In an unscientific exercise in 1973 to gauge Parsis’ religiosity we asked seven lay Bombay Parsis if they wore the sudreh and kusti (Parsiana, September-October 1973). Our introduction to the column carried an explanation of the garments’ significance by Dastur Khurshed Dabu, scholar and high priest of the H. B. Wadia Atash Behram. "These two are the uniform of a Mazdayasni," he stated. "It means that this was the uniform worn by Kayanian kings and priests even before Zarathushtra."
Of the three women and four men, five (71%) wore the sacred garments all the time, with one man claiming the vestments were "the only tangible form of communication with my religion," and a woman describing them as "a sort of protective power, (an) armor, against evil." One man did not wear either, stating, "I don’t think it’s necessary," while one woman wore the kusti "most of the time," but not the sudreh which she found "uncomfortable and impractical to wear outside" the house. The publication of the sampling raised many hackles with critics stressing only the views of the leaders of the community and the clergy should be sought, not of lay people.
When Parsiana engaged the reputable Hansa Research Group in 2013 to conduct a survey of the views of Bombay Parsis (see "Representational research," Parsiana, starting March 7, 2014) some questioned our motives in commissioning such an exercise and doubted the findings. Here also the data collected from around 500 Bombay Parsis, randomly selected mostly from the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) electoral rolls, indicated the majority of the community was orthodox. Sixty-seven percent preferred dakhmenashini as a form of disposal of the dead while 80% opposed women taking up mobedi. The elaborate and costly survey by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, commissioned by the BPP around 13 years ago, did not attract much flak as the results were published several years later around 2017 in a four-volume set (see "The myth busters," Parsiana, August 7, 2017). Few ventured to buy the set and fewer still to read it.
In "Polling the Parsis" (Parsiana, March 21, 2017), then 17-year-old Rohan Vakil conducted an unscientific survey as part of a school project in which 189 persons responded in person or through electronic communication to the questionnaire. The findings corroborated the data from earlier surveys with 86% concurring with the statement: "The Parsi community is in decline."
Over the years the community has willy-nilly come to accept surveys though some Parsis remain skeptical about their purpose and allege a hidden, reformist agenda. While many of the survey findings show that a majority of the community holds orthodox views and follows religious customs and traditions, there is still much distrust.
Thus it was not surprising that "Gen Z and Beyond: A Survey for Every Generation," financed by private donors and undertaken by the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) under the stewardship of Dr Sarah Stewart of the Shapoorji Pallonji Institute of Zoroastrian Studies, was viewed as a surreptitious move to somehow undermine traditionalist beliefs. The purpose of the global survey was "to gather, provide and analyze data to inform Zoroastrian communities worldwide on the key topics of demographics, practice of religion, attitudes towards challenges, and internal debates on social, religious and economic issues." The key word that normally raises the temperature of orthodox Parsis in any survey/study is "religion." It conjures up the specter of conversion and dilution of the genetic strain. Word went out on traditionalist social media outlets and elsewhere to boycott the survey.
Their fears are unfounded. A summary of the Gen Z Survey results prepared by Nina Mistry, a member of the Working Group, shows that religion plays a significant part in the worldwide community’s priorities: "91.8% of respondents considered themselves practicing or semi practicing Zoroastrians… Zoroastrian rituals and practices were very or quite important to 58.4% of respondents." In the older age group 66.4% respondents "did the kusti ritual daily," while 11% "never did it." Only 11.8% "had a full understanding of the meaning of the prayers they recited" while "18.9% had no understanding."
Not many of the traditionalists are concerned about the demographic reality. Their stock answer to the diminishing Parsi numbers is either to deny that the population is shrinking or to counter with: "We want quality, not quantity." The demographic deniers allege that the drop in the Indian Parsi population is imaginary and due to outmigration. They claim, erroneously and contrary to all the facts and figures, that the overall number of Parsis remains constant. Others believe that even if there were only a handful of sudreh-kusti wearing, agiary going Parsis born of both Parsi parents and grandparents who opt for dakhmenashini, a savior would emerge to repopulate the community and restore the Parsis to their past glory.
The Gen Z Survey summary has a foreword by Toos Daruvala, a donor to the study, in which he states: "A survey of this scope and ambition is not without challenges. Foremost was getting people to sign up and complete the questionnaire."
Mistry notes the Survey "brings us… the collective wisdom of approximately 5,000 respondents!... This global online survey was completely anonymous."
The varied surveys over the decades provide a glimpse into the thinking of the community over the past half century. The surveys are democratic, if not always scientific, exercises. Respondents are either selected at random or volunteer to respond. The views of a scholar or trustee or clergyman are given the same weightage as those of a homemaker, college student or company executive.
Unfortunately, there is no institution or think tank that periodically commissions surveys. This would help map the changing attitudes in the community over time. In the smaller anjumans such as Delhi, Calcutta or Mhow, and even in Poona, the trustees can gauge the views of the Parsi populace at nominal cost. In Bombay, with a population of around 30,000 Parsis, some institutional and financial support is required. Making major decisions without gauging the mood, wishes or requirements of the community or disregarding them is hazardous; such an approach generates resentment, alienates the trust from its constituents and prevents the decisions taken from being implemented.