The Parsis are a small, thriving religious community (about 85,000), living mainly in the Maharashtra state capital of Bombay (Mumbai), and have made a significant economic and cultural contribution to the development of the city. This non-Hindu religious minority has become the focus of intense research by researchers, politicians, and the Parsis themselves. The reason for the growing interest was the numerical decline of the Indian Parsis, which began in the XIX century and continues to this day. The Parsis occupied a leading position primarily in the field of economics. But with the establishment of the Indian National Congress (1885), the Parsis were also drawn into the political struggle. In India's diverse political mosaic, the Parsis were by no means in the last place.

Keywords: Zoroastrianism, Parsis, politics, Indian National Congress (INC).

The Parsis are followers of a monotheistic form of religion known as Zoroastrianism, founded 2,500 years ago in Iran (Persia). They emigrated to India during the fall of the last ruler of the Sasanian dynasty, in the middle of the 7th century AD.The community landed in the small principality of Sanjan (100 km north of modern Mumbai), later migrated to other Indian cities. By the 19th century, with the growing political power of European trading companies in India, the Parsis occupied a leading position in the economic, political and educational spheres of the country. By the end of the 19th century, 85% of the Parsi community lived in urban areas and only 15% lived in rural areas (Unisa, Bhagat, Roy, 2008, p. 61). In India, the Parsis remained socially isolated, practicing endogamy, not accepting converts to their religion. The community adapted to the social environment of Gujarat by adopting the national language and traditional Indian clothing.

From the day they settled in India, the Parsis were able to survive because of their loyalty to any government and their ability not to interfere in any conflicts that occurred between different sections of Indian society and the authorities. The community itself also did not impose its ideas on the ruling authorities. The Parsis realized that loyalty could generate a political climate in which they could survive as a minority. The only condition put forward by the Parsis was the possibility of practicing their religion.

Such devotion to authority goes back to the Iranian and pre-Islamic Sasanian traditions, which elevated Zoroastrianism to the status of a state religion and were based on the close relationship between the supreme power and the "church". According to these traditions, an ideal state is impossible without the deification of the ruler.1 The concept of the ideal

1 On the contrary, the well-known German indologist E. Kulkc, referring, in turn, to the Parsi scholar G. K. Nariman, wrote: "The ideal state in Parsism is free of a deification of the ruler..." [Kulkc, 1978, p. 133].

page 40
The rule of the Parsis was also extended to the power under which they found themselves in India, as long as it showed justice and religious tolerance. The Parsis believed that they owed their economic and social prosperity to the British, and since British rule was identified with the "good government" that helped them revive the community, their loyalty to the British authorities was obvious. "Their loyalty is not an empty demonstration or fear of a strong and powerful government, but the result of a deep inner conviction. When they compare their situation in India with that of their brethren in Persia, where until recently the Parsis were in a pitiful state of persecution, they fully and fairly assess the happiness they enjoy under British rule, " wrote the Parsi D. F. Karaka [Karaka, 1884, vol. 2, p.273].

In the eyes of the Parsis, the legitimacy of British rule was based on exceptional achievements: Western civilization gave the Parsis peace, modern education, and economic prosperity. The Parsis realized that with the end of British rule and the independence of India, they would lose many privileges and be recognized as a politically unimportant minority. Therefore, it was advantageous for them, as well as other minorities, to advocate for British rule. The Parsis showed their devotion on any occasion: royal family birthdays, coronation ceremonies, the arrival of new governors-general. All these events resulted in religious festivals-yasnas, which served two functions simultaneously: on the one hand, they united and strengthened the community from within, and on the other, they demonstrated collective loyalty to British rule. Meetings and festivals were semi-official, usually held by wealthy members of the community and high clergy. The Parsis expressed their attitude towards the British in a monument made at the expense of Kovasji Jehangir and installed in Regent's Park in London in 1869 with the inscription:" ...in gratitude to the British people for protecting them and their co-religionists under British rule in India " [Kulke, 1978, p.135].

Whenever Great Britain conducted military operations in India and beyond, the Parsis implicitly identified themselves with the interests of the colonial authorities. This was especially evident in 1857, during the Sepoy Rebellion that threatened British rule in India and certainly affected the Parsis, who actively supported the British and helped them regain territories lost during the fighting. Pro-English sentiments are reflected in the Parsi press of 1857-1859. So, in 1858, the Parsi D. F. Karaka published a pamphlet in London, in which he spoke enthusiastically about the British mission in India. The Parsi Panchayat, the community's representative body, handed the so-called loyalty resolution to the Governor of Bombay in 1857, and two years later celebrated the suppression of the rebellion. The Parsis openly sided with the British even in cases where events did not directly concern them. They saw the British war effort as a necessity to preserve peace, progress in civilization, and freedom. About 6 thousand Parsis gathered in Bombay on the occasion of the end of the Crimean War 2, celebrating the victory of British weapons. The Parsis wanted "British rule to expand and its moral influence to be established over a large part of the world" (Kulke, 1978, p.136). The Parsis had the same reaction to the two world wars, in their eyes it was a battle between the forces of light and darkness. The Parsis considered it their duty to actively help the British with monetary donations, public meetings and resolutions, pamphlets, and participation in the National Military Front in the Bombay Presidency.

2 The Crimean War of 1853-1856, also known as the Eastern War, was a war between the Russian Empire and a coalition consisting of the British, French, Ottoman Empires and the Kingdom of Sardinia. In addition to the Crimea, where the fighting reached the greatest tension, they unfolded in the Caucasus, in the Danube principalities, on the Baltic, Black, White and Barents Seas, as well as in Kamchatka.

page 41
The Parsis, representatives of a homogeneous social group with a single political mentality, did not have an institution that represented their political interests. The Parsi clergy, which had lost its leading position in the eighteenth century, was replaced by the Panchayat, which became the main charitable institution representing the interests of the Parsis both in the country and abroad. The unofficial leaders of the Panchayat were titled Parsi aristocrats who were elevated to the rank of "baronets"by the English court.

For the formation of a single political view and a single communal consciousness in the Parsi environment, certain conditions had to exist. The discord and tension that arose in the community, depending on the varying degrees of Westernization and social mobility of community members, led to a crisis of identification of the entire community. Most of the members of the community consciously withdrew from the "backward" Indian society, refusing to apply the term natives ("local") to them. Another part of the Parsis saw themselves as a "pure white race". Their ambitions were aimed at close ties with the British, which in turn led to a break with their community. "The close union of Europeans and Parsis is the best thing that could have happened to our race. This will mean the rise of the people who are at the bottom, although they have all the qualities of the European race. Complete Europeanization of the Parsis today is a matter of time, " the Parsi press wrote in the early 20th century. [The Parsi, 1905, № 11, p. 533]. In 1883, the Parsi M. D. Dadisetth, in his speech to the members of the "East India Association", emphasized that of all the Eastern peoples, only the Parsis could be socially connected with the British on the same level [Kulke, 1978, p.138]. The British supported this idea, elevating Narsian aristocrats to the rank of nobility, thereby strengthening the colonial system.

By raising the rank of the Parsis within the community, on the one hand, and associating them with the British crown, on the other, the British obtained the expected result, namely, the loyalty of the entire community. By 1946, 63 Parsis were raised to the rank of baronets. The Parsi baronets were hierarchically on the same level as the Indian princes raised by the British. Now the British could use them as a support tool in any situation. An example is the words of Jamshedji Jijibhoy, who said in 1843 during the solemn ceremony of conferring the title of baronet: "They, my children's children, will be taught that loyalty to the British Crown is their first duty, loyalty is the first virtue "[Karaka, 1884, vol. 2, p. 99].

The British viewed the Parsis as foreigners in India and rarely referred to them as the elite. They often took their wishes into account, but they also responded to the demands of other opposition groups. The refusal of the British to consider the Parsis as their own, even with equal education and increasing Anglophilia, as well as the reluctance of the Parsis to identify as "local", led to their mental alienation from India. The Parsis never came close to the British, but they also distanced themselves from the Indians.

The isolation of the Parsis, as well as the fact that they numerically predominated in state structures compared to other minorities, caused Indians to be suspicious and distrustful of them. The Indians could not like what the Parsis called "pretense" and" huge show " revived Indian traditions, such as the Shivaji cult in Maharashtra.

The Parsis had tense relations not only with Hindus, but also with Muslims. In 1851, Parsi Behramji Kharsji Gandhi wrote an article in a newspaper about the Prophet Muhammad, in which he insulted the religious feelings of Muslims, which led to a bloodbath in the Parsi quarter of Bombay. History repeated itself in 1874 after the publication of the book "The Life of Muhammad", written by the Parsi Rustomji Khormusji Jalbhoy. In 1921, on the eve of the arrival of the Prince of Wales in Bombay, M. K. Gandhi announced a boycott of the British, in which the Parsis refused to participate, which led to a bloody clash. The Parsis formed self-defense units and defended

page 42
their families and homes, and although the events ended with the boycott being lifted, people were killed in the skirmishes.

However, in general, despite the occasional conflicts, it can be said that the political and social atmosphere of Bombay was characterized by interfaith harmony, close cooperation and countless personal contacts between representatives of various communities. Prominent Indians expressed appreciation and emphasized the role of the Parsis in India. Thus, the politician and social reformer M. G. Ranade (1842-1901) wrote in 1899: "In our national machine, immobile and burdened with the weight of centuries, we too often serve as a ballast or brake. The machine would never have advanced an inch without the inspiring contact with the British and the beneficent example of the Parsis. They show the way, and we slowly follow them." by: Katrak, 1965, p. 190].

Despite the dominant alienation factor that emerged in the Indian nation, the Parsis were accepted as members of the nation due to their leading role in the early stages of the Indian national movement and their role in social reform, education, and economic development of the country. The cultural heritage of India in general and Hinduism in particular became the ideological basis for Indian nationalism, which in turn led to the formation of a new Indian historical consciousness. The birth of nationalist tendencies in India went hand in hand with the religious revival that began among the Parsis in the mid-19th century. This process made the Parsis remember their Iranian past.

The Iranian renaissance began in 1850, when the Parsis learned of the deplorable condition of their co-religionists, who were surviving in an Islamic environment. In 1854, a special committee set up sent Manekji Limji Khataria to Persia to learn about the social, political, and intellectual conditions of the Zoroastrians in Persia (Karaka, 1884, vol. 1, p. 72). In the same year, the Persian Zoroastrian Amelioration Fund was established. In 1857, schools were built in Kerman, Yazd, and later orphanages and hospitals at the expense of Indian Parsis.3
Since the Indian Parsis turned to their Iranian roots and the cultural heritage of the Persian Zoroastrians, their quest for ethnic, social, cultural, historical and national identity has become more complex. They split up and went in various socio-cultural and political directions, among which one can distinguish Indian, Iranian and English. This psychological identification conflict also affected the political behavior of the Parsis, which became noticeable from the very beginning of the 20th century. The idea of creating a Parsi colony outside India was put forward (Balochistan and East Africa were proposed). This proposal was especially popular in 1905-1907, when the Indian National Congress (INC) adopted a more radical course. Fears began to arise among the Parsis for the future of the Parsis in independent India.

The idea of emigration arose from the assumption that the Parsis are very enterprising in business, here they are not inferior to Europeans: "The spirit of adventure and willingness to embark on new paths leading to success and glory - the same spirit that distinguished the Anglo-Saxon and Teutonic races in general in the history of Europe-in a certain sense can be found among the Parsis. Such a colony could become a means for developing the Parsi character, reviving the old Persian life with all its glorious features, and reviving a new national existence... Such a spirit could fertilize a new national identity and become the birthplace of the Persian nation... " [Kulke, 1978, p. 145].

1 Indian Parsis continue to help Iranian ones today. A "Zoroastrian College"was built in Tehran with the funds they raised.

page 43
The creation of a Parsi colony with its own internal law and order would lead to the organization of a paramilitary training school for Parsi youths4. These plans were not completed. The question of forming a colony went hand in hand with the proposal to create a "Parsee military forces" ("Parsee military forces"). The creation of a militaristic organization should be considered in the context of the European imperialist expansion of the early twentieth century, in which a certain part of the Parsis, who identified themselves as the "white race", wanted to participate. Another part of the Parsis, who actively joined the political life of the country, achieved serious influence in Indian politics in the last quarter of the XIX century.

A part of the Parsis, led by middle-class intellectuals, solved the problem of identification by integrating themselves fully into Indian society, into the emerging Indian nation. These Parsis recognized themselves as Indians and actively joined the national movement. They were convinced that the Parsis as an Indian community would have a future only if they worked closely with other groups. It was absolutely natural for them to be considered, first, Indians and only, second, Parsis. This put an end to the divergence between Indian and Parsi identities. For some Parsis, such as Dadabhaya Naoroji, belonging to the Indian nation was much more important than being a member of the Parsi community. In his speech as president of the INC in 1893, he said: "Whether I am a Hindu, a Muslim, a Parsi, a Christian, or any other faith, I am first and foremost an Indian. Our country is India, our nationality is Indians " [Speeches..., 1910, p. 61]. Another Parsi, F. Mehta, believed that self-isolation from other nations, from the interests of the country in which they all live, is a short-sighted and suicidal policy: "We are a force in this Presidency, as a small but enlightened and enterprising part of the nation of this country, as participants in its greatness. By isolating ourselves as Parsis, pure and simple, keeping aloof from the other nations of the country, without common interests, common sympathies and common cooperation, we may remain an uninteresting community... We lived and worked with our Indian and Muslim neighbors for common goals, for common aspirations and common interests "[Speeches..., 1905, p. 278-279].

However, the Parsi opposition called for distancing themselves from Indians and Muslims. Here is what Naoroji wrote about this in one of his letters: "Nothing could be more suicidal. We are Indians, and India is our homeland, and we can drown with Indians or swim out as Indians. If we break off our relationship with the Indians, our fate will be like a crow in peacock feathers. The British will not have time to pluck these feathers" [Kulke, 1978, p. 169].

The idea of secular nationalism that emerged during the moderate Congress phase, as well as the adoption of Indian identification by the Parsis, was a closed topic in the late nineteenth century. The reasons for this situation were the growing radicalism of the national movement and the influence of the neo-Hindu revival (Tilak, Lajpat Rai, Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Annie Besant). The Parsis had very limited access to the social-religious nationalism movement led by Tilak and Gandhi. The Hinduization of the national movement led to the withdrawal of Parsis from national politics and the growth of Parsi-communalist associations in the late 19th century.

Since 1834, the British colonial Government has gradually expanded the political participation of Indians in regional politics. In 1834, 14 Indians (9 Parsis, 2 Hindus, 2 Muslims, 1 Goan) were elected as justices of the peace. In 1865, a City Council (Municipal Corporation) was created from the number of British-dominated justices of the peace living in Bombay, which was responsible for collecting taxes. The Municipal Administration has also appointed a British special representative to represent-

4 This idea was re-examined in 1921 after the anti-Parsi riots.

page 44
the person who managed the city's administration. Thus, the power sharing model was introduced for the first time. However, in 1868, due to the mismanagement of the financial management of the special representative, the English official Sir Arthur Crawford, a crisis broke out in the City Council. Under pressure from a group of justices of the peace, Crawford was forced to resign. At the same time, a general discussion was held on the structure and jurisdiction of the council, which was reorganized in 1872.The updated council gave taxpayers more powers. For the first time, the names of the Hindu Mandalik, the Parsis Naoroji Firdunji, S. S. Bengali and Ferozshah Mehta became known to the Indian public.

Since 1872, Indians have represented an overwhelming majority in the City Council. Due to their economic and social position, Parsis were well represented as justices of the peace, for example, when elected to sixteen City Councils in mid-1922. Out of the first 14 Indian justices of the peace, 9 were Parsis, in 1855 out of 24 Indian justices of the peace - 14. In 1919, the number of justices of the peace reached 339 people, including There are 126 Parsis, 121 Indians, 85 Muslims and 7 Jews. The high percentage of Parsis as city councillors elected by judges is attributed to the fact that Europeans and Muslims preferred to choose other than members of their Parsi community. Thus, the Indians who dominated in numbers turned into a minority. The preference given to Parsi candidates among the non-Indian population is not the only factor in the preponderance of Parsi representation in the City Council, whose high political activity, for example, in 1875 was 44.4% of the electorate compared to 30.1% of Indians and 30.9% of Muslims. As a result, the Parsis maintained a strong position in the Bombay City Council until the country's Independence Day. Later, when access to local council elections was expanded, the Parsis were squeezed out by representatives of other communities. Thus, in the April 1968 City Council elections, the Parsis won only two out of 140 seats (Kulke, 1978, p. 150).

The decisive body of the City Council was the Standing Committee formed in 1928, consisting of 16 members: 12 members were elected by the City Council, and 4-by the government. Until 1902, the City Council usually consisted of 4 Parsis and a changing number of British and Indians. The colonial government divided the candidates into three groups: the Parsis, the Indians, and the British. The fact that the Parsis played an important role in regional politics, not even because of the preferences of the British, but because of their social and economic position in Bombay, was absolutely obvious.

In 1876, a Parsi, and in fact the first Indian Parsi, Dosabhoi Framji Karaka, was elected to the post of Chairman of the Municipal Corporation (Chairman of the Municipal Corporation), who served as the mayor of the city.6 Each community submitted its candidate after the end of the term (4-5 years) of office. However, the City Council remained in the hands of British managers for a long time. They were replaced in 1922 by the Parsi Rustam P. Massani, who became the head of the Bombay Administration. While individual members of the Parsi community played an influential role in regional politics, the community itself did not play an independent role in urban politics, acting as a homogeneous group in contrast to other communities or the British authorities. Conflicts undoubtedly arise between different communities, but there are no conflicts between two different social strata consisting of members of different community groups. Entrepreneurial families (shet), on the one hand, and the intellectual stratum that has emerged with the emergence of new educational institutions, on the other, interact in complete harmony.

5 Indians were Hindus, Muslims, Goans, and Jews.

6 Before him, this position was held only by the British.

page 45
Initially, Shetas were recruited from Gujarati merchant castes (Kapol Baniya, Bhatia, Bhansali), from Islamized former Indian merchant castes (Bohra, Khoja), as well as from representatives of the Parsi community. The Shet have achieved a dominant position in society through their economic success and have been recognized leaders both within and outside their community. Taking this fact into account, the British actively cooperated with them. Thus, the first concessions of the British regarding the participation of Indians in regional politics (justices of the peace, members of the government Legislative Council) initially concerned only representatives of the Shet.

Members of the Bombay intellectual elite, a product of British educational policy, had been separating themselves from the Shetas since the mid-nineteenth century and did not recognize their leadership in the community. Most of them were in the civil service, including lawyers, journalists and representatives of the business community. Leading intellectuals since 1870 were mostly judges and lawyers who were educated in England.

Until the early twentieth century, the urban politics of Bombay were determined by the opposition of shetas and intellectuals, each fighting for their own interests. The Shet, moderately educated at best, were mostly apolitical. They maintained close contact with the British colonial authorities. Another thing is the intellectuals who received an English education, among whom European liberal ideas found fertile ground. They transformed these ideas into social reformism, which was already beyond the scope of Sheth's interests.

The divergence of interests between these two groups has been observed since the first political organization, the Bombay Association, was formed in 1852 on the initiative of former students of Elphinstone College. Its policy document proposed measures to improve and improve the country's welfare and provide Indians with a share in the country's governance. A Steering Committee was formed to give the organization weight and credibility, as well as guaranteed financial support from the shet (Jamshedji Jijibhoy, David Sassoon and V. Madhavdas).

However, the participation of rich Parsis in the association did not save it from the subsequent split. The moderate leadership of the association resigned, citing the dangerous activities of secretaries Naoroji Firunji and Bhau Daji. The remaining Parsis retained their influence in the association, whose activities they considered as a tool for achieving their interests, for example, economic ones. In 1860, intellectuals were practically ousted from the association. They tried to establish their influence through the Parsi press Rast Goftar (1851), Indu Prakash (1862) and Native Opinion (1864). The intellectuals were targeted by the rich-shet, who did not have a European education and were focused only on their own economic interests, unable to play a leading role in politics. In 1862, the association ceased its activities.

In 1885, the Bombay Presidency Association (ABA) was organized, in which intellectuals again tried to flirt with the Shet and elected J. P. Morgan, the President of the United States. Jijibhoy as president. And once again, the resignation under pressure from" radical " politicians - secretaries of the Federation Council. Mehta, D. I. Vacha (both Parsi) and K. T. Tilanga (Chitpavan-Brahman). However, it should be noted that the ABP members were in the grip of intellectuals who had been extremely active for decades.

The differences that had existed since 1852 between the Shet and the intellectual elite flared up for the second time in 1872, during the discussion of reforms in the City Council. The Shet wanted to correct abuses caused by poor financial management by acting through justices of the peace - representatives of the Shet environment, while intellectuals advocated the introduction of elections. Starting with the introduction of the klasso system-

page 46
During the first round of voting, which can be considered as an electorate consisting only of taxpayers, and the formation of the Ratepayers association, intellectuals succeeded in getting out of shet's influence. Public meetings and Taxpayer Association resolutions provided the necessary support for intellectuals.

Thus, the Shet, while maintaining close personal contacts with the colonial authorities and the dominant representation in the Bombay Legislative Council, were responsible for the passage of the Bombay Municipal Bill, which went down in history as the Municipal Act of 1872.The Shet in the Council opposed any elections and representative institutions.

The City Council held elections every two years, thus sparking a growing interest in political participation among both intellectuals and the general taxpayer community in Bombay. After 1872, in this way, Indians had the opportunity to become intimately familiar with parliamentary practice, electoral mechanisms, and political responsibility, and in fact had an advantage over the Indian National Congress (INC), formed 13 years later. Young intellectuals such as Mehta and Vacha, a Parsi, Tilang, a Hindu, and a Taipei Muslim were able to gain prominent positions in the national movement through their work in City councils. The most popular parties after the INC were the Commissioner's Party and the Popular Party. Members of the Popular party were local politicians-representatives of various communities who worked closely together. Among them, for example, Pars N. Firdunji, called the "people's tribune" by the media of that time, F. Mehta - "the uncrowned king of Bombay" (he was a city councilor for 43 years without interruption and four times chairman of the City Council) and D. I. Vacha.

Until the 1920s, the leading role of Parsis in regional politics was based on their high social status, level of education, and dominant role in the economy. The close connection between business and politics forced the Parsis to participate in all organizations and associations, to make important decisions or influence their adoption, especially in the field of economic policy. Real estate, commercial, and industrial issues were raised, clearly formulated, and addressed by organizations such as the Bombay Chamber of Commerce, 7 the Millowners Association, Ratepayers Association, Bombay Native Brokers Association, Landlords Association, and others. Indian Merchant Chamber.

While until the end of the 19th century, the Parsis dominated many political organizations in Bombay due to their social and economic position in the city, their representation at the all-India level, such as the INC, was relatively small. Of the 72 participants in the first session of the Congress, 3 were from Bengal, 2 from Punjab and 9 from Uttar Pradesh and Ayodhya. Parsis were the second largest group - 9 after 59 Indians, Muslims and Christians each represented 2 participants. The numerical representation of certain communities in Congress was usually related to the location of the INC sessions. Thus, in 1889 and 1904, Congress sessions were held in Bombay, and Parsi representation was predominant. In 1889, the Congress held sessions in Muslim Lucknow, and the majority of its members were Muslims. However, throughout the existence of the INC, the Indians represented in it

7 The Bombay Chamber of Commerce was founded in 1837 by the British. Between 1836-1936, its chairmen and secretaries were British. Local businessmen were also allowed, but Parsis were in the majority from the very beginning. At the time of the chamber's formation, 15 of the 25 firms included in the nes were British and 10 were Parsi.

page 47
the majority is 90% of delegates. Among Hindus, Brahmins accounted for almost half of the delegates. The Congress sessions in Pune (1895) and Madras (1894, 1898, 1903, 1908) were dominated by Chitpavan Brahmins and Tamil Brahmins.

The ideological basis of the Indian national movement was Hinduism, and acting on its basis, as some authors, such as E. Kulke, believed, the Congress neglected the socio-religious traditions of minorities, which, in its view, could play a destructive role. According to the ideologists of the INC, the all-India national identity was intended to oppose those who did not share Indian traditions and were afraid of the dominance of Hindus in the Indian parliament. This also applies to the" anti-Brahmin " movement in South India, organized against the Madras Congress, which was indeed dominated by Tamil Brahmins. When the majority of Parsis distanced themselves from the INC, a smaller part of them began to actively influence Congress policy, especially in the initial stage of the national movement, until 1915.

Prominent Parsi politicians Dadabhai Naoroji (1825-1917), Ferozshah Mehta (1845-1915) and Dinshaw Idulji Vacha (1844-1936) played an important role in the Congress. After the death and departure of these politicians from the Indian political scene, none of the Parsis could take their place. Parsi politicians can be put on the same level as leaders of the national movement such as G. K. Gokhale, B. G. Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Motilal and Jawaharlal Nehru and others. D. Naoroji ,the "Grand old man of India", has become a symbolic figure for the whole of India thanks to 40 years of experience. political activity in England.

For many years, the Parsis held high positions in the Government. For example, D. I. Vacha was the General Secretary of the Congress for 17 years. All three famous Parsis were educated in Europe: Naoroji and Vacha are both graduates of Elphinstone College; Mehta attended Lincoln Inn. All three were active political figures in the ABP. D. Naoroji is a native of a clerical family from Navsari, a professor at Elphinstone College, a social reformer and founder of the newspaper Rast Goftar ("Right Word"), temporary representative of the Parsi firm in England, Chief Minister of the Principality of Baroda. Member of the Bombay Legislative Council and first Indian member of the British Parliament. He, like Mehta and Vacha, directed all his energies not to fight against the British colonial system, but to improve British rule. Naoroji had such a high regard for British rule that he wanted to continue his rule until the fulfillment of his "sacred mission", which he said with gratitude in a solemn speech on the occasion of his election as President of the Congress in 1886.

If Naoroji sang odes of praise for the British rule of the past years, at least until the last quarter of the nineteenth century, he sharply criticized the period that followed in his book Poverty and un-British rule in India, published in London in 1901. A talented economist, Naoroji analyzed the" siphoning off " theory of material resources and capital, as it happens with India, and proved that the country's poverty is a consequence of the continued exploitation of India by Britain.

Another issue that has come under Naoroji's purview is the indianization of government employees. Until the beginning of the twentieth century, Indians were not allowed to join the civil service apparatus (in 1915, only 5% of Indians were in it). Naoroji campaigned in both India and England for the Indian Civil Service entrance examinations to be held among candidates and for increased indigenous representation. The book was widely promoted by the author at commission hearings in the British Parliament, at countless public meetings, and became a reference book for a whole generation of Indian economists and politicians. The book was reprinted after

page 48
After India achieved independence, it continued to cause a heated debate among economists.

Naoroji, as a member of the British Parliament, was constantly in contact with British politicians and was an ardent defender of Indian interests. His success in this field in England brought him such popularity in India that his sporadic visits to his homeland were accompanied by triumphal processions comparable only to those of Mahatma Gandhi. Naoroji did not participate in the internal political struggle of the Congress, he was one of the few politicians who did not have a strong opponent in the intra-Indian political arena. Sometimes there was criticism of him from the conservative Parsi press ("Jam-e-Jamshed", "Rast Goftar") or Hindu radical circles, who saw in Naoroji a supporter of the restoration of Brahmin rule.

Naoroji, who was called the most important politician in India during the moderate INC phase, once again proved the extraordinary role of the national movement at the Congress session in Calcutta, where there was a virtual split into two wings: the liberal-minded and the nationalist patriots. "A recognized leader of the Congress, Naoroji was specially brought to Calcutta from England to prevent an open split in the Congress, and was elected president of this session. Moderates in Congress were forced to give in to the nationalists and pass resolutions with them on swaraj, expanding national education, boycotting foreign goods, and swadeshi. It was in Calcutta that the Congress President first officially put forward the slogan of swaraj " [Yurlov, Yurlova, 2010, pp. 58-59].

If Naoroji was a recognized politician because of his activities in England, Mehta's power and influence on Indian politics were undoubtedly based on Bombay politics. Its strongholds were the City Council and the ABP, organizations of equal importance and importance to the INC. Mehta's oratorical talent (he was a lawyer by profession) made him "the best debater in India" and "the leading statesman and politician in India"in the eyes of millions of his countrymen. Mehta was highly regarded by the leader of the national movement, Mahatma Gandhi, who paved the way for him from Bombay and Pune to campaign in the Indian diaspora in South Africa [Kulke, 1978, p. 179]. The Madras Standard wrote of him in 1903: "Even if Mehta were a despot, we would very much like him to rule the Congress, and not our most popular Democrats. If the Congress were under the despotism of one man, for him (the Congress. It would be an advantage to be under the despotism of a man like Mr. Mehta, probably the best and brightest leader of the Congress" [Kulke, 1978, p. 180]. One of the prominent figures of the national movement, G. K. Gokhale, publicly acknowledged in Madras: "It is true, we have few single-minded leaders in the country to guide us, but we cannot say that there are none at all. We have one such person, Sir Ferozshah Mehta - the most honest and patriotic, with high abilities and competent in all areas to lead the country "[Kulke, 1978, p. 180].

Mehta's strongest opponent in Congress, who tried to get him out of there, was Tilak. After the Congress session held in Surat in 1907, Mehta lost his position as a leading Indian politician. He was again offered the post of President of the Congress in 1909; having accepted the offer at first, he later refused the post, anticipating factional rivalry. For a long time, the extremists in Congress have not been able to achieve a lasting position in Bombay. Mehta refused to cooperate in any way.

D. I. Vacha, the third in the triumvirate of Parsi politicians, came from a middle-class background, after graduating from Elphinstone College, he worked in the banking business, later worked in the textile industry (at the Tata factory), where he acquired organizational skills. His fundamental knowledge in the field of finance has determined his place in the world of finance.

page 49
in Bombay politics and in economic associations at both the regional and all-India national levels, a position he held between 1885 and 1920. In national politics, he did not reach the same rank as Naoroji or Mehta. His contribution to the national movement is mainly due to the successful work of the ABP and INC organizing center. Of all the kongressist politicians, Vacha, after Surendranath Banerjee, was the most active during the moderate phase of Congress activity. His detailed weekly letters to Naoroji in England and his constant assistance to Mehta were instrumental in integrating these politicians into the national movement. Under his political influence, the Kaiser-i-Hind newspaper, founded in 1882 by Mehta (a Gujarati newspaper published after 1890, with occasional English articles), became the leading organ of the Bombay Congress and an opponent of the anti-Congress newspaper Rast Goftar. After Naoroji and Mehta left the national movement, Vacha joined the Indian Liberal Party, in which he played a leading role for many years.

Thus, a small group of Parsis influenced the political decisions of the Congress for decades. However, most of the community itself stood apart from and in opposition to the national movement. Moreover, the Parsi opposition was so strong that, for example, the Congress session scheduled in Bombay in 1889 was postponed to Pune due to the resistance of influential Parsis and their ardent defenders. The center of anti-Congress agitation in Bombay was the Parsi newspaper Rast Goftar, which noticed the Congress ' disdain for a small group of Parsis. It was founded by Naoroji in 1852 as a body for spreading reformist ideas. Later, the newspaper turned its back on its creator and came under the influence of publisher K. N. Kabraji, who defended imperial interests and questioned Naoroji's loyalty. In a correspondence between Cabraji and Naoroji in 1902 on the occasion of the newspaper's 50th anniversary, Cabraji tried to prove that Naoroji, not he, had deviated from the general line. The motives for the opposition, as well as the alienation of the majority of the community, lie at different levels. Let's start with the identification that we mentioned above.

For the opposition, the idea of Parsis accepting Indian identity is impossible - they saw themselves first as Parsis and only then as Indians. The Indian nation exists only in the view of Hindus, and they position themselves as its only representatives, the Parsis believed. The national movement was presented by them as purely Hindu, in which the Parsis would sooner or later be forced to assimilate. According to the opposition ,the" Hinduized "congressional Parsis could force their co-religionists to assimilate:" ignore their individual defining character as the race that plays the most important role in Western India, and unite the Parsis with others in a new community, designating it with the plausible name-the Indian nation." "But we do not believe that our Parsi brothers will assume an imaginary appearance and forget their individuality," wrote Rast Goftar in 1891. by: Kulke, 1978, p. 183]. The general opposition to the INC movement was based on fear of Hindu numerical superiority. Once the government and the country were in the hands of Hindus, "... the rights of minorities would cease to be respected, " the Parsis believed. The introduction of the "representative in government" system was also rejected by the Parsi opposition. The Parsis, in her opinion, should have remained on their own, following their political credo " loyal to the British, friendly to the Indians."

The Parsis ' rejection of the Congress movement was based on the prevailing perception that Indian society was not yet ready to accept Western political institutions. The adoption of Western political structures presupposed a transformation and modernization of the traditional Indian social structure. Otherwise, an independent India would once again fall into a state of Eastern despotism.

page 50
The Parsis demanded social reforms from the authorities, as they believed that they had clearly demonstrated the possibilities and success of such reforms on the example of their own community. What India needed, in addition to fundamental social reforms, was economic development and industrialization, to which the Parsis, for their part, had already made a significant contribution and initiative.

The indifference of a large part of the Parsis to the Congress is due to their belief that the Parsi community already benefits sufficiently from disputes between British rulers and Indian subjects. Their small size and weakness require neutrality: "When elephants fight, the forest suffers, and so do you (Parsis) This does not concern you, you have no place in this battle, "the newspaper Rast Goftar called in 1889 [cit. by: Kulke, 1978, p. 188]. Advocates of this view believed that traditional political moderation of the Parsis was a necessary condition for survival throughout the 1,200-year history of their stay in India.

However, it should be noted that, despite the differences between the opposition and the congressists, there was no split within the community. The opposition celebrated the achievements of the three Parsis in the national movement and was proud to point out that the Parsis were the first in all industries wherever they worked. She welcomed the selection of Naoroji as Congress president and stated in the pages of her newspaper:"...India needs a dozen dadabhais. They can do more to ensure the stability of British rule in India than an army of administrators" [Kulke, 1978, p. 189]. The community canonized Naoroji, installing portraits of him in four major temples in Bombay in 1898 and recognizing his role as a social reformer.

After the departure of three famous Parsi figures from the Congress, the Parsis began to disappear from the all-Indian political scene. Some Parsis joined extremist circles, while the majority remained hesitant to choose between the secular Liberal Party and communalist groups.

In 1916, the movement for self-government was organized. The All-India Home Rule League, led by Annie Besant, aimed to achieve autonomy, "increase the participation of Indians in provincial legislative councils, reform or abolish the British Council under the Minister of Indian Affairs, and give local self-government bodies broader powers" (Yurlov and Yurlova, 2010, p. 79)..

An opposition-minded group of Parsis believed that before demanding self-government, it was necessary to eliminate poverty and raise the level of culture. The Parsis not only covered the issue of self-government in the pages of Jam-e-Jamshed, but also wrote letters to English newspapers (for example, the London Times), warning of a "terrible catastrophe" in the future if the Labor Party allowed self-government in India. The Parsis feared the restoration of Brahmin power, since in the south of the country the movement relied mainly on representatives of this caste.

Fear and distrust of the Congress ' policies resulted in complete indifference to the address of the Secretary General of the All India Congress Committee, J. R. R. Tolkien. Nehru in 1928 to the leaders of the Parsi associations and organizations in Bombay (Zoroastrian Association, Parsi Central Association, Parsi Panchayat, Parsi Rajkeya Sabha) - to participate in the All Parties Conference, at which the various political groups could come to a single agreement. However, only the Parsi Central Association responded to the committee's call, delegating three of its representatives without the right to vote.

Three years later, the Parsis publicly discussed the creation of the Grand League of the smaller minorities in India, which would include backward tribes and castes, as well as Sikhs. The Big League assumed the function of an intermediary between Hindus and Muslims, acting as a third force within the expected polarization of Indian politics. Millions of untouchables were supposed to be included

page 51
to join the league with the clear intention of strengthening the organization numerically, without compromising the leadership role of the Parsis. The idea was so clear to the Congress, as well as to the Government and leaders of backward tribes and castes, that they deprived the Parsis of any chance of implementing it. In 1945, the Anglo-Indian minority leader Frank Anthony prepared an identical plan, but it was too late for such an organization. The Congress by this time had complete control over Indian public opinion and the legislature. From 1920 until Independence Day, Parsi circles actively discussed the issue of a "separate electorate".

The "separate electorate" offered a guarantee of the community's existence. After the British made concessions to Muslims as a numerically strong minority in the Morley-Minto reforms (1909) and Montagu-Chelmsford reforms (1918), other minorities felt the need to define and assert their demands. Discussions about the" split electorate " dominated in the following years, culminating at the Round table conferences in London in 1930-1932. The defenders of the" separate electorate " acted with the approval of the British, who saw them as a political counterweight to the unitary Congress. The Government of India Act of 1937 laid down the basis for the Round Table Conference and set up separate curia for Muslims, Sikhs, Europeans, Anglo-Indians, Christian Indians and, through Ambedkar's efforts, the "untouchables".

The Parsis had made similar demands to the British Government long before the London Conference in 1908. When the discussion of a" separate electorate " was again raised by the new Secretary of State for India, E. Montagu, in 1917, J. Jijibhoy and other leaders of the Bombay Parsis addressed him with a memorandum demanding that the issue of a separate Parsi electorate be considered. The same request was made by Jijibhoy, as an unofficial community leader, before the Franchise Commission. However, Modi believed that the Parsis could do without a "separate electorate" if they were guaranteed 11 seats in the local Legislative Council. Modi began by suggesting that the socio-economic situation of the Parsis in Bombay would always guarantee sufficient representation of the community and would not require a "separate electorate". In the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms of 1921, the Parsi demand for a" separate electorate " was not taken into account, as Bombay received 6 seats, two of which were allocated to Marathas, which increased anxiety among Parsi oppositionists, who felt cut off from participating in politics.

A new opportunity to demand a "separate electorate" for the Parsis was presented by the creation of the Commission of J. R. R. Tolkien. Simon Commission in 1928. While the British-only Commission was being boycotted by almost all parties and political groups, prominent Parsis - by then titled aristocrats-publicly expressed their desire to cooperate with the commission rather than observe the announced general strike. Two Parsi newspapers, Jam-e-Jamshed and Kaiser-i-Hind, supported the call for a strike. When pro-British Parsis planned to organize a public rally in support of the Simon Commission, they were openly threatened by congressional Parsis. The various factions within the Parsi community have never clashed so much. Each of these groups claimed a different concept of" loyalty " - one side referring to the British Crown, the other to the Indian nation. For the first time, the Parsis faced the danger of destroying traditional communal solidarity.

The issue of" separate electorates " was again raised at the meetings of the Committee of Minorities and the Committee on Electoral Rights during the Round Table Conference. The Parsi delegates who participated in the discussions presented two points of view on this issue: one representative opposed the "separation of powers".

page 52
Another argued for the right to participate in elections according to the level of education of each community (such an approach would have given the Bombay Parsis greater representation than separate elections). However, in contrast to other minorities, the Government Act of 1937 did not provide the Parsis with a "separate electorate". They saw the only chance to get certain guarantees of their political existence in a direct appeal to the British government, considering it as a protective force.

* * *

By the 19th century, the economic, political and social situation of the Parsis had changed dramatically. The political maturity of the Indians was a natural result of the social and educational changes that took place in the colonial society. Early Indian Parsi nationalists, such as D. Naoroji, F. Mehta and D. Vacha, became a shining example for subsequent generations of Indians who received an English education. Their outlook, identification, and material success are the result of their education. In the mid-nineteenth century, they held reformist views and fought for innovations within the community in favor of social progress. The ascent of some Parsis within the Indian national movement is associated with integration into the Indian nation. The other part of the community, its majority, did not see a chance of survival in an independent India, which remained Hindu for them.

The Parsis took an active part in the politics of both England and the British colonial authorities in India, and India itself after its independence. In the initial phase of the national liberation movement, there was a split of political allegiance within the community between Congressional Parsis on the one hand and liberal-conservative Parsis led by the Parsi elite on the other. Fear of the end of British rule in India existed among the opposition from the founding of the Congress until the country's independence. However, despite this, the political activity of the Parsis in the XIX - early XX centuries was very high, as the figures eloquently show. The number of Parsi delegates at the four sessions of the Congress from 1885 to 1915 was: in 1885-out of 8 out of 72 delegates; in 1889 - 44 out of 1889; in 1904-70 out of 1010; in 1915 - 96 out of 1259 delegates [The Encyclopedia..., vol. 1, 1976, p. 324; vol. 4, 1978, p. 641-646; vol. 6, 1979, p. 717-732; Majumdar, 1965, p. 203].

The prominent role of the Parsi community in the political space of Britain and India and the active life position of political figures from among the Parsis are based on the traditional Zoroastrian principles of the primacy of just power from God and the personal participation of everyone living in the betterment of the world.

list of literature

Yurlov F. N., Yurlova E. S. Istoriya Indii: XX vek [History of India: XX century]. Moscow: IV RAS, 2010.

The Encyclopaedia of the Indian National Congress. Vol. 1. 1976; Vol. 4. 1978; Vol. 6. 1979.

Karaka D.F. History of the Parsis. 2 vols. L., 1884.

Katrak K.H. Who are the Parsis? Karachi, 1965.

Kulkc E. The Parsees in India: A Minority as Agent of Social Change. N.D., 1978.

Majumdar B.B. Indian Political Associations and Reform of Legislature, 1818-1917. Calcutta, 1965.

The Parsi. 1905. № 11.

Speeches and Writings of Dadabhai Naoroji. Natcsan. Madras, 1910.

Speeches and Writings of the Honourable Sir Pherozeshah Mehta / Ed. by C.Y. Chintamani. Allahabad, 1905.

Unisa S., Bhagat R.B., Roy T.R., Upadhyay "Demographic transition or demographic trepidation? The case of Parsis in India" // Economical and Political weekly. 2008. January 5.

page 53

Permanent link to this publication: