I

It is on the western coast of India, in the Bombay Presidency, that we find the most compact gathering of the members of the Parsi community. Since their exodus from Persia the refugees here have maintained themselves successfully, and have gradually acquired wealth and the intellectual superiority which distinguishes them from the other natives of India.

The Bombay Presidency, or, to be more exact, the province of Bombay,1 comprises twenty-four British districts, and nineteen Native States (Agencies) under the protection of the English Government. Its boundaries are: To the north, the State of Balouchistan, the Panjaub, and the native States of Rajputana; to the east, the Mahratta State of Indore, the Central Provinces, Western Berar and the States of the Nizam of Hyderabad; to the south, the Madras Presidency and the State of Mysore; and to the west, the Arabian Sea. It is divided into four great divisions, made according to the local dialects. On the north lies Sindh or the lower valley and delta of the Indus, a region essentially Mahomedan both historically and as regards the population; then more to the south, Gujerat, containing, on the contrary, the most diverse and mixed elements, and comprising all the districts of the northern coast, the Mahratta country, and the interior districts of the Deccan; and, finally, the provinces where the Canarese language is spoken, divided in their turn into four British districts and eight Native States.2

This territory has been formed little by little round the Island of Bombay, ceded to England by the King of Portugal as the dowry of the Infanta Catherine of Braganza. The Portuguese were the first to occupy these parts; in 1498 they arrived at Calicut with Vasco de Gama, and five years later, thanks to the bravery of Albuquerque, they took possession of Goa. Bombay came into their possession in 1532, and for a hundred years they managed to maintain themselves at the head of commerce and traffic. Two rival factories, one English and the other Dutch, were established in Surat in 1613 and 1618. It must be stated that the acquisition of the island of Bombay gave but little pleasure to the English, for in 1668, on account of great difficulties, the King transferred it to the East India Company, and in 1686 the control of all the possessions of the Company was transferred from Surat to Bombay, which was made into an independent Presidency (1708) at the time of the amalgamation of the two English Companies. Finally, in 1773, Bombay was placed in a state of dependence under the Governor-General of Bengal, who has since been replaced by the Viceroy of India.

It is from Bombay that the English have spread their influence at present so firmly established in these territories. Simply merchants at first, they gradually supplanted their rivals from the Portuguese and Dutch settlements. Soon they aspired to a more solid power, and came into direct conflict with the natives—the Mahrattas—whom they hastened to drive from Colaba, finding their nearness troublesome. After the first Mahratta war, which arose from the contested succession of the Peishwa (1774), the treaty of Salbai permitted the English to settle in Salsette, Elephanta, Karanja, Hog Island, &c. (1782). The fort of Surat was in their hands from 1759, and in 1800 the administration of this town was made over to them by the Nawab, whose descendants contented themselves with the vain title till 1842.

The second Mahratta war had its origin in the treaty of Bassein (1802), by which the Peishwa accepted the subsidiary system—a system since adopted by the English. It resulted in an accession of territory in Gujerat and an increase of moral influence in the Court of the Peishwas and of the Gaekwars. The interval of peace was employed in repressing the invasions of the pirates who were infesting the Gulfs of Cambay and Cutch.

In 1807 the States of Kathiawar were placed under the British protectorate, and in 1809 the Rao of Cutch was forced to sign a treaty by which he bound himself to help in the destruction of the pirates; whilst, on the other hand, scarcely had the Peishwa Baji Rao been placed on the throne by an English army when he began plotting for the expulsion of the English from the Deccan. In 1817 he attacked the Resident himself, Mountstuart Elphinstone, who withdrew to Kirkee, where with a few troops he succeeded in routing the entire army of the Peishwa. Soon after the prince submitted to Sir John Malcolm. A pension of £80,000 was secured to the Prince, but he was deprived of his States, and Bombay gained in this manner the districts of Poona, Ahmadnagar, Nasik, Kolahpoor, Belgaum, Kaladji, Dharwar, Ahmedabad, and the Konkan. At the same time Holkar abandoned his rights over the districts of Kandesh, and Satara fell into the hands of the English in 1848 on the death of the last descendant of the Mahratta Shivaji. In 1860 the Non-Regulation Districts3 of the Panch Mahals were ceded by Scindhia, and in 1861 the southern limits of the Presidency were still further extended by the annexation of the northern district of Canara taken from Madras. From this time the history of the Bombay Presidency is free of incidents; peace reigned, even at the time of the mutiny of 1857. The local army has, however, rendered important services in Afghanistan, Persia, Burmah, China, Aden, and Abyssinia. Entirely occupied in administrative reforms and the welfare of the country, the Government has attained a state of complete prosperity under such men as Mountstuart Elphinstone, Malcolm, and Lord Reay.4

According to the general census of 18915 the number of Parsis in India rose to 89,904; that is, an increase of 491 over that of the 17th of February, 1881, which gave a total of 85,397. On the 26th of February, 1891, the entire population of the Bombay Presidency, including the Native States and Aden, formed a total of 26,960,421 inhabitants,6 of whom 76,774 were Parsis (39,285 males and 37,489 females). The surplus is divided between Madras, Bengal, and the districts of the Gaekwar of Baroda, where is to be seen among other flourishing settlements the ancient community of Naosari. To this number must be added the Parsis of China, and of some foreign localities, and the Iranians, 9,269 in number. The exact number of Zoroastrians scattered over the globe we thus find to be a hundred thousand at the most!

We refer to the Zoroastrian Calendar for all information concerning statistics, and in a special chapter (pp. 119 et seq.) we find a detailed list of the population of the city and the Presidency of Bombay.7 We take from it the following table (see next page), which gives the assessment of the population in the different centres. Occupying the first rank we find Bombay with its 47,458 Parsis, and Surat with 12,757; then Broach, Thana, Poona, Karachi, down to the least of the localities, some of which stand for only a simple unit.

Considering the importance of Bombay, we will quote from a paper on it, read by Mr. B. B. Patel before the Anthropological Society of Bombay.10 We find there the lists of births, deaths and marriages in the city of Bombay from 1881 to 1890. During that period of time the average of births has risen per year to 1,450, and that of married women bearing children to 13.293 per cent. The average of deaths has reached 1,135 (575 of the male sex, 500 of the female sex), and 92 still-born (52 of the male sex and 40 of the female sex). The annual average of mortality among children below the age of five years has been 469 (236 of the male sex and 233 of the female sex); between the ages of five and ten, 27 (13 of the male sex and 14 of the female sex); between the ages of eleven and twenty, 47 (20 of the male sex and 27 of the female sex); between the ages of twenty-one and thirty, 65, in the proportion of 27 to 38 for the two sexes; between the ages of thirty-one and forty, 62, in equal proportions for the two sexes; between the ages of forty-one and sixty, 177 (67 males and 90 females). Above the age of eighty the average reaches 37, of whom 13 are males and 24 females.

During these ten years, four persons have died at the age of 100, two at the ages of 101 and 105, and lastly one at the age of 110 years. These centenarians have been all women. The principal cause of mortality among Parsis is fever (Table D); thus of 1,135 deaths, 293 may be attributed to it, 150 to nervous disorders, 91 to affections of the respiratory organs, 70 to dysentery, 38 to phthisis, one hundred to old age, and the rest to diverse other causes, such as measles, pleurisy, diarrhoea, &c., &c. According to the table drawn up by Mr. Patel (Table E), the highest rate of mortality in Bombay is in the Fort, and next to it in Dhobitalao, Baherkote, Khetwady, &c., in proportion to the population of these localities.

After the crisis of 1865 a serious decrease of the population in Bombay had been apprehended for a time; but it was an exaggerated fear which disappeared with the census of 1881. It has been proved, on the contrary, that the conditions of life among the Parsis, both as regards mortality and hygiene, have reduced the average of mortality among the individuals, grown-up men, women and children. These latter, well-tended and carefully brought up, supply a splendid race, susceptible of culture, and endowed with perfect health. Accordingly, from 1872 to 1881, the Parsi population has increased nearly ten per cent. This increase has continued, and, as we have said, the highest increase has been estimated in 1891 to be 4.91.

It is in vain that communities of Parsis have been sought for outside those regions which we have indicated.11 About sixty years ago a Mahomedan traveller did try to persuade others of the existence of a Parsi colony at Khoten, a country situated to the south-east of Kaschgar; but Sir Alexander Burnes, in a communication to Mr. Naoroji Fardunji, dissipated this illusion.12

We cannot attach any more importance to an assertion recently put forward, and according to which the members of the tribe of the Shiaposch Kafirs, inhabiting the country to the north-east of Cabul, are descendants of the same race, because certain of their usages, as for example their manner of exposing their dead, are similar to those of the Zoroastrians. Sir Alexander Burnes13 in narrating his travels in Cabul in 1836–37–38, relates that the most curious of all the visitors to the country of the Kafirs14 was a man who came from Cabul towards the year 1829. He gave himself out as a Guebre (fire-worshipper), and an Ibrahumi (follower of Abraham), who had quitted Persia to find some traces of his ancestors. During his sojourn in Cabul he willingly mixed with the Armenians and used to get himself called Sheryar, a name common enough among the modern Parsis. They tried, but in vain, to dissuade him from risking himself amongst the Kafirs; he went to Jalalabad and Lughman, where he left his baggage, and as a simple beggar entered Kafristan by way of Nujjeet. He was absent several months, and on his return was assassinated by the Huzaras of the tribe of Ali-Purast. Malik-Usman, furious at the conduct of his countrymen, exacted a fine of Rs. 2,000 as compensation for the blood shed by them. All these details were given by the Armenians of Cabul to Sir Alexander Burnes, but he could not discover whether the unfortunate Sheryar was a Parsi of Bombay or a Guebre of Kirman. However, a document found in the possession of the traveller, and coming from the Shah of Persia, leads us to believe that the latter hypothesis is the true one.

The Census of 1881 enables us to state some interesting facts, which give us an idea of the occupations of the Parsis of Bombay, and of the kind of life led by them. Thus there were at that time 855 priests and persons devoted to religion, 141 teachers, 34 school-mistresses, 33 engineers, 1,384 clerks, and 115 employees. Naval construction seemed to be one of their favourite occupations, for out of 46 ship-builders 26 were Parsis. As for the Dubashes or ship-brokers, out of a total of 159, 146 were Parsis. All professions and manual trades were largely represented, with the exception of that of tailor, which was exercised by only one member of the community. At one time, out of 9,584 beggars in the town of Bombay, there were only five Parsis and one Parsi woman. As to the class of the unfortunate victims of vice and debauchery, a Parsi has not hesitated to affirm that not one of his co-religionists could have been accused of living on the wages of shame.15 Travellers have made the same remarks. Thus, according to Mandelslo, adultery and lewdness were considered by the Parsis as the greatest sins they could commit, and which they would doubtless have punished with death if they themselves had the administration of justice (see Voyages, &c., trans. Wicquefort, p. 184). We may state in this connection that Anquetil gives a precise account of a summary execution under the sanction of the Punchayet, and with the approbation of the Mahomedan governor of Bharooch (see Zend-Avesta, vol. ii. p. 606); and Stavorinus, at the end of the century, makes mention of Parsi women who had been preserved in the right path by the fear of punishment (see Voyages, &c., vol. I, ch. xxviii. p. 363).

The following is a division, under seven heads, of the occupations of the Parsis, as shown in the census of 1881:—

There is some reason for not wondering at the disinclination of the Parsis for agriculture and the profession of arms. Agriculture had been very flourishing in the hands of the first colonists; but tastes changed, and from men of the field they became men of the town. At the beginning of the century some of them were still in possession of vast tracts of land, and spent much money in improving them. But these gradually passed into other hands, a circumstance in any case greatly to be regretted.17

As to their apparent repugnance for military service we will see what an enlightened Parsi, who has in this case made himself the spokesman of his co-religionists, has to say. As a matter of fact, the Persians in olden times had distinguished themselves amongst all by their valour and courage. In the inscription engraved on his tomb at Nakch-i-Roustam, King Darius might well say, with a just feeling of pride, that they had only to look at the images of those who supported his throne to know into what distant places the Persian soldier had carried his arms! The famous struggles maintained by the Ardeshirs, the Shapoors, and the Noshirvans show that this warlike temper had not subsided. Why then should the descendants of such heroes abstain from taking part in military exercises and in defending the country18?

Mr. Dosabhai Framji Karaka gives the following explanation of this aversion.19 In the first place he indignantly repudiates the theory put forward by certain European authors that it proceeds purely from religious motives, on account of the worship they are supposed to pay to fire, which would prevent them from handling a cannon or shouldering a gun. Nothing at all in fact prevents them from making use of fire in the handling of offensive and defensive weapons. At the time of certain riots in Bombay, gunsmiths’ shops were seen to be rapidly emptied by the Parsis, and thirty-five years back they were enthusiastic in joining the first volunteer movement; but in 1877 only Europeans were invited to join. Still, protests Mr. D. F. Karaka, there are certainly no natives more eager than the Parsis to share in the defence of British interests. In several places they have joined the volunteers and have obtained much-envied distinctions.20 They are able to attain a high degree of skill in the handling of firearms; for example, Mr. Dorabji Padamji, son of the late Khan Bahadur Padamji Pestonji, is one of the best shots in India.21

The most serious consideration which prevents a Parsi from enrolling himself in the army seems therefore, to us, to be the insufficiency of the pay. We only repeat it: it is a Parsee who says this. We have no desire either to weaken their motives or to exaggerate their grievances. We are well aware that these are very delicate questions, and require to be treated with care and skill, since they concern the relations of devoted subjects with a government of which they are proud. On the other hand, when we take into consideration the moral worth and intelligent co-operation which the Parsis bring to the service of this same government, we are not at all surprised at the conclusion which we see so clearly formulated.22

Native soldiers, whether Hindoos or Mussulmans, are paid at the rate of seven rupees a month, about fourteen shillings (17 fr. 50 c.), including rations, while a Parsi filling the most modest employment of a cook or a servant earns double that sum. During certain disturbances when Bombay was deprived of its European troops, many Parsis would willingly have enrolled themselves in the army if they had been given the pay of European soldiers. It is a matter of regret to them, perhaps a sort of degradation of which they feel the keenness, at being obliged to put forward pecuniary considerations; but their mode of life, even that of the poorest among them, cannot be compared with that of Hindoos and Mussalmans of the same class. These can live on seven rupees a month; Hindoos and Mahomedans of the same family are content with one room, a thing which the humblest Parsi would never allow. The Hindoo or Mussulman woman hardly requires more than one or two saris, costing about three rupees, to clothe herself, and her children can go naked till the age of ten years. But as for the Parsi woman she requires several saris, trousers, shirts and slippers, besides suitable clothing for her children. How can a Parsi soldier then manage to live and bring up his family on seven rupees a month?

Mr. Karaka ends his long and eloquent appeal with a sentence which sounds the true keynote of the regret felt by the Parsis at being merely compared with the natives when they felt themselves to be morally and intellectually their superiors. Why are they not provided with commissions in the army like the Germans and other Europeans?23 Then only will they feel completely identified with the British nation.24

The Parsis in India are divided into two sects, the Shahanshahis and the Kadmis.25 When Anquetil Duperron visited India this division already existed, and he found them “more excited against each other than the Mahomedan sects of Omar and Ali.” The Parsis, however, do not admit this. This division has nothing to do with their faith, and has nothing in common with the division between the Shiahs and the Sunnis. The schism26 has arisen simply out of a difference of opinion concerning the exact date of computation of the era of Yezdezard, the last king of the ancient Persian monarchy. This division does not exist amongst the Zoroastrians who have remained behind in their own country.

The Parsis reckon their year on a calculation of three hundred and sixty-five days, each month consisting of thirty days. Their year commences with the month of Farvardin, and ends with the month of Spendarmad. At the end of three hundred and sixty days, five days, called the Gathas are added. The period of five hours and fifty-four seconds does not enter into their computation. The old Persians, therefore, in order to make their calculation agree with the solar year, had made at the end of every hundred and twenty years an intercalation or Kabisa, that is to say, they added one month to that period. The Persian Zoroastrians, after the loss of their independence, either through ignorance or simple forgetfulness, had ceased to practise this Kabisa, whilst the Parsis had continued this intercalation during their residence in Khorassan. Hence the origin of the sects with which we have to deal.

In 172027 Jamasp Vilayati, a learned Zoroastrian from Persia, settled in Surat to advise the Mobeds, and it was he who discovered that his co-religionists of India were one month behind their Iranian brethren. Little importance however was attached to this fact. But in 1746 another Iranian, Jamshed, and some Mobeds adopted the date accepted by the Persian Zoroastrians, and took the name of Kadmis. The rest of the community were called Shahanshahis, and preserved the ancient system. Little by little the number of the adherents of Jamshed increased. Now it should be noticed that it was in Surat that this schism among the Parsis first took place, and for some time the harmonious relations between the two did not suffer by it. But two respectable men, Mancherji Kharshedji Seth, of the Shahanshahi sect, and Dhanjisha Manjisha, of the Kadmi sect, managed literally to ignite the powder in spite of their benevolent intentions. In order to get some enlightenment Dhanjisha Manjisha sent to Persia at his own expense a priest from Bharooch, Kavas Rustam Jalal. Born at Bharooch in 1733, this man was well versed in the Arabic and Persian languages. For twelve years he remained in Persia and Turkey, visited Yezd, Ispahan, Shiraz, and Constantinople, and returned to Surat in 1780. During his sojourn in Persia he had obtained an audience with Kerim Khan. Some months before his return Dhanjisha Manjisha had come to Bombay, and had there founded the Kadmi sect under the auspices of Dadiseth, one of the most influential men of the time. Mulla Kavas followed his patron to Bombay and was appointed Dastoor of the Atash-Behram erected by Dadiseth himself (Dadibhai Nasarwanji) for the Kadmi sect, which he consecrated on the 29th of September, 1783. The following year he quitted Bombay and settled in Hyderabad, in the Deccan, where he was honoured with the friendship of the Nizam. He remained there till his death, which took place in 1802 (Parsee PrÂkÂsh, p. 92).

The Kadmi sect continued to flourish in Bombay, when, at the commencement of the century, rose the great dispute of the Kabisa, that is to say, the famous month by which the Kadmis were in advance of the Shahanshahis (Parsee PrÂkÂsh, pp. 62, 198, 863, 867, &c.). Mulla Firoz,29 son of Mulla Kavas, and another distinguished priest, Fardunji Marazbanji, constituted themselves the champions of the Kadmi sect, while the mass of the people, guided by Kharshedji Manockji Shroff, grouped themselves under the patronage of the pious Dastoor of the Shahanshahis, Edulji Dorabji Sanjana,30 and clung to the date observed by the Parsis since their arrival in India. Meetings were organised to which learned Moguls were invited, in order to offer explanations, and, if possible, to terminate the discussion. The newspapers were full of virulent articles, pamphlets appeared in great numbers, and the people in some cases seemed disposed to settle the question by the right of might, an irrefutable argument.

The Shahanshahis maintained that the Zoroastrian religion admitted a month’s intercalation at the end of a period of 120 years, and that at the time of the fall of the Persian Empire there had indeed been one intercalation during their sojourn in Khorassan, but once they were in India this usage had been abandoned; hence the backwardness by one month from the computation of the Kadmis. The latter declared on the other hand that the intercalation was forbidden in the Zoroastrian calendar, that it was only meant for political emergencies, and that this mode of calculation had never been practised in Khorassan.

Modern learning has brought this vexed question within its true limits. Mr. Kharshedji Rustamji Kama, of the Kadmi sect, known by his study of the Zoroastrian religion, has proved, or rather has attempted to prove, in a work on the computation of Yezdezard, that the Shahanshahis and the Kadmis were both in error (1870). The Kadmis were wrong in denying that the Parsee new year commenced on the 21st of March, for from a more exact knowledge of the language of the Avesta, and the deciphering of Pehlvi coins, it is demonstrated that the Zoroastrian religion admitted the intercalation; and the Shahanshahis were equally wrong, for, since the downfall of the Persian Empire, there had been no intercalation as they affirmed. The opinion of the Kadmis, in accordance with the date accepted by the Zoroastrians of Persia, which proves that there had been no intercalation after the fall of the national dynasty, is absolutely correct; but as the intercalation was not ordered by the Zoroastrian religion, it appears that both sides were wrong in the controversy of the Kabisa.

The greatest disputes had arisen from this religious quarrel; scenes of surprising violence had resulted from it. For instance, in Bharooch (1782–1783) a certain Homaji Jamshedji had struck a pregnant woman and been condemned to death; others got off with mere fines. In the heat of the disputes families became divided; marriages between Kadmis and Shahanshahis were very rare.31 At present most of the difficulties have been smoothed down. It happens sometimes that the husband and wife belong to different sects; in that case the children invariably belong to the father’s sect. There are no appreciable differences, the pronunciation alone being at times not quite the same. Thus Ahu, Vohu, is pronounced AhÎ, VohÎ among the Kadmis. There is also some difference in certain religious ceremonies, and in certain liturgical formulas. But the greatest divergence is in the mention of the month and the date of the day when the worshipper is reciting his prayers. All the feasts are observed by both the sects, but at different dates.

The Shahanshahis are greatly superior in numbers to the Kadmis.32 The latter can hardly count more than ten to fifteen thousand adherents. Many of them occupy the highest position. Mr. F. N. Patel, the members of the Cama, Dadiseth, and Banaji families, &c., are among them. The Shahanshahis are represented by Sir Jamshedji Jijibhoy, Sir Dinsha Manockji Petit, and many other not less respectable names.

II

The Parsis, at the time of their arrival in India, had made some changes in their national costume with a view to please the princes who had received them. Thus we note the resemblance of the angarakha and the turban of the men, and of the saris of the women, with the dress of the Hindoos of Gujerat.

Unwin Brothers, Limited, The Gresham Press, Woking and London.