Archive

The present sad plight of the community is due to (1) screams for ‘reforms’ and (2) most of the speeches, letters, articles, etc, both for and against such ‘reforms.’ There are some who want to welcome interfaith marriages, initiation of children of alien fathers, Parsi crematoria and the cold-shouldering of scholar-priests and their guidance. Since Sasanian times the community has dealt with outbursts of heresy with a strong hand. But the present situation is another story. Formerly, power was in the hands of the king and the high priest and, as a rule, both were orthodox; today the high and mighty socialite, the agnostics or semi-agnostics rule the roost! Formerly there was one society; today there are clear-cut schisms, the impulse for which may be traced back to the late 18th-early 19th century, when some of our forefathers started aping the West. So to speak, they sought to dissolve our marriage with highly cherished monarchic or aristocratic values by embracing democracy and egalitarianism. Along with the democratic fixations came the notion of mass literacy. Incidentally, in the entire Avesta literature, there is not a single word for reading or writing, yet we, as a community, boast about nearly cent percent literacy! During the 20th century the amalgam of democratic fixations and mass literacy resulted in an unprincipled belief: university degrees in any discipline or success as a professional or a businessman ipso facto makes one competent to guide the community in religious and socio-religious spheres. Perhaps a better example of logical fallacy would be hard to find, but we still have a sizeable number of obdurate believers in this.

As a result, those with higher academic degrees in some secular field, big businessmen, professionals, government officers, men of the armed forces, journalists and columnists started considering themselves to have a say and, at the first opportunity, dictating terms in religious and socio-religious matters. The common ground among all such persons (hereafter called ‘the Sundries’) being their hostility, overt or covert, to orthodoxy and tradition.

The speeches and writings of all such people precipitate schisms. Two distinct groups can be noticed: The heterodox (or anti-traditional) and the pseudo-orthodox (or counter-traditional); both seemingly inimical to each other. Almost all the Sundries are well educated. However, to be in a position to speak and/or write about religious and socio-religious matters, one should be theologically, historically, philosophically and linguistically literate. With a few exceptions here and there, the rest are not up to par: they know no Avesta/Pahlavi or Gujarati/English of the kind required for adequate translation or elucidation, even though some of them may ‘quote’ from scholarly translations/interpretations or ‘compare’ the scholarship of some scholars. In truth, when examined at close quarters, their highest morality turns out to be mere respectability, their purest religion just a charade. 

A man cannot understand everything simply because he happens to be literate. A doctor of literature may be all at sea when asked to fathom a work on comparative anatomy. Hence, for an over-enthusiastic lawyer or a chameleonic journalist to claim to have read, say, translation of some parts of our scripture by Kavasji Kanga/Lawrence H. Mills/Maneckji Dhalla/Irach Tara-porewalla is an exercise in futility. Such a ‘reading’ is a far cry from studying with critical apparatus; it can be no more than flipping through a newspaper, because the ‘reader’ would be at a loss to comprehend the various textual, grammatical, philological arguments together with the Pahlavi, Sanskrit, Latin equivalents of some words or expressions. How can such a ‘reader’ distinguish between a religious fact, fantasy or malafide fabrication? At best, he might acquire a sketchy notion about the text and, at worst, it would result in his disorientation. Thus, there can be no rationale for the dilettanti to dabble in matters religious, and ‘democratic right,’ ‘freedom of expression,’ and ‘social responsibility’ are dodges which can sway none but the most credulous. A civil engineer does not meddle in a surgeon’s work nor does a surgeon get in the way of a civil engineer. Similarly, only scholar-priests and scholars have jurisdiction over religious and socio-religious matters.

Let us consider some of the characteristics and functioning of the members of each faction.

      

The heterodox (or anti-orthodox)

Basically a faction of the high and mighty. Barring a civil servant here or an officer of the armed force there, most of them are either wealthy professionals or men of big business. As agnostics or semi-agnostics they would have our next generation forged by secularism and technocracy. Either they or their kith and kin have plumped for intermarriage. True, it is almost impossible to forestall the latter, but surely it is possible to keep such wrongdoers at a distance, as done by the Petit family by shunning their daughter who wedded an alien barrister? Their ill-will towards, abhorrence of and animus for tradition (religio-cultural heritage) is all the more vital. After common descent, it is this very heritage that makes us Parsis with our discretional allegiance, rather than yielding to it as sheer accident of birth. Orthodox Parsi ethics has always been collective rather than individual, but nothing pleases the heterodox better than engendering individualism and the latter induces them to believe in maintenance of a right in the secular power to control or eliminate the clergy. Since quite a few of them are libertine playboys, they see no harm in supplanting Zoroastrian values by decadent standards. If they could have their way, they would evacuate public spheres of religious elements and roll out the red carpet for legitimation of love children. Even those among them who are somewhat sober are burdened by the ballast of Dhallism, Bodism and Dabuism.

      

The pseudo orthodox (or counter    traditional)

Members of the old group equate ‘tradition’ with Dabuism. They consider vegetarianism and reincarnationism to be the canons of Zoroastrianism. Today hardly any mobed of this group performs the Dabuian ‘kemna mazdani navjote,’ and the same applies to the ‘baj nirang’ ceremony.

The new group caused a rumpus in 1984 about a film on the prophet. A writ petition was filed, but that did not succeed. Indeed the trumped up claims of the pseudo-orthodox are such as would readily lend themselves to imposture. Rabid periodicals (or rather shaming machines) are brought out; there would have been one more of this, but it folded some years ago. The term ‘western philologist’ is invariably used as a pejorative by them. It is noteworthy that many of our prayer books in Gujarati characters, which many Parsis (including some members of the new group) use everyday, carry the following words on the title page: Vidvan professor Geldnerni Avesta uparthi and Karl Geldner (1852-1929) was a German philologist, an Iranist as well as a Vedist; in 1895 he published his monumental work Avesta: the sacred book of the Parsis; note the last word, so discreetly used by a great orientalist.

In a word, the pseudo-orthodox, irrespective of the group to which they may belong, do a lot of disservice, particularly to those Parsis who are easily taken in.

      

Thwarting schisms

For the orthodox orthodoxy is a way of life; for the heterodox it is something which comes in the way of "Progress” with a capital ‘P,’ something against which a war must be waged, and for the pseudo-orthodox it is a profitable smoke-screen behind which to take cover while putting into practice one nefarious scheme or the other.

 Our orthodox scholar-priests have distinguished themselves not only for their command over scriptural matters but also for their artless candour and shattering honesty as critics of taste and penetration in the field of religious jurisdiction. The heterodox talk about ‘liberating’ religion from ‘fanaticism;’ the pseudo-orthodox would like to ‘liberate’ the community from hierarchy (sacred order); and both have a number of ‘cases’ to argue and a large number of animosities to work off. At any rate, the orthodox cannot be pressganged into accepting a ‘solution.’ Ecclesiastical cognizance of heresy would spontaneously come to them. Let the devout among us take it as our duty to do their bidding. The sooner the offenders are disciplined the better for the community. In some cases, sending the offenders to Coventry may be called for and no effort should be spared to ensure its implementation. We may as well learn a lesson from our Bohra brothers and their religious head, Syedna Burhanuddin, whose word is law for all devout souls in the community. The laissez faire policy which our community had pursued for the last 70 or 80 years has proved to be baleful and, hence, the orthodox scholar-priests may be constrained to discipline the delinquents and the transgressors notwithstanding the fictive, fanciful and fusty claims presented by the defence.

      

Conclusion

‘Religion’ has not often been worse employed than in justifying one who is a confirmed anti-traditionalist or a counter-traditionalist. Regarding Judas, Shakespeare notes: "So Judas kist his master and cried all haile, when as he meant all harme.” Such ‘employers’ can be found among the Sundries in general and among the columnists in particular.

 Some who are in the public eye aver that they are concerned with the issues and not the personalities. On the face of it, this may appear to be a balanced/non-partisan/independent approach, but very often danger lurks behind it. One of the most effective agencies in allaying suspicion and in attracting the laity to a sinister movement is the ability to organize a jashan or a baj ceremony. A similar way is to form a committee, a league or a mandal with a name which can entrap the dupable. In the 1970s a duper established an "Ashoi Mandal” to champion the cause of ‘Parsi crema-torium!’Thus, we must make it a point to reckon with the individuals and their credentials, and the credentials of all those who have been speaking and/or writing from time to time on religious or socio-religious issues are fairly well known. And a man’s credentials foreshadows the stand he is likely to take on a particular issue, the targets he would endeavor to pursue, the cause he would prefer to embrace, etc. It is only in the case of a newcomer in the field that one cannot forejudge.

Further, the prevailing literacy may enable the Sundries to cite from the scripture, but the same text and commentaries on the lips of the Sundries may betoken the exact opposite when cited by an orthodox scholar. As Rumi beautifully puts it: "The goldsmith’s tool in the hands of a shoemaker is like a seed sown in sand;… ‘I am God’ on the lips of Mansur was the light (of truth): ‘I am Allah’ on the lips of Pharoah was a lie.” A recent example, the warning against urbanization from John Ruskin and William Morris was beneficial, while the anti-urbanization propaganda of indoctrinators of Nazism was destructive. Here, too, the plea that what matters is the issue and not the personalities would prove to be specious.

The above is sufficient to presage the following framework of countermeasures:

The self-styled moderators of religion and ‘guides’ of the wayward should be treated as apostates and, after a stern warning, sent to Coventry.

The Sundries who exhibit obstinate resistance to the highest religious authority should be consigned to the scrap-heap.

For about five years, to start with, not a single article/letter on religious or socio-religious issues from the scripturally illiterate should appear in the Parsi press. If the letter/article is penned by a heterodox/pseudo-orthodox scholar, the same may be published along with a reply from an orthodox scholar-priest or scholar.

In all religious and socio-religious matters the decision-making should be left to the scholar-priests and their judgment should be final and binding. Even at the secular level a decision taken by the highest legal authority, whether right or wrong, is binding. Hence there can be no cogent reason for flouting the judgment given by the highest religious authority in the sacred field.

Every possible inspiritment should be given to our madressas, because the future of our budding priests depends on the training they receive there.

Profligate use of our trust funds should be prevented.

Barring the Sundries and their supporters all faithful souls should realize that it is their duty to do the bidding of the orthodox scholar-priests without a whimper and without paying the slightest heed to those who raise stale objections like ‘power corrupts and...’ etc.

In a certain sense, to maintain that we are enjoined to praise righteousness is to profess half-truth, the other (and more important in the present context) half being the denunciation of evil. Similarly, our duty is not merely to uphold good, for heresy-hunting is equally, if not more, important. The Denkard, a highly valued Pahlavi text, lays down in book six: "That is unsullied religion which, when ignominy and disgrace come forth, can oppose and whack them.” Today ignominy and disgrace have come forth in the form of intermarriages, initiation of aliens, censure of dakhmenashini, "exposition” of the sacred texts by the scripturally illiterate. It is high time the same are whacked by the orthodox scholar-priest with full support of the faithful, the spasmodic and sporadic bids by the Sundries to sway the laity notwithstanding. The laity can lend their support in putting the Sundries out of countenance while deferentially obeying every edict from the orthodox scholar-priests.

The duty of the faithful is to stand for authority as against anarchic individualism in belief and conduct; for dispensation of faith and law as against doubt and sophism; for doctrine as against feeling and emotion; for devotion to truth as against expedience and indifference. Our future lies in the proper discharge of our duty. Only disaster and catastrophe await those who knuckle under the scripturally illiterate indifferentists and temporizers.

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.