Author: Coomi Kapoor
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: November 19, 2003
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/archive_full_story.php?content_id=35578
Introduction: The striking point
about the Parsees as a minority is that they did not believe in isolating
themselves, but were active members of the mainstream.
Some thirteen hundred years ago,
ships carrying Zoroastrians fleeing persecution in Persia arrived on the
Gujarat coast seeking refuge. According to Parsee folklore, the local ruler
of Sanjan, Jadi Rana, was initially reluctant to give them shelter, but
he consented after imposing three conditions. While the Parsees, as these
Iranians who settled in India came to be known, were free to follow their
own religion, they were to speak the local language, wear the local dress
and respect the local customs and sentiments.
Jadi Rana's instructions were followed
faithfully. Parsees made Gujarati their mother tongue, wore saris and adopted
several Hindu practices, including not eating beef. This policy reaped
them dividends. Parsees may be a numerical minority but today they are
highly empowered, with wealth and power far in excess of their demographic
strength of some 70,000. At the time of Independence, Parsees because of
their minuscule numbers, like the Anglo- Indian community, were offered
a nominated seat in Parliament. But the proposal was rejected with the
remark that they needed no special quotas and could stand on their own
feet.
Parsees, who pragmatically adopted
many aspects of Hindu culture, were equally quick in absorbing European
ideas and values during colonial rule and won a high approval rating as
loyal subjects of the Raj. So much so that long after Independence portraits
of Queen Victoria and King George V continued to adorn many Parsee homes.
Some accuse Parsees of being time servers. It did not take very long for
Mrs Dhanjiboi to switch from wearing a hat at the viceroy's garden party
to donning a sari and bindi for the chief minister's reception. They simply
saw themselves as being loyal to the government of the day. (To be fair
to Parsees, during British times there was a vocal minority, from Dadabhai
Naoroji to Madame Cama and Khurhru Nariman, who were in the forefront of
the freedom movement as well.)
The striking point about the Parsees
as a minority is that they did not believe in isolating themselves, but
were active members of the mainstream. Many of the landmark social and
cultural institutions of old Bombay - the Tata Cancer Memorial Hospital,
the Sir JJ School of Art, the Cowasjee Jehangir Hall, the JJ Hospital,
the JB Petit School, the Tarporewalla Aquarium, the art collections of
the Prince of Wales Museum - owe much to the generosity and far-sightedness
of the Parsees. Their social reforms cut across the religious divide, so
much so that Behramji Malabari, for instance, campaigned against Hindu
child marriage and championed the cause of Hindu widow remarriage. It was
in the home of a Parsee that for the first time a Muslim woman publicly
took off her purdah, around 1895.
To the outside world, Parsees present
a progressive and liberal image, but within the community it is a different
story. Parsee panchayats and priesthood are remarkably orthodox and have
steadfastly opposed any reform. A non-Parsee is not allowed entry into
a Parsee fire temple and the offspring of a Parsee who has married outside
the religion is debarred from being a Zoroastrian and cannot even witness
the funeral rites of the parent. Two decades ago, when an American doctorate
student, Joseph Patterson, who had studied the Zoroastrian scriptures extensively,
converted to the religion with the help of Parsees settled in the US, there
was an outcry back in Mumbai. When the late Nani Palkhiwalla stood for
elections to the Bombay Parsee Panchayat, conservative members of the community
were not impressed by his credentials. ''Mr Palkhiwalla, you can lecture
the finance minister on what the Union budget should have been, but you
cannot tell us how to manage our panchayat,'' one of them remarked caustically.
They may be extremely conservative
in community matters, but this orthodoxy does not intrude in non-spiritual
matters and Parsees have benefited by separating religious and temporal
affairs. For them their community does not determine their views on non-religious
matters. In fact, those who speak on behalf of the Parsees are generally
the most well-educated and successful members of their tribe and not their
spiritual heads. Which is why the majority community is less inclined to
view them with suspicion and consider them different from themselves. (Most
notably, the fact that Rajiv Gandhi's father, Feroze, was a Parsi was never
a poll issue.)
In this respect, Muslims have been
less fortunate. Whenever there is a debate on the minorities usually only
the bearded, skull-capped, most fundamentalist members are called to speak
on behalf of their community. Their stridency and dogmatism help reinforce
existing prejudices among Hindus. Voice of reason and moderation within
the community seldom get heard. Many in fact are too intimidated to speak
out for fear of being dubbed as ''sarkari Muslims'' or ''unbelievers''.
Most western countries, which increasingly
have to deal with growing numbers of migrants from varied ethnic backgrounds,
have realised that the best way to bring about integration of diverse cultural
groups and fight bigotry is to encourage some degree of conformity and
adaptability. In contrast India's minority policies are fashioned to reinforce
differences by pandering to religious fundamentalism of various communities.
Rather than treating all alike it is more about allowing each to do their
own thing. It is far simpler to open a few Urdu schools rather than ensure
that Muslim children are not discriminated against in admission to Hindi
and English medium government schools. Easier to keep out-dated, unjust
discriminatory laws on the statute books or to hand out sops of Haj subsidies
and land for building religious institutions rather than providing Muslims
with the same job opportunities as other communities.
The onus for a healthy relationship
between the state and the minorities cannot rest entirely on the government
and the majority community. The attitude of compromise and adjustment of
the minorities is an important ingredient. The circumstances of various
minorities in our country are so different. It is gratuitous to suggest
that Parsees could provide others with a lesson on survival. But certainly
Jadi Rana's wise words of advice on how to adapt hold true for all minorities
even today.
