On Sanjan Day, Parsis dwell on future (Sunday is Sanjan Day)

[sanddy]

http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/11/17/158--On-Sanjan-Day-Parsis-dwell-on-future-Sunday-is-Sanjan-Day-.html

Mumbai, (IANS) As you travel north
on the railroad route from Mumbai towards
Surat, the first station beyond the Gujarat
border is Umargam. The second is a small,
unassuming coastal settlement named
Sanjan.

On Nov 18 every year, this small town is
visited by Parsis from across Gujarat and
other states to commemorate an event that
occurred over 1,000 years ago. To
understand that event, one needs to travel
back in time.

In antiquity, Iran was home to empires like
those of the Medes (728?550 BC), the
Achaemenids (550?330 BC) and the
Parthians (248 BC?224 CE). Persia and the
Zoroastrian religion and culture reached their
zenith under the last great Persian state, the
Sassanid Empire (224?651 CE).

The Sassanids fought wars against their
greatest rivals and neighbours, the
Byzantines, which weakened them
considerably. Then, the Sassanids found
themselves on the radar of another expanding
power.

By the time of his death in 632 CE, Prophet
Muhammad had brought most of Arabia
under Islam. After his death, his successors,
Abu Bakr and Umar, the Rashidun ('Rightly
Guided') Caliphs started a campaign of
conquest and expansion.

Under their personal supervision, Muslim
Arab forces attacked the Sassanids in
present?day Iraq and Iran.

"In 651 CE, at the decisive Battle of
Nahawand, Rashidun forces defeated the
Sassanids. Emperor Yazdegerd III fled to the
northeast, where he was assassinated a year
later," Khojestee Mistree of the Mumbai?
based K.R. Cama Oriental Institute told IANS.

"The native Zoroastrian Persians resisted the
Muslim Arabs for 250 years after Nahawand,
engaging in guerrilla warfare until options
like paying 'jizya' or conversion to Islam
finally broke them. It was then that a group
of priests ('Dastoors') decided to migrate to
preserve the religion," explains Mistree.

That was when a group from the city of
Sanjan in Khorasan (northeastern Iran)
travelled overland to the port of Hormuz.
Here, they lived for another 100 years. "Then,
a high priest had a dream, urging him to lead
his group to India with which Iran had links
since the time of Asoka," says Mistree.

"Three boats of Persians started from
Hormuz and landed on the south Gujarat
coast, then ruled by Hindu Rajput king Jadi
Rana. The king, apprehensive of the
foreigners, sent a bowl of milk to the
Persians, implying that his kingdom was full
to the brim, and there was no space for them.
"The Persians' leader, Dastoor Neryosang
Dhaval, added sugar to the milk and sent the
bowl back to the king.

This action implied that just as sugar mixed
with milk added taste to the milk, so also, the
Persians would mix with local people and
prove an asset to the kingdom.

"The king allowed the Persians to settle,
provided they adopted the local language and
their women wore the native dress. They
would no longer carry arms. The Persians
agreed to these terms and settled in the
place, naming it after their Persian
hometown. In time, they came to be known
as 'Parsis' (from the Fars/Pars region of
Iran). The year was 936 CE," relates Mistree.
The Parsis may have prospered in India, but
their recent history has been one of problems
and controversies.

Dwindling numbers (Parsis numbered 61,000
in the 2001 census). Demographic trends
project that by the year 2020 the Parsis will
number only 23,000. The Parsis will then
cease to be called a community and will be
labeled a 'tribe'.

Dwindling vultures at 'dakhmas', their funeral
towers, unmarried adults, a large geriatric
population, a taboo on mixed marriages and
conversions to Zoroastrianism, a divide
between reformists and traditionalists ? these
are some issues that have dominated Parsi
discourse of late.

"At the end of the day, the majority view must
prevail. And the majority view is that Parsis
must stay traditional, i.e., no to conversions
and interfaith marriages. Yes, there is a
divide between reformists and traditionalists.
But the reformists are a minority who don't
represent the community's view," says
Mistree.

But will a middle path ever be found? "All is
not lost. Patience, time and effort and, most
importantly, dialogue will yield dividends,"
says Shernaaz Engineer, editor of the 180?
year?old Jam?e?Jamshed newspaper.

What about young Parsis?

"The younger generation is not so caught up
in these issues. They are busy forging their
careers and live by the motto 'Live and Let
Live'. But despite the fact that their lifestyle
demands are very high, they have not lost
their community feelings," Engineer told
IANS.

So what about the future?

"I hope we will pull through. But that will
require serious thought and action. Unless
consistent action is taken, we will be in a
tough situation.

We can't take survival for granted. We will
have to act and act fast," says Engineer.
(Rajat Ghai can be contacted at
rajat.g@ians.in )

 

[KS]

Not only the Parsis, but also every right thinking Indian should think about this issue although only the Parsis themselves have the authority to act on it. They should be encouraged to increase their 'activity' so that the dwindling population is shored up. Parsis have been a model minority and Indian society would surely be poor without them.

 

[Abii]

Interesting article.

One correction though, it says Iran reached its Zenith under the Sassanids and that's not true. The Achemenid Persian dynasty was the most powerful and under them Iran controlled ~50% of the world's pop'n at the time.


Re. the article, it seems the older Parsi generation of Indians are too conservative and up tight. Just allow conversions and all problems will go away. Actually it will benefit the Zoroastrian community b/c a convert is usually more of a religous zelout than a person born into the religion.

I am still toying with the idea. Started reading about the religion, but I gave up a while ago. I'm still to much of an atheist and even my nationalistic zeal isn't enough at this point. If a spiritual person wants to convert, the Parsi community should allow him/her to convert. Don't accept mixed marriages if you don't want to, but allow religous conversions so even if the Parsi community dies out in India, the religion doesn't.

 

[KS]

Interesting article.

One correction though, it says Iran reached its Zenith under the Sassanids and that's not true. The Achemenid Persian dynasty was the most powerful and under them Iran controlled ~50% of the world's pop'n at the time.


Re. the article, it seems the older Parsi generation of Indians are too conservative and up tight. Just allow conversions and all problems will go away. Actually it will benefit the Zoroastrian community b/c a convert is usually more of a religous zelout than a person born into the religion.

I am still toying with the idea. Started reading about the religion, but I gave up a while ago. I'm still to much of an atheist and even my nationalistic zeal isn't enough at this point. If a spiritual person wants to convert, the Parsi community should allow him/her to convert. Don't accept mixed marriages if you don't want to, but allow religous conversions so even if the Parsi community dies out in India, the religion doesn't.

By allowing conversions the very definition of who the Parsis are would be changed. They would not allow it. The definition is one not of religion alone. But also of race and blood.

Atleast they must allow the children born to either a Parsi man or a lady to become a Parsi.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Interesting article.

One correction though, it says Iran reached its Zenith under the Sassanids and that's not true. The Achemenid Persian dynasty was the most powerful and under them Iran controlled ~50% of the world's pop'n at the time.


Re. the article, it seems the older Parsi generation of Indians are too conservative and up tight. Just allow conversions and all problems will go away. Actually it will benefit the Zoroastrian community b/c a convert is usually more of a religous zelout than a person born into the religion.

I am still toying with the idea. Started reading about the religion, but I gave up a while ago. I'm still to much of an atheist and even my nationalistic zeal isn't enough at this point. If a spiritual person wants to convert, the Parsi community should allow him/her to convert. Don't accept mixed marriages if you don't want to, but allow religous conversions so even if the Parsi community dies out in India, the religion doesn't.

If Iran becomes a secular democracy , would there be people in Iran who would revert to Zoroastrianism ? Although this has nothing to do with India but at least Zoroastrianism will continue to live .

 

[Abii]

By allowing conversions the very definition of who the Parsis are would be changed. They would not allow it. The definition is one not of religion alone. But also of race and blood.

Atleast they must allow the children born to either a Parsi man or a lady to become a Parsi.

Read my comment again. They should allow religous conversions, but they can keep on to their Parsi identity by not allowing mixed marriages. This way if the Parsi community dies, there will still be a zoroastrian community left.

 

[KS]

Read my comment again. They should allow religous conversions, but they can keep on to their Parsi identity by not allowing mixed marriages. This way if the Parsi community dies, there will still be a zoroastrian community left.

Well the Parsi and Zorastrian identity is the same in the context of India and Im not sure if they would be willing to dilute that identity. Its like the Jews who think themselves of an ethno-religious group and conversions are very rare. The Parsis just need to eff more, literally, and they would be fine.

 

[Abii]

If Iran becomes a secular democracy , would there be people in Iran who would revert to Zoroastrianism ? Although this has nothing to do with India but at least Zoroastrianism will continue to live .

Like any country on earth, many Iranians have different ideals and opinions. Iran has never been free in its entire history though so the concept of liberty and freedom will not immediately take root even if the regime goes away tomorrow. It will take decades of work till democracy and liberty can take root. Once we're there, people will actually feel comfortable enough to change religions. Iran is very much like China or Japan in that you're rewarded for not standing out in a crowd.

Of course there are people in Iran now who are just statistical muslims (like me an my family). Such people don't believe in a single verse of Quran and are often times even against Islam (like me, my uncles, father, grandfather etc...). There are many, many, underground churches in Iran and they're quite popular too (you can watch the videos on youtube). The reason is that evangelical churches from the US very actively advertise their religion whereas the Zoroastrian community in the US and India doesn't. So as a result a lot of these "statistical muslims" become underground Christians.

Only time will tell, but I am very certain that with time, Zoroastrians in Iran will become a large community, but that depends on whether or not open conversion becomes legal in the next few decades (as of right now leaving Islam carries the death penalty lol). If not than the reverse could happen.

Well the Parsi and Zorastrian identity is the same in the context of India and Im not sure if they would be willing to dilute that identity. Its like the Jews who think themselves of an ethno-religious group and conversions are very rare. The Parsis just need to eff more, literally, and they would be fine.

That's silly though.

I think either vsdoc or angel explained the reason behind this to me but I forgot. Zoroastrianism didn't have this charachteristic in Iran back in the day so I don't understand why they do this.

Come to think of it I think zoroastrian Iranians inside Iran have started doing this too, but I'm not sure if that became a necessity b/c of the Islamic regime or...

Iranian Zoroastrians in Europe and North America accept converts though.

 

[Android]

The Parsis just need to eff more, literally, and they would be fine.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Well the Parsi and Zorastrian identity is the same in the context of India and Im not sure if they would be willing to dilute that identity. Its like the Jews who think themselves of an ethno-religious group and conversions are very rare. The Parsis just need to eff more, literally, and they would be fine.

If i was a Parsi i wouldn't have missed this opportunity , in fact , i would have happily sacrificed myself to as many Parsi women as possible to save my community

Parsi boys should really capitalise on this situation.

 

[KS]

I think either vsdoc or angel explained the reason behind this to me but I forgot. Zoroastrianism didn't have this charachteristic in Iran back in the day so I don't understand why they do this.

Come to think of it I think zoroastrian Iranians inside Iran have started doing this too, but I'm not sure if that became a necessity b/c of the Islamic regime or...

Iranian Zoroastrians in Europe and North America accept converts though.

The Parsis (well at that time Persians) came here not as permament migrants, but as a temporary refuge till they return to their native land. So they had to maintain the bloodlines till they went back. Also at that time, the Indians had a concept of Mlecchas. That is anyone to the west of the borders of Bharat was called a Mleccha (uncivilized) one. So the king wanted the Persians not to intermarry with his people.

Not sure if this is the exact reason or some variation of it. I remember reading this in some article.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Like any country on earth, many Iranians have different ideals and opinions. Iran has never been free in its entire history though so the concept of liberty and freedom will not immediately take root even if the regime goes away tomorrow. It will take decades of work till democracy and liberty can take root. Once we're there, people will actually feel comfortable enough to change religions. Iran is very much like China or Japan in that you're rewarded for not standing out in a crowd.

Of course there are people in Iran now who are just statistical muslims (like me an my family). Such people don't believe in a single verse of Quran and are often times even against Islam (like me, my uncles, father, grandfather etc...). There are many, many, underground churches in Iran and they're quite popular too (you can watch the videos on youtube). The reason is that evangelical churches from the US very actively advertise their religion whereas the Zoroastrian community in the US and India doesn't. So as a result a lot of these "statistical muslims" become underground Christians.

Only time will tell, but I am very certain that with time, Zoroastrians in Iran will become a large community, but that depends on whether or not open conversion becomes legal in the next few decades (as of right now leaving Islam carries the death penalty lol). If not than the reverse could happen.



That's silly though.

I think either vsdoc or angel explained the reason behind this to me but I forgot. Zoroastrianism didn't have this charachteristic in Iran back in the day so I don't understand why they do this.

Come to think of it I think zoroastrian Iranians inside Iran have started doing this too, but I'm not sure if that became a necessity b/c of the Islamic regime or...

Iranian Zoroastrians in Europe and North America accept converts though.

There have been many predictions of this regime falling , but it hasn't even come close to falling yet. When do you foresee this happening ? Sorry but i have questions that only an Iranian can answer.

 

[Android]

I really dont get this
parsis despite being the most wealthiest community in the country their numbers are declining while muslims despite being the most poorest community in the country their number is increasing

 

[Abii]

There have been many predictions of this regime falling , but it hasn't even come close to falling yet. When do you foresee this happening ? Sorry but i have questions that only an Iranian can answer.

The thing is, when people use the term "fall" they don't literally mean fall like the regimes in Iraq, Egypt etc... in Iran the power is not in the hand of a single person/family/clan/class. The power is dispersed between a small minority. Now this minority is very samll, but it's vastly larger than the Saddam regime or Bahrain's current regime, or Saudi's regime etc... There is no family or clan controlling the country. The minority in charge is more like the Soviet regime in that they're just big enough to be able to stay in power for as long as they want. So when people say "fall" they're actually hoping for an evolution in the regime or a coup within the regime or a deal between the Americans and IR etc... Something that would change the status quo. Of course in any of these scenarios a certain group within the regime will have to fall, literally, but the regime will stay in tact.

Short of war, there won't be a regime change in Iran b/c people don't want a revolution anymore (after the disaster that was the 78 revolution and the subsequent take over by the Islamists and the 8 year Iran-Iraq war, ppl literally don't have the stomach for another one) and even if there is another uprising the regime is powerful enough to beat as many skulls as it wants. Another reason is that the Iranian society doesn't operate the same as arab societies. There are no clans, tribes etc... and nobody has weapons. You take these two elements together and you're gonna have the 2009 post election uprising. People will go to the streets by the millions and will just walk around. The regime will crack some skulls and then wait it out. Eventually people will just go back to their homes on their own after a couple of weeks lol.

 

[Abii]

I really dont get this
parsis despite being the most wealthiest community in the country their numbers are declining while muslims despite being the most poorest community in the country their number is increasing

Muslims are usually the poorest in every multi ethnic/multi religous society and the poorer you're the more kids you have. In muslim countries where muslims are obviously the majority, the provinces that are the most religous or the poorest have the most kids. In Iran the total fertility rate is 1.67, lower than Denmark even, but in the Baluchistan region of Iran the TFR is above 4-5!!!! Balouchistan province is the poorest in Iran and the balouchi people are the most religous.

It's the same in every society. Religous people don't use contraception, their religions tell them to have more kids and since they live their lives by the book they abide, their women don't work outside the house much so they stay home and have kids etc...