Editorial Viewpoint
To learn from example
While there are many in India and elsewhere who deride the North American Zoroastrians for being liberal and out of touch with traditional values, none can deny their remarkable ability to maintain their religious and social identity in an alien milieu.
While a smattering of Zoroastrians have resided in the continent for over a century-and-a-half, North American Zoroastrian associations started to spring up around 40 years ago.
In the mid-1960s Jamshed Pavri of Vancouver in Canada prepared a directory of Zoroastrians residing in the USA and Canada. He attempted to form a continental association which drew criticism from some of the other longtime residents who felt the organizations should be local and no one had the right to claim representation for the entire community in the New World.
The Zoroastrian Society of British Columbia, was the first “to be officially registered,” states Lovji Cama of New York.
Local leaders emerged such as Cama and Erach Munshi in New York, Keki Bhote, in Chicago and others elsewhere. From informal get-togethers on the March and August New Year, a more formal structure emerged. The Zoroastrian Association of Greater New York (ZAGNY) was officially formed in 1973 “to try and solve some of the problems that we as a community face now and which we will face in the future,” stated Cama, ZAGNY’s honorary secretary at the time, in an article (“Westward ho,” Parsiana, August-September 1974).
“Between 1970 and 1975 most of the large associations were formed including Chicago, Toronto and Houston,” he adds.
When the fledgling associations aspired to have community centers of their own, multimillionaire benefactors unexpectedly appeared in the form of Arbab and Madame Rostam and Morvarid Guiv. Virtual refugees from the tyrannical reign of Ayatollah Khomeini, the couple first fled from Tehran to Bombay and then on to North America (NA). A shrewd businessman who built much of his fortune in Iran through real estate investments, the lanky Guiv approved of one of the several sites shown him by the ZAGNY office bearers; he agreed to finance the ambitious project in New Rochelle, New York.
He then went on to assist other associations. Years later another ex patriot Iranian, Mehraban Zartoshty along with his elder brother Faridoon who continued to reside in Tehran to safeguard the family business the duo had built up, funded Zoroastrian centers not only in NA but also London. Mehraban resided in Vancouver before moving to California with its more temperate climate. Having spent many years in India in their youth, the brothers extended their largesse to several institutions in India, notable amongst which are the B. D. Petit Parsee General Hospital and the Department of Civics and Politics at the Pherozeshah Mehta Bhavan and Research Center, University of Bombay.
These two Iranian Zoroastrian families helped lay the concrete foundations for the North American community. Most of the Zoroastrians were professionals, few were businessmen and even fewer moneyed ones. If America was a melting pot, it certainly brought together the Iranians with connections to India and Zoroastrians from India, Pakistan, Africa and elsewhere. Neither Guiv nor the Zartoshty brothers forgot the assistance rendered in earlier times to the Zoroastrians in Iran by their better placed, affluent and caring Parsi Indian counterparts.
But the Iranian benefactors were the silver lining. The rest of the community still had to slog to create associations, build an identity, raise funds and strive for recognition in a continent where even amongst the educated elite, Zarathushtra was a name/concept best associated with the title of a German philosopher’s book or a musical composition. Unlike their counterparts in the Indian subcontinent where they were generally a known entity with a proud record of achievement, the North American Zoroastrians had to start from scratch to gain notice.
They were fortunate that like the Indians of the 10th century, the native North Americans were also hospitable and welcoming. Many of the indigent Indians and others went on scholarships funded by charitable trusts in their homelands or received aid from North American universities or institutions. They also found well paying employment subsequently, neighborhoods where they could settle down, and schools and colleges that welcomed their children.
Thus the triumph of the North American Zoroastrian community — aside from being a great success story — is also a source of great pride to the worldwide Zoroastrian community. Zoroastrians have been successful in many parts of the world but only in few places have they built up the kind of institutional structure that NA has. To have held 16 North American Zoroastrian Congresses in the span of 25 years without infrastructure, to have formed a truly representative federation of all the associations, large and small, to consistently publish a first rate journal without a single paid staff member or an office, is remarkable.
They have had their share of disappointments and setbacks. ZAGNY and other associations saw a split between the Parsis and Iranian Zoroastrians. The groups speak different languages, observe different customs. The Parsis had largely resided in democratic countries prior to migrating to NA. The Iranians came from a country run by monarchs and theological autocrats. The rancor persisted for many years but the two organizations drew close again and the XVI North American Zarathushti Congress in New York this August was co-hosted by both ZAGNY and the Iranian Zoroastrian Association.
And in Toronto, after slogging for years to construct a new enlarged dar-e-meher, the Zoroastrian Society of Ontario had to give up its dream due to escalating costs.
On religious issues Zoroastrians in the old world and NA may differ, though the winds of change are reaching the old heartlands. Karachi has liberalized its customs and Iran has initiated women into the priesthood. But that aside, communities elsewhere can study the North American model to learn how to modernize and manage their institutions.
We have seen what a sorry plight the Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI) finds itself in in recent times. Though the FPZAI was formed around a decade before FEZANA, with the full infrastructure of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet to support it, the all-India body is in shambles. Driven by factions and at one time controlled geographically and politically by one area and group, the FPZAI finds it difficult to even hold six-monthly meetings. All efforts to form a world body have met with failure. The local anjumans and punchayets are racked with internal dissension. Dispute after dispute ends up before the courts of law, draining both the community’s coffers as well as its energies.
Where did we lose our way? And how did the North American Zoroastrians find theirs? This is a question worth pursuing.
While a smattering of Zoroastrians have resided in the continent for over a century-and-a-half, North American Zoroastrian associations started to spring up around 40 years ago.
In the mid-1960s Jamshed Pavri of Vancouver in Canada prepared a directory of Zoroastrians residing in the USA and Canada. He attempted to form a continental association which drew criticism from some of the other longtime residents who felt the organizations should be local and no one had the right to claim representation for the entire community in the New World.
The Zoroastrian Society of British Columbia, was the first “to be officially registered,” states Lovji Cama of New York.
Local leaders emerged such as Cama and Erach Munshi in New York, Keki Bhote, in Chicago and others elsewhere. From informal get-togethers on the March and August New Year, a more formal structure emerged. The Zoroastrian Association of Greater New York (ZAGNY) was officially formed in 1973 “to try and solve some of the problems that we as a community face now and which we will face in the future,” stated Cama, ZAGNY’s honorary secretary at the time, in an article (“Westward ho,” Parsiana, August-September 1974).
“Between 1970 and 1975 most of the large associations were formed including Chicago, Toronto and Houston,” he adds.
When the fledgling associations aspired to have community centers of their own, multimillionaire benefactors unexpectedly appeared in the form of Arbab and Madame Rostam and Morvarid Guiv. Virtual refugees from the tyrannical reign of Ayatollah Khomeini, the couple first fled from Tehran to Bombay and then on to North America (NA). A shrewd businessman who built much of his fortune in Iran through real estate investments, the lanky Guiv approved of one of the several sites shown him by the ZAGNY office bearers; he agreed to finance the ambitious project in New Rochelle, New York.
He then went on to assist other associations. Years later another ex patriot Iranian, Mehraban Zartoshty along with his elder brother Faridoon who continued to reside in Tehran to safeguard the family business the duo had built up, funded Zoroastrian centers not only in NA but also London. Mehraban resided in Vancouver before moving to California with its more temperate climate. Having spent many years in India in their youth, the brothers extended their largesse to several institutions in India, notable amongst which are the B. D. Petit Parsee General Hospital and the Department of Civics and Politics at the Pherozeshah Mehta Bhavan and Research Center, University of Bombay.
These two Iranian Zoroastrian families helped lay the concrete foundations for the North American community. Most of the Zoroastrians were professionals, few were businessmen and even fewer moneyed ones. If America was a melting pot, it certainly brought together the Iranians with connections to India and Zoroastrians from India, Pakistan, Africa and elsewhere. Neither Guiv nor the Zartoshty brothers forgot the assistance rendered in earlier times to the Zoroastrians in Iran by their better placed, affluent and caring Parsi Indian counterparts.
But the Iranian benefactors were the silver lining. The rest of the community still had to slog to create associations, build an identity, raise funds and strive for recognition in a continent where even amongst the educated elite, Zarathushtra was a name/concept best associated with the title of a German philosopher’s book or a musical composition. Unlike their counterparts in the Indian subcontinent where they were generally a known entity with a proud record of achievement, the North American Zoroastrians had to start from scratch to gain notice.
They were fortunate that like the Indians of the 10th century, the native North Americans were also hospitable and welcoming. Many of the indigent Indians and others went on scholarships funded by charitable trusts in their homelands or received aid from North American universities or institutions. They also found well paying employment subsequently, neighborhoods where they could settle down, and schools and colleges that welcomed their children.
Thus the triumph of the North American Zoroastrian community — aside from being a great success story — is also a source of great pride to the worldwide Zoroastrian community. Zoroastrians have been successful in many parts of the world but only in few places have they built up the kind of institutional structure that NA has. To have held 16 North American Zoroastrian Congresses in the span of 25 years without infrastructure, to have formed a truly representative federation of all the associations, large and small, to consistently publish a first rate journal without a single paid staff member or an office, is remarkable.
They have had their share of disappointments and setbacks. ZAGNY and other associations saw a split between the Parsis and Iranian Zoroastrians. The groups speak different languages, observe different customs. The Parsis had largely resided in democratic countries prior to migrating to NA. The Iranians came from a country run by monarchs and theological autocrats. The rancor persisted for many years but the two organizations drew close again and the XVI North American Zarathushti Congress in New York this August was co-hosted by both ZAGNY and the Iranian Zoroastrian Association.
And in Toronto, after slogging for years to construct a new enlarged dar-e-meher, the Zoroastrian Society of Ontario had to give up its dream due to escalating costs.
On religious issues Zoroastrians in the old world and NA may differ, though the winds of change are reaching the old heartlands. Karachi has liberalized its customs and Iran has initiated women into the priesthood. But that aside, communities elsewhere can study the North American model to learn how to modernize and manage their institutions.
We have seen what a sorry plight the Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI) finds itself in in recent times. Though the FPZAI was formed around a decade before FEZANA, with the full infrastructure of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet to support it, the all-India body is in shambles. Driven by factions and at one time controlled geographically and politically by one area and group, the FPZAI finds it difficult to even hold six-monthly meetings. All efforts to form a world body have met with failure. The local anjumans and punchayets are racked with internal dissension. Dispute after dispute ends up before the courts of law, draining both the community’s coffers as well as its energies.
Where did we lose our way? And how did the North American Zoroastrians find theirs? This is a question worth pursuing.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive