What are the “basic tenets?”

While some may have been dismayed at the high priests writing a letter decrying "dilut(ion) of our Zoroastrian identity" (see " Greatly saddened us...," pg 32)following the remarks made by the former advocate general of Maharashtra Darius Khambata at the successfully concluded Iranshah Udvada Utsav (IUU) in December, their missive has a softer, almost conciliatory tone.

There is no mention of Khambata by name which is in sharp contrast to the letter they wrote several years ago condemning the navjote of two children of a Parsi woman married to a non-Parsi. Not only was the family named but also their address given, an open invitation for zealots to harass them. The current letter refers to Iranshah having "a special place in the hearts of all Zoroastrians worldwide." For the high priests to refer to Zoroastrians without the prefix Parsi or Irani is unheard of. Probably for the first time ever they addressed their letters not only to the community in India but also Iran and the entire diaspora.

Even their criticism is muted with the clergymen stating they were "saddened" and that the points made at the Utsav were "detrimental" and "hurtful." While conceding that in a democracy "everyone has the freedom to express their opinions," they state that to do so in Udvada was "both disrespectful and frankly inflammatory." Only with the last word do we see a glimmer of the old rhetoric. But the very next line concedes "several issues plague" the community and "in an ever changing world we have to constantly evolve but this should be within the framework of the basic tenets of Zoroastrianism."

While expressing their opposition to "conversion and mixed marriages" the priests call for "instilling...the values of being a true Zoroastrian;" again no prefix of Parsi or Irani. The last lines of their letter call for the community "to come together and move forward. Zoroastrianism is a religion that teaches us to walk the path of truth (Asha) and righteousness."

The lines almost read as though they were from a Parsiana editorial! We can only applaud the six high priests and the nayab dastur (high priest in offing) on their new avatar. This outlook bodes well for the community all over the world. Now they have to delineate what are the "basic tenets" and "values." Are they based on racial and gender lines? Does Zoroastrianism preach racial distinction and discrimination against women? Does the religion advocate that a person’s body be disposed of in a particular way and anyone who opts for an alternative method should be denied prayers? Would the clergy seek to revoke the ban on two priests from performing funerary rites at Doongerwadi and two fire temples? Would that not be in keeping with the "basic tenets?" Would we welcome into our fire temples the children of Parsi women married to non-Parsis? Are these not the "values" we should be "instilling" — of equality between the sexes? Would this not be in keeping with "righteousness," not to mention the Constitution of India and of all free countries in the world? And how much heartache and rancor would the priests dissipate if they were to endorse these minimum changes that so divide the community?

With such small steps by the clergy, the trustees of nearly all the religious institutions would fall in line. Today well meaning trustees fight shy of initiating any change. Because the Doongerwadi bunglis are closed to those opting for cremation or burial, and because fire temples do not permit the subsequent two or three-day funerary prayers to be performed on their premises, a new prayer hall had to be constructed. Who is therefore responsible for dividing the community? Those who opt for alternative means of disposal or the priests who condemn and instruct the trustees and panthakies to bar them from performing the most basic requisite of Zoroastrian last rites?

The priests’ forthright, honest and even compassionate letter is an opportunity for the community leaders to now meet with them and try to arrive at some understanding to heal the rifts. Getting six high priests and one nayab dastur to sign anything is a Herculean task. If they could do that perhaps they could also sit and resolve issues.

The Catholic Church has a liberal in Pope Francis, the first Jesuit to hold the position. He has reformed the Church, asked the clergy to be sympathetic to atheists, divorcees, homosexuals and others who in the past were condemned or marginalized. Our clergy, and the priests of all religions, should emulate his example. ​

Both Khambata in his talk at the Utsav and subsequent clarification (see "Difficult issues," pg 31) and Supreme Court Justice Rohinton Nariman in his Shiavax Nargolwala lecture delivered in Delhi on November 22, 2015 (see "The door is ‘slightly ajar,’" pg 26) assert that the present laws allow enough scope for reform. They both refer to the Saklat vs Bella judgment (see "The trustees can decide," pg 30) that states the trustees, if they so wish, can admit into the trust premises those who are not mentioned as beneficiaries. Thus if the trustees permit, the children of Parsi women married to non-Parsis can be admitted into the fire temples and have their body consigned to the towers of silence. The Delhi Parsi Anjuman dadgah permits entry to "Zoroastrians" while the anjuman managed fire temple in Karachi permits entry to the children of Parsi women married to non-Parsis. Those who are cremated or buried in Karachi can have their last rites performed at Doongerwadi while in Delhi and Ooty non-Parsis can be present during the funerary prayers and can pay their last respects to the deceased after the sachkar ceremony.

In his Udvada talk Khambata asked, "Why do so many lawyers talk about religion and so many priests study trust deeds...the term Parsi Zoroastrian does not come from religion or history but from trust deeds drawn up by lawyers." Perhaps it is now time for priests, lawyers and trustees to boldly and sincerely seek out an equitable solution to the grim issues that needlessly divide the community.