The Parsi community in India has been in the throes of an unfortunate controversy over the recent resolutions signed and passed by six High Priests. Two important aspects connected with the resolution need to be considered. Primarily the resolution is merely a reiteration of many such resolutions in the past which from time to time the High Priests have found it necessary to reinforce and strengthen the ethno-religious laws of the community, as practiced by the Parsis and Iranis over the centuries, and that this right has been exercised by High Priests from Sasanian times and earlier. Proclamations such as these have been seen as timely acts to nurture and redirect community members who have strayed from the right path.
For some time now, the community has. on doctrinal matters, been in a state of near religious anarchy with lawyers, doctors, journalists, and part time priests, propounding their versions on what the religion ought to be, as per their personal ideologies and wishes, with no consideration for the beliefs and practices of mainstream classical Zoroastrianism. Prompted by the prevailing lock of religiosity and adherence, to the practices of the faith. The High Priests have reiterated their earlier concerns for the growing number of inter-cast marriages and the increasing parental support such marriages ore receiving.
Therefore, the resolution is on expression of their concerns for the number of young people marrying out, and their fears, of the resultant lass of the ethno-religious identity, which occurs as a fall out of such marriages threatening the survival and well being of our miniscule community. As High Priests, it is necessary for them to state the religious practices as they should be followed however un-popular these statements of faith may be. Much like the Pope's encyclical issued every year. Which gives guidance on issues concerning the Catholic Church, the resolutions of the High Priests need to be viewed in much the same way. In today’s world of pressing globalization, our success in ensuring the continuity of the Parsi and lrani identities will inevitably be measured by our endurance and survival in this millennium and the ones lo come. There is no use in measuring the industrial and entrepreneurial success, or indeed our success in only field, if our Parsi and or lrani identity vanishes over o period of time. We will then just be one more faceless entity without history culture or our unique religion.
The Jewish community case study and report on the 1991 Jewish population study in the U.S.A. mirrors our present dilemma of in- creasing mixed marriages and the consequent weakening of the community base [See page 2 - Chart on Jewish Population Studies]. As this report has suggested, when large numbers in a small community marry out, only the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of the faith and community can save it from extinction. This orthopraxy demands a dedication, allegiance, and commitment, to the faith which should be unparalleled. One of these is a commitment not to marry outside the faith. In this Jewish report it is stated that "the greater the commitment to our mutual 3,000 year old Jewish religious heritage the greater our chance of survival, as Jews". We should substitute Jewish for Zoroastrian and Jews for Parsis or lranis. This is the reality we must confront.
The choice before us is this: we can throw out our rich heritage and bring up our children with on amalgam of religious faiths and practices further diluted by our lack of religious infrastructure, and as a result of it be swamped by the fallout of the stronger, more visible faith of the non-Zoroastrian spouse, or we recognize this danger, and exhort our younger generation, as the High Priests have done, to show some faith and allegiance to their community and marry within the faith. Otherwise, as the Jewish model suggests, by the fourth generation only residual vestige of Zoroastrianism will disappear if we continue to marry outside our faith.
The minority of the community recognizes that throughout history a practice has been in existence of the progeny of men married out being brought up as Zoroastrians, but it would be foolish in view of this Jewish report not to recognize, that it would be best for the survival of our community that neither our men nor women should marry out, if it is indeed our intention to save the unique ethno-religious fabric of the community. The interesting point to note is that because Zoroastrian Iran was an agnatic society, following a patrilineal system as per the laws of Sasanian Iran, the same facility was not given to girls who chose to marry out. However, because of the patrilineal system if the daughter of a Zoroastrian mother married to a non-Parsi, marries a Parsi and/or lrani Zoroastrian then her children, i.e. the grand children of the Parsi woman married out, can by legal convention become Parsi/lrani as of ethnicity and therefore they can become Zoroastrian as of religion. Thus, as for as patrilineality is concerned, the gender discrimination in the first generation, of these women married out rights itself for the female grand children of such women provided such children marry Zoroastrian men. Whereas this is not available to the male grandchild. Gender issues are modern phenomena which none of the ancient religions were concerned with and none gave credence to...
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment