Ritual Dialogues and Shared Legacies: Reflections on the Contemporary Iranian–Indian Zoroastrian Encounter
Interview conducted by Professor Christine van Ruymbeke, Soudavar Professor of Persian Literature and Culture, co-Chair of the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies and Head of the Department of Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cambridge, UK.
Interviewee: Professor Saloumeh Gholami, British Academy Global Professor, Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cambridge, UK.
Thank you for agreeing to answer a few question on this Historic Visit. You recently accompanied Mobed Dr. Mehraban Pouladi on a significant trip to India. Could you tell us about the purpose of this journey and its historical relevance?
It was with great pleasure that, in December 2024, for a fortnight I had the honour of accompanying Dastur Dr Mehraban Pouladi, President of the Iranian Zoroastrian Priest Council, on this historic journey. The visit was a crucial component of my British Academy project on the oral traditions of the Zoroastrian community and presented a rare opportunity to witness an important moment in Zoroastrian history. The meeting between Dastur Dr. Pouladi from Iran, and a group of high Zoroastrian priests of India symbolised a remarkable occasion for fostering dialogue, exchanging perspectives, and addressing shared challenges within the global Zoroastrian community. According to Dasturji Firoze M. Kotwal, this visit marked the first official visit of a High Priest from Iran to meet the Parsi-Irani Zoroastrian community in India since probably the last century, hence its description as a ‘Historic Visit’.
What were the key sites you visited, and why were they so significant?
We visited several religious and cultural sites central to Zoroastrian heritage in India. These locations lie along India’s western seaboard. On one trip, we boarded an express Railway service in Mumbai and travelled approximately 260 km northwards in around 3 hours to reach Udvada on the coast of southern Gujarat. On a separate occasion, we then drove eight kilometres inland—roughly a twenty-minute journey by car—to Navsari.
In Mumbai, we explored prominent fire temples, including Dadyseth Atash Bahram, Banaji Atash Bahram, various Agiari’s and Bhikha Behram Well. Two key highlights were our visiting Udvada’s Iranshah Fire Temple, a deeply resonant pilgrimage, and the Atash Bahram in Navsari, one of India’s oldest fire temples, consecrated in 1765. Additionally, we attended a Navjote ceremony, gaining valuable insights into contemporary Parsi traditions. As a non-Zoroastrian, I was not permitted to enter the fire temples; however, the priests graciously guided me through other parts of the compound and introduced me to Varasiyaji, the consecrated sacred albino bull used for the higher liturgical ceremonies.
Beyond religious sites, we explored two libraries and a museum. At the First Dastoor Meherjirana Library in Navsari (est. 1872), we had the opportunity to examine rare Zoroastrian manuscripts. In Mumbai, we visited the Petit Library and engaged with teachers and students at the J.J. Madressa (the only recognized school to teach Avesta Pahalvi in India); at the Athornan Dadar Institute, a priestly school, we also witnessed part of a Yasna ceremony. Additionally, we explored the Alpaiwalla Museum, which houses a rich collection of significant Zoroastrian cultural artefacts.
Dastur Pouladi attended a Yasna ceremony at the Vatcha Gandhy Fire Temple and a Vendidad ceremony at the Banaji Limji Fire Temple in Mumbai at night, and interacted with Ervad Hoshedar G. Panthaki — who has performed over 65 Nirangdins — on the way the Vendidad is performed.
I heard that several particularly meaningful meetings occurred during your visit?
Yes, we had the privilege of meeting several esteemed religious and community leaders. We were deeply honoured to be welcomed at his office by Dasturji Dr. Firoze M. Kotwal, one of the most venerated figures in contemporary Zoroastrian religious and scholarly circles. Later, we had the privilege of attending a gathering with him and the other high-ranking Dasturs and Ervards of India, during which he shared his profound expertise on the historical Revāyats and the enduring ties between the Indian and Iranian priestly hierarchies. We also engaged with Dastur Khurshed Dastur, one of the two High Priests of Udvada. We met with Ervad Dr. Ramiyar Karanjia at the Dadar Athornan Institute in Mumbai, where we observed the training of future Mobeds. In Udvada, we were most graciously received by His Reverence Dasturji Tehemton Mirza, the other esteemed High Priest of the sacred Iranshah Atash Behram. With great warmth and spiritual insight, he shared his reflections on the profound religious significance and enduring sanctity of this revered site.
We also met with Dasturji Kaikhushroo Ravji the current High Priest of the “Meherjirana Gadi” (seat of the Meherjirana Dasturs) of Navsari and leader of the Bhagarsath Anjuman.
In addition, we had the opportunity to meet prominent community leaders and institutions such as the Parsi Punchayet Trustees, Anjuman of Iranian Zoroastrians in Mumbai, Empowering Mobeds, Xtremely Young Zoroastrians, Ratan Tata Institute, Bhikha Behram as well and engaged in discussions with them about contemporary challenges facing the community.
Another memorable highlight was our encounter with Mr Khojeste P. Mistree, who received us with great kindness and personally guided us through Doongerwadi, the sacred site of the Tower of Silence in Mumbai. Mr Mistree generously shared his deep knowledge of Parsi funerary customs and of their spiritual foundations.
We had the privilege of a most enriching visit to the Alpaiwalla Museum, graciously accompanied by Mrs Firoza Punthakey Mistree and Mrs Pheroza J. Godrej, whose profound knowledge and insightful commentary greatly enhanced our experience. With immense generosity, they shared their expertise, offering invaluable perspectives on the cultural and historical significance of the collections.
I was deeply impressed by the depth of our conversations with the young Ervards who graciously accompanied us on this journey—Ervad Hormazd Dadachanji, Ervad Porus Katrak, and Ervad Meher Modi. Their heartfelt companionship was marked by joy, care, and generosity. They shared their experiences, concerns, and insights with admirable openness, revealing a deep and unwavering commitment to Zoroastrianism. We were profoundly touched by their true sense of duty, spiritual devotion, and the remarkable self-sacrifice they embody in their efforts to preserve and uphold the sacred traditions of their faith.
A particularly meaningful aspect of the visit was the bestowing of shawls upon Dastur Pouladi by several of India’s most distinguished Dasturs, including Dasturji Katwal, Dastur Khurshid, Dastur Tahmatan Mirza, the Dasturs of Navsari, and others. The gesture is one imbued with deep symbolic and spiritual significance in Zoroastrian tradition.
Can you tell us something about the differences or nuances between Zoroastrian rituals in Iran and India?
Zoroastrian traditions in Iran and India have evolved differently due to historical, social, and cultural factors. While both communities share a common religious foundation, variations in ritual practices, purity laws, funerary customs, prayer gestures, prayers, and institutional structures have developed with nuances in the two regions over time.
In terms of liturgical ceremonies, Parsis in India have preserved inner liturgical rituals such as Yasnā, Vandidād, Visperad Geti Kharid, Hamayast and the Nērang-Dīn whereas in Iran, these ceremonies have largely disappeared, with only a shorter form of Yasnā (Vāj Yašt Gahanbar) still practiced.
The Nērang-Dīn and Barašnūm purification rituals are no longer performed in Iran, whereas they are still practiced in India. Menstrual purity restrictions were relaxed, but still practiced in religious households as far as possible among Parsis in India, whereas Iranian Zoroastrians gradually abandoned them during the 20th century. Funerary practices are another major point of divergence: in India, the Tower of Silence (Dakhma) is still used, though some believers opt for burial / cremation, while in Iran, sky burials ceased in 1976, and ground burial is now the standard practice.
Distinct worship customs have also emerged. Indian Zoroastrians pray with palms together, while Iranian Zoroastrians raise their hands toward the sky, a form believed to be closer to the original Zoroastrian practice. The Iranian traditions seems to align exactly with the gesture described in Yasna 28.1, which talks about the act of prayer with uplifted hands. This was discussed by Vada Dasturji Firoza Kotwal during our meeting with the high priests in Mumbai.
Temple rituals differ as well, with Indian Parsis using sandalwood as a key ritual element, while Iranian Zoroastrians rely on walnut or almond wood due to the scarcity of sandalwood in Iran, where it is primarily used for its fragrance.
Religious institutions and priesthood also function differently. In India, the Vada Dasturs (High priests), religious school, and fire temples play an active role in preserving traditions. In Iran, the Mobed Council serves as the highest religious authority.
Additionally, linguistic and ritual variations exist. Indian Zoroastrians pronounce certain words differently (e.g., Kusti instead of Košti), and some Pāzand prayers are omitted in India but recited in Iran. Moreover, community Gahanbar feasts remain an integral part of Iranian Zoroastrian tradition, whereas they are less commonly observed among Parsis in India. However, religious-minded Parsis do commemorate the Gahanbars, particularly in the context of ceremonies for the departed.
This is so interesting! Do we know what factors have contributed to these differences?
Social change, modernisation, and historical transitions have played pivotal roles in shaping Zoroastrian rituals. William Jackson’s travel accounts from the early 20th century indicate that certain Zoroastrian rituals in Iran were already under scrutiny at that time. The influence of intellectuals, economic conditions, and the migration of Zoroastrians from villages to cities and abroad have further accelerated ritual adaptations. In contrast, Indian Parsis have benefited from strong institutional support, which has helped preserve their rituals, albeit with some modifications.
For instance, menstrual purity regulations have gradually relaxed in both communities, but the transition happened at different rates.
In Iran, particularly in rural communities like Sharifabad, traditional structures and social norms allowed for the maintenance of older menstrual purity customs well into the 20th century. However, by the 1960s, even these communities saw gradual relaxation due to increasing social mobility and exposure to urban influences.
In India, by the early 20th century, urbanization had already impacted how purity regulations were practiced. In Mumbai, where space constraints made strict isolation impractical, modifications emerged, such as designating a separate section of the home rather than maintaining fully isolated quarters (Dastānistān).
As Zoroastrian women in both Iran and India took on greater roles in household responsibilities and, later, in public and professional life, strict seclusion during menstruation became increasingly unsustainable.
The need for women to contribute to household work, particularly in smaller families or economically strained households, made extended periods of isolation less feasible. Over time, practical adjustments were made, leading to the erosion of strict segregation practices.
Among Indian Parsis, reformist movements in the 19th and early 20th centuries actively sought to reinterpret religious purity laws, advocating for a more symbolic rather than literal adherence to rituals. Figures such as Jivanji Jamshedji Modi recorded modifications in menstrual practices, noting that earlier strictures, such as eating with separate spoons and beds, were already being relaxed.
In Iran, while noble families in Yazd were the first to adopt leniency, rural communities maintained stricter purity codes until mid-century. However, by the mid-20th century, economic modernization and exposure to new ways of life further weakened adherence to older customs.
Would it be accurate to say that Zoroastrianism in India is more conservative than in Iran?
Generally, yes. For example, the Vandidad ceremony, Yasna ceremony, Visperad ceremony are still preserved among the Parsis, whereas all of these rituals have become extinct in Iran. The Yasna ceremony is preserved in Iran in the form of Vāj Yašt Gahanbar, which is a shorter version of the Yasna ritual.
In India, the Parsis have preserved intricate purification ceremonies, such as the Nērang-Dīn, a Zoroastrian ritual to consecrate gōmēz (bull’s urine). The consecrated liquid, known as nīrang or nīrangdīn, is central to the ritual. This ceremony, as described by Kotwal and Kreyenbroek (2004), is conducted by two priests who must undergo the purificatory Barašnom ritual, which includes a rigorous period of abstinence, prayer, and seclusion lasting nine days and nights. This elaborate ritual, however, has become extinct in contemporary Iran. The Parsis have continued practices like the Tower of Silence (Dakhma), whereas Iranian Zoroastrians transitioned to burial in the 1970s.
One particularly striking example of conservatism in Iranian Zoroastrianism is the method of prayer, as I mentioned above. In India, priests and lay people pray with their palms held together, whereas in Iran, both hands are raised toward the sky—a posture that Dastur Firoze Kotwal suggested aligns more closely with Yasna 28.1 in the Avesta. Additionally, Avestan recitations in Iran have remained closer to the original Avestan language.
While rituals conducted inside fire temples appear to have been better preserved in India, festivals and ceremonies held outside fire temples—such as Sadeh, Tirgan, and Nowruz—have been more consistently maintained in Iran. These differences and divergences reflect differences in historical and social circumstances rather than a clear-cut distinction in conservatism.
We are also aware that these communities face challenges. Could you tell us about what you view as the biggest challenges facing Zoroastrian communities in Iran and in India today?
Remarkably, both communities face similar existential challenges, though their focal points differ. In both India and Iran, we see a steady decline in the Zoroastrian population, mainly due to low fertility rates and strict regulations against interfaith marriages. In Iran, migration has further exacerbated demographic decline, with many Zoroastrians relocating to urban centers or leaving the country altogether.
Economic challenges also pose a significant threat, particularly to priesthood. The declining number of Mobeds in both Iran and India is a growing concern, as the Priestly class increasingly avoid the profession due to inadequate financial incentives. In India, fire temples face dwindling attendance, sparking debates over whether to consolidate resources or relocate sacred fires to areas with larger Zoroastrian populations. These challenges highlight the urgent need for community-driven solutions to sustain religious institutions and ensure the continuity of Zoroastrian traditions.
What solutions could strengthen the survival of Zoroastrianism?
When we apply the framework of ethnolinguistic vitality (Giles & Taylor, 1979) to Zoroastrianism, it becomes evident that the religion's survival depends on three interconnected factors: Status, Demography, and Institutional Support. Addressing these dimensions simultaneously through targeted reforms is essential to revitalising these two Zoroastrian communities and ensuring their continuity.
The first two factors, Status and Demography, are difficult to change because they are deeply embedded in long-term social structures, economic realities, and cultural traditions. It requires a fundamental shift in how the role is perceived within the community. Changing social perceptions takes time and often requires broader cultural and economic transformations.
A more effective and realistic path to preserving the communities lies in Institutional Support, as it would offer opportunities for tangible progress within existing structures. While Status and Demography are shaped by long-term societal trends and deeply ingrained tradition, institutional improvements are both achievable and impactful within the current framework of the community. I view existing religious and cultural organisations as able to provide a foundation upon which reforms can be built, allowing for strategic enhancements.
Strengthening community institutions, improving the functionality of fire temples, bringing priestly remuneration up-to-date, extending education, and fostering engagement within the diaspora: all these practical measures can be implemented with relative ease.
Another important aspect of preservation is maintaining a delicate balance between tradition and adaptation, particularly as conservative priests in India face increasing pressure to embrace change. While innovation can help sustain religious practices in a modern context, rapid and unchecked modifications risk undermining the very essence of tradition. This tension raises critical questions about whether such adaptations serve to safeguard the Zoroastrian legacy or inadvertently place it in greater jeopardy.
In the case of endangered heritage, it is essential to carefully assess the boundary between necessary evolution and the preservation of core traditions. While gradual, natural, and thoughtful innovation can facilitate continuity, fast-paced changes may erode fundamental rituals, leading to an irreversible loss of authenticity. Therefore, any reforms must be undertaken with deep consideration, informed by scholarly expertise and guided by communal consensus, ensuring that adaptations reinforce rather than compromise the integrity of Zoroastrianism. As this is a key aspect for survival of the communities, I am exploring these complexities in greater detail in my forthcoming article on religious vitality and the preservation of Zoroastrian heritage.
Professor Gholami, thank you so much for generously sharing your insights. This has been a fascinating discussion on the evolving landscape of Zoroastrianism in India and also in Iran.
It was my pleasure. The preservation of Zoroastrian heritage is a shared responsibility, and I hope that continued exchanges between Iranian and Indian communities will help strengthen their collective identity.