Parsis, or Persian Zoroastrians as they were once called, are a trading community which originally came to India from Iran. They had already been trading with India and established small settlements on the coast of Gujarat at places like Navsari, Bilimora, Broach, and Bulsar. When subjected to persecution by the Muslim rulers of Persia, many of them left the country and joined the already existing settlements in Gujarat. The story about ‘the milk and sugar’ that is so popular alas is a fiction. The Parsis were already known to Gujaratis and were welcomed on their arrival. From these port towns they moved to Bombay, a paradigmatic Parsi city, and from there to other parts of India.
Mahatma Gandhi had many reasons to be deeply grateful to the Parsis. His political heroes like Dadabhai Naoroji were Parsis. Such other powerful figures as Pherozeshah Mehta who dominated Bombay guided Gandhi through public life. Many Parsis also funded Gandhi’s activities including the removal of untouchability and promoting communal harmony. As Gandhi once said, the Parsi community had never disappointed him whenever he turned to it for help. Doctors like Dinshaw Mehta and Dr. Gilder operated on him for appendicitis and saved his life. In South Africa Rustomji Sheth, a leading Parsi, saved his life when he was under attack. For these and other reasons Gandhi remained deeply appreciative of the Parsis. He also thought that they had cultivated a civic culture that was relatively new to India. They had settled in Bombay in large numbers and made it the site of their public philanthropy and civic spirit. As Gandhi said in a moving paragraph
‘If Bombay was beautiful, if Bombay was noted for its generosity, if Bombay was noted for its public spirit, it was due to the Parsi community. If it were not for the Parsis, Bombay would be like any other city in India and the whole of India was thankful to the Parsis for this.’
While Gandhi had an enormous regard for the Parsis, two major areas separated the two. First and most important, the Parsis were committed to constitutional politics with its commitment to the rule of law, respect for civil authority and representative institutions. They also thought rather well of the British rule and argued that the Indians were not yet ready for full independence. Their politics therefore was one of peaceful pressure and moderation. In contrast to this Gandhi’s politics was based on Satyagraha or civil disobedience and the early overthrow of British rule. It also involved mass mobilisation and collective action which the Parsis greatly feared.
Secondly, Gandhi was keen on regenerating Indian society and removing what he thought to be its ugly practices. He insisted on wearing Khadi and abjuring alcohol. These and other related ideas were central to his programme. The Parsis were opposed to both of them. Many of them preferred silk saris and the usual whisky. Some of them also ran liquor shops, and any attempt to picket or abolish them was economically ruinous. At a deeper level they did not see why they should systematically remove traces of Western influence from their own ways of thinking and aim at intellectual autonomy.
When Gandhi started his Non Co-operation Movement in 1920, it was based on a simple but powerful idea that brought him into sharp conflict with the Parsis. He believed that victims of oppression were never innocent. In their own ways they submitted themselves to the oppression and were complicit in it. All power ultimately depended on the co-operation of its victims. If therefore Indians stopped co-operating with the British, the Raj wold not last a day. The Non Co-operation Movement involved boycotting British schools, colleges, courts of law, parliamentary institutions and so on. When the Prince of Wales was visiting India during this period, Gandhi asked Indians to boycott him and stop co-operating with him in any form.
All this created great difficulties for the Parsis. They were used to co-operating with the colonial government, and indeed depended on it for their security, well-being and even jobs. Naturally they submitted a welcome address to the Prince, something that deeply upset Gandhi’s followers. Some of their women wore silk saris, and many of their members continued to practice law and attend British schools. Thanks to all this, there was a lot of tension between Gandhians and Parsis. As some of the former became aggressive and attacked Parsi women or liquor shops, the Parsis fought back, sometimes with bamboo sticks and on other occasions with firearms. More Parsis had licensed firearms than any other community, including the Hindus. The situation became very tense and there was almost a racial divide between the Parsis and most of the Indians. Gandhi caps and Khadi coats were a red rag to the Parsis just as their European dress was to their opponents. Gandhi did his best to calm the atmosphere which helped up to a point. He ordered that the picketing of liquor shops be stopped, and set up a committee made up of representatives of Parsis and other communities to decide on monetary compensation for the Parsi victims of the riots, run a cadre of National Volunteer Corps to resolve differences, and so on. However, violence between the two communities persisted and Gandhi was deeply upset. As he said ‘I have been put to shame.’ He decided to go on fast until violence ceased. He also began to point to the dangers of mass mobilisation and civil disobedience unless they were properly guided.
All this led to better mutual understanding. There was considerable internal debate within the Parsi community and among the Gandhians. As for the former, they realised that the British rule would not end by constitutional pressure alone, and that some parts of the Non Co-operation Movement had to be retained. They stopped appealing to the colonial government for protection and saw their future as linked with the Indian. They also began to explore the Gandhian idea of decolonising the imagination and aiming at Swaraj or autonomy in ideas. As for the Gandhians, they began to appreciate the importance of constitutional politics, the differences between a small minority like the Parsis and a large minority like the Muslims, and the limits on individual liberty. During the conflict many Parsis had asked why they did not have the liberty to drink alcohol so long as they did not harm others. The Gandhian reply that this was not in the general interest or was an intrinsically evil practice persuaded few. It did however generate a fascinating debate on the basis and limits of individual liberty. In a strangely dialectical manner the four days of rioting had integrated the Parsis into the mainstream and made them feel proud to be Indian.
In the aftermath of the riots and better mutual understanding, there was no further occasion for tension between the two communities. The Parsis, having made their point, became an integral part of India. Some feared that the riots might recur in a Hindu majority independent India and decided to leave the country. Most thought otherwise, so much so that they refused to demand many of the privileges, reserved seats and the policy of positive discrimination that the other communities had clamoured for. Gandhi’s remark about the Parsis, ‘in number, beneath contempt but in contribution, beyond compare’ remains as true as ever.
