“On the side of good”

Zoroastrianism is virtually dead. There are barely one lakh practising Zoroastrians throughout the world, and these too dwindling at a fast rate. To go by Parsiana figures, in the year 2012 there were merely 201 Parsi births in Bombay, but 761 deaths! At this rate it may soon be extinct.
The key question is why did it not sustain through the ages? Many equally old religions have, in some form or other. That it did not is surprising, as its message is simple, straightforward, and many of its teachings have relevance even today. Possibly, some of these answers can be found in its history, as also its current practice.
Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest religions — over 3,000 years old. It arose around the same period as the Old Testament (Moses) and the Rig Veda. But, while the other two continue to this very day, adapting themselves to the later ages, Zoroastrianism is dying a natural or unnatural death. The Old Testament was incorporated into the Bible by Jesus Christ and lives on within the hearts of millions of Christians. The Rig Veda finally evolved into the Upanishads (Vedanta), which are considered the basic texts for Hinduism. Even the other major religions that came later continue to thrive in one form or another. Then why has Zoroastrianism been withering away?
Though its history is a much debated issue, it is said that Zoroastrianism flourished for over 1,000 years, from the reign of Gushtasp, until the conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great (330 BCE). It declined for the next 556 years, until it was restored to its pristine glory when Ardeshir Babekan ascended to the Persian throne in 226 CE. With the texts being translated into the local Pahlavi language, it spread far and wide throughout and beyond the Empire. It continued for 416 years as state religion until 651 CE but continued to thrive well in Iran until the 12th century. Since then it has never regained its strength.
The reason for this requires some thought. Most Zoroastrian historians place the cause for its decline on the cruelty of the Islamic conquerors. But, in those days all empires, whether Greek, Persian, Roman, Mongol or Islamic, were built through the sword. Why, even colonial conquests till today are done through the sword. Yet religions and cultures have survived such onslaughts. Besides, how was it possible for the Bedouins from the Arab world (newly converted to Islam) to so easily conquer an advanced society as the mighty Persian Empire?
The answer lies in the fact that weaknesses had developed within the practice of Zoroastrianism. Towards the latter years of the Sasanian period the priesthood/rulers imposed oppressive rituals and rigid norms on the entire population with cruel punishments for not conforming. From a liberating thought it was turned into a suffocating orthodoxy. The bulk of the population became alienated from the small ruling/religious elite. Islam came as a relief for the populace, with its lack of rituals and its concepts of equality and justice. Most turned relatively easily to the religion of the new conquerors.
Zardushtis who were settled around the central oases towns of Yazd and Kerman ably survived and remained steadfast to the ancient religion. Zoroastrians had been visiting, trading and settling in northern and western India since 500 BCE.
Some Zoroastrians fled to the mountains of Khorassan, then to the island of Ormuzd and finally went to India. The Zoroastrians from Ormuzd had settled in Diu until 716 CE when they left in the face of the Arab invasion of Sind from 711 CE. Though Zoroastrianism did have limited impact on some of the later Islamic writings — like the Shahnameh art form and some Sufi poetry — the culture and religion could not sustain, except in insignificant but intellectually relevant pockets.
Here, in India, the tiny community was able to sustain as they were no particular threat to successive rulers — whether Hindu, Muslim or Christian; just or tyrannical. The community leaders, mostly traders, were preoccupied making money, remaining on good terms with the rulers. Zoroastrian principles would often be shelved at the altar of self-interest. There was no spread of the religion. The society also produced many gems — like Madame Bhikaiji Cama, Shapurji Saklatvala, Behramji Malabari and learned and active priests of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
What then are these Zoroastrian values expounded in the religion? It speaks of the two principles of Spenta-mainyu and Angra-mainyu, found in creation and inherent in human nature, in the form of Bahman (good mind) and Akamana (evil mind). These two influence man’s manashni (thoughts), gavashni (words) and kunashni (deeds). When the good mind predominates, human nature results in humata (good thoughts), hukhta (good words) and huvarshta (good actions). But, when the evil mind overtakes human nature, it leads to dushmata (evil thoughts), duzukhta (evil words) and duzvarshta (evil deeds). The responsibility of man is to act in support of the good principle and destroy the evil principle. This, I would consider, comprises the core of Zoroaster’s teachings.
In addition, great importance is attached to sanitation, purification and cleanliness. A believer is duty-bound to keep earth, air and water pure. While fasting is not recommended the virtue of temperance or moderation is considered a priestly virtue.
Further, the Gathas, Denkard, etc emphasise action against passivity. For example, the Denkard says that "apart from the salvation of one’s soul, it is best to strive for saving other people’s soul.” Also, "one who strives to understand and attain a true life, should preach the law of Ahura Mazda to mankind, better by acts of service than by words.” And yet again it is said "joy comes to one who brings joy to others.”
Finally, Zoroastrianism foresees a future where Angra-mainyu will be ultimately wiped out and thenceforth the world will enter upon a new cycle, free from evil and misery.
What excellent ideals! But, is one able to live up to them in today’s big bad world where evil thoughts and deeds tend to inundate us? Corruption, dishonesty, fraud, injustice, greed, avarice, etc seem to be all-encompassing. Are Zoroastrians of today standing up against all this; or, at least, not falling prey to this? And what about the huge destruction of the earth, air and water pollution going on today? And then again what about the sub-human lives of vast sections of our people resulting in slow and agonising deaths all around us? Today, there is no end to the evil in nearly every sphere of life.
So, in today’s age, what does it mean to "support the good principle and destroy the evil principle?” One may not be personally equipped to oppose all this; but, at least, one could stand on the side of good against these evils. Surely, this would be more in the spirit of upholding Zoroastrian principles, rather than mere ritually going to agiaries. And is the orthodoxy of today (against which Parsiana is taking a valiant stand) a sign of Zoroastrian purity, or yet another round of rigidity, bent on strangulating its true purity that resides in its ideals?
There is an innate good in most of us. If one utilizes Zoroastrian principles to allow these to flower, maybe one day our future generations may realize a world where Angra-mainyu will be ultimately wiped out and the world enter a new cycle, free from evil and misery.

An alumnus of the Doon School, Dehra Dun and St Xavier’s College, Bombay, Kobad Ghandy became involved in Left-wing politics while working in England. In India he and his late wife Anuradha moved to Nagpur where they worked for tribal rights, women’s issues and helping the disadvantaged caste people. Ghandy was a founding member of the Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights. While undergoing treatment for cancer the Maoist ideologue was arrested in Delhi in September 2009 for being part of a Naxalite group allegedly promoting terrorism and violence to achieve change, and has been incarcerated in Tihar Jail since then.