Reform_Transplanted_Parsi_Agents_of_Chan.pdf -

Please enable JavaScript to view the full PDF

lianian I/nut, I vi) u mc 42, number 4, Scpc cinber 2t in \ lonicti Rinit,i r Reform Transplanted: Parsi Agents of Change amongst Zoroastrians in Nineteenth-Century Iran In i/it mid-nineteenth centiii’, Pains ieestah/ir/sed ties with Zoroastrians ill I/an that hat! Ian çimshed dii to decades-lonç’ internal macst in Iran. In 1854 reformist.r in India established the 1 coVet]’ ftir the /1 me/ioiatiti,i n/ Conditions in Ira,? and sent a representatil’e to Iran d 1anec/si flataria. F Iata,ia i/as char cgd with e/iminzctinH /1)1 0111101/S non-,1 Iiislnii tax 01/tel h1 /1)1’ Zoroistrians (the aziveb]. Hatarea a/co orchtnned th I/tmmn Zsrnactrsan (0)/i mi/nit] and landed a earieft of toiii mi//lift projects. He ti/co vront’tit Parsi 1/or//i/Ct , ideas to Ira,z, i/ne! attempted to reshape I/all/all /.ell,gOll.l p/act/ce and h/tey a/out Parci i/nec. This art/el explores th e//cts o/ Pars! rej/r/iust ideas on I/till, and I Jatarla’s son ni/f/11(1 c0/iee1/1l1lL Zoroastr,tnnsm a/Ic! its rele/tionship to Iranian neitional identiti. In the middle ‘f the nineteenth century, Parsi reform-minded philanthr//pists took the Iirt steps towards re—estahlishinii ties with their coreligionists in Iran. \\hat began as an effort to improve Iranian Loroastnans Icy/nit conditions ctucklv mushroomed Into a full-blown operation to reor,.anize and reform the Iranian Zoroastrian Commtinltv, as well ao to revise their legal status vis—il—vis the Islamic state. Parsis arrived in Iran with the funds, international political con— nectiono, and organizational capacity to implement these changes. In their efforts to revitalize their Iranian brethren, Parsi reformers and philanthropists radically changed the iranian Zoriiasrrian community, leaving behind the footprint of their ( ran, reformist context. ‘lhev initiated community organization and reli— go/us ref(/rm along Indian Parsi lines, although rhts was refracted through the different conditions and experiences in Iran. A history of Zoriiastrian religious reform in Iran thus begins with the tentative changes initiated by the first ut the-se Parsc emissaries: Nlaneckji Lim1i I lataria. The natdure of the c/intact between the Iranian and Indian /.u/ru,asrrian C ummu— nitic clcaisged during the course of the eighteenth century. Deteriorating c/un— ditions in Iran led to increased Zuuroastrian migration frium Iran at the end of the ccntcirc. lhese same cottditiuin. altered the relationship of the Parsi commu— nite to their fellow religionists. lser since Parsi emigration to India, the Iranian Zoroastrian commclnity, as the ‘original’’ Zoroastrians, had been imbued with a ,trcj Rin5c re whet i: Imlccrct i,IIct . NIi.s.irhu’c:cs - Iltis tutu is Jtdcatci ii, the dm0 rc of k.i’.rt \ itiliti Rot 351) Rnner Re/si,,, Lonisplauietl 35 I certain religious authority. Over the centuries, emissaries bad been sent to iran in and Arabic (although he reportedly had forgotten his native Guerati), as well as a order to clanfv religious questions, or to seek authority or knowledge of texts. trained /oroastrian priest. Back in India, NIulla Kaus briefly served as high priest In 1722 an Iranian Ucistrit arrived in India from kerman with the response to a reli of the Qadimis hefore retiring and relinquishing his position to his son .NIulla gious question from the Parsis —a rii’aytit. Dastur ]amasp Hakim \‘ilavati, a scholar Firuz became a renowned scholar and had accumulated a library of over 8)61 of both Pahlavi and Avcstan languages, en1oved such authority among the Pars is that manuscripts by the time of his death in 183b. he was asked to resolve a dispute concerning dtikh,,iJ ritual. 1-Ic brought a previously The mission of Niulla Kaus and his son to Iran in I ‘68 8(1 is indicative if the unknown religious text to the Parsis, the Xnage5tan, and remained in india for a year relationship between the Parsis and the Iranians at the time. It was still the Iranian to train high priests) During his residence in India, Dasrur Vilavati discovered that Zi roasttians who served as the repository of authority, kmiwlcdgc, and texts for there was a one-month discrepancy between the Patsi and Iranian Zoroatrian reli Parsis. Certainly, the divide between the Qadimis and Shahanshahis indicates that gious calendars. Due to the enormous importance of the calendar for calculating Iranian authority was not absolute, and that the Parsi priests carried sway in large appropriate ritual observances, this dnding ushered in an intense controversy in segments of the Parsi population. Nonetheless, in an attempt to acquire mitre the community, dividing those who would adhere to the existing Parsi practice information, or authority, it \s’as to Iran that the community turned ..\Iulla (the Shahenshahis) from those Parsis who believed that the Iranian Zoroastrians Kaus’s experience in Iran indicates a high level of learning and scholarship in were more likely to l7ave maintained correct practice over the centuries (the the Iranian community. It is significant, however, that he turns elsewhere to Qaclimis). Those in the Iranian camp, in addition to those priests trained by Islamic scholars -for additional scientific study. The fact that he spent years study Dastur Vilayati, tended to be poorer artisans and lesser known merchants. The ing with a/a/i/a, and served at the court of the shah, suggests a level of tolerance Parsi dastars held sway amongst those groups that were more closely tied in with towards Zoroastrians that would not always exist by the end of the century. their own atithotitv and presige, such as the larger merchant families in Surar. The mission to Iran served as a turning point, although it ss’as not understood The Qadimis wrote to Iran asking for further confirmation, bitt received no as such at the time. ‘The Iranian community that received NIulla Kacis and NI ulla response. Nearly a generation later, in 1”68, the nephew cif Dastur Darah (one Firuz would decline later in the century, to become almost unrecognizable in an of Velavati’s Parsi students and high priest of the Qadimis) was commissioned account 1w a European observer some To years later. by the Qadimis to travel to Iran to pursue the issue. Dastur Mulla Kaus spent The article in question was a letter addressed to John \\ilson liv Danish Zor— the next 12 tears in Iran with his son, NI ulla Etruz, studying astrimomv and oastrian scholar Professor \Ne stcrgaard that appeared in the oriental Ch,irtian astrology with Zortiastrians in Yazd and Kerm-an. \\hile in N’azci he consulted (pc-tutor in May if 1648. His description if the Zoroastrian communities of with a general assembly of Ztiroastrians at the fire temple. The last of the ,it’ajats Va-id and Kerman differed radically with those that had hecome familiar to the was compiled from the “8 questions he put to this assembly: Still seeking more Parsi community from the .\l uN,t Kaus mission. .\ceorcling to \\ estergaard, information on the calendar issue, Niulla Kaus tras eled to Isfahan where be spent there were only I ,I.HIoO 7,orciastrian households in Na-id. and they lived in con three years with NI uslim scholars studying ,\rahic and Persian, -as well as ditions “heltiw the lowest I lindus.” Ills account of their religitius knowledge isstrologv, philosophy, logic, grammar, islamic theology, and medicine.’ After was even more alarming: successfully making an astrological prediction for the iranian shah, Karim Khan Zand, he served ai his court in Shiraz for several years, then spent three )f their religion they know nothing whatever; in the temple they tght the tire tears in Baghdad before returning to India. His son, later called NIulla Eiruz, only for a few hours during the heginning I )f the night. ‘Ihev consider smtik big was educated as a Zoroastrian priest in laid by the leading dist,r. Upon as improper for the Dastur only; and the D.istLir himself offered me a kullan a leaving Iran, NIulla Eirciz was an expert in Pahlavi, Avcstan, Persian, ‘lurkish, water pipel in his own house. t),cstur \‘ihtvatc trained D.istur Daral, Kurnana (later teacher if .\ni1uetil du Pcrrttn), D.istur \\ estergaard maintained that many religiitus texts had been lost, and1 that the few Jam.aii Asa, and l).cst ur I ardunii. See Susan Stiles Maneck, us flea/I, o/ .-l/,taman. C a/litre, li/c’s/itt texts that the community preserved were poorly understtttmd by the priests lie met mel Ides/u got! Cluing 1 mug the Parsi.t o/ India ( Bitmbo I 1)5’’): 3)1. 1 lie .\ it’rUIdeS/,ltl, it t lie t cute , there. The /.itroastrians ctf Kerman fared even witrse, and were gradually citn-• l,elieved iii be an authentic religious text, seas later itndersttmod .15 a S:iss.uri,,,n text tin ritual erting nt Islam. \\‘ilson, the cdititr of the ne\vspaper, appended a mire tct the matters of uncercuti, pitsciltlu even Muslunt, .iuthirsltip. Tltis list t’nai,m/ is tilled tOte ltitiier. httr \IuIla K.ius’u travels, me the .iccimutui \vritten sub. article, asking why ‘‘the opulent Parsis of Bitmh:tv don’t send a misstuti if ues1uentlt itt his suit .,\Iull,m I tru, md discussed in NI.itteck, limit!’ u/ -Il,m’th.’n,t: 142 14. in dliii ti to theIr htet Ii ten in N’ ted a nil K i rman . ‘Mul,.m Kaus lie collected ulama optnates emcnccruiitts tltc’ Zuurcmastr,an itt a ni.irtu’cr:pt nul,lcthed me, 1528 mu 5t/I, I l’/em/’a/-,,c/. Suu.in Stile, \i.i::eck, I/mi fimath si-l/,t’,m,un’ it/i/tic. 1,/isa: ‘c3uitc t rum them :ssuc cit lie Cu”, ,n’,,l (‘/‘t’m,’oumm I,’, ‘la/nc’ ire tttmttt Slaneck, lIst/i C -I/tv/ow: mittS I, cmtmuu.m i/ C bet, ,imumi2 !/,e l’arsdt it lime/ni If, imbit I, 143 144. ia Cs 352 Rthç’er lhe/sini Iianrp/cinted 553 This article caused an enormous uproar in both the Qadimi and Shahanshahi I lataria. I lataria, a Bombay Zorcuastrian who worked for the British on cccmmer- Parsi communities. The Qadimis in particular were challenged, since they had cial issues, enjctved British citizenship and had been searching for an oppccrruntrc staked their position on the calendar dispute on the basis of Iranian authccritv. rot isit Iran the historic homeland of the Zoroastrians. In 1854, I lataria ciur— If, the Shahanshahis challenged, the Iranian Zoroastrians were in such a poor neved tic Iran ,cnd settled in Tehran tic begin kchhving for the repeal icf the state of religious knowledge and practice, how could they possibly serve as auth jig’ieii tax. orities on ritual mattcrsP \\cstergaard’s account of the dcsmal state ot the Iranian communities was also alarming due to the deeper religious danger it presented. The Iranians. whether i/cc lie/ni jazich -r or not their opinion was accepted in all matters c-if ritual, had always been a source of religious knowledge and texts. They had also represented the ‘original” com )f all the restrictions imposed upcin the Zoricastrcans, the Ia—iric tax was con— munitv, admired as much for their persistence and endurance throughout the cen siderccl the most onerous. This was in part due tic the fact that the communits turies of Islamic state sovereignty, as they were as repositories of Zoroastrian itself had shrunk signi[lcantlv over the course cf the troubled eighteenth religious teaching. The toss of this original and fellow community of Zoroas— century white the ncr-al amccunt ciwed the government remained calcbrated trians would be devastating, and \\ estcrgaard’s suggestion that they were being according tic earlier population figures. It was also hec;cusc the lccca] gin crnors lost, not unIv to ignorance, but ro Islam, caused much consternation. For the permitted the tax tic be arbitrarily increased, some ccurces claiming that the Parsis, the age of Iranian authority was over, 0) he replaced only in part be a amicont clue ss’as dicubled cit even tripled during \aser al—Din Shah’s reign. turn to European scholarship. The publication ot this article, the increasing .\ccccrding to statistics ctcmpiled b l-Iataria, the Zicrciastrtan population i-cf [lose of Zoroastrian refugees from Iran during this same period, and the Parsis ‘i’azd at the rime of his arrival was apprccximatelv 6,596 persccns, of which only own growing economic prominence in Bombay combined to lead the Parsis to 2(11) ccculd fully pa the tax and as many as 32(1 people had difiicultv paying a renewed interest in Iran. This time, l7owever, their interest stemmed from ans pccrriccn of it.? I lataria tocck over the payment ccf tbc full amount with funds concern to protect and assist the Zoroastrian communities there, rather than to provided liv the S.\CI. Parss would cccnttnue to foot the hill ccf the ja’jt/, for seek knowledge. 2$ years cintil it was finally abolished in 1682. In 1853, Parsi merchants established a group dedicated to improving the con I lataria was ultirnatels scccccssful in convincing the Shah to repeal the jgi-h ditions of Zccroastrians in Iran. This organization, the Society for the \mcliccra— tax, in large part clue tic his political acumen and his enlistment icf fucreign diplcc ton of Conditions in Iran (SACE, set as its goal the lifting cif Islamic legal mats as allies. British ofdctals were encituragcd, htcth by I latatia and liv Parsis in restrictions (in Zcirccastrians (cs nccn—\lusljms) and the associated non—Muslim India, tic Iccbhv the Shah on behalf of Zccrciastrians In Iran. British Futreign Cictisul tax, the ;a’eeh. There bad already been a fund established some 2(1 years prc Rcinald Iliciciipsiin. Maiicr Rawinscin. ,\rnbassadcir tic Iran I:. B. Eastwick, as viouslv in order to provide [lnancial assistance to Iranian refugees.” The S.\C1, well as British members of Parliament, all urged the Shah and members cf his however, was the [lrsr organized means for changing legal and living conditions cccurt tic abolish the tax. The Cicmte ,\rthut Dc (dibineau, a Iicngtime French resi for Zciroastrians in Iran. It is not certain whether Parsis were contacted by their dent and scholar in Iran, alscc nicick sides with I latarta and the Zc)roastrcans in this coteligionists in Iran fur help with thcya /c tax, or whether thee initiated assist- matter. I latarca also simught tic establish gc cod relaticcns with iranian political and ance unreqcicstcd.1’ The first S.\C1 rcprescntati\ e to Iran was Manecki Limji telcgtcius elites in order to further his goals. lie was tin intimate ternis of friend ship with iilamei, with whiim lie clialcigcced ofl theolicgical matters. I lateria’s cisen correspondence is replete with references tic the /a/i’/i as inciinsistecit with an [hew is an ccft repe.uceci sic ri ccci crc.tced crih this lot fund, which tends cc cake precedence in islatiiic sense of justice. I Ic also pointed tic the fact that the .\rmentans in the hcsiccriccgr.cpht ccc I’acst .cccccitces cn ]r,cn md cclcsctcres the mmcclii and latter cccncexc cf clue l’ahriz., with the aid of the Rtissians, had been freed if their own a.icIc tax esitth!ishmecii of ike S.\CI. l3rietic an lr,cnian Zorcostrian lied Iran stuth his claugictec- icc prec ccii icr from being d,d uctccl anti nc,irrted mc .m I uslu ni in 96. Ike daughter in c1uesiiccn s rclcsec1 uent Ii bccrden sortie years pres iocislt I lataria scriire fred1cientls tic British representatives . married Pramg Rmndac, a Van cisc run ncercIcanm in t5ccmlcai and cccgeiiier ricec icelped c titer refu- , gets ftc-inc Iran. One otiheir sons esi,ii,lcshed .m tund to dcc ccc in 1534 and a second son was respcmcc mz.mrgc cshiasp, Iranians ire ree.miicd its request cctg ,isststatice fri cm the P.c rsi s \\ bet her tic is cc,cs tile sible lot helping ccc tccLtnd S \(i hnionrrsc ulcer sotcrces, see Mart Hoc cc, Zoc-nnccs/c-/mn: i/cc?, nniim,iL ctltpet ItS cit tic it is utielear. Rn’/zçmins (him/u mci ]‘cncni/ccr (Lccndon, ltrt) 2(5) 21s. t )n dcc esialciishmettr ccl S \C1, see met ?dciced I rue ha.crgosh:msp, ‘1 .xpl.ctiaoccti cit inlpccsci iccul ttttd Intl cci catch in Zicrmc,tstti,icts, kestenicurg .\ might, lIe Zncc Qcmaj)ynnili cc/ (icc/i: foci, cur?,,;, Issumiicc/roci, or l’errotei;c c C \eoc ‘lurk, itccttdcirtkc 2, ncc. 5 (249t) Shahanshualin: 13 18. \z,mrgtcsh,msp cites he limtreccf 5,49)1 tcmmatis as I ))) I): 12) 131. the ccHicicl eng;n/c cc ith cccii ccttucials rcqunrcclg pmcmeclt ccl three tunics as niuchi, “In act ,crocle enocieci “i.xplanacicccc ccl mice Impcuscuioii and I nd ccl a/tell ccn Zorccastri,itis,’’ ti “NI.mneckc I h.mt.crta’s ligures .mre cmred in iah.cngcr \shcd.crc, ‘h Cccrner ccli Iisiorr .llcc/ncrcimcii ic ,“ cite Zoiccasirnan journal [mumoc/acha, 2. icc. S 249’) Slcah,icishiahi): it it, cc mien i,c ‘jolted Pmcuz Zucco.thui,cc.’ (Ieitt,tti 2s,s Slc.cilamtslt.mhc) 3’) 554 Rinper Re/iagi I iiii.ttila,it,,J nDD ni iran with stories of kidnapping and forced conversion of Zoroastrian girls that these battles over authority, and their harassment and persecutitin need to he were brought to his attention by Zoriiastrians in Yazd and Kerman. viewed in this light. Even as late as 1898, Naser al-Din Shah’s son anti successor, In 1882, Naser al-Din Shah abolished the Jag/cl] tax by royal writ. 1-lateria Nfiizzafar al—Din Shah issued a farman again insisting that the Ziaroastrians not be hosted a garden party at the home of ilaji Zaher a1Dowlah15 in Tehran tc cele subeet to shari’a-hased indignities. brate. Foreign ambassadors, Parsis, Iranian royalty, and Armenian merchants The shahs’ willingness to support the reduction of sharia—based restrictions on were all present at the festivities, which included both Persian and English religious minorities was also clue to Zoroastrian international political capital and sweets. The shah’s son and Commander-in-Chief of the Persian forces, Na’eh their growing commercial wealth, borh a function of closer ties with the Parsis in al-Sultan r\mir Kahir, sent his O\Vfl band of musicians to entertain the guests. india. This combination of the extension of central authority. :nternational pol A translation of the shah’s /drman appeared in the Bsmbay Gngcttc on 16 itical pressLire, anti commercial incentives macic it more likely ftir the shah to bnd November 1882. It read in part]: it in his interest to protect religious mincirities against their local oppressors. This equation woulu continue throughout the nineteenth century and well into the The Zoroastrians residing at Yezd and Kerman, who are the descendants of twentieth century in Iran. the ancient population and nobles of Persia by the issue of this Royal . . . Pirman we order and command that the same taxes, assessments, revenues, and all other Government imposts, trading dues, &c., which are taken from our Mohomedan subjects residing in the towns and villages of Yezd and I he Lsfeibltstitiient nJ flit iujtlmem Kerman shall be taken in like manner from the Zoroastrians who also reside there; and nothing more nore [sic] less the exaction of the sum of eight . Following his success regarchng the jag/rh, l-lateria concerned himself with orga hundred and forty-bye lomans (Ts. 845), which was annually levied under nizing the Zoroastrian community, lie traveled to ‘i’azd and Kerman ,tnd estab another name frcim the said community will he abolished. lished gciverning groLips modeled after the Parsi “Panchavat” in the Z( iroastrian commlcniles of ‘Na-id and Kerman as well -as ‘Fehran. These groups, icr tmjumans I lataria did not neglect to thank his British allic, and gallantly credited them as they wocild lie termed in Persian. functioned both to inrermed ate between with his success. Pent, chair of tl7e committee on the Jag/ch at the Persian .\me— Zitroastrians and the wider society anti polir, as well as tic regulate internal corn— lioration fund, also wrote letters of appreciation to the British ofbeials.” 1 feel munity affairs. sure that had it not been for the British iniluence at the Court of Teheran such In 1884 the ‘Na7di Anioman was constituted with xs’ealtl,v merchants, the hyaci a happV result could noi have been so successfullvaccomplished.”’ mobed, a school teacher and the head villager (the ka/aiutai’) as members. A Despite the effusion of delight with the Shah’s formal rescindence of the tax, similar tiu/smrlll was founded in Kerman shortly thereafter. Both tif these organ— discrimination against the Zortiastrians continued. The /ngiel) even continued vatitins were charged with consolidating the community and providing charita- to be collected by local othcials in Yazd for some time. Over the course of ale assistance to those in need, in a written dialogue between l-lataria and the nineteenth century, as the court increased the degree of governmental centra members of the an/smell in ‘Nazci, I lataria’s concern for the organization, account lization, the question of the Zoroastrians, and religious minorities more bnjadlv, ability, and functions of the cm/oman tire clear, lie urges members to lie bnancially was inseparable from the ongoing contest between rosal authority and local :tccticintahle and to ascertain the community’s hnaneial needs, lie advised the autonomy. The It/al//a in particular, resisted royal attempts to infringe on the anjoman to take appri cpri:ite measures ro provide a mcinrlily f cod allowance and islamic-based legal system —part of the perpetual contest between royal and clothes to the needy; it, decide (in the priesis’ salary; and to determine the ft/ama prerogatives in the legal domain. Religious minorities we’re the site of ciists of buiicling a new Ftc temple and eiement,iry schools.’ The Kerman an/oman established a dowry fund bin pour girls, opened an icrphinage, rehcolt Hit cmpe.aiirins it Nl,ir,cckiis ciirresptindence. see’.hc SetCifilO letters in the K, ,,thkl,5,,,/, a decaying bre temple. and ficundecl a girls’ school md a community sp.cce to . li; ?ansnoIin ,i(snvirI- r ‘5:0 i/ flit,’ I in [cit tin Sue 115,, 1 .5 mini fed.), ion; Rn’S; so ph, celebrate religious ceremonies. 1, inn,,,’ (nit, mpoiirf /ors,ot,n,,.’ , I 15’i. 1959) felt rat,, Sit) ): I 9), - l.ii t,ii,er SI Din, lair ii as the son -in-Ian if i/a).ir prince Nun,, \li khan Quit. ‘The translaii,,n is tephcaied in a letter trim, l’res,clen, it the H,rnmmee, ‘erwin Zot,,asirian \ntel,,,ration [-end, Dinsh,,ss Nlan,,ck;i lie)), ii, In Lxcellenc, Rnnaltl I - 1 h,tms,,n, Isiy, (:11 1)\,\., \\ illianis ,,cksi,n, Perth, ISo? ml Pr’s,’,,? I I,ltr,,n regnitti ‘if I’)tIS rd,o,,n, 2)0)3), 35. dated Kim1,;, 4 Decent icr 952. , \ntigi,i, Zsro,r,ti-ni,is: 1)4 I 55. ‘See (Sr exaniple Penis letter it, Sir NC. Lull, KC1I. \sli,il,ur,, “A (writer it F l,st,ir, ‘5 41) 41, 59, ‘\iniilii, Zn sushi in, IS)). ‘ll,id: t,4, 556 Rn/t’r Re/ntis transp/nntia’ Ca fdliCGtWll I lataria equated the practice of “correct” and “true” teligion with prospetits, insisting that dciting the heyday of the Persian Empire, the inhabitants [implicitly Zoroastrian in religion) “observed the rules of piety and purity of body, mind In keeping with Parsi convictions ConCerning the importanCe ot [auropean-st vie and soul, ‘I’here were ntlt superstititicis beliefs and thus they could live a long education tot hoth boys and ttirls, I lataria initiated the establishment of such schools in Iran. fraciiti()flal Zorcaistrian schooling provided basic literacy. Chil and healths’ life,”21 \\ tb the Islamic conquest of Iran, however, civilization ciren were taught some religious prayers hv rote univ. In addition to providing Iimplicitl Zoroastrian civilizarionj declined. I Ic describes the Arabs as” semi— barbaric tribes who bad no culture of their own and did not know the value of basic literacy and some knowledge of the ,\vesta and relitious obliiatitins, educaonn,” .\s a result, “for want of education, mans’ evil customs entered these new schools also taught sciences, mathematics, and home economics tot into the commcinits’ Zoroastrians took to vices and led an evil life in the girls. ,,, lo encourage further learning, 1-lataria brought 12 local students from keeping with the customs of the wild Arabs Kerman and 20 from Yazd to the capital. These students and their successors I lataria clearly believed in the reinstatement of “lost” practices and the pun0— were recruited to continue their studies in Bombay, although with very mixed cation of Zotoasrrianism from historical accretions of Islamic and/or Arab success,iS By 1900 more tl7an 14 such “new” laurcipcan-stvle schools were estab origin. For that reason, he sought to revive a number of practices tl’iat contrib lished for Zoroastrtans in Iran)5 The funds lot the inaioritv of these schools were uted to community solidarity and that bad been abandoned: the keeping of the provided by Patsi benefactors, in addition to S.\C1 funds. Babtarn ire, the coming-of-age ceremony of the investiture ot a shirt and a rope cord belt (sorb’ pus/ti/., the viewing of a corpse by a dog (sa, din), proper rituals associated with burial, and the reading, rather than only reciting, of the Re/iiyniis Rajnrm Avcsra:1 I-Ic wrote that historic and teligiousl “languages like ,\vesta, Pahlavi and Persian need to be revived,” 1-lataria was keenly interested in reforming Iranian Zotoastrian religious practices. There were also non-Zoroastrian practices that had gradually seeped into com— lie observed that their practices were not identical with those followed in india mcinitv practice, that I latania urged the community to stop. Such practices and attributed this to the dearth of religious texts the generally poor state included drinking wine in the daytime, dancing and plas’ing music at someone of religious knowledge and leadership. I-Ic attempted to bring Iranian practices death, performing Stuslim marriage customs, polygamy, religiously sacrilicing in line with those of the Parsis. lie saw this as a process of pcirihcation whereby animals, eating cow and camel meat, and wearing \l uslim] eli cths,25 In hi writ superstiiions and non-Muslim (read Islamic) practices svould be purged and for ings and in his actions, I latania demonstrated his concern that Iranian /,Onlas— gotten practices reinstated. In his own account, ‘I Patti ,listinn to lion (I SfiS;, triane continue to follow basic 7,otoastnian titdi,ils, customs and traditions like I latatia outlined his views on the importance of religioLis and social reforms. their Parsi brethren. This should not be seen as an orthodox emphasis on ‘l’he source of the problem. according to I lataria, was the lack of teligi( us ritual, but rather the promotion of basic practices in order to preserve the ‘Lot— knowledge amongst the laity and the priests alike: oastrian religion as well as ccimmunits’ cohesion and identit Professor ackst’>n, traveling io Iran in the early twentieth century, witnessed ‘i’be problem of as-ailability of mcibeds in Iran is vets’ acute. Those who are many changes in Zotoastrian practices that bc-attributed to the reformist Parsi there are not vets’ enlightened and thet’ are not even well versed with some iniloence. Jackson noted that, overall, Zoroastrian practices and customs in (if our rites and customs. There is a great need to improve the conditions of Iran tendled to be simpler than those of the Patsis, if they were even practiced the mohecls there: to educate them properly so that they may be better able at all, For example, he noted that “there is practically no teligiotis ritual to sets e the community as the mobeds remained uneducated, they could ,,, performed in lersi,e”’ Tsvo ceremonies ci cnsiclered essential to Parsis. the not guide the /vhdm,c lZoroasrrian l,elieversI on the right lines in religious coming-of—age investiture of Ztiroasrrian garments (.radrr pitt//I) md the mattet. They often believed in superstitious elements and introduced super_ stos in into the religion. Thus the real tenets of our good religion were set hid. aside and false beliefs crept in.’ ‘‘iliicl, ‘I lad. S\iicilwl Eisher, “/,oroasirian tint Between Nit Ii md i’r,iis” Phi) cuss, I nivcrs/il it R,isliici Shabmardan, I 114’dneç’nn / ZjincdI, (‘Feheant, 561/) c1tnnecl in full in i’isher, “/,i/rci,ir’ tTh)c.igci, IS” S)i 1’, ito9 Ir,in’h Ill), ‘5,\niivlii, tr,,rnc,’,ya,ts: 34, ,\rniuhi chants thai lie Ziiro,iniri,in hler,Ic/ rile in is “tacit” corn - ‘‘Sec Sb ihm,irdan, i’cn’Cvc/’i),l/i, as n1uoicd in tull it i-tibet, ‘‘Zriroasi ri//il [tat’’: li/Il, pared o, tic NiLislirn population. Sec Zr, OclnIl/aOt: I 3(1. “For lacks, in’s: rema u.s on pirui haii,,in ,incl Indian Z it, r,ist run pridt ice, see Pd 1.1/c/, IhI nit! ‘il.ittcckji t.im I i.iiaria, I tat, ‘/1 In Ii,,,,: I Par,a Ii,ii”,i In /l/l/ ( IS’s 5). Pt’s hI. pp 363, 3”d, 350 ssi ,.uid OS 35”, 55ff Rmç’er Re/situ Tiausp/amed 55() leading priest ci tiring his visit to Yazd. lie described the anjoman as “the synod of l3artzshunm purif5cations, were largely ignored in Iran. Describing the sadie pus/n, leading men in the Gahar [Zoroastrian] communitv.”5 lie also explained that the Jackson wrote that there was no real tormalitv, children just put on the garments priests’ religious authority was “tempered” by the fact that they enjoyed no coer when they could recite parts of the Avesta properly, and that in Yazd it was uncommon for /on)astrians to wear the proscribed garments. In hoth cases, cive power. Their rulings on religious matters could be and were ignored.29 This is in clear distinction to the anjuman which enjoyed political, social, as well as he believed that the Parsis, whom he repeatedly termed more “advanccd” than hnaneial resources at his disposal. their Iranian counterparts, were strongly encouraged in both these practices in Second, the threat to the Zoroastrian priests that I lataria’s reforms spelled Iran. Jackson also noted that animal sacrifice amongst Iranian Zoroasrrians was gradually being abandoned because the reformist Parsis om Bombay (whether organizational, educational, or religious), is clear from the nature of insisted that it was un-/oroastrian and adopted from Islam. ‘fhe practice of opposition he encountered Although never discussed explicitly, opposition to polygamy was also attributed hi Parsis to Islam, and as a result was also discour I lataria is alluded to in his own work, .‘l Parsi Uissisn to Iran. I-Ic described “mobeds of the old school’’ refusing to use a new dakti,,,e/i that the Bombay aged. ]ackson even speculated that some of the vets “monotheistic” views of Zoroastrianism were due to the influence of the Bomhav Parsis. — (.ertainlv, Parsis had financed, on the grounds that ‘the nesv one was constructed in reformist Parsis were having an impact on Iranian religious practices and modern style and thus was not in keeping with our religion.” ‘° More speciIcallv, heliefs in their attempt to bring Iranian practices into line with their own. the problem appeared to concern the materials used in construction. The opposed moheds argued that “stone walls are modern, adopted from western countries, anti thus they are unht for a doktima.t I lataria dismisseti his opponents as ignot ant, insisting that “this wrong belief is due tii want of education.”’ Nonetheless, Couc/usisu these moheds obviously had their own tracittionalist eonsttucncv amongst the local Zoroastrians since I lararia recorded that “there was a row and controversy Parsi philanthropic contact had an enormous impact on the Iranian Zoroastrian between the supporters of the old c/a/s/one/c and the upholders of the new’ community. The influx of funding and political expertise led directly to the fine.”’’ Reading hctw’cen the lines of l-Iataria’s account, it is apparent that the improvement of Zoroasrrian legal status, financial resources, as well as commu opposition he encountered was substantial., \lthoogh his political influence. nitv organization and educational and religious facilities. The growing political social standing, and hnancial resources enabled him to effect many changes authority of the rlll/5)lltOi.i to intermediate on behalf of the entire Zoroastrian com wtthin the community, it was not an easy matter to convince all Zoroastrians munitv with the larger polity constitutes a watershed in Zoroastrian ability to that the Parsis’ practices were authoritattvc. Resistance to change, although proh_ advance their interests. Growing commercial contacts with the Patsis also ably related to the shifting status of the priests, was articulated as resistance to rcli— meant that the Iranian Zoroastrtans developed financial resources of their own. giotis innovation--— always a powerful charge. These two trends, ci immunity organization and the growth of commerce, It must also be underlined that the Iranians and the Parsis experienced very would quickly lead ti) the flourishing of the Zoroastrians and their entrance different impetuses andi sources fir reform. l’loc Parsis found their society into the political and social elite of the capital in the twentieth century. The impacted by British imperialism and the associated influence of British cultural larger political climate of modernization and the assertion of central authority, norms, cuueation, and social and political agendas. The Zoroastrian religious tra however, \vere just as critical for providing acceptance for the improvement of dition was deioheratclv and expertly challenged by [uropean sehol,trly and mis the Zoroastrians legal and thus hnancial and political standing. sionary beliefs. In reaction, therefore, the Zoroastrians not only were driven to .\ comparison of the Iranian Zoroastrian experience of reform with those of reexamine their tradition. but did so largely (in their opponents’ terms. I’loc their Parsi corcligionists at this early state suggests three areas of similarity and Iranians cxperenccdi religious reform in a very different manner. On the one cliffercncc. First, in both the indian and Iranian cases, the growth of the merchant hand, reform was cmtmrted rather than jeno’ite/ in a tlomcstie context. Iranian con— class and the associated primacy of las as opposed to priestly authority are clear. dittions tiid nor spur reform, whether religious, p liticai, or ectueatonal. ‘l’o the ‘I’his trend was less pronounced in the Iranian case, however, since the merchant class anti political organization of the anjsmaus were still in their infancy.. \t the turn of the ceotti ri, J ,tcksi in hsers ed that authi iritv in the Zi midst tan ci mmti Perom Pact md Pr,ae,:i: 356. °f .itkso ii, niti’ was neatly divided between liv intl religious, with the an,smau cli iminated hs ‘Ibid: 5Th. merchants, lie met with the eighteen members of the cm/small as well as the ‘I laiari:i, “trio elf IS Iron.” tloid. cd it ,icksn’s ocni,orks cioilip.um5 Itaci.ui md indian Zooruasirian pr.ococe, see ackson, Pei’ani ‘Ibid. Psi oil Poei,ni: 33, it,3, 3”, 350 5Sf 355 35”. 56(1 l{igir extent that they, ti to, were iniluenced by the Parsi retorm aL’eflda. they svereabo impacted ho- Lun)pean religious concerns, but one aver removed. On the other hand, th Parsis were not the outsiders that the British were in India. \\hile not Iranian-horn, anti while certainly originating from a different religious and political context, the ParsE were core/ig/snists and by origin Iranian. 117ev itot OtilO believed this to he the case, hut they were accepted as such by the iranian Zorciastrians. “oX hereas the Indian context generated the rise of the merchants, the Patois promoted the rise of the rncrchant in Iran. r\nd whereas Patois generated the nature and scope of their own religious response to European attacks, the Iranians were handed these terms already formed and authoritative. As Zoroastrians, the Patois arrived in Iran with an authority and a legitunaev that no other group posoessed. This should not nilni— mize, however, the extent to which Iranian reforms (religious or otherwise) were their own. Over time, as the Iranian Zoroastrian community developed point— calls’, socially, and hnanciallv, they would begin to assert independence from the Parsis. They would also make their own choices in reexamining their reli gums traditions choices that tiften, but not always, resembled those hrst arrived at in India.