Zoroastrianism in South Asia: Transformative Identities, Hermeneutics, and Practices

Mariano Errichiello | Edited by  Matthew Dillon

Contemporary Zoroastrianism in South Asia is a study in contrasts: shrinking in numbers yet expanding in interpretive range, institutionally contested yet globally networked. While the challenges of demographic decline and internal division remain significant, the Zoroastrian religion continues to develop through new forms. From the fire temples of Mumbai to the archives of Colombo, Zoroastrianism in South Asia today exemplifies a complex negotiation with modernity. While the Parsi and Irani communities remain socially prominent in India and Pakistan, smaller but historically significant Zoroastrian presences in Sri Lanka and other Indian Ocean locales reveal the broader regional texture of this ancient faith. Across these geographies, Zoroastrians confront the pressures of declining population, contested identities, competing hermeneutics, and shifting religious landscapes.

While often framed as a vestigial remnant of an ancient Persian imperial religion, Zoroastrianism’s regional manifestations disclose a dynamic process of transformation articulated through reinvention, contestation, and survival. This contribution explores the trajectory of modern Zoroastrianism in South Asia, with particular attention to the experience of the Parsi community in India as the region’s numerically and institutionally dominant Zoroastrian community. It focuses on how Zoroastrians in colonial and postcolonial India have negotiated transformation through myth, hermeneutics, epistemologies, ritual performance, and social practice. 

Here I understand transformation as a plural and contested ontological dynamism that underwrites transcendence, conceived as a passage from one ontological state to another. This dynamism is not confined to shifts in interpretation or knowledge claims; it is grounded in social performativity and ritual practice through which such passages are enacted, stabilized, and authorized. Transformation, in this sense, possesses world-making force: it reshapes religious subjects, reconfigures regimes of authority, and brings into being new social and cosmological worlds within which religious life unfolds.

Drawing on textual analysis, intellectual history, and ethnographic insights, this contribution traces how Zoroastrianism in India emerged as a dynamic arena in which religion was reimagined as both a metaphysical horizon and a lived, ritualized, and politically consequential mode of being. The study unfolds across three interconnected registers. First, I examine transformative identities by analyzing the mythic and epistolary foundations of Parsi self-understanding through the Qeṣṣe-ye Sanjān and the Rivāyat corpus, showing how rupture and continuity were sacralized and negotiated in the formation of a diasporic religious self. Second, I address hermeneutics by situating competing interpretive traditions, particularly esotericism, within the encounter with colonial modernity and its politics of authenticity, tracing how reformist rationalism, print media, social reform, political activism, and visionary epistemologies reconfigured the authentication of Zoroastrianism as a religion. Finally, I turn to practices by examining the performance of the nīrangdīn ceremony as a contested site of ontological transformation, a space where transcendence is accessed, embodied, and authorized.

Methodologically, the article adopts a relational and multi-sited approach that treats religious practices, texts, and debates as co-constitutive rather than isolated domains. By attending to practitioners, ritual specialists, and critical interlocutors, I try to capture the dialogical production of religious meaning in modern Zoroastrianism. In doing so, the article foregrounds how religious transformation operates through overlapping mythic, ritual, epistemic, and political processes that do not dissolve transcendence but continually rearticulate it ontologically in new historical conditions.

At the heart of Parsi collective memory lies the story of their arrival in India, encoded in the Qeṣṣe-ye Sanjān (“The Story of Sanjan”), a sixteenth-century Persian poem composed by Bahman Kaikobad. Celebrated in religious texts, school curricula, and public commemorations, the poem narrates the flight of Zoroastrians from Iran following the Arab conquest of the seventh century C.E., and their eventual arrival on the western coast of India. Seeking asylum under the Hindu king Jadi Rana, Parsi traditional narratives further relate, the migrants are granted refuge on the condition that they adopt local dress, speak Gujarati, and conduct marriages at night. The Qeṣṣe has long functioned as the charter myth of the Parsi community, portraying migrants as both adaptive and devout people who accepted local customs while preserving the purity of their religious identity.[1]

Yet the Qeṣṣe-ye Sanjān is far more than a migration narrative. It is a mythopoetic reconfiguration of history into theological and symbolic terms. As Alan Williams has argued, the poem encodes a sacred geography in which India becomes a divinely sanctioned second homeland, a transposition of the Iranian motherland onto Gujarati soil. Structured in thematic units that echo Zoroastrian cosmological epochs, from the fall of Achaemenid Iran through the Arab conquest and culminating in the settlement in Sanjan, the poem embeds diasporic suffering within a providential arc. The Parsis’ arrival in Gujarat is then soteriological inasmuch as India is sacralized through their perseverance, and exile itself is reframed as part of a divinely ordered moral journey.[2] Transcendence here does not operate as withdrawal from history, but as the capacity to re-inscribe divine order within historical displacement.

The poem’s literary architecture reinforces this theological relocation. A prologue invoking divine justice and an epilogue affirming the continuity of the faith enclose a narrative of collective testing, endurance, and blessing. Through this structure, the Qeṣṣe performs what might be described as a symbolic relocation of Iran, thereby transforming Gujarat into a spiritual successor charged with religious meaning. In doing so, the poem allows Parsis to navigate loss while simultaneously claiming a form of spiritual indigeneity within the Indian landscape.At the same time, the Qeṣṣe derives much of its enduring authority from its hermeneutic plasticity. Its verses continue to be mobilized in contemporary debates over ritual normativity, endogamy, conversion, and communal boundaries often serving as the point of departure for broader communal narratives. Practitioners and intellectuals alike invoke the poem to anchor competing visions of what it means to be a Parsi. This interpretive flexibility explains why the Qeṣṣe remains authoritative even as its historical claims are increasingly questioned.[3] For instance, archaeological research has complicated the poem’s narrative of a sudden, cohesive migration. Excavations at Sanjan conducted between 2002 and 2004 revealed a settlement embedded in Indian Ocean trade networks, with material evidence of West Asian connections. However, distinctive Zoroastrian religious markers, such as fire temples or early funerary structures known as towers of silence (dakhma), were not securely identifiable in the strata corresponding to the presumed period of arrival. Although the excavations uncovered a dakhma, ceramic evidence suggests that the structure was constructed only between the tenth and twelfth centuries, while radiocarbon dating indicates its continued use until the fifteenth century. While artifacts such as glazed ceramics and imported goods point to an elite mercantile presence, the evidence suggests a long, gradual process of settlement rather than a singular refugee moment. Sanjan appears less as a site of rupture than as a cosmopolitan node shaped by layered mobilities, transregional trade, and porous religious identities.[4]

Rather than discrediting the Qeṣṣe, this evidence invites a different reading. If archaeology emphasizes continuity and entanglement, the poem sacralizes rupture. The Qeṣṣe thus represents a theological stitching together of memory and myth that provides coherence to a community shaped by displacement, reinvention, and longing. Its normative force is captured in the oft-repeated metaphor of “sugar in the milk.” Often delivered with a smile, this saying encapsulates a self-image cherished by Parsis across India. According to oral tradition, when Jadi Rana tested the Zoroastrians’ suitability to settle in Gujarat, he presented them with a glass of milk filled to the brim, symbolizing a kingdom already full. In response, the Zoroastrian elder added a spoonful of sugar, which dissolved without spilling a drop, sweetening the milk without displacing it. This metaphor is cited to explain the community’s ethos of integrating without overwhelming. This parable continues to circulate as a moral idiom of peaceful coexistence, framing Parsi identity as non-threatening yet valuable, an ethic of harmonious distinction that endures even among secular youth.

While the Qeṣṣe-ye Sanjān emphasizes rupture and finality, portraying migration as a decisive severance from Iran, the historical reality of Indo-Iranian Zoroastrian relations was more dynamic. From at least the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries, Zoroastrians in India and Iran remained connected through sustained exchanges. The most systematic expression of these ties is the Rivāyat corpus, comprising sets of correspondence between Parsi priests in India and Iranian priests, primarily in Yazd and Kerman. These letters addressed questions of ritual purity, calendrical disputes, consecration of sacred spaces, priestly training, and religious norms.[5]

The Rivāyats reveal a world in which Iran continued to function as the axis of religious authority in the Zoroastrian imagination. Indian Zoroastrians positioned themselves as pupils seeking guidance from Iranian priests, imagined as custodians of an unbroken ritual tradition. Yet this hierarchy was never absolute. The correspondence also reveals negotiation, adaptation, and ambiguity. Indian questions were often pragmatic and locally grounded, while Iranian responses sometimes struggled to reconcile inherited norms with Indian realities. The Rivāyats thus constituted a dialogical theological space in which transregional normativity entered into dialogue with doctrinal adaptation.[6] Over time, this dialogical exchange effected a gradual reconfiguration of authority. In effect, while early correspondence reinforced Iranian primacy, by the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Indian priests increasingly asserted local autonomy. Disputes over ritual performance and calendrical systems (notably the Kadmi–Shahenshahi divide) reveal a decentralization of authority from Iran to India. The Rivāyats thus document the slow emergence of a diasporic center of gravity in India.[7]

Read together, the Qeṣṣe-ye Sanjān and the Rivāyat corpus reveal complementary dimensions of Parsi identity transformation. The former sacralizes rupture and relocation through mythopoesis, while the latter documents continuity, correspondence, and negotiated authority. Between them lies a dynamic process through which Parsis fashioned a religious identity grounded simultaneously in sacred geography and dialogical tradition, a process that has continually transformed memory, authority, and belonging across time and space.

By the early nineteenth century, the Parsis of Bombay had transitioned from a mercantile diaspora into an entrenched minority elite within colonial India. Their integration into the expanding British imperial economy, particularly through opium trading, shipbuilding, and textile production, enabled a small Zoroastrian community to wield influence far exceeding its demographic size. Industrialists such as Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy (1783–1859), Dinshaw Maneckji Petit (1823–1901), and Cowasjee Jehangir (1879–1962) became prominent benefactors of civic institutions including universities, hospitals, and cultural foundations, earning knighthoods and securing lasting authority within Bombay’s public sphere.[8] This material success coincided with the city’s transformation into a cosmopolitan port. From a population of approximately 10,000 in 1811, Parsis in Bombay grew to nearly 50,000 by 1890, concentrated in urban enclaves and disproportionately represented in law, education, journalism, and politics.[9]

Parsi prominence was inseparable from deep engagement with colonial modernity. Access to elite English education, the legal profession, and municipal governance fostered a self-conscious reformist ethos that reconfigured Zoroastrianism as both a rational religion and a moral foundation for civic life. One of the most powerful instruments of this transformation was the vernacular press. As early as 1812, Fardoonji Murzban (1787–1847) established the Samachar Press (“News Press”), and later the Bombay Samachar (“Bombay News”), the first Indian-owned vernacular newspaper. By the mid-nineteenth century, journals such as Rast Goftar (“Truth Teller”) and Jam-e Jamshed (“The Goblet of Jamshid”) had become central arenas for debates over religious practices, ritual authority, and political responsibility. These publications served to structure communal discourse and delineated competing visions of modern Zoroastrian identity.[10] 

Rast Goftar, closely associated with reformers such as Dadabhai Naoroji (1825–1917), promoted liturgical simplification, women’s education, and rationalist interpretations of Zoroastrian scriptures. In contrast, journals like Suryadaya (“Sunrise”) and Jam-e Jamshed defended customary ritual practices, particularly in response to Christian missionary critiques and calls for liturgical simplification. The proliferation of print media also shaped Parsi linguistic identity. Gujarati became both the vehicle of reformist polemic and the site of Zoroastrian philological revival. Periodicals such as Jarthosti Abhyas (“Zoroastrian Study”) and Jagat Premi (“World Lover”) published translations of Avestan, Pahlavi, and Persian texts, essays on ancient Iranian history, and visual representations of pre-Islamic monuments, invoking an imagined Aryan genealogy that tethered Parsis to a transhistorical Iranian pre-Islamic past.[11]

In doing so, Parsis advocating reform located transformation into ethical action and civic responsibility, turning metaphysical ideals into public virtues. Such an apologetic and reformist project emerged in part as a response to sustained missionary pressure. Protestant missionaries, notably the Scottish minister John Wilson (1804–1875), viewed Parsis as promising candidates for elite conversion and subjected Zoroastrian doctrines and ritual practices to polemical critique, often dismissing them as superstition.[12] Parsi intellectuals responded with vigor. Figures such as Naoroji reframed Zoroastrianism as a rational, ethical monotheism consonant with Enlightenment values and Protestant sensibilities. This reconstruction was facilitated through collaboration with European Orientalists, particularly Martin Haug (1827–1876), whose philological identification of the Gathas as the oldest stratum of the Avesta, the liturgical corpus of Zoroastrianism, provided reformers with a textual basis for privileging scripture over alleged later ritual accretions. Reformers mobilized this scholarship to claim scriptural antiquity while dismissing priestly practices they regarded as corruptions introduced under Islamic or Hindu influence.[13]

However, reform was neither linear nor uncontested. Opposing voices, including Muncherjee Hormusjee Cama (1810–1894), defended customary forms of religion and priestly authority as embodying an unbroken link to ancient Persia. Institutions such as the Raherashtnumai Mazdayasna Sabha (“Assembly of Mazdayasna True Guidance”) articulated a counter-modernity in which embodied ritual performance, rather than textual rationalization, guaranteed religious continuity. Disputes over the liturgical calendar, particularly between the Shahenshahi and Kadmi sects, exemplify this pluralism. Far from being merely technical disagreements, these conflicts indexed deeper tensions concerning authority, diasporic legitimacy, and the relationship between Iranian and Indian Zoroastrian traditions, tensions that, to some extent, persist to the present day.

Reformist energies also extended to gender and education, where modernity was imagined as a moral transformation of the community as a whole. Institutions like the Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy Benevolent Institute provided Parsi girls with access to secular education as early as the 1840s.[14] These efforts produced highly visible exemplars of female achievement, including Cornelia Sorabji (1866–1954), the first woman to study law at Oxford and practice in British India, and Perin Mistri (1913–1989), India’s first female architect. Such figures came to symbolize a Parsi modernity in which the reform of gender roles signified collective moral progress.[15]

The encounter with colonial modernity thus reshaped religious hermeneutics and social practices, and also catalyzed foundational contributions to Indian nationalism. No figure embodies this convergence more fully than Dadabhai Naoroji, whose reformist theology and rationalist orientation were inseparable from his political activism. A founding member of the Indian National Congress in 1885, Naoroji articulated early visions of self-rule within the framework of British paramountcy. His influential drain theory, which argued that colonial governance systematically transferred wealth from India to Britain, transformed economic analysis into a moral indictment of empire. Drawing on statistical rigor and his networks within British liberal circles, Naoroji reframed imperial exploitation as a violation of liberal principles themselves.[16]

Naoroji’s election to the British House of Commons in 1892 as the Liberal MP for Central Finsbury marked a watershed moment in imperial politics. As the first Indian parliamentarian, he expanded the imaginative geography of Indian nationalism, campaigning from within the metropole for civil service reform and Indian political inclusion. Although his legislative agenda faced resistance and yielded limited immediate results, the symbolic impact of his career was profound. His speeches and writings circulated widely in English and vernacular translations, shaping a generation of nationalist leaders including Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856–1920), Lala Lajpat Rai (1865–1928), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (1866–1915), and a young Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869–1948) in South Africa. By 1906, Naoroji had radicalized further, openly endorsing swaraj (“self-government”) as the only viable future for India and linking political autonomy to the moral imperative of ending famine, poverty, and disenfranchisement.[17] 

Naoroji’s career demonstrates that Parsi engagement with colonial modernity was strategic. Through him, Zoroastrian reform intersected with broader anti-colonial imaginaries, complicating the binary between accommodation and resistance suggested by Jesse Palsetia.[18] This political legacy extended beyond Naoroji alone. Sir Pherozeshah Mehta (1845–1915), the “Lion of Bombay,” used municipal governance and constitutional law as platforms for articulating early Indian political consciousness, while Sir Dinshaw E. Wacha (1844–1936) championed economic reform and industrial self-sufficiency within legislative institutions. Bhulabhai Desai (1877–1946), though less explicitly Zoroastrian in his public persona, exemplified the continued Parsi role in legal and constitutional struggles, most notably through his defense of Indian National Army officers in the Red Fort trials.

Collectively, these figures reveal how a small religious minority helped shape the ethical, legal, and institutional grammar of modern India. Parsi modernity emerged as a contested field in which religious reform, print media, social transformation, and political activism converged. Through this syncretic engagement with empire, Parsis redefined what it meant to be modern, Indian, and Zoroastrian in the long nineteenth century, an achievement that simultaneously generated new possibilities and exposed enduring tensions over authority, authenticity, and religious self-definition.

It is precisely these tensions that come into sharper focus from the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century, when Zoroastrianism in India ceased to function merely as a religion of ancestral memory or ritual normativity and became a dynamic arena of hermeneutical experimentation. Shaped by trans-imperial encounters, religious reform, and competing theological imaginations, Zoroastrian identity was increasingly negotiated through the politics of authenticity that crystallized in the colonial context. In the absence of a centralized religious authority, authenticity operated as a discursive achievement claimed, contested, and performed across ritual, textual, and institutional settings. Competing factions mobilized diverse epistemic resources, drawing from imperial power structures, scientific modernity, reformist rationalism, Persianate revivalist nationalism, and esoteric cosmologies, to authorize their visions of Zoroastrian modernity. These efforts often took shape within emerging spaces of print media, legal discourse, community associations, and priestly schools, as well as within ritualized spaces where religious knowledge was embodied, interiorized, and made experientially real.[19]

I argue that Parsis’ politics of authenticity triggered a hermeneutical polyphony, which became the primary arena in which these contestations unfolded. Unlike a singular trajectory, Zoroastrian modernity in India was articulated through a multiplicity of voices and interpretive styles. Each hermeneutical voice articulated a distinct grammar of transformation, producing different religious subjects and different modes of access to transcendence. From philological rationalism and juridical activism to esoteric speculation and ritual conservatism, each strand constituted a distinct response to the pressures of colonial modernity, theological rupture, and communal boundary-making. These interpretive strategies formed a polyphonic ensemble in which contradictions and tensions were generative of new forms of religious authority and self-understanding, producing new modes of being. 

A key aspect of the politics of authenticity was its performative nature. Reformist actors often invoked the authority of the Gathas, promoting a stripped-down Zoroastrianism compatible with Enlightenment rationalism and Protestant ethics, while conservative priestly lineages asserted the unbroken transmission of rituals as the true index of legitimacy. Meanwhile, revivalist figures drew on Persianate sources to frame Zoroastrianism as a civilizational project rooted in a pre-Islamic imperial past. These divergent genealogies produced a spectrum of claims, ranging from the universalist to the ethnocentric, the esoteric to the legalistic, each enacted through concrete practices such as liturgical performance and pedagogical transmission, each producing different forms of religious subjectivity, each being world-making.[20]

Within this plural and contested field, esotericism constituted a distinctive mode of transformation rather than a marginal or merely relational current. Affiliations with Freemasonry, the Theosophical Society, and later Ilme Kṣnum (“Science of Bliss”) provided Parsis with structured ceremonial environments in which identity was reshaped through initiation, secrecy, graded knowledge, and ritualized ethical discipline. These formations offered experiential frameworks that promised access to deeper ontological truths, situating Zoroastrianism within universalist cosmologies while simultaneously reconfiguring the moral and ritual self. Esotericism thus functioned as a praxis of interiorization and elevation, enabling adherents to experience Zoroastrianism as a lived metaphysical science, as well as an instrument of communal boundary-making. Yet rather than constituting a dominant trend, esotericism functioned as one of many hermeneutical voices within the broader Parsi discursive tradition.[21]

Freemasonry, for instance, operated as a highly structured ritual space through which certain Parsi elites underwent processes of symbolic rebirth, moral refinement, and ontological reorientation. Masonic initiation ceremonies, carefully choreographed around secrecy, allegory, graded progression, and the disciplined management of the body and senses, constituted transformative thresholds through which initiates were reconstituted as ethical subjects. The lodge functioned as a liminal space in which candidates were stripped of prior social markers and reintroduced into a moral universe governed by ideals of self-mastery, fraternity, and enlightenment. For Parsis negotiating the dislocations of colonial modernity, this ritual grammar offered a powerful experiential template for reconciling inherited Zoroastrian values with Enlightenment-inflected notions of universal reason and moral progress.[22]

Figures such as Manekji Cursetji Shroff (1808–1887), a judge, reformer, and philanthropist, exemplify how Masonic initiation enabled Parsis to articulate continuity between Zoroastrian ethical traditions and modern civic virtues. Cursetji Shroff’s efforts to open Masonic lodges to Parsis and other indigenous communities were acts of ritual translation, situating Zoroastrian moral discipline within a universalist ceremonial framework that claimed antiquity, legitimacy, and transreligious authority. The allegorical language of Freemasonry, its emphasis on light and darkness, construction and refinement, inner architecture and moral ascent resonated strongly with Zoroastrian cosmological idioms, allowing initiates to experience ethical cultivation as a gradual process of illumination enacted through ritual performance.[23] For scholars such as Kharshedji Rustomji Cama (1831–1909) and Jivanji Jamshedji Modi (1854–1933), the impact of Freemasonry extended well beyond the confines of the lodge. Masonic symbolism and ritual pedagogy informed their intellectual reconstructions of Zoroastrian cosmology, ethics, and history, collapsing the conventional boundary between ritual initiation and scholarly production. In their writings, cosmological concepts were often framed through symbolic schemas that echoed Masonic allegory, suggesting that scholarly authority itself was grounded in initiatory experience and moral discipline rather than textual mastery alone. Knowledge, in this framework, was revealed through graded access, ethical preparedness, and participation in a ritual order.[24]

Freemasonry thus functioned as a ceremonial space in which scholarly authority, moral cultivation, and religious interpretation were co-constituted. It provided Parsis with an experiential grammar for modernity that did not require the abandonment of ritual but instead repositioned ritual as the engine of ethical and intellectual transformation. In this sense, Masonic initiation offered an alternative to both Protestant-inflected rationalism and hereditary priestly authority, grounding claims to truth and legitimacy in the disciplined transformation of the self. Through Freemasonry, Parsis encountered a form of modernity that was ritually saturated, one in which universalism was bodily enacted through ceremony, secrecy, and symbolic labor.

The Theosophical Society similarly provided an initiatory and ritualized epistemic horizon, though one oriented less toward civic virtue and more toward cosmic evolution, occult knowledge, and metaphysical depth. For Parsis drawn to Theosophy, the Society offered a structured path of spiritual ascent grounded in esoteric pedagogy, textual exegesis, and disciplined self-cultivation. Lectures, study circles, and initiatory hierarchies functioned as technologies of transformation through which participants were invited to reconceive the self as an evolving spiritual entity embedded within vast cosmic cycles. In this framework, religious identity was progressively refined through access to hidden knowledge.[25]

Parsi Theosophists engaged with texts deemed esoteric, such as the Dasātīr-e Āsmānī (“The Heavenly Regulations”) and the Dabistān-i Mazāhib (“The School of Creeds”) as both historical artifacts and repositories of perennial wisdom accessible through disciplined study and spiritual practice. These texts were treated as initiatory scriptures whose meanings unfolded gradually to those properly prepared to receive them. Their Persianate cosmologies and accounts of ancient sages resonated deeply with Zoroastrian narratives of primordial revelation, allowing Parsis to experience their religious heritage as part of a transhistorical and transreligious esoteric tradition.[26]

Periodicals such as Cerāg (“Lamp”), established in 1900 by Nasarvanji Framji Bilimoria (1852–1922), together with his son Ardeshar, played a crucial role in translating these esoteric engagements into a public discourse through articles in English and Gujarati. Through essays, translations, and speculative reflections, Cerāg articulated a vision of Zoroastrianism as a metaphysical science embedded within a universal esoteric tradition that transcended sectarian boundaries while claiming ancient authority. These publications cultivated a readership trained to interpret Zoroastrian texts and rituals through a theosophical lens, reorienting communal understandings of cosmology, ethics, and spiritual progress. In doing so, they contributed to the formation of a distinct esoteric habitus within the Parsi community.[27]

Yet these engagements were marked by persistent tensions and internal contradictions. Debates over dietary regulations and the racial theories advanced by Helena P. Blavatsky (1831–1891) exposed the fragility of Theosophical universalism when confronted with the embodied realities of communal life. While Theosophy claimed to transcend religious and racial boundaries, Parsis grappled with the implications of these claims for marriage practices, ritual purity, and communal continuity. The universalist promise of esoteric wisdom thus collided with the normative demands of Zoroastrian ritual life, revealing the limits of synthesis and the persistence of ethical and ontological friction.[28]

These controversies underscore that Theosophical engagement was a contested arena in which ritual practice, bodily discipline, and communal norms were actively negotiated. The Theosophical Society functioned less as a harmonizing force than as a crucible in which competing visions of Zoroastrian identity were tested, refined, and sometimes rejected. Through its cosmological narratives, Theosophy enabled Parsis to experiment with alternative modes of being Zoroastrian, even as it exposed the boundaries beyond which universalist esotericism could not fully accommodate the ritual and ethical commitments of the community.

Ilme Kṣnum marks a decisive shift in the landscape of modern Zoroastrian esotericism for its ritual rigor and epistemological grounds upon which it claims authority. Unlike reformist rationalism, which privileges philological verification, or institutional religiosity, which anchors legitimacy in priestly lineage, Ilme Kṣnum is founded upon a form of knowledge acquisition grounded in alleged direct, experiential encounters with supra-human sages and ancient masters. In this sense, Ilme Kṣnum represents a Zoroastrian articulation of esoteric knowledge, rooted in Persianate traditions of visionary transmission and reactivated in the conditions of colonial modernity.

According to its foundational narrative, Ilme Kṣnum was revealed to Behramshah Naoroji Shroff (1858–1927) through his initiation by the sāheb delān (“master-hearts”), a group of hidden Zoroastrian sages residing in the mountainous regions surrounding Mount Damāvand in Iran. Shroff’s journey to Damāvand is framed within Kṣnumic discourse as a concrete epistemic event: a transformative encounter in which hidden knowledge (ilm) was transmitted through proximity, seclusion, and discipline. Authority, in this framework, derives from access to an unbroken, though concealed, chain of living wisdom that precedes and exceeds institutional religion.[29]

At the core of Ilme Kṣnum lies a reconfiguration of ritual from symbolic observance to cosmological operation. In the afterword of his first book, Jarthośtī dharm samajavā māṭe ilme kṣnumnī cāvī (The Key of Ilme Kṣnum to Understand the Zoroastrian Religion), published in Surat in 1911, Shroff writes:

Ritual, by any means, is not a declining affair. The original creation is a great immovable ritual itself, and the performers of the great ritual are Hormazd and the Amesha Spenta. From the sublimity of the world to the outer celestial world, from the orbit of the great sun and that of the stars to the chemical combinations of the minutest atoms, rituals are running all around in accordance with the unmistakable laws. The minute laws that govern the macrocosm and microcosm or the created universe, and the great knowledge of ritual deriving from them constitute the Mazdayasni Zoroastrian religion. And Ilme Kṣnum explains the Mazdayasni Zoroastrian religion in its original form. From it, Ilme Kṣnum gives the deserved importance to the Zoroastrian ritual performances according to their sublime grades in nature.[30]

Zoroastrian prayers, liturgical purity laws, and priestly rites were reframed as vibrational technologies capable of acting directly upon the structure of reality. Drawing on a complex cosmology of cyclical time, reincarnation, and correspondences between the macrocosm and the microcosm, Ilme Kṣnum posited that correct ritual performance generates measurable effects on both the individual soul and the cosmic order. Ritual efficacy, in this system, was world-making, thus ontological, operating through subtle energies that linked human action to universal laws.[31]

This epistemology positions Ilme Kṣnum within a broader Zoroastrian grammar of revelation in which ancient sages remain active agents in the present, selectively revealing knowledge to those deemed worthy. Visionary knowledge here is constrained by moral discipline, ritual purity, and cosmological laws. The initiate receives it through a process that combines ethical refinement, bodily regulation, and ritual competence. Knowledge is thus ontologically conditioned, as one must become a certain kind of subject in order to know.

Ilme Kṣnum’s visionary epistemology is inseparable from its ritual cosmology. Shroff’s teachings reframe Zoroastrian ritual as a technology that aligns the practitioner with the vibrational structures of the cosmos, enabling communication with higher planes of existence and access to ancient wisdom encoded in the fabric of reality. The Avesta, in this system, is a sonic and energetic repository whose truths are unlocked through correct recitation, bodily discipline, and ritual timing. Visionary knowledge is therefore generated through ritual practice. This stands in sharp contrast to modernist critiques that cast visionary experience as irrational or antithetical to scientific reason. Ilme Kṣnum instead reclaims vision as a disciplined epistemic faculty governed by universal laws that are scientifically grounded.[32]

Seen in this light, Ilme Kṣnum cannot be adequately understood as a reworking of Theosophy or as a Zoroastrianized version of Western esotericism, as scholars of Zoroastrian studies have long argued.[33] While it shares certain cosmological motifs such as cyclical time, reincarnation, and subtle bodies, its epistemic orientation is fundamentally different. Knowledge does not circulate through eclectic textual synthesis or speculative cosmology but through visionary initiation embedded in a specifically Zoroastrian moral and ritual universe. The sāheb delān are not abstract ascended masters but Zoroastrian sages whose authority is anchored in a Persianate sacred geography and an esoteric genealogy internal to the tradition.[34] This mode of knowing has deep precedents in Zoroastrian and Persianate intellectual history. Shroff’s Damāvand encounter resonates strongly with earlier traditions of visionary epistemology, most notably those associated with the Persian religious figure Āẕar Kayvān (1529/1533–1609/1618) and the Ābādī sect. Āẕar Kayvān claimed access to ancient Zoroastrian wisdom through dream visions, presenting himself as a conduit for primordial knowledge. His followers similarly understood revelation as ongoing and experiential, mediated through visionary insight rather than textual exegesis alone.[35]

A comparable logic underpins the visionary flights attributed to Minocher Nusserwanji Pundol (1908–1975), an influential Parsi religious leader whose accounts of flights to celestial realms and encounters with spiritual beings articulate an experiential cosmology in which knowledge is acquired through movement across ontological planes. These narratives constitute epistemic claims about the structure of reality and the conditions under which it may be known. Vision, in these traditions, is ontologically productive, generating authoritative knowledge about cosmology, ethics, and the destiny of the soul.[36]

By situating Ilme Kṣnum within this longer genealogy of visionary epistemology, it becomes possible to see Shroff’s Damāvand narrative as a contemporary reactivation of a Persianate esoteric logic adapted to new historical conditions. Colonial modernity, with its privileging of textuality, rationalism, and scientific verification, compelled the rearticulation of visionary modes of knowing in new idioms. In this vein, Shroff and his followers situate Zoroastrianism as a scientific religion, placing Ilme Kṣnum as one such rearticulation, translating ancient forms of visionary authority into a modern idiom that simultaneously engages with scientific discourse and resists its reductionism.[37]

In this sense, Zoroastrian esotericism emerges as a robust epistemic tradition that challenges the boundaries between revelation, ritual, and reason. Zoroastrian visionary epistemology foregrounds the limits of philological and historicist approaches to religion, insisting that knowledge is encountered, seen, heard, and embodied. When examined comparatively, Freemasonry, the Theosophical Society, and Ilme Kṣnum emerge as three distinct ritual regimes, each producing different forms of religious subjectivity, authority, and ontological commitment. All three offered Parsis structured pathways of transformation in an era of colonial dislocation, yet they diverged sharply in their orientation toward ritual, knowledge, and the self. Taken together, these three regimes illustrate how Parsis experimented with multiple grammars of transformation to negotiate modernity. Freemasonry trained ethical citizens, Theosophy cultivated metaphysical seekers, and Ilme Kṣnum formed ritually efficacious Zoroastrians. Their coexistence underscores that modern Zoroastrianism was proliferating into diverse regimes of ritual life, each offering distinct answers to the question of how the self, the cosmos, and the sacred could be made real in the modern world.

If Ilme Kṣnum articulates a visionary epistemology in which knowledge is accessed through disciplined ritual attunement to cosmic laws, the performance of the nīrangdīn (“power of religion”) ceremony constitutes one of the most concrete and materially charged sites where Zoroastrian ontologies are enacted. The ceremony translates theological claims into practical operations upon substances, bodies, and environments. It is here, at the level of ritual materiality, that the stakes of Zoroastrian revelatory knowledge become most visible and most contested. The transformation of bull’s urine into a spiritualized ritual implement (nīrang), which is the main objective of this ceremony, operationalizes claims about cosmic order and spiritual purity, confronting reformist critique, empirical scrutiny, and modern sensibilities. 

The nīrangdīn has become a focal point for debates over authenticity, rationality, and the limits of religious practice in a modern, scientifically inflected world. At the heart of these debates lies bull’s urine, a substance whose materiality renders it especially provocative. Yet to approach the nīrangdīn merely as a controversy over pollution or superstition is to miss its deeper significance. The ceremony constitutes a highly structured ritual space in which urine is ontologically transformed, reconfigured through liturgical performance into nīrang, a sacred implement endowed with apotropaic, healing, and purificatory efficacy.

From the nineteenth century onward, Parsi reformists increasingly framed the ceremony as an embarrassing remnant of a pre-rational past, incompatible with the ethical monotheism and textual rationalism they sought to foreground. Dadabhai Naoroji’s denunciation of the nīrangdīn as a dirty practice exemplifies this stance. Urine, in this view, could not be reconciled with an ancient Iranian religion reconstructed through philology and moral abstraction. The ceremony was reinterpreted as a later accretion, contaminated by Hindu or Muslim influences, and therefore expendable.[38]

Against this reformist critique, defenders of the nīrangdīn mobilized alternative regimes of legitimacy. One such regime was esoteric hermeneutics, most systematically articulated by Ilme Kṣnum. For Kṣnumic thinkers such as Behramshah Naoroji Shroff and the Parsi priest and vegetarianism advocate Phiroze Shapurji Masani (1887–1942), the urine consecrated in the nīrangdīn was not merely ritually purified but scientifically potent. Drawing on a hybrid vocabulary of Zoroastrian cosmology, Persianate esoteric concepts, planetary correspondences, and modern scientific language, they reframed nīrang as a substance charged with electromagnetic and vibrational forces. In this account, the ceremony reveals a deeper, esoteric science inaccessible to uninitiated observers. In his book, cāvī, Shroff describes the power of nīrang as follows:

Bull’s urine is valuable to take care of the invisible current emanating from the earthly body or aura; the electrical current or magnetic force dwelling in bull’s urine embeds an awesome scientific power for the cleanse of the aura. Bull’s urine is taken on the basis of the unmistakable law by stimulating the exact subtle chakra, plexus, or receptive centre of magnetic current situated in the location where the liquid is extracted from.[39]

While Shroff’s esoteric hermeneutics was fully aimed at scientifically backing the claim of authenticity for this ceremony’s performance, esotericism was not the final epistemic move. The twentieth century witnessed increasingly explicit attempts to validate the nīrangdīn through the authority of laboratory science. The 1969 Parsiana report announcing that a sample of nīrang tested sterile marked a decisive moment in the hermeneutics of the ritual.[40] Here, the efficacy of the ceremony was no longer justified through tradition, esoteric cosmology, or ritual authority alone, but through microbiological verification. Urine, once abject, then esoteric, was finally reframed as scientifically pure. This episode of epistemological extreme shows how the ritual’s success was translated into the language of empirical proof, collapsing the distinction between religious efficacy and scientific validation. 

Despite these efforts, the nīrangdīn remains contested in contemporary Parsi life. In my ethnographic encounters, sipping nīrang is increasingly perceived as irrational, embarrassing, or simply meaningless in the context of modern urban India by younger Parsis.[41] Yet the continued performance of the ceremony, the long waiting lists for its sponsorship, and the careful preservation of its ritual protocols testify to its enduring liturgical significance.[42] The nīrangdīn persists not because consensus has been achieved, but because it continues to function as a site where competing ontologies confront one another.

From a ritual perspective, the nīrangdīn is designed precisely to transform bull’s urine and water into spiritualized ritual implements. Over nineteen days, priests undergo progressive states of purification, attunement, and ritual empowerment, culminating in the performance of the Vīdēvdād (“Law against the Demons”), where water and bull’s urine are consecrated through sustained recitation, bodily discipline, and precise spatial and temporal coordination. The efficacy of the ritual hinges on strict rule-following; any deviation or interruption is understood to invalidate the entire ceremony. In this sense, the nīrangdīn is a high-stakes operation whose main outcome, the production of nīrang, is materially consequential for the wider ritual economy of Zoroastrianism.[43]

Urine, in this context, functions as a liminal substance. Within the Zoroastrian liturgy, it becomes the very medium through which purity is generated and distributed. This apparent paradox is not incidental but constitutive of the ritual’s logic. As ethnographic research shows, the urine selected for consecration must originate from a ritually qualified white bull, whose lack of pigmentation is understood to facilitate the flawless transmission of purificatory energies from the spiritual realm to the material world. The substance is thus never neutral, as its efficacy depends on cosmological correspondences, animal agency, and ritual precision.

The nīrangdīn therefore stages a radical revaluation of the order of things. The ritual enacts transcendence not beyond matter, but through its disciplined transformation, collapsing the opposition between materiality and the sacred. What is ordinarily expelled as waste is recoded as a vessel of divine power, but only within a tightly controlled ceremonial environment. This transformation is laboriously produced through priestly discipline, ritual endurance, and the orchestration of human and non-human actors. The ceremony thereby exposes the fragility of ritual efficacy as nīrang exists only because the ritual succeeds, and the ritual succeeds only because all actors perform their roles without deviation.

The nīrangdīn exemplifies how rituals of transformation in modern Zoroastrianism operate not as concealment but as disclosure. The ritual does not hide its efficacy behind mystery; it repeatedly seeks to explain, justify, and even prove it. Urine becomes the medium through which Parsis negotiate the boundaries between purity and pollution, tradition and reform, science and ritual. Far from being a marginal or embarrassing survival, the nīrangdīn emerges as one of the most conceptually revealing practices through which modern Zoroastrian liturgy is enacted, contested, and continually remade.

Taken together, the materials examined in this article reveal modern Zoroastrianism not as a tradition eroded by modernity, but as one profoundly reconfigured through it. From the mythic sacralization of exile in the Qeṣṣe-ye Sanjān, to the dialogical authority negotiated through the Rivāyats, to the reformist and nationalist engagements of the colonial period, Parsis repeatedly transformed inherited forms without relinquishing claims to transcendence. These transformations did not follow a single trajectory. Instead, they produced a hermeneutical polyphony in which rationalist reform, ritual conservatism, esoteric experimentation, and political activism coexisted, competed, and mutually reshaped one another.

The analysis of esotericism and ritual practice sharpens this insight. Freemasonry, Theosophy, and Ilme Kṣnum each offered Parsis structured pathways of transformation grounded in initiation, discipline, and graded access to knowledge. Far from marginal curiosities, these formations constituted alternative epistemic regimes through which transcendence was made experientially real. The nīrangdīn ceremony, with its radical revaluation of materiality and its repeated efforts at scientific legitimation, exemplifies how ritual becomes a site where ontological claims are tested, defended, and reformulated. Here, transformation is neither symbolic nor merely ethical; it is enacted through bodies, substances, and carefully regulated ritual labor.

By foregrounding these processes, this study advances three key contributions. First, it demonstrates that transcendence need not retreat in the face of modernity but can be actively rearticulated through new epistemic languages, including science, rationalism, and esotericism. Second, it shows that transformation is most productively understood as translation, negotiation, and layering across time, space, and authority structures. Finally, it highlights ritual and visionary epistemologies as central to modern religious life, challenging narratives that equate modernity with disenchantment or the decline of embodied religious practice.

In the Parsi case, transcendence persists not despite transformation, but through it. Modern Zoroastrianism emerges as a field in which myth, ritual, reason, and vision continuously interact to produce new forms of religious subjectivity and communal belonging. This dynamic offers a powerful comparative lens for rethinking how small religious communities navigate historical rupture while sustaining meaningful relations to the sacred in an ever-transforming world.

[1] Alan Williams, The Zoroastrian Myth of Migration from Iran and Settlement in the Indian Diaspora: Text, Transaltion, and Analysis of 16^th Century Qeṣṣe-ye Sanjān ‘The Story of Sanjan’ (Brill, 2009), 1–21, 85.

[2] Williams, Zoroastrian Myth, 1–21, 23–40.

[3] Williams, Zoroastrian Myth, 1–21, 223–28; Jesse S. Palsetia, The Parsis of India: Preservation of Identity in Bombay City (Brill, 2001), 86–88.

[4] Rukshana Nanji and Homi Dhalla, “The Landing of the Zoroastrians at Sanjan: The Archaeological Evidence,” in Parsis in India and the Diaspora, ed. John R. Hinnells and Alan Williams (Routledge, 2004), 35–58.

[5] Daniel J. Sheffield, “The Language of Heaven in Safavid Iran: Speech and Cosmology in the Thought of Āẕar Kayvān and His Follower,” in No Tapping Around Philology, ed. Alireza Korangy and Daniel J. Sheffield, (Harrassowitz Verlag, 2014), 533–34; Manockji Rustamji Unvala, Dārāb Hormazyār’s Rivāyat (British India Press, 1922), 1–58; Bamanji Nusserwanji Dhabar, The Persian Rivayats of Hormazyar Framarz and Others (The K. R. Cama Oriental Instiute, 1932), v–vii.

[6] Sheffield, “Language of Heaven,” 533–34; John R. Hinnells, “Parsis in India and the Diaspora in the Twentieth Century and Beyond,” in Parsis in India and the Diaspora, ed. John R. Hinnells and Alan Williams (Routledge, 2008), 103–105.

[7] John R. Hinnells, The Zoroastrian Diaspora: Religion and Migration (Oxford University Press, 2005), 73–75; Michael Stausberg and Yuhan S.-D. Vevaina, “Introduction: Scholarship on Zoroastrianism,” in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism, ed. Michael Stausberg and Yuhan S.-D. Vevaina (John Wiley & Sons, 2015), 292–94.

[8] Jesse S. Palsetia, “Partner in Empire: Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy and the Public Culture of Nineteenth-century Bombay,” in Parsis in India and the Diaspora, ed. John R. Hinnells and Alan Williams (Routledge, 2008), 81–99; Rusheed R. Wadia, “Bombay Parsi Merchants in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” in Parsis in India and the Diaspora, ed. John R. Hinnells and Alan Williams (Routledge, 2008), 119–35.

[9] Palsetia, The Parsis of India, 65–104, 128–56, 197–225.

[10] Palsetia, The Parsis of India, 162–65, 176–80; Dinyar Patel, “Our own Religion in Ancient Persia: Dadabhai Naoroji and Orientalist Scholarship on Zoroastrianism,” Global Intellectual History 2, no. 3 (2017): 316–17; Christine E. Dobbin, Urban Leadership in Western India: Politics and Communities in Bombay City 1840–1885 (Oxford University Press, 1972), 63.

[11] Dobbin, Urban Leadership, 63–64; Stausberg and Vevaina, “Introduction,” 13.

[12] Palsetia 2001, 105–127; Hinnells 2015, 157–72.

[13] Palsetia, The Parsis of India, 128–96; Teresa Albuquerque, Urbs Prima in Indis: An Epoch in the History of Bombay 1840–1865 (Promilla & Co., 1985), 42–46; Dobbin, Urban Leadership, 59–62.

[14] Palsetia, The Parsis of India, 97–100.

[15] Palsetia, The Parsis of India, 148–50.

[16] Dinyar Patel, Naoroji: Pioneer of Indian Nationalism (Harvard University Press, 2020), 1–12.

[17] Patel, Naoroji, 1–12, 46–84, 130–55, 190–94, and 209–69. 

[18] Jesse S. Palsetia, “Parsi and Hindu Traditional and Nontraditional Responses to Christian Conversion in Bombay, 1839–45,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 74, no. 3 (2006): 615–45, 635–38.

[19] Mariano Errichiello, “Beyond the Theosophical Paradigm: Ilme kṣnum and the Entangled History of Modern Parsis,” Journal of Persianate Studies 16, no. 2 (2024): 245–69, 259–64.

[20] Mariano Errichiello, “Les representations de Muhammad dans la construction du zoroastrisme modern,” in Le Mahomet des historiens, ed. Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi and John Tolan (Editions du Cerf, 2025), 1529–1531.

[21] Mariano Errichiello, “What is Zoroastrian Esotericism? Towards an Ontological Approach,” Religiographies 3, no. 1 (2024): 56–74, 57–74.

[22] Errichiello, “What is Zoroastrian Esotericism?,” 59–63.

[23] Simon Deschamps, “Freemasonry and the Indian Parsi Community: Late Meeting on the Level,” Journal for Research into Freemasonry and Fraternalism 3, no. 1 (2012), 60–71.

[24] Kharshedji R. Cama, A Discourse on Jamshedi Naoroz (n.p., 1874), 1–23; D. F. Wadia, History of Lodge Rising Star of Western India No. 342 S. C. (Lodge Rising Star of Western India No. 342 S. C., 1912), 96–97, 140.

[25] Errichiello, “What is Zoroastrian Esotericism?,” 63–67.

[26] K. J. B. Wadia, Fifty Years of Thosophy in Bombay (Thesophical Publishing House, 1931), 8–9, and 49–50.

[27] K. J. B. Wadia, Fifty Years of Thosophy, 55–66.

[28] Jehangir J. Vimadalal, “Behaśt-Naśīn Beherāmśāh Navarojī Śarāph: Dharm Jñānno Teoe Pārsī Komne Apelo Kīmatī Vāraso (‘The Late Behramshah Naoroji Shroff: The Precious Legacy of the Religious Knowledge Given to the Parsi Community’).” Behramshah Shroff (Frasho-Gard) Memorial 17–18 (1930): 240–46.

[29] Errichiello, “Beyond the Theosophical Paradigm,” 246–264; “What is Zoroastrian Esotericism?,” 76–72.

[30] Behramshah N. Shroff, Jarthośtī dharm samajavā māṭe ilme kṣnumnī cāvī (“The Key of Ilme Kṣnum to Understand the Zoroastrian Religion”)—Bird’s eye-view of Ilm-i-Khshmum (Sāṃj Vartamān, 1911), 82–83. Translation from Gujarati to English is mine.

[31] Shroff, Jarthośtī dharm samajavā, 1–84.

[32] Shroff, Jarthośtī dharm samajavā, 1–84.

[33] Errichiello, “Beyond the Theosophical Paradigm,” 248–49.

[34] Errichiello, “Beyond the Theosophical Paradigm,” 249–69.

[35] Sheffield, “Language of Heaven,” 161–183; Sheffield, “Exercises in Peace: Āẕar Kayvānī Universalism and Comparison in the School of Doctrines,” Modern Asian Studies 56, no. 3 (2022): 959–92; Mohamad Tavakoli-Targhi, Refashioning Iran: Orientalism, Occidentalism, and Historiography (Palgrave, 2001), 87.

[36] Percy Hansotia and Yasmin Hansotia, Aatash. Humata. Hukhta. Hvarshta. (Notion Press, 2017), 199–239.

[37] Errichiello, “Beyond the Theosophical Paradigm,” 245–69.

[38] Dobbin, Urban Leadership, 63; Patel, “Our Own Religion,” 316–17.

[39] Shroff, Jarthośtī dharm samajavā, 17–18. Translation from Gujarati to English is mine.

[40] Parsiana 5, no. 7 (1969).

[41] In 2023, I conducted multi-sited ethnographic research to study the performance and reception of the nīrangdīn ceremony in Mumbai, Udvada, and Surat.

[42] While the waiting list in Mumbai and Surat spans one to two years, in Udvada it extends to as long as twenty years.

[43] Firoze M. Kotwal, “The Zoroastrian Nīrangdīn Ritual and an Old Pahlavi Text with Transcription,” Digital Archive of Brief Notes & Iran Review (DABIR) (2018): 125–33.

Albuquerque, Teresa. Urbs Prima in Indis: An Epoch in the History of Bombay 1840–1865. 

New Delhi: Promilla & Co., 1985.

Cama, Kharshedji R. A Discourse on Jamshedi Naoroz. n.p.: n.p., 1874. 

Choksy, Jamsheed K. “Iranians and Indians on the Shores of Serendib (Sri Lanka).” In 

Parsis in India and the Diaspora, edited by John R. Hinnells and Alan Williams, 181–210. London and New York: Routledge, 2008.

Deschamps, Simon. “Freemasonry and the Indian Parsi Community: A Late Meeting on the 

Level.” Journal for Research into Freemasonry and Fraternalism 3, no. 1 (2012): 60–71.

Dhabar, Bamanji Nusserwanji. The Persian Rivayats of Hormazyar Framarz and Others. 

Bombay: The K. R. Cama Oriental Institute, 1932.

Dobbin, Christine E. Urban Leadership in Western India: Politics and Communities in Bombay 

City 1840–1885. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.

Errichiello, Mariano. 2024. “Beyond the Theosophical Paradigm: Ilme kṣnum and the 

Entangled History of Modern Parsis.” Journal of Persianate Studies 16 (2): 245–69.

———.. “What Is Zoroastrian Esotericism? Towards an Ontological Approach.” 

Religiographies 3, no. 1 (2024): 56–74.

———. “Les représentations de Muhammad dans la construction du zoroastrisme 

moderne.” In Le Mahomet des historiens, edited by Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi and John Tolan, 1523–1557. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 2025.

Hansotia, Percy and Yasmin Hansotia. Aatash. Humata, Hukhta, Hvarshta. Chennai: Notion 

Press, 2017.

Hinnells, John R. The Zoroastrian Diaspora: Religion and Migration. Oxford: Oxford           University Press, 2005.

———. “Changing Perceptions of Authority among Parsis in British India.” In Parsis 

in India and the Diaspora, edited by John R. Hinnells and Alan Williams, 100–18. London and New York: Routledge, 2008.

———. “Parsis in India and the Diaspora in the Twentieth Century and Beyond.” In 

Parsis in India and the Diaspora, edited by John R. Hinnells and Alan Williams, 255–76. New York: Routledge, 2008.

———. “The Parsis.” In The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism, 

edited by Michael Stausberg and Yuhan S.-D. Vevaina, 157–72. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2015. 

JamaspAsa, Kaikhusroo M. “Hataria, Manekji Limji.” Encyclopædia Iranica, online edition, 

published May 9, 2016, updated May 16, 2016, https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/hataria-manekji-limji. 

Kotwal, Firoze M. 2018. “The Zoroastrian Nīrangdīn Ritual and an Old Pahlavi Text with 

Transcription.” Digital Archive of Brief Notes and Iran Review (DABIR) 6, no. 1 (2018): 

125–33.

Kreyenbroek, Philip G. Living Zoroastrianism: Urban Parsis Speak About Their Religion. 

Richmond: Curzon Press, 2001.

Marashi, Afshin. Nationalizing Iran: Culture, Power, and the State, 1870–1940. University of 

Seattle: Washington Press, 2008.

———. “Patron and Patriot: Dinshah J. Irani and the Revival of Indo-Iranian Culture.” Iranian 

Studies 46, no. 1 (2013): 1–22.

———. Exile and the Nation: The Parsi Community of India and the Making of 

Modern Iran. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2020.

———. “Rich Fields in Persia: Parsi Capital and the Origins of Economic Development 

in Pahlavi Iran, 1925–1941.” Iranian Studies 56, no. 1 (2023): 61–83.

Marashi, Afshin, and Dinyar Patel. “Special Issue: Parsis and Iranians in the Modern Period.” 

Iranian Studies 56, no. 1 (2023): 3–7.

Nanji, Rukshana, and Homi Dhalla. “The Landing of the Zoroastrians at Sanjan: The 

Archaeological Evidence.” In Parsis in India and the Diaspora, edited by John R. Hinnells and Alan Williams, 35–58. London and New York: Routledge, 2004.

Niechciał, Paulina. “Zoroastrian Minorities.” In Religious Minorities Online, edited by 

Erica Baffelli, Alexander van der Haven and Michael Stausberg. De Gruyter, 2024. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1515/rmo.23014866. 

Palsetia, Jesse S. The Parsis of India: Preservation of Identity in Bombay City. Leiden: Brill, 

2001.

———. “Parsi and Hindu Traditional and Nontraditional Responses to Christian 

Conversion in Bombay, 1839–45.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 74, no. 3 (2006): 615–645.

———. “Partner in Empire. Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy and the Public Culture of Nineteenth-

century Bombay.” In Parsis in India and the Diaspora, edited by John R. Hinnells and Alan Williams, 81–99. London and New York: Routledge, 2008.

Patel, Dinyar. “Our Own Religion in Ancient Persia: Dadabhai Naoroji and Orientalist 

Scholarship on Zoroastrianism.” Global Intellectual History 2, no. 3 (2017), 311–28.

———. Naoroji: Pioneer of Indian Nationalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

2020.

Sharafi, Mitra. “Law and Modern Zoroastrians.” In The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to 

Zoroastrianism, edited by Michael Stausberg and Yuhan S.-D. Vevaina, 299–312. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.

Sheffield, Daniel J. “The Language of Heaven in Safavid Iran: Speech and Cosmology in the 

Thought of Āẕar Kayvān and His Followers.” In No Tapping around Philology, edited by Alireza Korangy and Daniel J. Sheffield, 161–83. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2014.

———. “Primary Sources. New Persian.” In The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to 

Zoroastrianism, edited by Michael Stausberg and Yuhan S. -D. Vevaina, 529–42. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.

———. “Exercises in Peace: Āẕar Kayvānı̄ Universalism and Comparison in 

the School of Doctrines.” Modern Asian Studies 56, no. 3 (2022): 959–92.

Shroff, Behramshah N. Jarthośtī dharm samajavā māṭe ilme kṣnumnī cāvī (“The key of Ilme 

Kṣnum to understand the Zoroastrian religion”)—Bird’s eye-view of Ilm-i-Khshnum. Bombay: Sāṃj Vartamān, 1911.

Stausberg, Michael and Vevaina, Yuhan S.-D. “Introduction. Scholarship on Zoroastrianism.” In 

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism, edited by Michael Stausberg and Yuhan S.-D. Vevaina, 1–18. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.

Tavakoli-Targhi, Mohamad. Refashioning Iran: Orientalism, Occidentalism and Historiography.

Houndmills: Palgrave, 2001.

Unvala, Manockji Rustamji. Dārāb Hormazyār’s Rivāyat. Bombay: British India Press, 1922.

Vimadalal, Jehangir J. “Behaśt-Naśīn Beherāmśāh Navarojī Śarāph: Dharm Jñānno Teoe Pārsī 

Komne Apelo Kīmatī Vāraso (‘The Late Behramshah Naoroji Shroff: The Precious Legacy of the Religious Knowledge Given to the Parsi Community’).” Behramshah Shroff (Frasho-Gard) Memorial 17–18 (1930): 240–46.

Wadia, D. F. History of Lodge Rising Star of Western India No. 342 S. C. Lodge Rising Star of 

Western India No. 342 S. C., 1912.

Wadia, K. J. B. Fifty Years of Theosophy in Bombay. Theosophical Publishing House, 1931.

Wadia, Rusheed R. “Bombay Parsi Merchants in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.” In 

Parsis in India and the Diaspora, edited by John R. Hinnells and Alan Williams, 119–135. London and New York: Routledge, 2008.

Williams, Alan. The Zoroastrian Myth of Migration from Iran and Settlement in the Indian 

Diaspora: Text, Translation and Analysis of 16^th Century Qeṣṣe-ye Sanjān ‘The Story of Sanjan.’ Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009.

Errichiello, Mariano. "Zoroastrianism in South Asia: Transformative Identities, Hermeneutics, and Practices." Archive of Mystical Experiences. Center for the Study of World Religions, Harvard Divinity School, 2026.