Parsis of Mumbai
The term "Parsi" is not attested in Indian Zoroastrian texts until the 17th century. Until that time, such texts consistently use either Zarthoshti, "Zoroastrian" or Behdin, "[of] good nature" or "[of] the good religion." The 12th century Sixteen Shlokas, a Sanskrit text in praise of the Parsis and apparently written by a Hindu (Parsi legend; cf. Paymaster 1954, p. 8 incorrectly attributes the text to a Zoroastrian priest), is the earliest attested use of the term as an identifier for the Indian Zoroastrians.
The first reference to the Parsis in a European language is from 1322, when a French monk, Jordanus, briefly refers to their presence in Thana and Broach. Subsequently, the term appears in the journals of many European travelers, first French and Portuguese, later English, all of whom use a Europeanized version of an apparently local language term. For instance, Portuguese physician Garcia d’Orta, who in 1563 observed that "there are merchants […] in the kingdom of Cambai […] known as Esparcis. We Portuguese call them Jews, but they are not so. They are Gentios." In an early 20th century legal ruling (see self-perceptions, below) Justices Davar and Beaman asserted (1909:540) that ‘Parsi’ was also a term used in Iran to refer to Zoroastrians. (Stausberg 2002, p. I.373) Boyce (2002, p. 105) notes that in much the same way as the word "Hindu" was used by the Iranians to refer to anyone from the Indian subcontinent, the term ‘Parsi’ was used by the Indians to refer to anyone from Greater Iran, irrespective of whether they were actually ethnic Persians or not. In any case, the term ‘Parsi’ itself is "not necessarily an indication of their Iranian or ‘Persian’ origin, but rather as indicator — manifest as several properties — of ethnic identity" (Stausberg 2002, p. I. 373). Moreover, (if heredity were the only factor in a determination of ethnicity) the Parsis — per Qissa — would count as Parthians. (Boyce 2002, p. 105) The term ‘Parseeism’ (or ‘Parsiism’) is attributed to Anquetil-Duperron, who in the 1750s, when the word ‘Zoroastrianism’ had yet to be coined, made the first detailed report of the Parsis and of Zoroastrianism, therein mistakenly assuming that the Parsis were the only remaining followers of the religion.
[edit] As an ethnic community
Wedding portrait, 1948
Although the Parsis originally emigrated from Persia, most Indian Parsis have lost social or familial ties to Persians. Many do not share language or recent history with them. Over the centuries since the first Zoroastrians arrived in India, the Parsis have integrated themselves into Indian society while simultaneously maintaining their own distinct customs and traditions (and thus ethnic identity). This in turn has given the Parsi community a rather peculiar standing: they are Indians in terms of national affiliation, language and history, but not typically Indian (constituting only 0.006% of the total population) in terms of consanguinity or cultural, behavioural and religious practices. Genealogical DNA tests to determine purity of lineage have brought mixed results. One study supports the Parsi contention (Nanavutty 1970, p. 13) that they have maintained their Persian roots by avoiding intermarriage with local populations. In that 2002 study of the Y-chromosome (patrilineal) DNA of the Parsis of Pakistan, it was determined that Parsis are genetically closer to Iranians than to their neighbours (Qamar et al. 2002, p. 1119). However, a 2004 study in which Parsi mitochondrial DNA (matrilineal) was compared with that of the Iranians and Gujaratis determined that Parsis are genetically closer to Gujaratis than to Iranians. Taking the 2002 study into account, the authors of the 2004 study suggested "a male-mediated migration of the ancestors of the present-day Parsi population, where they admixed with local females […] leading ultimately to the loss of mtDNA of Iranian origin" (Quintana-Murci 2004, p. 840)
he definition of who is (and who is not) a Parsi is a matter of great contention within the Zoroastrian community in India. Generally accepted to be a Parsi is a person who is a) directly descended from the original Persian refugees; and b) has been formally admitted into the Zoroastrian religion. In this sense, Parsi is an ethno-religious designator.
Some members of the community additionally contend that a child must have a Parsi father to be eligible for introduction into the faith, but this assertion is considered by most to be a violation of the Zoroastrian tenets of gender equality, and may be a remnant of an old legal definition of Parsi.
An often quoted legal definition of Parsi is based on a 1909 ruling (since nullified) that not only stipulated that a person could not become a Parsi by converting to the Zoroastrian faith (which was the case in question), but also noted that "the Parsi community consists of: a) Parsis who are descended from the original Persian emigrants and who are born of both Zoroastrian parents and who profess the Zoroastrian religion; b) Iranis from Persia professing the Zoroastrian religion; c) the children of Parsi fathers by alien mothers who have been duly and properly admitted into the religion."(Sir Dinsha Manekji Petit v. Sir Jamsetji Jijibhai 1909)
This definition has since been overturned several times. The equality principles of the Indian Constitution void the patrilineal restrictions expressed in the third clause. The second clause was contested and overturned in 1948.(Sarwar Merwan Yezdiar v. Merwan Rashid Yezdiar 1948) On appeal in 1950, the 1948 ruling was upheld and the entire 1909 definition was deemed an obiter dictum, that is, a collateral opinion and not legally binding (re-affirmed in 1966).(Merwan Rashid Yezdiar v. Sarwar Merwan Yezdiar 1950;Jamshed Irani v. Banu Irani 1966) Nonetheless, the opinion that the 1909 ruling is legally binding continues to persist, even among the better-read and moderate Parsis.[citation needed] In the February 21, 2006 editorial of the Parsiana, the fortnightly of the Parsi Zoroastrian community, the editor noted that several adult children born of a Parsi mother and non-Parsi father had been inducted into the faith and that their choice "to embrace their mother’s faith speaks volumes for their commitment to the religion." In recalling the ruling, the editor noted that although "they are legally and religiously full-fledged Zoroastrians, they are not considered Parsi Zoroastrians in the eyes of the law" and hence "legally they may not avail of [fire temples] specified for Parsi Zoroastrians" (Parsiana 2006).
Current population
The traditional estimate of the number of Parsis worldwide is around 100,000, although individual estimates can deviate significantly; Eliade, Couliano & Wiesner 1991, p. 254 states "fewer than 100,000", Palsetia 2001, p. 1,n.1 states "approximately 110,000", and Hinnels 2005, p. 6 estimates 110,000 ± 10%. The first two figures are based on data from the 1980s, in particular that of the Indian census of 1981, which counted 71,630 Parsis in that country, and on John Hinnel’s earlier estimates of the number of Parsis in the diaspora. The latter figure is based on revised reports of Parsis in the diaspora, and on the results of the Indian census of 2001, which counted 69,601 Parsis in that country, with a concentration in and around the city of Mumbai (previously known as Bombay).
Countries other than India with reported (by local Parsi/Zoroastrian associations) Parsi populations are: "Britain, 5,000; USA, 6,500; Canada, 4,500; Australia, 300; Pakistan, 3,000; Hong Kong, 150; Kenya 80." (Hinnels in Palsetia 2001, p. 1, n1). With the exception of Pakistan, which is part of the region where Parsis have traditionally settled, Parsis in these countries are part of the (first/second generation) diaspora.
[edit] Population trends
Indian census data has established that the number of Parsis has been steadily declining for several decades. The highest census count was of 114,890 individuals in 1940–41, which includes the crown colony populations of present-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Post-independence census data is only available for India (1951: 111,791) and reveal a decline in population of approximately 9% per decade. According to the National Commission for Minorities, there are a "variety of causes that are responsible for this steady decline in the population of the community", the most significant of which were childlessness and migration (Roy & Unisa 2004, p. 8, 21). Demographic trends project that by the year 2020 the Parsis will number only 23,000 (less than 0.0002% of the 2001 population of India). The Parsis will then cease to be called a community and will be labeled a ‘tribe'(Taraporevala 2000, p. 9).
One-fifth of the decrease in population is attributed to migration (Roy & Unisa 2004, p. 21). A slower birthrate than deathrate accounts for the rest: as of 2001, Parsis over the age of 60 make up for 31% of the community. The national average for this age group is 7%. Only 4.7% of the Parsi community are under 6 years of age, which translates to 7 births per year per 1000 individuals (Roy & Unisa 2004, p. 14).
[edit] Other demographic statistics
The gender ratio among Parsis is unusual, as of 2001, the ratio of males to females was 1000 males to 1050 females (up from 1024 in 1991), due primarily to the high median age of the population (elderly women are more common than elderly men). The national average was 1000 males to 933 females.
Parsis have a high literacy rate: as of 2001, the literacy rate is 97.9%, the highest for any Indian community (the national average is 64.8%). 96.1% of Parsis reside in urban areas (the national average is 27.8%).
In the Greater Bombay area, where the density of Parsis is highest, ca. 10% of Parsi females and ca. 20% of Parsi males do not marry (Roy & Unisa 2004, p. 18, 19).
[edit] History
[edit] Arrival in Gujarat
According to the Qissa-i Sanjan "Story of Sanjan", the only existing account of the early years of Zoroastrian refugees in India but composed at least six centuries after the tentative date of arrival, one group of immigrants (today presumed to have been the first) originated from (greater) Khorasan (Hodivala 1920, p. 88). This region in Central Asia is in part in North-Eastern Iran (where it constitutes the Khorasan province), in part in Northern Afghanistan, and in part in three Central-Asian republics of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The immigrants were granted permission to stay by the local ruler Jadi Rana on the condition that they adopt the local language (Gujarati), that their women adopt local dress (the sari) and that they henceforth cease to bear arms (Hodivala 1920). The refugees accepted the conditions and founded the settlement of Sanjan, which is said to have been named after the city of their origin (Sanjan, near Merv, in present-day Turkmenistan).(Hodivala 1920, p. 88) This first group was followed by a second group, also from Greater Khorasan, within five years of the first, and this time having religious implements with them (the alat). In addition to these Khorasanis or Kohistanis – mountain folk, as the two initial groups are said to have been initially called (Vimadalal 1979, p. 2)[citation needed] – at least one other group is said to have come overland from Sari (in present-day Mazandaran, Iran). (Paymaster 1954)
Although the Sanjan group are believed to have been the first permanent settlers, the precise date of their arrival is a matter of conjecture. All estimates are based on the Qissa, which is vague or contradictory with respect to some elapsed periods. Consequently, three possible dates – 936 CE, 765 CE and 716 CE – have been proposed as the year of landing, and the disagreement has been the cause of "many an intense battle […] amongst Parsis" (Taraporevala 2000). Since dates are not specifically mentioned in Parsi texts prior to the 18th century, any date of arrival is perforce a matter of speculation. The importance of the Qissa lies in any case not so much in its reconstruction of events than in its depiction of the Parsis – in the way they have come to view themselves – and in their relationship to the dominant culture. As such, the text plays a crucial role in shaping Parsi identity. But, "even if one comes to the conclusion that the chronicle based on verbal transmission is not more than a legend, it still remains without doubt an extremely informative document for Parsee historiography." (Kulke 1978, p. 25)
The Sanjan Zoroastrians were certainly not the first Zoroastrians on the subcontinent. Western Gujarat, Sindh and Balochistan had once been the eastern-most territories of the Sassanid (226-651 CE) empire, which consequently maintained military outposts there. Even following the loss of these territories, the Iranians continued to play a major role in the trade links between the east and west, and in the light of Brahmanical discouragement of trans-oceanic voyages, which Hindus then regarded as polluting, it is likely that Iranians maintained trading posts in Gujarat as well. The 9th century Arab historiographer al-Masudi briefly notes Zoroastrians with fire temples in al-Hind and in al-Sindh. (Stausberg 2002, p. I.374) Moreover, for the Iranians, the harbors of Gujarat lay on the maritime routes that complemented the overland Silk road and there were extensive trade relations between the two regions. The contact between Iranians and Indians was already well established even prior to the Common Era, and both the Puranas and the Mahabharata use the term Parasikas to refer to the peoples west of the Indus river. (Maneck 1997, p. 15)
"Parsi legends regarding their ancestors’ migration to India depict a beleaguered band of religious refugees escaping the harsh rule of fanatical Muslim invaders in order to preserve their ancient faith." (Maneck 1997, p. 15; cf. Paymaster 1954, pp. 2-3) However, while Parsi settlements definitely arose along the western coast of the Indian subcontinent following the Arab conquest of Iran, it is not possible to state with certainty that these migrations occurred as a result of religious persecution against Zoroastrians. If the "traditional" 8th century date (as deduced from the Qissa) is considered valid, it must be assumed "that the migration began while Zoroastrianism was still the predominant religion in Iran [and] economic factors predominated the initial decision to migrate." (Maneck 1997, p. 15) This would have been particularly the case if – as the Qissa suggests – the first Parsis originally came from the north-east (i.e. Central Asia) and had previously been dependent on Silk Road trade (Stausberg 2002, p. I.373). Even so, in the 17th century, Henry Lord, a chaplain with the British East India Company, noted that the Parsis came to India seeking "liberty of conscience" but simultaneously arrived as "merchantmen bound for the shores of India, in course of trade and merchandise." That the Arabs charged non-Muslims higher duties when trading from Muslim-held ports may be interpreted to be a form of religious persecution, but that this was the only reason to migrate appears unlikely. That persecution was the sole motivating factor to emigrate has also been questioned by Parsis themselves (Nariman 1933, p. 277)[citation needed], and "both factors – the need to open new avenues of trade, and the desire to establish a Zoroastrian community in an area that was free from Muslim harassment – entered into the decision to emigrate to Gujarat." (Maneck 1997, p. 16)
[edit] The early years
The Qissa has little to say about the events that followed the establishment of Sanjan, and restricts itself to a brief note on the establishment of the "Fire of Victory" (Middle Persian: Atash Bahram) at Sanjan and its subsequent move to Navsari. According to Dhalla, the next several centuries were "full of hardships" (sic) before Zoroastrianism "gained a real foothold in India and secured for its adherents some means of livelihood in this new country of their adoption" (Dhalla 1938, p. 447).
Two centuries after their landing, the Parsis began to settle in other parts of Gujarat, which led to "difficulties in defining the limits of priestly jurisdiction." (Kulke 1978, p. 29) These problems were resolved by 1290 through the division of Gujarat into five panthaks (districts), each under the jurisdiction of one priestly family and their descendants. (Continuing disputes over the jurisdiction over the Atash Bahram led to the fire being moved to Udvada in 1742, where jurisdiction is today shared in rotation between the five panthak families).
Inscriptions at the Kanheri Caves near Mumbai suggest that at least until the early 11th century Middle Persian was still the literary language of the hereditary Zoroastrian priesthood. Nonetheless, aside from the Qissa and the Kanheri inscriptions, there is little evidence of the Parsis until the 12th and 13th century, when "masterly" (Dhalla 1938)[verification needed] Sanskrit translations of the Zend commentaries of the Avesta began to be prepared. From these translations Dhalla infers that "religious studies were prosecuted with great zeal at this period" and that the command of Middle Persian and Sanskrit, among the clerics, "was of a superior order" (Dhalla 1938, p. 448).
From the 13th century to the late 16th century the Zoroastrian priests of Gujarat sent (in all) twenty-two requests for religious guidance to their co-religionists in Iran, presumably because they considered the Iranian Zoroastrians "better informed on religious matters than themselves, and must have preserved the old-time tradition more faithfully than they themselves did" (Dhalla 1938, p. 457). These transmissions and their replies – assiduously preserved by the community as the rivayats (epistles) – span the years 1478-1766 and deal with both religious and social subjects. From a superficial 21st century point of view, some of these ithoter (Gujarati: questions) are remarkably trivial – for instance, Rivayat 376: whether ink prepared by a non-Zoroastrian is suitable for copying Avestan language texts – but they provide a discerning insight into the fears and anxieties of the early modern Zoroastrians. Thus, the question of the ink is symptomatic of the fear of assimilation and the loss of identity; a theme that dominates the questions posed and continues to be an issue into the 21st century. So also the question of conversion of Juddins (non-Zoroastrians) to Zoroastrianism, to which the reply (R237, R238) was: acceptable, even meritorious.(Dhalla 1938, pp. 474-475)
Nonetheless, "the precarious condition in which they lived for a considerable period made it impracticable for them to keep up their former proselytizing zeal. The instinctive fear of disintegration and absorption in the vast multitudes among whom they lived created in them a spirit of exclusiveness and a strong feeling for the preservation of the racial characteristics and distinctive features of their community. Living in an atmosphere surcharged with the Hindu caste system, they felt that their own safety lay in encircling their fold by rigid caste barriers" (Dhalla 1938, p. 474). Even so, at some point (perhaps not long after their arrival in India), the Zoroastrians – perhaps determining that the social stratification that they had brought with them was unsustainable in the small community – did away with all but the hereditary priesthood (called the asronih in Sassanid Iran). The remaining estates – the (r)atheshtarih (nobility, soldiers, and civil servants), vastaryoshih (farmers and herdsmen), hutokshih (artisans and laborers) – were folded into an all-comprehensive class today known as the behdini ("followers of daena", for which "good religion" is one translation). This change would have far reaching consequences. For one, it opened the gene pool to some extent since until that time inter-class marriages were exceedingly rare (this would continue to be a problem for the priesthood until the 20th century). For another, it did away with the boundaries along occupational lines, a factor that would enamour the Parsis to the 18th and 19th century British colonial authorities who had little patience for the unpredictable complications of the Hindu caste system (such as a clerk from one caste who would not deal with a clerk from another).
[edit] The age of opportunity
Following the commercial treaty in the early 1600s between Mughal emperor Jahangir and James I of England, the British East India Company obtained the exclusive rights to reside and build factories in Surat and other areas. Many Parsis, who until then had been living in farming communities throughout Gujarat, moved to the British-run settlements to take the new jobs offered. In 1668 the British East India Company leased the seven islands of Bombay from Charles II of England. The company found the deep harbour on the east coast of the islands to be ideal for setting up their first port in the sub-continent, and in 1687 they transferred their headquarters from Surat to the fledgling settlement. The Parsis followed and soon began to occupy posts of trust in connection with government and public works (Palsetia 2001, pp. 47-57).
Where literacy had previously been an exclusive domain of the priesthood, the British schools provided the new Parsi youth with the means to not only learn to read and write, but also to be educated in the greater sense of the term and become familiar with the quirks of the British establishment. These latter qualities were enormously useful to Parsis since it allowed them to "represent themselves as being like the British," which they did "more diligently and effectively than perhaps any other South Asian community" (Luhrmann 2002, p. 861). In turn, it allowed the British, who were otherwise quite convinced of their racial and intellectual superiority, to deal with the other native communities through the offices of the Parsis. While the British saw the other Indians, "as passive, ignorant, irrational, outwardly submissive but inwardly guileful" (Luhrmann 1994, p. 333), the Parsis were seen to have the traits that the colonial authorities tended to ascribe to themselves. Mandelslo (1638) saw them as "diligent", "conscientious" and "skillful" in their mercantile pursuits. Similar observations would be made by James Mackintosh, Recorder of Bombay from 1804 to 1811, who noted that "the Parsees are a small remnant of one of the mightiest nations of the ancient world, who, flying from persecution into India, were for many ages lost in obscurity and poverty, till at length they met a just government under which they speedily rose to be one of the most popular mercantile bodies in Asia" (Loc. cit. Darukhanawala & Jeejeebhoy 1938, p. 33).
One of these was an enterprising agent named Rustom Maneck who had probably already amassed a fortune under the Dutch and Portuguese. In 1702 Maneck was appointed the first broker (so also acquiring the name "Seth") to the Company, and in the following years "he and his Parsi associates widened the occupational and financial horizons of the larger Parsi community" (White 1991, p. 304). Thus, by the mid-18th century, the brokerage houses of the Bombay Presidency were almost all in Parsi hands. As James Forbes, the Collector of Broach (now Bharuch), would note in his Oriental Memoirs (1770): "many of the principal merchants and owners of ships at Bombay and Surat are Parsees." "Active, robust, prudent and persevering, they now form a very valuable part of the Company’s subjects on the western shores of Hindustan where they are highly esteemed" (Loc. cit. Darukhanawala & Jeejeebhoy 1938, p. 33). Gradually certain families "acquired wealth and prominence (Sorabji, Modi, Cama, Wadia, Jeejeebhoy, Readymoney, Dadyseth, Petit, Patel, Mehta, Allbless, Tata, etc.), many of which would be noted for their participation in the public life of the city, and for their various educational, industrial, and charitable enterprises." (Hull 1913; cf. Palsetia 2001, pp. 37-45, 62-64, 128-140, 334-135).
Through his largesse, Maneck helped establish the infrastructure that was necessary for the Parsis to set themselves up in the city and in doing so "established Bombay as the primary center of Parsi habitation and work in the 1720s" (White 1991, p. 304). Following the political and economic isolation of Surat in 1720s and 1730s that resulted from troubles between the (remnant) Mughal authorities and the increasingly dominant Marathas, a number of Parsi families from Surat migrated to the new city. While in 1700, "fewer than a handful of individuals appear as merchants in any records; by mid-century, Parsis engaged in commerce constituted one of important commercial groups in Bombay" (White 1991, p. 312). Maneck’s generosity is incidentally also the first documented instance of Parsi philanthropy. In 1689, the Anglican chaplain John Ovington reported that in Surat the family "assist the poor and are ready to provide for the sustenance and comfort of such as want it. Their universal kindness, either employing such as are ready and able to work, or bestowing a seasonable bounteous charity to such as are infirm and miserable, leave no man destitute of relief, nor suffer a beggar in all their tribe" (Ovington 1929, p. 216).
Posted by firoze shakir photographerno1 on 2009-09-01 17:04:13
Tagged: , parsis of mumbai