Community cliques

Both the ancient Iranians and Indians were pro monarchy/aristocracy and the fact cannot be overemphasized that both these stocks were formed through, existed by, are consonant with and will stand only in the mold of tradition. It is true that in the modern world democracy has become the norm, and most of the present day politicians, although wedded to antithetical ideologies and at daggers drawn with most of their antagonists, swear by it. Somehow they cannot speak or write five sentences without using the term democracy or its derivatives.

It is equally true that, as a microscopic minority, we just cannot think of bringing billions of democrats to the mode of governance mapped out by tradition. Nor can we hope to alter the perilous course of industrial capitalism chosen by the government under which we may be situated for whatever reason. But as far as our community’s internal matters are concerned, there can be no compelling reason for us to separate from our centuries-old, dependable spouse (monarchy/aristocracy) just because some of us have been clamoring for a "second marriage” with a femme fatale, euphemistically called democracy. We cannot rely on people who are projected as "honest reformists” today, "demi/semi” tomorrow and "staunch orthodox” the day after, mainly to entice voters.

As a community we cannot afford to be adherents or advocates of democracy. True, due to social exigencies some communities may adopt family planning, but in our case even a secular government wants us to increase in number. Decades ago when the late Dr Manchershah Gilder had introduced prohibition in Bombay, our orthodox scholar-priests and scholars had put it to the then (British) government that wine was an essential requirement for our religious ceremonies. Only one priest wedded to theosophy had expressed an opinion that to use meat and wine in our religious ceremonies was against the tenets of our religion, but his fanciful opinion was rightly ignored, and Parsis were permitted to use wine for ceremonial purposes. Similarly, a Parsi Matrimonial Court was permitted to function by the then government.

All this goes to show that, as far as internal matters are concerned, contrary to what some lawyers, public servants and social workers may say, we can turn our back on democracy. Unfortunately, since the early 1980s, some Parsis belonging to two different cliques — both cataclysmic — have been exercising their "democratic right” in our internal matters, an activity which results in great financial loss to our trusts, not to mention the confusion caused among lay Parsis in different parts of the world.

The first clique has about eight to 10 pseudo-orthodox Parsis who, because of their dealings, have been constrained to change their signboards as well as two or three of their colleagues from time to time. This clique first appeared on the scene with the signboard reading Committee of United Zoroastrians, but except some temporary publicity it could achieve nothing and lost in the 1981 trusteeship election to the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP). Next was the turn of truncated Council of Vigilant Parsis which acquired notoriety for trying to prevent the trustees of some old fire temples from carrying out repairs and renovation work. Later, the members of this clique tried to prevent a movie, On Wings of Fire, from being released in Bombay. Meetings were held to incite the community against the film, but to no avail. The clique even joined hands with another small group with which it had been at loggerheads, but the ruse failed. With money received by way of donations, a writ petition was filed with a lot of fanfare, only to be dismissed in no time and an appeal met with the same fate. After all the ranting and raving misfired and the legal proceedings came to naught, the last fling was to threaten the management of the cinema house in which the film was to be released. Even this did not work.

Crushed and dispirited though the clique was, it soon thought up another seductive signboard, a publication. This tabloid, distributed free among some members of the community, soon proved to be hocus-pocus and folded up as soon as the late Dastur (Dr) Hormazdyar Mirza, an internationally reputed authority on Zoroastrian religion and socio-religious matters, denounced it as din dushman (anti-religious) after a searching and devastating analysis. Of late, we have a muted Voice here and a stifled Awaz there waiting to fold up. In short, the signboards have changed a number of times, but the cataclysmic disposition of this clique has remained the same.

Before we come to the second clique, some characteristics of a couple of senior members of the first clique are worth considering. These worthies are proud fathers-in-law of alien women, but they insist on projecting themselves as orthodox with the help of their speeches and write-ups against interfaith marriages! Every now and then they rant and rave against non-Parsi scholars of Zoroastrianism, while making use of Gujarati prayer books that owe a lot to the labors of those very scholars! They seem to have no respect for the few scholar-priests the community has produced, but approach them for help when in need! Further, they are delighted to join hands with theosophists and those whose sympathies lie with such un-Zoroastrian teachings. They seem to think that the community would be in accord with them if they organize a few meetings in the renovated auditorium of the old Wellington Cinema at Dhobi Talao and pass some amusing resolutions.

The second clique is a jumble of both militant and quiescent persons. Its members, all well-to-do, are against dakhme­na­shini and for cremation; against orthodoxy and for democracy (in community matters); against tradition and for more and more modernization! Some of them are husbands or fathers-in-law of alien women. Almost all are closely connected with Parsis who have migrated to the UK and US and are fully Anglicized or Americanized. Originally "wealth” meant well-being (weal), but for these Parsis wealth means increase in expendable luxuries. A few years ago this clique, perhaps fancying themselves to be the future governing body of the community, decided to impose adult franchise on the BPP, something unknown to our centuries-old Punchayet. And what is more, with help of legalities they succeeded in taking the first step towards democratization. However, their machinations to dominate the Punchayet misfired, and they were left confounded.

Despite certain differences, there is a sort of fellowship of democrats between members of both these cliques. They are full of praise for literacy and industrial capitalism and are very keen to exercise their "democratic right” to challenge the scholar-priests. All of them thirst for accolades while trying to exercise their "rights,” but if someone raises the question of obligations, that is another story! Though one clique changes its signboards and the other does not, both have their "ministries of propaganda” and operate with many different kinds of truth — ranging from outright lie, through half-truths to the truth torn out of context — and both have turncoats or double agents. Neither misses an opportunity to maintain it has the interest of our religion and community at heart but both sides care two hoots for the guidance of our scholar-priests in religious and socioreligious matters. Both are eager to engage in lawsuits on religious and socioreligious matters. Both consider themselves to be final authorities regarding whose initiation, marriage and death ceremonies can be performed and by whom.

Just as some politicians aver that the entire nation is with them on every issue, so also the pseudo-orthodox and the anti-orthodox maintain that all living Parsis are with them on every religious and socioreligious issue! Of course, in the former case, more than 70 to 80 percent of the country’s population may not know anything concerning the issue at stake; so also in the latter case a vast majority of Parsis may not be familiar with the basic facts concerning the subject of a controversy. And, like politicians, both sides swear by democracy — as long as its interpretation is tailored to their individual needs at a given time! The first clique is under the influence of "Dabuism,” while the second under that of "Dhallaism” and "Bodism.” The sooner we are able to see both groups in their true colors, the better for our future. This would enable the community to uphold the sacramental system of Zoroastrianism.

Surely, even during Sasanian rule in Iran, there were heretics like Mani (born in 216 AD), and Mazdak (small mazda) in Babylon. Both could sway the community but for a short while, as there were stalwarts, kings as well as priests, to deal sternly with them. Mani was executed during the reign of Varharam (Bahram) I, and Mazdak, who preached communal holding of property and families, was put to death in the reign of Kavadh (Kobad) followed by the massacre of thousands of his followers. Kavadh’s son, Khusrav Anushiravan completed the liquidation of the Mazdakites.

In order to rule out any serious danger to our future generations it is high time we decided to deal with the current cliques in a legitimate manner. Incidentally, the first clique has never ever acknowledged a single false move of its own or of its ardent supporters, whereas the second clique has been generous enough to accept its mistake regarding its ultimate aim while justifying its insistence on adult franchise.

From what has taken place till date, it would be no exaggeration to maintain that even the present day secular judiciary is disinclined to intrude in our internal matters. The question is what to do with some Parsis who have an affinity with litigation and the limelight. Immediate steps should be taken to forestall misuse of our slender resources on needless and expensive legal action. A move should be made to head off the two cliques from spreading their tentacles. We can think of only one way. Since the maximum number of persons involved in profaning our ancient traditions cannot be more than two dozen, those who revel in such profanity should be given a stern warning by our governing body to forswear their activity once and for all. Should they refuse to heed the warning, they should be ostracized forthwith. At the most, the result would be that our obsolescent community would be minus two dozen members. Ultimately, such a decline in our number will prove to be salutary.

Faribourz Nariman is an Iranist and a scholar of comparative religion who has attended several international congresses and seminars on oriental studies, art and archeology, etc, and presided over the Iranian section of the All-India Oriental Conference on six occasions. A visiting professor at the Bombay University, he has delivered lectures on Zoroastrianism, Iranian and Indian art, architecture, etc under the auspices of various organizations in India and abroad.