Acceptance – Never Ever. - Traditional Zoroastrianism: Tenets of the ...

Yet another proof that the term "Parsee" was used not only in the ethnic sense but in the
religious sense in ancient Iran, i.e. before the Zoroastrians emigrated to India, is to be found in the
Pahlavi texts, Karnaamak i Artakshir i Papakan ("A History of Ardeshir Papak", the founder of the
Sassanian Empire - 226-242 A.D.) and Drakht-i-Asurik ("The Assyrian Tree"). In the former text,
Artakshir has been categorically referred to as, Khvataye Parsikan = the King of the Parsees".
“After the downfall of the Sassanian Empire and the Arab conquest of Iran, the term 'Parsi'
was used for those residents of Iran who remained faithful to their ancestral faith, namely Zoroastrian
Religion. The term was specially used for the Zoroastrians of Iran to distinguish them from those
Iranians who discarded their ancestral faith and embraced Islam" Dastur Dr. H.K. Mirza.
Thus, no amount of dialectical chicanery on the part of some Parsee intellectuals can erase the
inexorable facts of history and religious, semi-religious texts that Only a Maazdayasni, born of both
Parsee parents can be a practising Zoroastrian. It is, therefore, stupid to talk of a "Christian Parsi" or a
"French Zoroastrian" ! In other words, the Zoroastrian Religion has been, for millennia, the exclusive
preserve of the Parsees, who include the Irani Zoroastrians.
A short note here on that cause celebre, Petit vs. Jeejeebhoy will not be out of place. This
notorious suit, that has proved to be the harbinger of the veritable ruin of the Parse community, has
been often cited by those who advocate conversion or "mixed" marriages or Juddin Navjotes and by
those who vainly labour to show the difference between a "Parsee" and a "Zoroastrian". And yet, the
historic judgement of Davar J. and Beaman J. does not at all deal with the last two factors, and
negatives the first factor !
In "The Parsi Panchayat Case", there were only two issues before the Court: (1) Whether the
defendants were properly appointed trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayat; and (2) whether the
French wife of Mr. Tata was entitled to the religious institutions and funds managed by the Trustees.
There was no third issue. The answer to the second issue was given in the negative !
All the other statements and the opinions of the two learned judges were mere obiter dicta.
Such judicial pronouncements do not have the binding force of law. They are not at all legal
propositions.
In this chapter, the point emphasised is that the term "Parsee" has been used thousands of
years before our ancestors landed in India and that whatever has been stated in the Davar - Beaman
judgment regarding the difference between a "Parsee" and a "Zoroastrian" is mere obiter dicta. The
opinion expressed in the suit that "Parsee" is only an ethnic term and not a religious one is the result
of the woefully poor evidence then submitted by the defendants in the Court !
21