Know
About Us
Feedback
and Comments
Get
in touch
Subscribe
to JameJamshed
Advertise
Home
 |
As per Section 2(7) of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 a "Parsi" means a Parsi Zoroastrian. The Oxford dictionary defines Parsee as adherent to Zoroastrianism, the descendent of Parsians who fled to India from Muslim persecution in 7th - 8th century. The definition of Parsee is based on 1908 Ruling in the case of Petit v/s Jeejeebhoy reported in (1908) 11 Bom LR at page 85. In the year 1903, Mr. R. D. Tata, the 6th Plaintiff in the suit, married a French lady in Paris. He brought her to Bombay and got one of the Shenshai High Priests, Dastur Kaikhooshroo Jamaspji, to perform the Navjot ceremony, thereby investing her with Sudreh and Kusti -. He then went through with her the marriage ceremony according to the rites and forms observed by Parsis. He then claimed that his wife had become a Parsi professing the Zoroastrian religion, and that as such she was entitled to participate in all the charitable and religious funds and institutions of the Parsis. He claimed that she was, amongst other things, entitled to enter all Fire Temples and on her death she was entitled to have her body taken to the Towers of Silence. This created great uproar amongst the bulk of the Parsi community. Committees were appointed, public meetings were held, and it was eventually resolved by the Parsi community in a general meeting assembled that the lady was not entitled to the privileges or rights that were claimed on her behalf. The Defendants issued certain notifications which led to correspondence between the Solicitors of Mr. Tata and his friends on the one side and the Defendants on the other. This correspondence took place in May-June 1905. This suit was filed in November 1906… The Learned Judges held that "Although at the trial a great many issues were raised and a great many points of more or less importance were discussed before us it appears to us that there are two main questions in the case: "1) Whether the Defendants are validly appointed Trustees of the Properties and Funds of the Parsi Punchayet, and whether in the event of death or resignation of one or more of them, they have the right of filing up such vacancy or vacancies as they occur ; and 2) Whether a person born in another faith and subsequently converted to Zoroastrianism and admitted into that Religion is entitled to the benefit of the religious Institutions and Funds mentioned in the plaint and now in the possession and under the management of the Defendants." In the first part of the Judgement, their Lordships declared that though the Trustees were of impeccable character their appointment was not valid and a scheme be formed for electing trustees. "the right to nominate members of the Punchayet belonged to the whole community and that such right was exercised by the Anjuman of the Parsis." In the second part of the judgement the judges concurred that the Zoroastrian religion not only permits but enjoins conversion of a person born in another religion and of non-Zoroastrian parents. But since coming to India the Plaintiffs were not able to prove a single case of a person not being born of Parsi parents being converted to Zoroastrianism. Hence the Court ruled that while one could convert to Zoroastrianism one could not be considered a Parsi Zoroastrian. And that the settlers of the various trusts had founded the trusts for the benefits of Parsi Zoroastrians solely. As Justice Beaman observed, the "question is not whether the Zoroastrian religion permits conversion, but whether, when these trusts were founded the founders contemplated and intended that converts should be admitted to participate in them … The Court held that Parsi Zoroastrians are : "Firstly the descendants of the original emigrants into India from Persia who profess the Zoroastrian religion. Secondly the descendants of the Zoroastrians in Persia who were not amongst the original emigrants, but who are of the same stock and have since that date, from time to time, come to India and have settled here, either permanently or temporarily, and who profess the Zoroastrian religion. Thirdly the children of a Parsi father by an alien mother, if such children are admitted into the religion of their fathers and profess the Zoroastrian religion." Thus Privy Council emphasised the fact that the Parsi can only be a Parsi by birth and not by absorption or conversion. This matter emphasizes that the children of Parsi father by alien mothers were considered eligible to be treated as Parsee, if their Navjote was performed. In another case of Saklat vs Bella (1925) reported in 1925 Bom LR at page 161, Bella was the orphan daughter of a Goanese Christian father and a Parsi mother who was brought up in a Zoroastrian household of Rangoon from early infancy. After her navjote had been performed, Bella was taken by her adoptive father, Shapurji Cowasji, to the Rangoon agiary on March 21st, 1915. On March 31, three members of the Parsi community of Rangoon filed a suit against Bella and Cowasji claiming that they had "not only wounded the religious feelings entertained by religiously inclined Parsis, but also caused the desecration of the said sacred temple," and prayed for a declaration from the Court restraining Bella from the use of the fire temple and Cowasji from taking her there. Justice Young, who gave the preliminary judgment, dismissed the suit. The Chief Court of Lower Burma, on appeal, concurred with Young. The Plaintiffs then appealed to the Privy Council where Lord Phillimore, Lord Blaneshburgh and Sir John Edge heard the case, and upheld the appeal, namely that Bella "was not entitled as of right, to use the temple, or to attend or to participate in any of the religious ceremonies performed therein." Third case was in 1950 when the Bombay High Court decided Sarwar Yezdiar v/s Meherwan Yazdiar. In this case, briefly, the facts were that the husband and wife were both Zoroastrian Immigrants from Iran and had been married in Bombay, under the Parsi Marriage & Divorce Act, 1936. The wife filed a suit against the Husband for divorce on the ground of cruelty under the Act. Mrs. Coyajee filed a suit on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. In the Appeal Bench, the Appellate Court held that any Irani Zoroastrian Citizen who temporarily resides in India, is not deemed a Parsi and therefore Parsi Marriage & Divorce Act is not applicable to him. In 1960, in the case of Irani v/s Irani, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court noted that the Judges in the case of Yazdiar v/s Yazdiar had not heard any evidence on the subject of who is a Parsee. Justice N.A. Modi came to the conclusion that the word Parsee in the Parsi Marriage & Divorce Act, includes not only Parsi Zoroastrians of India, but also Zoroastrians of Iran. The Hon'ble Court held that the decision of Yazdiar's case was not a good law. On the general meaning of the term Parsee, the Hon'ble Court followed the principles laid down in Petit's case. It is thus well settled that children of Parsi fathers by non-parsi mothers, who have been duly and properly admitted into Zoroastrian religion by performing their Navjote Ceremony are Parsis i.e. Parsi Zoroastrians. The Petit's case was decided about Century ago and has a binding force in law, as it is not overruled or set aside by a decision of the Supreme Court. Some Parsis wrongly contest that the Judgement passed in Petit's case is "obiter dicta" and not binding upon them. Petit's case has binding force in law. Parsees as well as our Priests are bound by the above decision. Parsees are a leading community, without any reservation and thereby should avoid unnecessary controversy in our miniscule community. |
A
definition of who is and who is not a Parsi is a matter of great contention within
the Zoroastrian community. Every Parsi has his own notions and make their own
definition about a Parsi and thereby create controversy in the miniscule community.