between cyrus and zoroaster - joh bawa · was claimed as the origin and repository of modern ideas...

IRANIAN NATIONALISM AND

ZOROASTRIAN IDENTITY Between Cyrus and Zoroaster

Monica M. Ringer

● URL = http://www.fravahr.org/spip.php?article572 ●

№ 04‐00572

Iranian Nationalism and Zoroastrian Identity 1/15

© M

onica M. R

inger – 2012‐2015

__________________________________

ne of the most famous performances of Iranian nationalism was the elaborately

choreographed celebration of 2500 years of Iranian monarchy by Mohammad Reza

Pahlavi before Cyrus the Great’s tomb in 1971. Scholars have pointed to Iranian

nationalism’s use of the ancient past in an attempt to construct a modern, secular

nationalism free from the institutional power of the ulama and legal constraints of shari’a

law. Iran as a nation and identity was thereby imagined as an entity of longue durée – and

thus distinguishable from more recent history of decadence and decline.1 Increased

centralization, accompanied by the reduction of ulama power and shari’a law led to

increased legal status and socioeconomic opportunities for religious minorities. The

emphasis on the ancient past was also welcomed by religious minorities eager to embrace

a national identity that was not primarily Islamic. Although all religious minorities

benefited from nationalism and increased centralization and secularization, no minority

group was as closely associated with the pre‐Islamic past than the Zoroastrians.

Iranian nationalism’s relationship to the Zoroastrian community was unique. The

ancient, pre‐Islamic past of the Achaemenid and Sassanian empires, although

(re)imagined as a secular, historic and national past, was in fact ethnically Persian and

religiously Zoroastrian.2 Nationalism was envisioned as inclusive – seeking to embrace

and unify all Iranians – yet was unable to include all Iranians equally. The Zoroastrian

community not only appreciated this fact, but actively participated in promoting

nationalism and their special place in it. Yet their enthusiasm was not without some

ambivalence. The intimacy between Iranian Zoroastrians and Iranian nationalism obscure

the fundamental underlying tensions in this relationship. Nationalism produced

profound complications within the Zoroastrian community over the basis of its identity.

By seeking to universalize the pre‐Islamic past, the past was articulated as a historic and

thus national past. But in so doing, the secularization of this past denuded it of religious

content. Were the Zoroastrians thus an ethnico‐historic group? Or a religious group

defined by tenets of faith? Modern, reformist Zoroastrianism in the Pahlavi period

increasingly defined itself as an individual faith yet the community never abandoned a

strong, and implicitly contradictory, sense of historico‐ethnic identity. This paper

explores the Zoroastrian articulation of, participation in and uneasy relationship to

nationalism in the Pahlavi period.

THE DISTINCTIVE PLACE OF ZOROASTRIANS Iranian nationalism was constructed as modern, accessible and retrievable. Ancient Iran

was claimed as the origin and repository of modern ideas and institutions that could be

retrieved and resuscitated. This past was imagined not as a Persian and Zoroastrian past,

but as a secular historic past that was thereby the inheritance of all Iranians, regardless of

1. On the emergence and articulation of Iranian nationalism, see Afshin MARASHI, Nationalizing Iran:

Culture, Power, and the State 1870‐1940 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2008).

2. Zoroastrianism spread under the Achaemenians. Cyrus the Great is generally believed to have

practiced Zoroastrianism. Boyce claims that “his actions were […] those of a loyal Mazda‐

worshipper”. See Mary BOYCE, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge,

1979), pp. 51‐52. Subsequently, Sassanian Iran adopted Zoroastrianism as the state religion.

O


© M

onica M. R

inger – 2012‐2015

__________________________________

religious or ethnic affiliation. This claim to universality was an essential component in

nationalism’s ideological utility and stood at the basis of claims of authenticity. Positing

ancient Iran as the foundation of modern Iran enabled modernity to be claimed as

intrinsic, inherently Iranian and thus not imitative or adoptive. Nationalism also

contained a strong element of secular citizenship which provided an ideological basis for

equality of citizenship as opposed to inequality based on religious affiliation.3 Iranian‐

ness, in this formulation, was accessible to all, not the preserve of one group, but instead

dependent on the conscious embrace of nationalism’s ideology and its modern project.

Despite these significant elements of universalism and accessibility, nationalism’s

location in the pre‐Islamic period inevitably privileged the Zoroastrians as the most

authentic and thus the most Iranian. The tension between inclusivity and exclusivity

remained unresolved and found frequent expression in the Zoroastrian community. For

example, the principal pillars of nationalism that permitted the resuscitation and

accessibility of ancient Iran were language, literature and the celebration of selective

historical sites as monuments to ancient (and thus present) national identity.4 Persian

(Farsi) was claimed as a common national language – local and linguistic (ethnic)

differences were deemphasized through compulsory acquisition of Persian in schools and

the use of Persian in the vast majority of publications, literary and otherwise. Persian was

thus claimed as the language of all Iranians, whether native Persian speakers or not. To

this end, many “non‐Persian” Arabic‐based words were eliminated and new Persian

words invented for use. The Zoroastrians made particular claims to ownership of the

Persian language. An editorial in Mahnameh‐ye Zartoshtian argued that the people of Fars,

Persian Dari speakers (explicitly Zoroastrians), were the “original Iranians” and

advocated ridding Persian of foreign, read Arab, elements and returning to what he

termed “Shahnameh” Persian.5 The Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran situated itself as a

preserver of Iranian culture by sponsoring students interested in the literature and

culture of ancient Iran to study abroad.6

The Shahnameh was seized upon and promoted by nationalists as the quintessential

Iranian epic, written in “pure” Persian, and capturing the nostalgia for the pre‐Islamic era

of Iranian greatness. The Shahnameh clearly differentiates Iranians from non‐Iranians, and

identifies Arabs with Islam (and implicitly thus, Islam as an Arab and thus foreign

religion). It should also be noted that the Shahnameh commemorates values of royalty,

nobility and an ethical system that differs markedly from Islamic‐based virtues. For

example, the knight‐hero, not the Prophet Mohammad is the ideal man, aristocratic

3. Full secularization which would have permitted equality of citizenship was never enacted in Iran.

Instead, Islam remained the religion of state, Muslims enjoyed certain privileges prohibited to non‐

Muslims, and legal identity remained a function of religious sectarianism. See Suad JOSEPH (ed.)

Gender and Citizenship in the Middle East (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2000).

4. Talinn GRIGOR, “Recultivating ‘Good Taste’: The Early Pahlavi Modernists and their Society for

National heritage” in Iranian Studies 37, № 1 (March 2004): pp. 17‐45.

5. Khodadad KHODABAKHSHI, “Farsi or Dari” in Mahnameh‐ye Zartoshtian (Nowruz, 2535

Shahanshahi), pp. 25‐26. Although held up as the epitomy of a “pure” Persian text, the Shahnameh is

not devoid of Arabic words.

6. Pendarha (2, 4 2499 Shahanshahi), p. 43.


© M

onica M. R

inger – 2012‐2015

__________________________________

privilege trumps equality of faith, and

women in the Shahnameh more closely

resemble early Islamic models of

political action and power than medieval

shari’a‐oriented prescriptions of

seclusion. In practice, pre‐Islamic

Persian conceptions of kingship were

Islamicized in the political theory of al‐

Ghazzali and Nizam al‐Molk, and the

synthesis of early Islamic, Arab tribal

and Persian ideas of kingship became

the functioning norm for much of

Islamic (and Iranian) history. The

Shahnameh’s association with the ancient

past was emphasized by Zoroastrians

who considered the book an actual

history. The association of the Shahnameh

with non‐Muslim non‐Arab “Iranian‐

ness” and thus Zoroastrianism was perfectly illustrated by an Iranian Muslim who

sought to convert to Zoroastrianism in the Pahlavi period. As he explained it, he “had

always been a nationalist and had read a little Ferdowsi”; since he considered himself

Iranian, not Arab, he felt that he should adhere to an Iranian, not an Arab religion.7 Not

surprisingly, one of the first “historical sites” to be celebrated in Pahlavi Iran was the

discovery and refurbishing of Ferdowsi’s tomb in Khorasan in 1935. This project was

directed by Zoroastrian parliamentary representative and head of the Tehran Zoroastrian

anjoman, Kay Khosrow Shahrokh at Reza Shah’s request.8

The anti‐Arab component in Iranian nationalism was seized on by the Zoroastrian

community. It often bled into indistinct anti‐Muslim attitudes as well, although the

Zoroastrian community was always careful not to criticize Islam directly. Articles in

Zoroastrian journals frequently referred to the coming of Arabs (and thus Islam) to Iran

as a calamity. Arabs were clearly distinguished from “Iranians” as uncivilized. In seeking

to answer the nagging problem of why the Arabs defeated the Persian Empire, authors

were at pains to insist that it had nothing to do with cultural or religious superiority.9

The religious implications were explicitly refuted in a public lecture by Hashem Reza in

Hukht, the organ of the Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran. He insisted that “everyone

knows that Arabs had no culture or civilization.” When the Arabs came to Iran they

brought with them destruction. He describes Islam as “intolerant” and “harsh” and

responsible for destroying “humanity, morals and kindness.” To the contrary, he asserted

7. Janet KESTENBERG AMIGHI, The Zoroastrians of Iran: Conversion, Assimilation, or Persistence (New

York: AMS Press, 1990), pp. 229‐230.

8. Kay Khosrow SHAHROKH, The Memoirs of Kay Keikhosrow Shahrokh (trans.) (eds.) Shahrokh

Shahrokh and Rashna Writer (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1994).

9. Ebrahim POURDAVUD, “Why have Iranians lost out to Newcomers?” in Pendarha, (vol 2, № 2,

Bahman 1338), pp. 11‐13, continued in vol. 2, № 3, pp. 11‐16. See also Hashem REZA, “Mistakes of

Islamic Scholars Regarding the Teachings of Zardosht” in Hukht (14, 1 1342/1965) pp. 24‐38.

Mausoleum of Ferdowsi

The original monument as deigned in the 1930s. It was later

demolished in the 1960s and replaced by the present edifice.


© M

onica M. R

inger – 2012‐2015 __________________________________

that the Zoroastrian Avesta inculcates strong morals, culture and love for humanity.10

The lines between Zoroastrian and Iranian

identity were naturally indistinct. The

difference between Zoroastrian religious

ceremonies and national, secular

ceremonies was deliberately blurred both

by the Pahlavi monarchs, and by the

Zoroastrian community itself. Reza Shah

adopted Zoroastrian calendar names, and

placed the Zoroastrian Fravahar symbol on

the National Bank and the Ministry of

Justice.11 Reza Shah had a close relationship

with the Zoroastrian parliamentary

representative Kay Khosrow Shahrokh, and

entrusted him with many governmental

tasks on his behalf.12 Reza Shah was also

sympathetic to Indian Zoroastrians (Parsis),

inviting delegations to Iran and even

offering to facilitate their settlement in Iran.

Dinshah Irani, the Parsi founder of both the

Iranian Zoroastrian Anjoman and the Iran

League in India, was invited by Reza Shah

to Iran in 1932 as leader of a Parsi

delegation. Reza Shah awarded him

honours and entrusted him with a message to take back to the Parsi community in India:

You Parsis are as much the children of this soil as any other Iranis, and so you are

as much entitled to have your proper share in its development as any other

nationals. We estimate Our Empire’s resources to be even greater than those

of America, and in tapping them you can take your proper part. We do not

want you to come all bag and baggage; just wait a little and watch. If you find

the proposition beneficial both to yourselves and to this land, then do come

and We shall greet you with open arms, as We might Our dear brothers and

sisters. Iran is a vast country pregnant with many advantages and fresh fields

waiting for development. We suggest that the Parsis, who are still the sons of Iran,

though separated from her, should look upon this country of to‐day as their own, and

differentiate it from its immediate past, and strive to derive benefit from her

developments.13

10. Hashem REZA, “Mistakes of Islamic Scholars Regarding the Teachings of Zardosht”, lecture

sponsored by Sazeman‐e Fravahar‐e Javanan‐e Zartoshtian published in Hukht (14, 1 1342/1965), pp.

24‐38; continued 11‐12; 46‐54.

11. BOYCE, Zoroastrians, p. 219 and AMIGHI, Zoroastrians of Iran, p. 170.

12. On Shahrokh’s relationship to Reza Shah see SHAHROKH, Memoirs.

13. The Shah’s missive is reproduced in Sir Jehangir C. COYAJEE, “A brief Life‐Sketch of the Late Mr.

Dinshah Jeejeebhoy Irani” in Dinshah Irani Memorial Volume: Papers on Zoroastrian and Iranian

Subjects (Dinshah J. Irani Memorial Fund Committee, Bombay: 1948), pp i‐xiii. Emphasis added.

Dinshah Irani

Seated at right, accompanying Rabindranath Tagore (seated, second from left) to

Iran in 1932, meeting with members of the Anjoman‐e Adabi (Literary Society).

Others pictured include ʿAli Dashti (seated, left), Moḥammad‐Taqi Bahar (seated, second from right), and Sa‘id Nafisi (standing at centre). The photograph was the

frontispiece in Dinshah Irani, Poets of the Pahlavi Regime, Bombay, 1933.

(Photo: courtesy of Iranica on Line)


© M

onica M. R

inger – 2012‐2015

Reza Shah’s interest in Zoroastrianism even led one American diplomat to speculate that

the shah might one day establish it as the state religion.14 Reza Shah’s heir, Mohamad

Reza Pahlavi, continued his father’s emphasis on Iranian nationalism and the resultant

nationalization and secularization of the Zoroastrian past and religion. He encouraged

the performance of Nowruz and the winter‐solstice celebration of Mehragan as national

holidays. Prominent Zoroastrians, Mobed Rostam Shahzadi and Ardeshir Mobed, were

invited to the palace for Zoroastrian festivals.15

Nowruz ceremony at Golestan Palace

From the left: Farhang Mehr, Mobed Ardeshir Azargoshasb , Mobed Rostam Shahzadi,Mobed Firuz Azargoshasb.

(Photo: courtesy of O’Shihan)

Not surprisingly, Zoroastrians frequently laid claim to pre‐eminence as the most

Iranian of Iranians. A writer in the journal Pendarha exclaimed that, “the [Zoroastrian]

youth have not forgotten old ways and ancient customs. You are the souvenir of an

illustrious past. Long live the king.”16 This idea was also voiced by Muslim Iranians. For

example, in 1979 Ayat Sadughi speaking in Yazd noted that “Zoroastrians are the roots of

__________________________________

14. U.S. State Department, Letter dated 3 February, 1932, RG59/250, file 891.404/24, National

Archives, p. 2.

15. Ardeshir Mobed was the secretary of the Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran. See for example

Pendarha (2, 1 1338), inside cover; and Pendarha (2, 4 2499), p. 2; and AMIGHI, Zoroastrians of Iran, pp.

277‐8.

16. Mohamad Ali ASEF, Pendarha (2, 8 2499 Shahanshahi), p. 34.


© M

onica M. R

inger – 2012‐2015

__________________________________

Iran. We Moslems are like the branches of a tree, if our roots are cut off, we shall shrivel

up and die.”17 The Zoroastrian community encouraged the identification of national

symbols, sites and ceremonies with Zoroastrian historical and religious ones. For

example the Sadeh religious ceremony in Shiraz was celebrated at the historical site of

Nakhsh‐e Rostam and inaugurated by the singing of the national anthem.18 Nowruz in

particular was characterized as an Iranian and thus national holiday. In an article in the

Zoroastrian journal Pendarha, the author described Nowruz as an ancient Iranian festival

which had persisted despite Arab attempts to wipe it out.19 Consistent with nationalism’s

secularization of the Zoroastrian past, Zoroastrians themselves de‐emphasized the

religious nature of this ceremony. Nowruz was portrayed as a day of remembrance of the

mythical King Jamshid’s discovery of fire, and closely identified with “the celebration of

royalty and [royal] farr”.20 The importance of kingship was stressed as an integral

component of the Avesta.21

ZOROASTRIAN LOYALTY Zoroastrians consistently emphasized their loyalty to the monarchy. Their noted

monarchism had a number of underlying reasons. It was foremost a commitment to the

Pahlavi monarchy as it promoted centralization, secularization and modernization with

the concomitant reduction in the institutional and ideological power of the ulama and

Islamic law, respectively. The central government had been responsible for initiating and

protecting legal, social, economic and political advances of minorities since the late

nineteenth century. Zoroastrian attachment to the monarchy also stemmed from the

nationalist emphasis on the ancient glories of the Persian monarchies that were seized on

by both Zoroastrians and the Pahlavi monarchs. The Zoroastrians repeatedly mention the

institution of kingship as a respected component of Zoroastrian religious tradition. This

also enabled a disassociation from Islam as marking the end of the ancient past of might

and glory of the Persian Empire. The Zoroastrian press is full of eulogies to Reza Shah

who is lauded as having brought Iran back on the path of greatness and assuming her

rightful place as a leader of civilization.22 Not coincidentally, the 2500 year anniversary of

the Persian monarchy was claimed by Mohamad Reza Shah Pahlavi and celebrated with

much fanfare. The Zoroastrian community in Iran and India were actively involved in

preparing events to coincide with the celebration. It was seen as an opportunity to

promote awareness on the international stage of Zoroastrian religion, the Zoroastrian

17. AMIGHI, Zoroastrians of Iran, p. 229.

18. Mahnameh‐ye Zartoshtian (Nowruz, 2535 Shahanshahi), p.78.

19. Mohandes GHAFARI, “Remarks of Mr. Mohandes Ghaffari, Farmandar of Yazd Province on the

Occasion of Nowruz” in Pendarha (2, 5, 2499), p. 30.

20. “Festival Greetings” in Pendarha (2, 4, 2499 Shahanshahi), pp. 2, 37.

21. Idem.

22. Mohandes GHAFFARI, “On the Occasion of Reza Shah’s Birthday” in Pendarha (2, 4, 2499

Shahanshahi), pp. 24‐25, 31.


© M

onica M. R

inger – 2012‐2015

__________________________________

historical past and Iranian civilization.23

ZOROASTRIANISM AS THE SOURCE OF MODERNISM Zoroastrian traditions were posited as models for Iranian modernity by the Zoroastrian

community. Contemporary Iranian society, if purged of the non authentic and if firmly

anchored in the traditions of the pre‐Islamic past, could in fact become modern and in so

doing recapture Iran’s glorious place as a leader among nations. In addition to obvious

historical associations of pre‐Islamic Iran with the Zoroastrian past, Zoroastrians also

marshalled theological arguments to assert the essential modernity of Zoroastrianism.

These arguments exhibit similar tensions between universality (inclusivity) and

particularism (exclusivity) as do the historically‐based arguments. The theological

arguments claimed that Zoroastrianism was consistent with modern values (women’s

rights, science, and progress). As hallmarks of Iranian‐ness and pre‐Islamic

“authenticity” the Zoroastrians both symbolized this modern project, and went a step

further by claiming to be the originators of many of these modern values.

In community lectures and articles, it was frequently posited that Zoroastrian religious

ideals not only were consistent with the modern agenda, but that Zoroaster’s teaching was

in fact the origin of their first articulation. Zoroaster was the first to establish a monotheistic

religion and to preach a simple ethical religion suitable for contemporary Iranians. In a

public lecture given in 1965 entitled “The Teachings of Zoroaster and the New

Civilization”, the audience was instructed that the subject itself “is not just for

Zoroastrians, but for all Iranians interested in this country and those who know about

their history and glory of the past.” The speaker went on to explain that “thousands of

years ago, the teachings of Zoroaster can be compared with today’s humanism,” and that

his teachings continue to be relevant in the twentieth century. Zoroaster’ teachings about

humanity and human happiness were claimed to be “true” according to modern

principles of economics, as well as contemporary social values, according to the speaker.

In another lecture given by a Zoroastrian priest on the occasion of the anniversary of

Zoroaster’s birthday, the Zoroastrian tenets of ritual purity were given scientific

certification: “now we have scientific proof of the polluting danger of microbes.” In yet

another public lecture, Dr. Sarefnia argued that “Zoroaster was the first prophet of

mankind” who taught peace, the promotion of agriculture, civility and love of

homeland.” Zoroaster’s message is universal: “That which Zoroaster taught thousands of

years ago is now in the twentieth century the essence of civilization and salvation.”24

Zoroastrian theological compatibilities with modernity credit Iranians as the originators

of these ideas, and even go further by presenting Iranians as the originators of something

universal, something that generated human “progress” and the “civilization” of

mankind. Zoroastrianism is presented as the crucible of universal modern social values.

The historical argument for resting modernity on the pre‐Islamic past was easier to extend

to contemporary Iranians, who, even if not Zoroastrian, still in a sense shared this

historical past. It was trickier to Iranianize Zoroastrian religion and claim that somehow

23. “A’ineh” in Pendarha (2, 10, 2499 Shahanshahi), pp. 25‐26.

24. Hukht (14, 3 1342), p. 4.


© M

onica M. R

inger – 2012‐2015

__________________________________

Muslim Iranians were also its inheritors. A resolution was attempted by making the

argument for universalism according to which all monotheists – all Christians, Jews and

Muslims – shared in Zoroaster’s legacy and were thus in a sense also the inheritors of his

message. Zoroaster established a set of universal ethics for all mankind.

Zoroastrianism was claimed as the first modern religion and therefore consistent with

modern ideals of rationalism, science, hygiene and women’s rights. Claims that the

Zoroastrian historical past enjoyed gender equality, freedom, and social justice abound in

the Zoroastrian journals. For example, although civilized countries now tout the

importance of women’s rights, they had always been important in Zoroastrian religious

text and historical tradition.25 Another example from the Zoroastrian journal Hukht reads:

His Majesty ordered that in order to renew the splendour and glory of ancient

Iran, all practices and laws of the old Iran should be followed – including

freedom of women to pursue their own destinies […] In ancient Iran men and

women were equal […] Now women are out from behind the black curtain of

hijab and are accepting their rights. Zoroastrian women have established

organizations and societies in the service of the king and are bearing fruit in

advancing public health, and the culture of our country…26

Zoroastrian women’s organizations were deeply involved in promoting the ideals of the

new modern woman as quintessentially Zoroastrian. The provincial, Yazd‐based

Zoroastrian women’s organization (the Sazeman‐e Zanan‐e Zartoshtian‐e Yazd or the

Jalaseh‐ye Zanan‐e Zartoshtian‐e Yazd) was first established in 1925 in the context of Reza

Shah’s promotion of modernization. In the Zoroastrian community’s own history of this

organization, based upon the records of the organization itself, the connection between

modernizing women and modernizing religion is made explicit:

The ignorant and prejudiced realized that cleanliness and dirtiness were not

functions of which religious community you belonged to, but rather whether

your clothes were clean and you lived a clean life. [The Zoroastrian women

who founded the organization] believed that Zoroastrians worshipped Ahura

Mazda and had the book of the Avesta. They believed that the principles of

their religion were good thoughts, good words, good deeds and following the

path of cleanliness and righteousness, the love of shah and country, humanity

and culture. They understood that Zoroastrians were the true Iranians and the

true heirs of this land. And that Zoroastrian women needed to gather together

[…] and pursue their goals of ending deprivation and spreading culture and

raising the level of knowledge, awareness of religious practices and fighting

against superstition. [They organized in order to] end their backwardness.27

What is clear in the above quotation is the firm connection of the “New” woman agenda

25. “Teachings of Zoroaster and the New Civilization”, public lecture sponsored by Sazeman’e

Fravahar, Esfand 2, 1341, in Hukht (14, 1 1342/1965), pp. 6‐9; 57‐58.

26. Hukht, (14, 1 1342), p. 4.

27. Parvin YAYNEJAD, “The Establishment of The Conference of Zoroastrian Women of Yazd Forty

Years Ago” in Hukht (14, 6 1342), pp. 16‐17; continued (14, 7 1342), pp. 24‐26.


© M

onica M. R

inger – 2012‐2015

__________________________________

of social activism, hygiene and education, with nationalist notions of Zoroastrian identity

and goals of ending backwardness and its association with filth. Particularly interesting is

the additional conviction that religion too needs modernizing. Modern religion

reconsiders Tradition and redraws the line between “true religion” and “superstition”

using the yardstick of compatibility with modern values. Modern religion is rational,

internalized and ethical, and placed itself at odds with “tradition” and “ritual” as failures

to understand the underlying intent of religion and to thus move into a more spiritual

and rationalized relationship to religious performance.

RATIONALIZATION OF THE RELIGION This new understanding of

Zoroastrianism was a function of the

Parsi and subsequently Iranian

Zoroastrian reform movements. Parsi

religious reform began in the 1850s and

left a deep footprint in the Iranian

Zoroastrian community.28 Iranian

reformism was most forcefully argued

by Kay Khosrow Shahrokh in the 1920s

and retained its essential features in the

subsequent Pahlavi period. Zoroastrian

reformism was characterized by a

rationalization of religion and

consequent emphasis on individual

spirituality and ethical responsibility.

Rational religion eschewed external

mediation between individuals and God,

instead promoting the interiorization of

piety and it outward expression as

ethical behaviour in society. Ritual was

seen as irrational and the performance of

ritual in public viewed as essentially

inimical to the emphasis on the universal ethical foundation of all religions. Kay Khosrow

Shahrokh espoused these ideas which became widely accepted in theory, although not

always corresponding to community practice.29 Shahrokh’s articulation of reformist

Zoroastrianism was frequently expressed in public lectures on religion sponsored by

Zoroastrian groups, as well as in articles and editorials in Zoroastrian journals. For

example, Mobed Firuz Azargoshasp argued that Zoroaster knew God as fatherly and

kind. He established monotheism and an ethical view of world with consequent

28. See Monica M. RINGER, “Reform Transplanted: Parsi Agents of Change amongst Zoroastrians in

Nineteenth‐Century Iran” in Iranian Studies (September 2009).

29. Kay Khosrow SHAHROKH, A’ineh‐ye A’in‐e Mazdasna (Bombay: Mozzafari Publishers, 1921),

second edition, and Zartosht: Payghambari keh as now bayad shenakht (Forough‐e Mazdasna) (ed.)

Farzan Kayani, (Tehran: Jami Publishers, 1380); and his Memoirs.

Kay Khosrow Shahrokh


© M

onica M. R

inger – 2012‐2015

__________________________________

responsibilities of individuals.30 Zoroastrians must work to create the “heavenly

kingdom” of equality and universal well‐being in this world; people should work on

their souls, not worldly gain.31 Individual spirituality was frequently linked to social

responsibility.32

ZOROASTRIAN IDENTITY CRISIS Modern rational religion, although firmly embraced by the Zoroastrian community, was

also partly responsible for a lack of community identity. The de‐emphasis on ritual and

the performance of difference as opposed to the emphasis on individual faith as ethical

behaviour stressed the nature of religion as faith, rather than ritual practice and

particularism. This contributed to a decline in participation in religious observance,

something that the Zoroastrian community viewed with concern. The problem of youth

not having faith and not interested in religion was the subject of a public lecture by

Mobed Rostam Shahzadi who worried about eventual diminishing numbers of Iranian

Zoroastrians.33

The Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran and other community organizations sought to

educate Zoroastrians about their religion in an attempt to revive identity and practice.

Zoroastrians were urged to differentiate Zoroastrian religious practice from Muslim

practice. For example, they were urged to wear white only at religious ceremonies, rather

than black as was typical of Muslims.34 Animal sacrifice was another practice that the

Zoroastrian community leaders sought to eliminate, arguing that it had no basis in

Zoroastrianism.35 Mobed Rostam Shahzadi explained that Zoroastrianism, despite its

antiquity, was an evolved religion. Sacrifice, typical of ancient religions, was outlawed by

Zoroaster.36 In a thinly veiled denunciation of Islamic practice as irrational, Shahzadi

declared that “sacrifice is senseless and illogical and not practiced by Parsees” and noted

that the Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran and the Council of Mobeds (Konkash‐e Mobedan)

of Yazd had both forbidden it.37

The Dari dialect was also seized on as quintessentially Zoroastrian. Leaders sought to

30. Mobed Firuz AZARGOSHASP, “The Message of Zoroaster” in Mahnameh‐ye Zartoshtian (Nowruz

2535 Shahanshahi), pp. 29‐31.

31. Ibid, pp. 31‐32.

32. See also Mobed Firuz AZARGOSHASP, “The Testimony of Faith of Zoroastrians” in Pendarha (2, 4

2499), pp. 29‐31.

33. Mobed Rostam SHAHZADI, “Lecture Concerning the Celebration of the Life of Zoroaster” in Hukht

(14, 2, 1342.), pp. 13‐20; 45.

34. “A’ineh” in Pendarha (2, 4, 2499), pp. 22‐23.

35. Ibid and Pendarha (2, 7, 2499), pp. 22‐24 and Pendarha (2, 8, 2499), pp. 22‐23.

36. Here he cites Yasna 32 line 12.

37. Mobed Rostam SHAHZADI, “Answers to Religious Questions” in Mahnameh‐ye Zartoshtian

(Nowruz 2535 Shahanshahi), pp. 41‐42.


© M

onica M. R

inger – 2012‐2015

__________________________________

maintain it as a “pillar” of Zoroastrian identity, although the youth increasingly did not

speak it.38 The preservation of Dari as a language particular to Iranian Zoroastrians was

of special interest to prominent philanthropist and community activist Morvarid

Khanum Giv.39 In order to preserve the use and knowledge of Dari she ordered that

Zoroastrian students in the Tehran Pars development must always speak Dari in

religious classes that were held three times a week.40

Dwindling attendance at community religious ceremonies was countered in the post

1960 period by new Zoroastrian community organizations that sought to combine

religious performance with socialization and other activities. Both the youth group

Fravahar and the Women’s Anjoman, as well as the Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran,

sponsored religious ceremonies that combined the teaching of Zoroastrianism with social

events. The Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran decided to hold monthly lectures on religion.

An editorial in the journal Mahnameh‐ye Zartoshtian encouraged people to attend,

promising that, “this will create feelings of faith and love of religion and Zoroastrian‐ness

and […] in this way develop a sense of unity and togetherness and similar spirit and

maybe even you will learn more about Zoroastrianism.”41

The inherent conflict between religion as faith and

religion as community identity remained in full force in

the Zoroastrian community. This deep ambivalence

about the essential nature of Zoroastrian religious

identity was exacerbated by Iranian nationalism. The

Zoroastrian community’s embrace of Pahlavi

modernizing programs, secular culture, citizenship and

westernization was inseparable from its rapid growth in

terms of economic wealth, social status and political

power. The Zoroastrian community’s fortunes were in

many ways tied to the official promotion of

modernization, secularism and Iranian nationalism. At

the same time, nationalism’s claim that the ancient past

was a national past, universally accessible and claimable

by all Iranians created strong ambivalence in the nature

of Iranian Zoroastrian identity. The secularization of the ancient past and emphasis of

Zoroastrians as “authentic” Iranians suggested that Zoroastrians were in a sense an

ethnicity. If their religious holidays were national holidays, and Zoroastrians exemplars

of Iranian‐ness, then what was the status of Zoroastrian religious practice and belief? The

question revolved around what determined Zoroastrian identity: faith or birth. The

tensions about identity were clearly not just an issue of tension between the state and the

38. “A’ineh” in Pendarha (2, 5, 2499), p. 22.

39. Morvarid Giv was the wife of Anjoman President and philanthropist Rostam Giv, and the

daughter of Ardeshir Mehraban.

40. “Morvarid Khanum Giv, One of the Most Notable Women of our Community” in Pendarha (2, 8,

2499), pp. 28‐29.

41. Mahnameh‐ye Zartoshtian (Nowruz 2535 Shahanshahi), p. 26.

Insignia in Imperial Air Force

A religious symbol (Fravahr) used for a

secular entity (army).


© M

onica M. R

inger – 2012‐2015

__________________________________

Zoroastrian community, but also within the community itself. Nowhere was this more

obvious than in the debates surrounding the twin problems of marriage and conversion.

As socioeconomic Iranian elites of all religious backgrounds increasingly sent their

children abroad to Europe and the U.S. to pursue higher education in the 1960s and

1970s, the social and cultural fallout from time spent abroad began to be felt. In

particular, the Zoroastrian community, as a minority community, suffered from

Zoroastrians marrying foreigners (and thus not fellow Zoroastrians). This negatively

effected community cohesion since Zoroastrians married to foreigners either did not

return to Iran, or upon their return were less enthusiastic about participating in

community activities. The problem was so intensely felt, that it was likened to the

kidnapping and forcible conversion of Zoroastrian girls in the pre‐modern, Islamic

period: “I remember when […] girls from our villages were taken away and converted

and how miserable we all were. But today we are unaware of a danger even greater, and

more home‐wreaking” – study abroad. As one editorial in a Zoroastrian journal

lamented, “this might be of no consequence to other communities and religions but for

our small community, the loss of each person is a problem.”42 It was also a problem with

the integration of children from these marriages into the Zoroastrian community, and

with the growing issue of whether or not a non‐Zoroastrian born spouse might in fact

convert to Zoroastrianism.

What we see here from this brief sketch of the problem, is the inherent conflict

between community identity, religious identity and nationalism. On the one hand we

have the paradox of Zoroastrian enthusiastic adoption of the modernizing national

agenda, yet an adoption that in its effects, can and did lead to loss of community. Study

abroad threatened the community with loss of its members. We also see the related

problem of identity – what is a Zoroastrian: primarily a member of a religious

community? Or a member of an ethno‐historical community? Can one join by adopting

the tenets of faith? Or must one be born into the community? These were not easy

questions. They were all the more complicated given in a Muslim context which forbade

apostasy from Islam. Although there were conversions from Islam in the 1960s and 1970s,

the National Zoroastrian Organization never sanctioned them, perhaps for political

reasons, although a Zoroastrian priest was found to perform initiation ceremonies.43 At

the Third World Zoroastrian Congress in 1968 conversion of non‐Zoroastrian spouses

was condoned, although with the understanding that these spouses would not be

apostatizing from Islam. More than ten foreign‐born spouses in Iran took advantage of

this ruling.44 Yet the notion, consistent with Zoroastrianism as a modern rational religion,

that faith denoted identity, never led to the abandonment of Zoroastrian identity as an

ethno‐historic community. Commenting on the conversion of forty or so Muslims in

Abadan to Zoroastrianism in the 1970s, a Zoroastrian woman voiced her opposition in

42. Hukht (14, 5 1342), pp. 18‐20.

43. The Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran sent literature about Zoroastrianism but refused to sanction

the conversion. Mobed Shahmardan performed the initiation rite. The converts, to assuage the fears

of the Anjoman, called themselves the lesser‐known name of Mazdiyasna, rather than Zoroastrians.

See AMIGHI, Zoroastrians of Iran, p. 230.

44. AMIGHI, Zoroastrians of Iran, p. 286. These spouses were Christians, not Muslims.


© M

onica M. R

inger – 2012‐2015

__________________________________

ethnic terms: “Zoroastrianism is a race and a culture. When we suffered persecution,

where were these would‐be Zoroastrians?”45

Zoroastrianism as a religion contained strong elements of

both universalism and particularism. Zoroastrianism was

claimed as universal by insisting on its essential modernity.

This was partly an argument about the universal validity

and applicability of Zoroastrian values and the past in order

to claim authenticity and thus the intrinsic capacity of

modernizing, avoiding the charge of imitation of Western

models. But this argument also implicitly rested on a

substantially different notion of what religion was. Modern

Zoroastrianism – the result of Zoroastrian reformism of the

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries – promoted the

acceptance of secularism and citizenship in important ways.

Adopting a deist notion of religions as human phenomena

that in essence all provided a similar impetus for individual

ethical behaviour meant that religious difference was not

based on truth value so much as historical context. Religion

was privatized not in the sense of reducing the role of

religion, but in the sense that public performance of

sectarian identity and ritualism was abandoned in favour of individual spirituality and

internalized piety. This meant that individual consciousness of God led to ethical

behaviour in society – public participation and civic duty. Religious universalism,

internalization and privatization opened up space for the articulation of national

identities and public participation of equality of citizenship.

Iranian nationalism, Zoroastrian community identity and the changing nature of

religion and its relationship to society were indissolubly connected in Pahlavi Iran.

Iranian nationalism, due to its reliance on the secularization of the ancient past, contained

fundamental conflicts between inclusivity and exclusivity – with Iranian‐ness so closely

associated with the Zoroastrian past. On the one hand, it had to be a secular past in order

to include all Iranians as citizens and equal participants in the nation. On the other hand,

it was impossible to completely disassociate Zoroastrians from this past, and thus to

include Shiite Muslims and other religious minorities equally. The Zoroastrian

community also suffered from the tensions this created in their identity, since the

nationalization of their religious past and their religious ceremonies simultaneously

voided them of religious content.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ABRAHAMIAN, Ervand, A History of Modern Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press,

2008.

AMANAT, Abbas, Pivot of the Universe: Nasir al‐Din Shah Qajar and the Iranian Monarchy,

45. Ibid, p. 241.

A converted Zoroastrian as Chief of Staff

General Bahram Aryana (here meeting with President Nixon)

is probably the most notorious “converted Zoroastrian” of the

Pahlavi era.


© M

onica M. R

inger – 2012‐2015

1831‐1896. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

AMIGHI, Janet Kestenberg, The Zoroastrians of Iran: Conversion, Assimilation, or Persistence.

New York: AMS Press, 1990.

AMINI, T., ed., Some Records on the Iranian Contemporary Zoroastrians (1879‐1959). Tehran:

Records Research Centre, Iran National Archives Organization, 2001.

ASHIDARI, Dr. Jahangir, “A Corner of History” in Mahnameh‐ye Zartoshtian Nowruz 2535

(March 1976).

AZARGOSHASP, Ardeshir, Adab va Rosum‐e Zartoshtiyan [Ceremonies and Customs of

Zoroastrians]. Tehran: Fravahar, 1973.

AZARGOSHASP, Mobed Firuz, “Explanation of the Imposition and End of Jazieh on

Zoroastrians” in Pendarha 2, № 8 (1940): pp. 15‐18.

BAKHASH, Shaul, Iran: Monarchy, Bureaucracy, and Reform under the Qajars, 1856‐1896.

Ithaca, NY: Ithaca Press, 1978.

BEKHRADNIA, Shahin, “The Decline of the Zoroastrian Priesthood and its Effect on the

Iranian Zoroastrian Community in the Twentieth Century” in Journal of the

Anthropological Society of Oxford 23, № 1 (1992): pp. 37‐47.

BHARUCHA, Ervad Sheriarji Dadabhai, “Is Zoroastrianism Preached to All Mankind or

One Particular Race?” in Dastur Hoshang Memorial Volume, pp. 248‐257. Bombay: Fort

Printing Press, 1918.

BOYCE, Mary, “Manekji Limji Hataria in Iran.” in K.R. Cama Oriental Institute Golden

Jubilee Volume, edited by N.D. Minochehr‐Homji and M.F. Kanga, 19‐31. Bombay: K.R.

Cama Oriental Institute, 1969.

________, “Parsis in Iran after the Arab Conquest” in A Zoroastrian Tapestry, edited by

Firoza Punthakey Mistree and Pheroza J. Godrej, pp. 228‐245. Usmanpura: Mapin

Publishing Pvt, Ltd., 2002.

________, A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

________, “The Zoroastrian Houses of Yazd” in Iran and Islam, edited by C.E. Bosworth,

125‐147. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press, 1971.

________, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. London: Routledge, 1979.

COYAJEE, Sir Jehangir C., “A Brief Life‐Sketch of the Late Mr. Dinshah Jeejeebhoy Irani”

in Dinshah Irani Memorial Volume: Papers on Zoroastrian and Iranian Subjects. Bombay:

Dinshah J. Irani Memorial Fund Committee, 1948.

GRIGOR, Talinn, “Recultivating ‘Good Taste’: The Early Pahlavi Modernists and their

Society for National Heritage” in Iranian Studies 37, № 1 (March 2004): pp. 17‐45.

HATARIA, Manekji Limji, “Travels in Iran: A Parsi Mission to Iran (1865)” in Fravahr.org:

http://www.fravahr.org/spip.php?article61 (6 April 2007).

________, Social and Economic Life of Zoroastrians in the Last Century: The Jezya Problem.

Trans. into Persian by H. Razi. Tehran: Fravahar, 1975.

http://www.fravahr.org/spip.php?article61


© M

onica M. R

inger – 2012‐2015

HINNELLS, John R, “Social Change and Religious Transformation among Bombay Parsis

in the Early Twentieth Century” in Traditions in Contact and Change: Selected Proceedings of

the XIVth Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, pp. 105‐125.

Ontario: Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion, 1983.

JOSEPH, Suad, ed., Gender and Citizenship in the Middle East. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Univ.

Press, 2000.

KEDDIE, Nikki R., Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution. New Haven: Yale Univ.

Press, 2003.

MANECK, Susan Stiles, The Death of Ahriman: Culture, Identity and Theological Change

Among the Parsis of India. Bombay: K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 1997.

MARASHI, Afshin, Nationalizing Iran: Culture, Power, and the State 1870‐1940. Seattle: Univ.

of Washington Press, 2008.

________, “The Nation’s Poet: Ferdowsi and the Iranian National Imagination” in

Narrating Modern Iran: Historiography and Political Culture, edited by Touraj Atabaki. New

York: I.B. Tauris Press/Iran Heritage Foundation, forthcoming.

MEHR, Farhang, “Zoroastrians in Twentieth Century Iran” in A Zoroastrian Tapestry,

edited by Firoza Punthakey Mistree and Pheroza J. Godrej, 279‐299. Usmanpura: Mapin

Publishing Pvt, Ltd., 2002.

PATEL, Dinyar, “The Iran League of Bombay: Parsis, Iran, and the Appeal of Iranian

Nationalism, 1922‐1942”. Ph.D diss., Harvard Univ., 2008.

RINGER, Monica M., Education, Religion and the Discourse of Cultural Reform in Qajar Iran.

Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers, 2001.

________, “Rethinking Religion: Progress and Morality in the Early Twentieth‐Century

Iranian Womenʹs Press” in Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 24,

№ 1 (Spring 2004): pp. 49‐57.

________, “Reform Transplanted: Parsi Agents of Change amongst Zoroastrians in

Nineteenth‐Century Iran” in Iranian Studies (September 2009).

ROSE, Jennifer, “The Traditional Role of Women in the Iranian and Indian (Parsi)

Zoroastrian Communities from the Ninteenth to the Twentieth Century” in Journal of the

K.R. Cama Oriental Institute № 56 (1989): pp. 1‐102.

SHAHMARDAN, Rashid, Farzanegan‐e Zartoshti. Tehran: Rasti Publishers, 1960.

SHAHROKH, Kay Khosrow, The Memoirs of Keikhosrow Shahrokh. Trans., eds. Shahrokh

Shahrokh and Rashna Writer. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1994.

TAVAKOLI‐TARGHI, Mohamad, Refashioning Iran: Orientalism, Occidentalism and

Historiography. New York: Palgrave, 2001.

TSADIK, Daniel, Between Foreigners and Shi’is: Nineteenth‐century Iran and its Jewish

Minority. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 2007.

between cyrus and zoroaster - joh bawa · was claimed as the origin and repository of modern ideas...

Documents