Storm in a teacup

Parsis have a distinct ethnic identity and a rich cultural heritage. Even though we do not understand the language of our religion, like a child who requires no reasoning or proof of his mother’s love we cling to it with faith and devotion. Earlier, children born from mixed marriages were not accepted as Zoroastrians, but about 100 years back a judgment was delivered by the Bombay High Court whereby children of Parsi fathers and alien mothers could be admitted into the Zoroastrian religion. Legislation being the handiwork of men, most decisions are in favor of males. It is strange that despite progress and awakening, this gender bias has not been challenged in court. If the issue had been to preserve a distinct ethnic identity, admitting children from intermarriage should have been totally banned.

Most mixed marriages are registered in the civil court with no religious conversion on either side. Parsi girls, like their male counterparts who have married out, are free to wear the sudreh and kusti, practice the Zoroastrian religion and attend religious functions and ceremonies.

Man is born of a mother, flesh of her flesh, bone of her bone. Biologically, children begin their existence in the mother’s womb and are more attached to the mother. The language the child learns to speak is its "mother” tongue. Even in this male dominated world we do not have a father tongue. Logically a Zoroastrian mother can influence the child to adopt Zoroastrian culture, tradition and religion more effectively than a mother who is totally unaware of the tenets of our religion. From the religious point of view a Zoroastrian mother is better equipped to teach the values of our religion than a non-Parsi mother.

The community is firm and united in opposing the conversion of outsiders to our religion. We are indebted to many western scholars who have done research on Zoroastrianism and enlightened us about our religion. Many Parsis who have great faith in their own religion still visit temples, churches and dargahs. Similarly non-Zoroastrians chant our prayers in school assemblies. The purpose of religion is best served if the primary virtues of love, compassion, truth and tolerance are cultivated in our children to make them better human beings. No one has the monopoly to practice any religion. We may not belong to a religion but we are free to study and even practice any other religion.

Our priests and scholars should provide guidance in these matters. If they are messengers of God they should be more tolerant, give us more freedom and speak in the language of the heart, the inner voice within which never fails. If they understood the sentiments of the community, had a more liberal approach to their problems, cultivated charity for the wicked no less than for the good, they would earn their rightful place as leaders of the community.

Our numbers are diminishing. We prefer extinction to allowing outsiders into our religion. But when we have accepted children from intermarried Parsi males should we not accept the children of all intermarried community members? Admitting an intermarried Parsi woman’s children is not conversion. If it is deemed to be so, then the navjotes of the children of intermarried Parsi males is also conversion. These children are not outsiders; they have our blood, our culture, our heritage. They are our own. They will be assets to the community.

The recent Maloo-D’Souza navjotes are not the first ones to be deemed invalid. Many others have also been performed. The difference here is that the ceremonies were performed openly without any feelings of guilt. We all are aware of navjotes performed in villages of Gujarat and we can see such persons working in our agiaries during muktad time. If our priests have no objection to treating them as our community members we should also be liberal in our approach.

It is true that we shall face some problems like alien surnames. Desai, Patel, Mehta, etc and even Mulla and Khan have come to stay, and if we legally and morally accept the children of mixed marriages, initially a D’Souza or Chakravarty may raise eyebrows, but in course of time we shall accept them.

Every living faith must have within itself the power of rejuvenation if it is to survive. Change is inevitable. We should accept it with sound reasoning and grace.

PIROJA HOMI JOKHI