By now many readers will have read the admirable article by Laurie Goodstein in the New York Times about the declining numbers of the otherwise highly successful, globalized Parsi community. The main problem seems to be the core community’s reluctance to accept intermarriage of any kind because of a blood-based definition of what makes a Parsi a Parsi, though there are other factors (such as low birth rates, high levels of professionalization, and diasporic scattering).
Of course, there’s an obvious historical connection here that Laurie Goodstein doesn’t make, which has to do with the role of the Parsis before Indian independence. A new blogger called Strange Loops has a well-phrased response:
While I think the article gets most of the nuances and issues facing this very small, but historically significant, community correct, a few further points bear some exposition. First, the Parsi community pre-1947 (and to a lesser extent, afterwards) was undeniably Anglophilic in bent. Exceptions abound of course, including Dadabhai Naoroji, who became the first Indian MP in the British Parliament in 1892, and a father figure to a generation of Indian nationalists. The Anglophilic inclinations of many Parsis were encouraged by the British from early on for pragmatic and ideological reasons. The British sought to cultivate an indigenous elite with a vested interest in the preservation of Empire, and further saw Parsis as more ‘whiteÂ’ … and thus culturally closer to Europeans. Indeed, the British often referred to Parsis as the ‘Jews of IndiaÂ’ (a somewhat ironic statement given the rich history of several Indian Jewish communities). All this made the transition to an Independent India an awkward and stilted affair for many (but by no means all) Parsis in Bombay and elsewhere. (link)
Perhaps the reluctance by more conservative Parsis to accept intermarriage has to do with exactly the kind of internalized racial thinking the blogger (who is not a Parsi him/herself) is talking about. Personally, I’m rooting for the Parsis; I hope the faction that favors allowing people who’ve intermarried to remain in the community prevails.
For more on Parsi-related news, check out Arzan Wadia’s excellent Parsi Khabar blog.
Amardeep wrote: “Perhaps the reluctance by more conservative Parsis to accept intermarriage has to do with exactly the kind of internalized racial thinking the blogger (who is not a Parsi him/herself) is talking about.”
Just to clarify:- the reluctance to convert others has a lot to do with history. The Gujarati ruler in Diu, Jadi Rana who allowed them asylum after they fled Iran took an oath that they would not convert the locals, but would be free to practice their religion. One can say that this was a clever pact by the ruler not to disturb local tradition, but to do a humanitarian act of kindness. The holy fire that they had brought with them from Iran was used to consecrate a temple there. Unfortunately, this temple was destroyed by a Muslim Sultan sometime during the 1500s. They, then fled to Navsari.
[If you get a chance, check out Zubin Mehta’s film on the history of the Parsis. It is a low budget documentary, but quite nice. Zubin’s father Mehli, was the one-time conductor of the Bombay Philharmonic orchestra. He is the person responsible for the famous shivranjani tune that is used to begin AIR programmes every morning.]
There is a lot of similarity with the lost tribes of Israel (now Bene Israel community in India) in this regard. The local ruler of Maharashtra offered them asylum and allowed them complete freedom to practice their religion. Most of them were oilmen. Since they did not work on Saturdays, they were/are known as “Shaniwar Teli”. That actually became a separate caste in India, until a Brit recognized their holy works, was surprised that it did not mention the destruction of Solomon’s temple and figured that they could be one of the lost tribes.
A few historians do believe that the sub-caste system in India must’ve been created by such migrations that took place over millenia. Later, these folks got somewhat assimilated, but retained their separate identity. [e.g. the Saraswat Brahmin community etc]
Farokh Engineer
Gen. Manekshaw
Field Marshall Manekshaw to you, Sir! 🙂
“Why don’t the Parsis take a hard core stance the way the Jewish community has done? Most Jewish children brought up anywhere in the world are acutely aware that their community is limited and they go out of their way to date/marry Jewish to continue their culture/religion. It is working so far as there is no decline in the Jewish population. Parsis should get the same conscience. Maybe Parsis need their own country in order to survive extinction.”
Actually it seems that Jews go out of their way to marry non-Jews. After all, if they didn’t european jews would still look middle-eastern.
“The Parsi religion is proto-Iranian, and very connected to Vedic and proto-Vedic religions. They worship nature, mainly fire. Their deities and names that are linguistically and historically related to Vedic deities. This Wikipedia link is quite illuminating, and people acquainted with Hindu mythology will see immediate linguistic connections.”
Yup it’s quite interesting. Their god, ‘Ahura Mazda’ – Ahura in sanskrit is ‘asura’. Daevas are evil spirits in Zoroastrianism, while in Hinduism they’re quite the opposite. So really Hinduism’s demons are Zoroastrianism’s gods and vice-versa.
One IMPORTANT point about the NY Times piece:
It was NOT supposed to be about (as Amardeep says) “the declining numbers of the otherwise highly successful, globalized Parsi community.” It was supposed to be a survey piece about Zoroastrians (not just those of Parsi background, but those of Iranian background too) as a whole in North America, and yes their declining numbers, and not about their supposed “model minority” success. It was sensitively written, but did not completely suceed, otherwise you guys would not be assuming all the various and sometimes stereotypical things you are.
Lets clarify some things, you guys:
1) The Zoroastrian community in North America (and the world) is absolutely NOT just composed of Parsis. Its about equally composed of people of Parsi background, AND Zoroastrians of Iranian background. Chicago (one of N America’s oldest and biggest Zoroastrian communities) happens to be a vary Parsi-predominant, and I guess Goodstein may have spoken mostly to Parsis. Thats too bad, because all the interviewees quoted were Parsi– and it skews the picture for you guys. So let me repeat: North American Zoroastrians include BOTH types of people– so if you’re trying to talk about Zoroastrians, talk about both groups please. If you’re only talking about Parsis, then fine, talk about Parsis.
2) Neither Parsis, nor Iranian Zoroastrians should be unilaterally described as “highly successful.” Either in their countries of origin or the diaspora. Yes its true of many, but COME ON, guys– this is a South Asian American blog– many people say the same thing about South Asians and South Asian Americans. Are we ALL model minorities? Of course not. Its true of many South Asians, because of immigration history, labor laws, and loopholes that created a class of educated South Asian immigrants. But its also not true. Simililarly for Parsis (and other groups created as “colonial elites”), many Parsis made it big, became rich, were educated, and yes anglicized (and fyi, like other colonial elites, and for that matter other people of color in the Americas, most of these famous big Parsis “just happened” to be the light skinned ones). And many of those Parsis established financial trusts for poor Parsis, for housing, food, and education, thus eliminating demands on the government by the community in India, and lessening extreme poverty among Parsis. But, especially in India, they are a very economically diverse community. Just because you only have access to seeing richer ones doesnt mean they are the only ones. There are extremely poor Parsis, there are Parsi servants, there are Parsis who do not have enough money for proper education etc. Just take a look at Rohinton Mistry’s novels. Many Parsis, who come from middle class backgrounds, dont like him, because often his characters are poor Parsis. These people say poor Parsis do not exist. But they totally do. I know many. Now lets talk about Iranian Zoroastrians. Many of them did become rich and educated (do you know why? in part because more than 100 years ago, some of these rich Parsis found out how discriminated against and poor the Iranian Zoroastrians were, and set up trusts and schools for them too). But many remained poor, especially the ones not in urban areas. So Goodstein was ill-advised to say what she said about all Zoroastrians, and you all are ill-advised to use your own personal experiences to build on that model minority stereotype. Really, its kind of offensive. Especially for a South Asian American group of folks, you should know better than to jump to conclusions.
3) Iranian Zoroastrians. Its too bad Goodstein didnt really quote many, and note the nuances of how conversion etc affects the subsets in the community. As Razib noted (which Goodstein didnt really get into), a lot of these conversion arguements are relevant largely to Parsis, in South Asia and in the diaspora (although less so in the diaspora). Because converting to Zoroastrianism in Iran is, as far as I know, a crime, or at best, heavily fined. So its not even an option. Here in the diaspora, you will find among many many Iranian-origin folks, a healthy respect and enthusiasm for Zoroastrianism. Many Iranian Americans feel a real kinship with Zoroastrianism, even if they are Muslim– and if you ask, you will find many stories of people saying “I feel Zoroastrian in my heart”, or “My uncle wanted to convert to Zoroastrianism”, or “My aunt was secretly Zoroastrian.” Thats why Goodstein notes that global figures for Zoroastrians are shaky at best. There are 2 different national religion surveys in Iran– one puts the Zoroastrian number at something like 50,000; and another at something like 150,000. This means either people were afraid to note their religion, or that changed, and/or there is a “continuum” of “how Zoroastrian” Iranians feel. I think its the latter.
4) Procreation. To address what “Sa” and others said. Give Zoroastrians some credit, please! Parsis and Iranian Zoroastrians, from day 1 are told they are dying out and have the obligation to procreate. Whether the parents are conservative or liberal, the stress is on from the time you’re in diapers. Despite all the stuff about intermarriage, what the article doesnt say — and what you all may not know– is that LOTS of Zoroastrians (not just Parsis, but Zoroastrians all) DO make a concerted effort to date other Zoroastrians. Truly. But when the pool of daters, especially in certain age groups and geographic areas, is limited, the options are limited. Many Zoroastrians, like any other cultural group, go to conferences, and do meet people. But its still really limited. Among the smallish number of age-appropriate amazing wonderful single Zoroastrians, some will just not be into you, and others (due to all the procreation pressure) are not ready to settle down; add to that the usual dose in any community of creepy stalkers and crazy people, and what are you supposed to do? Jump on the first person you find? Pin them down and procreate? Come on, guys. Zoroastrians DO make efforts.
Well said, Anahita.
People who are Iranian Zoroastrian, or Parsi Zoroastrian, in the diaspora, exist in a very different reality from the homeland, where legacies and stereotypes are not as played out. As in many religious communities made up of various cultures, the younger generations have much more in common than the immigrant generations.
But, as Anahita said, BE WARY– being “Zoroastrian” does NOT mean being “Parsi” only. And being “Parsi” does NOT imply being “successful” and “globalized” as Amerdeep seems to think.
If you are against the “model minority myth” being applied to South Asian Americans, then you should be against that same myth being applied to Parsis or any other group which does have rich educated members who were cultivated by colonial powers, but which also has many who do not fit the stereotype.
Iranian Zoroastrian immigrants — and their children– know when what it is to be severely discriminated against. To be considered unclean, to have your testimony discounted by the legal system, to be prevented from pursuing your profession of choice, or living in an area of your choice…
Parsi Zoroastrian immigrants — whatever their economic background– have not experienced serious discrimination (they do experience resentment though) in South Asia — so had a period of adjustment to learn that they and their children would experience discrimination in North America, UK and elsewhere. But Parsis HAVE experienced being resented because of their perceived “model minority” status in South Asia– which has been crippling to the psyches of many Parsis who were not well educated or grew up poor– who grew up ashamed to reveal their true economic background, for fear they’d reveal the secret of Parsi economic diversity. It is true, therefore, that many Parsis who come from middle class and upper middle class backgfounds resent Rohinton Mistry’s work.
The Zoroastrian religion, though empire, trade (including the Silk Road), has influenced many different religions and cultures (including Buddhism, although sadly most scholarship concentrates on Christianity and Judaism..), in identifiable and in ways that are just being explored by scholarship.
One very interesting aspect is its veneration of the natural elements — including not just fire, but also water (which is somehow associated with female properties, possibly through pre-Zoroastrian female deities).
Goodstein’s article did not emphasize, as much as it could have, the sheer dynamism of Zoroastrian youth, expecially in North America. There’s A LOT going on, and its all pretty exciting.
She didnt mention that Zoroastrian centers throughout the continent are ALL raising money, building new wings or new buildings. Pretty cool for a community that’s supposedly dying out!
comeon everyone knows that the gujuratis are the real ‘jews of india’!
🙂
Parsi have rejected conversion, the example for the same is the outright rejections of reformist segment which took part in BPP elections and lost outright on their face.
Is it true that the word Parsi originated from the word Pharisees – the ‘scholars’ of Rome. Because i have seen some references on the web referring Pharisees to jews. Another thing, there must be some common link between Muslims, Jews and Parsis as all wear the cap on the head. Is there?