At a recent meeting of the Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI), there was a proposal to include ‘Irani’ in the name of this body which is registered as a Society. Apart from the fact that any change in the name of this body would be a long procedure with the office of the Charity Commissioner and Income Tax authorities, the fundamental question is whether this change is necessary? Are Irani Zoroastrians feeling legally excluded? If so, this an incorrect understanding of the legal status of Irani Zoroastrians in India.

Legal Definition

In the famous Parsi Punchayet case  (also known as Petit Vs Jejeebhoy case), Justices Dinshaw Davar and Frank Beamon, (as reported in (1909) 33 ILR 509 and 11Bom.L.R. 85) have observed that the Parsi community consists of:

1. Parsis who are descended from the original Persian emigrants and who are born of both Zoroastrian parents and who profess the Zoroastrian religion;
2. Iranis from Persia (Iran) professing the Zoroastrian religion;

• Children of Parsi fathers by alien (non-Parsi) mothers who have been duly and properly admitted into the religion.

The matter before the court was not regarding who is a Parsi but whether a French lady married to a Parsi gentleman in India after her Navjote ceremony could be considered as Parsi? The verdict of the court was in the negative. However, to arrive at this verdict, evidence had to be led before the court by scholars and high priests of that era. This judgment is now more than a century old. However, the point to be noted is that according to this judgement the ‘Parsi community’ specifically includes “Iranis from Persia (Iran) professing the Zoroastrian religion.” 

Parsi Includes Irani Reconfirmed 

Interestingly, after the famous Parsi Punchayet case there were two cases where Irani Zoroastrians claimed that they were not Parsi. In 1948, an Irani Zoroastrian, in order to escape from the purview of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, declared that Iranis professing the Zoroastrian religion are not Parsi and therefore, not governed by the aforesaid Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act. Justice Coyaji, presiding over the Parsi Matrimonial Court, upheld the Irani Zoroastrians’ contention. The contention was again upheld in Appeal by Justices Chagla and Gajendragadkar [(1950) 52 B.L.R. 876)].

A similar issue in the case of Jamshed Irani vs. Banu Irani [(1966) 68 B.L.R. 794] came up before Justice Mody. Justice Mody also concurred with the views held by Justice Chagla and stated: “Now so far as that part of the Judgement is concerned, Chagla C.J. has pointed out that it was obiter…..”

(‘Obiter‘ is usually a comment, suggestion, or observation made by a judge as an opinion that is not necessary to resolve the case, and as such, it is not legally binding on other courts but may still be cited as persuasive authority in future litigation.)

However, after recording fresh evidence of four eminent scholars (one of whom was the scholarly High Priest of Iranshah in Udwada – Dastur Dr. Hormazdiyar Kayoji Mirza) Justice Mody held that Irani Zoroastrians are Parsis.

Excerpts From Justice Jain’s Treatise

The following are excerpts from a treatise by Justice M.L. Jain, originally published in A.I.R. Vol. 72 (1985 October) p.p. 81-83. According to Justice Jain, this treatise was written because his judgement delivered as a Judge of the High Court of Delhi in Smt. Maneka Gandhi vs. Smt. Indira Gandhi, A.I.R. 1984 Delhi 428, “invited criticism from some quarters that the judgement ignored the distinction between a Parsi and a Zoroastrian”.  Here’s what Justice Jain elucidates:

• “When we speak of a Parsi in India particularly in the matter of law relating to family and succession, a Parsi means a Parsi Zoroastrian.”
• “In Jamshed Irani v. Banu Irani (1966) 68 Bom. L.R. 794, evidence was led before Mody J. that Herodotus and Xenophon, the two great historians who lived in the third and fourth centuries B.C. referred to Iranians as Parsis.”
• “Till the Arab conquest in 631 A.D., almost all, if not all, the inhabitants of Iran were Zoroastrians, and were called Parsis. After the Arab conquest, there were extensive conversions to Islam and those who were so converted began to be called Musalmans. The label Parsi came to be confined only to the Zoroastrians who escaped conversion. The Arab conquerors persecuted them and some of them migrated to India. Firdausi in his writings has referred at several places to the Zoroastrians of Iran as Parsis…”
• “Spiegel in his introduction to a book on Avesta written by Henry Bleeck in 1864 used the word Parsis for Zoroastrians of Iran.”
•  “In Volume XVIII of ‘The Sacred Books of the East’, Dr. West refers to the Parsi religion and Parsi scriptures in connection with the Zoroastrians of Iran.”
• “Max Muller has used the word ‘Parsi’ for Zoroastrians of Iran.”
• “D.F. Karaka’s History of the Parsis (1884) shows that the word Parsi was used by him for a Zoroastrian.”
• “Lord Curzon, when not yet a peer, was in Persia as a Correspondent of the London Times in 1892. He wrote a book in which, while classifying the various creeds, he mentioned Parsis as a creed along with Shias, Sunis, Jews, etc. He also used the word Parsi synonymously with the people of Iran who professed the Zoroastrian religion. “
• “Napier Malcolm has, in 1894, used the word ‘Parsi’ for the Iranis who professed the Zoroastrian religion.”
• “In 1906, the Shah of Iran in a Ferman used the word ‘Parsi’ in connection with the abolition of taxes levied on Zoroastrians.”
• “Percy Sykes used the word ‘Parsi’ for the Zoroastrian of Iran.”

Parsis & Iranis – The Difference

We have seen that legally, an Irani who professes the Zoroastrian religion is a Parsi. However, what is the difference between the two? Both, Parsi and Irani Zoroastrians are ethnically of Persian (Iranian) origin. While Parsis appear to have moved to India from Khorasan (North Eastern Iran) during the tenth century AD., about three hundred years after the fall of the Sasanian Empire, our Irani Zoroastrians (mostly settled in the desert provinces of Yazd and Kerman in South Central Iran) continued to stay on in Iran despite severe persecution by Arabs, Turks, Mongols and various other marauding invaders, over several centuries after the Parsis had settled in India.

The Term ‘Parsi’ / ‘Parsa’

The term Parsi (also spelled as Parsee) means one from the province of Pars also known as Fars in Southwest Iran. The official language of Iran even today is Farsi (Persian). When Cyrus the Great founded the Achaemenian Empire there were two warring tribes – one from the Southwestern province of Fars and the other from the Northwestern province of Mada (Media). Cyrus successfully united the two tribes to create a unified Persian nation and then a world empire. Later, in the same province of Fars, Darius the Great started to build Persepolis as his Spring Capital and the Necropolis, now known as Naqsh-e-Rustom where he and some of his successors were laid to rest.

One of the oldest references to the term ‘Parsa’ which later became Parsi (i.e. one from Pars or Persia) can be found inscribed in rocks both at Persepolis and at Naqsh-e-Rustom. It says, Parsa Parsa-ha Puthra Arya, Arya Chithra. In this inscription Darius the Great more than two and a half millennia ago identifies himself as “(I am) a Parsa (Persian), the son of a Parsa (Persian), an Aryan, of Aryan lineage.” The entire paragraph reads as, “I am Darius, the Great King, King of Kings, King of the countries of all races, King of this far-reaching earth, son of Hystaspes, the Achaemenian, a Parsa (Persian), the son of a Parsa (Persian), an Aryan, of Aryan lineage.” (Parsa Parsa-ha Puthra Arya, Arya Chithra).

Thus, there’s no fundamental difference in the religious beliefs of Parsis and Irani Zoroastrians. Both follow the teachings of Asho Zarathustra, believe in Ahura Mazda and revere fire. Any difference in certain customs such as food or how prayers are recited or how ceremonies like marriage and navjote are performed, are cultural rather than theological. Marriage between Parsis and Irani Zoroastrians is common. Irani Zoroastrians in India have integrated closely and almost fully with the Parsi community. It’s best not to try redefining what is settled in law and in practice.