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 Burnes[13] in narrating his travels in Cabul in 1836–37–38, relates that the most curious of all the visitors to the country of the Kafirs[14] 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:—

Men.Women.
Professions1,94059
Servants[16]2,079416
Merchants3,3172
Agriculturists672
Manufacturers3,61087
Not classified565139
Sundry13,73722,579

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 country[18]?

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]