Talk:Zoroastrianism in India

Article claims
This article claims that Zoroastrianism originated in "Greater India", but not a single reference is given. Scholars of Zoroastrianism and the Avesta such as Boyce, D’yakonov etc have all placed the origins of Zoroastrianism in eastern Iran, in either Chorasmia or Sistan.

The article also claims that during the Rashidun Caliphate's invasion of Persia "the population either converted to Islam or faced death". This is again unreferenced, and in truth, wholly false. Large scale conversions of Zoroastrians and other Iranians to Islam did not take place until the Abbasid era. Large scale conversions of Iranians to Islam before this period were in fact, discouraged by the Arabs, particularly the Umayyads. For detailed reading on this subject see Patricia Crone's The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran: Rural Revolt and Local Zoroastrianism

Finally for now, the article also falsley claims that "There is no historical evidence that Zoroastrians were ever persecuted in India". This is wholly untrue. The Parsis have suffered persecution in India from both Hindu and Muslims rulers there. For example, in a well known episode that is still commerated today the Parsis of Variav were massacred by the local Hindu ruler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farzan Marzbani (talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ancient Iranians and Indians had same ancestors. Journal of the Asiatic Society suggested that Zoroastrianism was originated in the parts of Greater India. It is actually more supported by majority of scholars that there was blanket forced conversion of Ssannid Empire to Islam and books were burned. There is no historical evidence that Zoroastrians were persecuted. It can be improved, but the story that you have named has no mention or name, means there is still no evidence. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The ancestry of Iranians and the Aryan settlers in India is not important. Your link does not support your claim that Zoroastrianism originated in "Greater India", which is itself a problematic and ill defined term. Your second link about conversions confirms what i told you above about there being no mass conversions of Iranians to Islam until the Abbasid era, thefore, the claim in the article that "the population either converted to Islam or faced death" during the Rashidun Caliphate's invasion of Persia is wrong. Thirdly, the account of the massacre of Parsis in Variav is still commemorated by Parsis today and the story can be found in many other academic sources, not just in Mary Boyce's text book.[1][2][3]. The slaughter of Parsis in Variav is at least one episode where Parsis have faced persecution in India, and there are more. Therefore, this article in its present form is again false and factually incorrect. Farzan Marzbani (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are not reading it properly then or you haven't checked the current version. It is not about Abbasid or Rashidun, it is more about what happened during these conquests, you can mention about Abbasid if you want to but how you will? We don't add stories unless they have some relevance but I have re-edited the other sentence. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the source does it support the claim that "the population either converted to Islam or faced death". In fact, nowhere does the source claim that the Zoroastrian-Iranians were given a choice between conversion or death. It clearly states that conversion to Islam was at first discouraged, and then when it was finally encouraged by the Abbasids, that conversion to Islam by the Zoroastrian-Iranians was gradual. Farzan Marzbani (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It originally had no citations because they are incredibly easy to find just like any other information that you are claiming to be false. See . We can write that many were converted or killed, just like many were killed even after converting due to economic reasons. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it didn't seem the persecution was religious from a zoroastrian site they weren't paying their taxes to the kings and so the king as his duty fought them. 108.39.84.90 (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's include citations to work by Touraj Daryaee, Homa Katouzian and Parvaneh Pourshariati. They provide some of the most up to date research on the Sassanian era and Persian history in general. Zoroastrianism was dominant until the Abbasid period, when the bulk of Iranians started to convert. Throughout the Ummayad period, Persians were discouraged from converting so as to a.) maintain jizya-based revenue and b.) racist exclusion of Persians and other non-Arabs from the faith. Those that did accept it were indentured servants or second class citizens in the Ummayad hierarchy. The Abbasids signaled the end of Arab dominance and the beginning of Persians and Arameans joining into the fold to contribute to Islam and Arabic writing. The fact that the capital was shifted from Damascus to Baghdad (which lay next to Ctesiphon, the old Sassanian capital) was significant. The problem seems to be that many Indian commentators I talk to still proceed from the Qissa-e-Sanjan and think that somehow a.) that story is more or less true give or take a few details and b.) demonstrates the life-saving tolerance of the Hindu kings against the evil Muslim invaders. While the Zoroastrian clergy certainly did describe the Arab invasion as a curse and modern Persian nationalism did so too, the actual reactions of post-Sassanian Iranians varied, as did those of the Arabs. Originally, Umar (I believe) wanted to proceed no further than Mesopotamia, as he felt Persia itself was far too difficult to conquer. Also, many Iranians defected from Sassanian forces to join the new conquerors, indicating a lack of unity and internal dissension. Lastly, Zoroastrian communities probably existed in the western/northwestern coasts of South Asia for centuries before the Arab invasion. Northwest India, after all, was ruled by various Persian and Central Asian conquerors of Zoroastrian background. The Achaemenids, Parthians, Sakas, Kushans, Sassanians, all had a military presence there. Economic ties were strong too and its quite probable Zoroastrian merchants settled in what is now Gujarat, building temples as well. Given that their DNA indicates a mostly Indian matrilineal lineage, it's quite possible these traders married local Indian women, producing a hybrid community that followed Zoroastrianism, possibly followed by those who wanted to avoid Arab domination of Gulf trade and chaos from the Arab conquest of Sassanid Persia. All these elements coming together to form the Zoroastrian Parsi community and fitting themselves within the Indian caste system. Hurvashtahumvata888 (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Cross-post from talk seen elsewhere (subject is this article)
The following is a cross-post from Parsi, which someone added 23:31, 1 January 2015‎.

User:Bladesmulti would do well to read it.


 * The stats are indeed related to the page, since the sources are stating the number of "Parsis", and not (as editors above are assuming) the number of Zoroastrians in India. The Indian census figures (1981: 71,630, 2001: 69,601) cited in Palsetia, Hinnells and elsewhere are for the Parsis of India, not for Zoroastrians in India. Additionally, the figures collected by Hinnells are for the Parsi diaspora, +-30,000. Together, 100,000 +- 10% for "Parsis worldwide". *Not* "Zoroastrians", not "Iranis", not anything else.
 * An editor above supposes that "zoroastrians varies from 124,000 - 2.5 million". That upper bound is utterly fanciful, and is noted as such in every single authoritative source on the subject. Hinnells and Stausberg describe where it came from.
 * ps: Editors would do well to educate themselves before trying to fork a page on a subject that they know nothing about, and for which they mostly cobble together statements made on Wikipedia itself, and do so without the means or knowledge to ensure that those statements are correct.
 * The premise for that article, as imagined by an editor above, is that there is a "Zoroastrianism in India" distinguishable from what the Parsis make of it. That premise is false.
 * The additional implication is that "Zoroastrianism in India" has some beliefs or practices that are different from the Zoroastrianism followed elsewhere. While there are in fact some differences, the article does not address them at all. (Indeed, despite the title, the article does not have anything on Zoroastrianism at all!).
 * Instead, the invalid premise is accompanied by wrong (incorrect or misleading or inappropriate) information. The "History" section is ridiculous, with all six sentences in the first paragraph being false or misleading. This is then followed by something about the arrival of Islam in select middle Eastern countries, none of which has nothing to do with India or Zoroastrianism. That then flows into a misrepresentation of Parsi myths/legends as fact, already a major problem in this article. Then comes some original research silliness about "Zoroastrian traders faced execution outside India", then some other invalid suggestions that Zoroastrians were persecuted in China. Then some nonsense about continuing immigration until "by 1477 they had lost all contact". The section is clearly original research and remarkably "original" at that too.
 * Then comes a "Demographics" section that is wholly inappropriate (taken from this article, where the data applies only to Parsis, and has been additionally mangled to incomprehensibility). The editor plainly had no idea of what the sources actually say. By abusing what the sources say, this entire section is again original research.
 * The followed "Parsi" section that again misrepresents legend as fact (and that too a legend that is false, and taken verbatim from this article). Thereafter comes an "Irani" section that was copied verbatim from Irani and adds nothing.
 * Altogether, the article contains nothing of value and a whole lot of misinformation besides. And, because the premise is false, and because the editor is not doing his homework (BUY A REAL BOOK, DAMMIT!), it will remain junk. And without a coherent summary of the differences between "Zoroastrianism in India" and Zoroastrianism elsewhere, it fails to achieve any purpose. -- 77.183.176.134 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Altogether, the article contains nothing of value and a whole lot of misinformation besides. And, because the premise is false, and because the editor is not doing his homework (BUY A REAL BOOK, DAMMIT!), it will remain junk. And without a coherent summary of the differences between "Zoroastrianism in India" and Zoroastrianism elsewhere, it fails to achieve any purpose. -- 77.183.176.134 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

End Quote. -- 217.50.139.129 (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)