquest), converted Sunni Kurds and the resolute Parsis of India. These populations still celebrate Zoroastrian holidays, honor their Zoroastrian roots and, in many cases, have expressed a yearning to go back to the precepts which were noted for their tolerance of other faiths and commitment to coexistence, a point of view that is lacking in many of the regions where they live today.

Change is inevitable, and religions have to adapt to new circumstances. Whenever Parsis have felt the need to change, they have done so without compromising their basic tenets and rituals, such as adopting the mode of dress, language and certain customs of their land of adoption, India. But any major reform or change in a millennia old religion like ours requires divine intervention. When such a change was required during the Sasanian sovereign Shah Shapur II’s time, Dastur Adarbad Mahrespand brought it about in the rituals and even in our sacred texts. The Khordeh Avesta that we pray today is the outcome of this change. Dastur Mahrespand demonstrated his divine authority to bring about these changes by allowing molten metal to be poured on his chest in full public view, without him being harmed in any way. He was the last Raenidar (renovator-cum-savior). The next Raenidar and Saoshyant to follow, as per our sacred texts, is Shah Behram Varzavand. Ordinary mortals who do not understand the inner workings of the unseen world do not have the wherewithal or the divine authority to bring about changes in rituals and customs.

The orthodox can surely show magnanimity and respect for the beliefs of the reformists and allow them to practice what they believe in provided they leave the existing atash behrams, adarians and dakhmas alone for the orthodox to use as they have done for centuries. The reformists should establish their own crematoria and non-consecrated dadgahs where prayers by priests who choose to cater to them can perform the last rites without hindrance from the orthodox.

We do not hold a patent over all fires on this planet, and for centuries Hindus have been performing havans over their fire altars without attracting any objection from orthodox Parsis. Also, many non-Zoroastrians who have come into contact with Parsis in places like Navsari and Surat have been praying the Yatha and Ashem prayers as being beneficial mantras (which are available on the internet to everyone), without raising orthodox eyebrows. The growing number of offspring of mixed marriages who choose to practice and pray at their own non-consecrated dadgahs should be able to do so without any objection from the orthodox.

The Indian law has ruled time and again that all existing fire temples are available only to Parsi/Irani Zarathushti offspring, as per the provisions contained in the deeds, documents or instruments of their trusts. No court in the land will rule to the contrary.

Why rush to courts and waste Parsi funds, when both sides can work out a solution and co-exist. In "What’s in a name?” (Editorial Viewpoint, Parsiana, April 21, 2010) it is stated that the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) had to shell out Rs 24 lakhs as legal expenses for banning two renegade priests. Whose money was wasted? Both sides pay through the nose for legal expenses, and the lawyers are laughing their way to the bank.

Showing tolerance and respect for each others’ views will lead to co-existence, as is done by the Shahenshahis, Kadmis and Faslis who have been reciting a different roz and mah when referring to the same day. If they can co-exist, why can’t orthodox Parsi/Irani Zara-thushtis and the growing number of mixed race reformists? We need religious and racial tolerance and a good empathetic heart fed by knowledge, not ignorant bickering.

"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself, do not force unto others.” (Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29) RUSTOM M. K. DABOO

zrustom_d@yahoo.com

The editors reply

There is no law on the subject. The reference is to the judgement of Justice Davar and Beaman in the Parsi Punchayet case of 1908. In the Saklat vs Bella case in 1924 the Privy Council noted trustees have the authority to permit non-Parsis entry to the fire temple if they so wish.