Issues Raised By The Text
In the absence of alternatives, the Story of Sanjan is generally accepted to be the only narrative of the early years of the Zoroastrian migrants to the Indian subcontinent. Among the Parsi community, the story is perceived to be an accurate account of their forebearers.
The importance of the story lies in any case not so much in its reconstruction of events than in its depiction of the Parsis - in the way they have come to view themselves - and in their relationship to the dominant culture. As such, the text plays a crucial role in shaping Parsi identity. But, "even if one comes to the conclusion that the chronicle based on verbal transmission is not more than a legend, it still remains without doubt an extremely informative document for Parsee historiography."
In the Story of Sanjan, it appears as if the Zoroastrians must have had some contact with Gujarat prior to their journey there, which has prompted suggestions that the Zoroastrians of the story were not in fact the first migrants. Whether these were also asylum seekers is unclear, but Iranian influence and emigrants are discernible in India long before the Parsis of the narrative arrive. The text states the migrants knew in advance that Gujarat was governed by a monarch tolerant towards other (i.e. non-Hindu) religious beliefs, and this may have been determined through trade with the region (the city near Bushire - where the narrative's Zoroastrians are said to have lived for 15 years before setting sail - had extensive trading connections with the east).
The story's chronology is the basis of several different estimates of the year of migration. Although the story is precise with respect to some elapsed periods, it is vague or contradictory with respect to others. Consequently (and in conjunction with an unrelated document from 1826), three dates - 936, 785 and 716 - have been proposed as the year of landing. The sacking of Sanjan referred to in the fourth chapter probably occurred in 1465 (see Delhi Sultanate), which would put 716 CE c. 750 years before the Islamic invasion and 936 CE c. 530 years before that event. Both periods (seven centuries and five centuries) are mentioned in the text.
The question of whether Sanjan or Diu was the site of the first settlement in India was discussed with intensity in the early 20th century when a memorial commemorating their arrival was first proposed. That memorial was finally constructed at Sanjan, where it is today known as the Sanjan Stambh. Although the narrative is unclear on where precisely the Zoroastrians came from, the text may be interpreted such that the emigrants originated from Sanjan (Khorasan), a settlement near the ancient city of Merv (in today's Turkmenistan). Although the text states that many of the settlers took the name of 'Sanjana', the text is unclear as to whether they had done so before the naming of the settlement of Sanjan (that is, they had brought the name with them), or as a response to the naming of the settlement. The settlers were simply called 'Khorasanis' by the local citizens. Moreover, (family) names are not believed to have been common until much later. The author of the text does not give himself a family name.
Scholars of Parsi history are divided over interpretations of the stipulations for asylum, in particular that of the last, i.e. that marriages only be performed in the evenings, as the Hindus do. Even without any inclination to infer a hidden meaning, it does raise the question why was such a minor issue was a condition for asylum. In general, "that clothe their cultural concessions to their Indian environment in the form of conditions set by a Hindu prince can be considered as self-justification of this group which, without these concessions - that is, giving up only a few customs while traditions were otherwise strictly kept - would hardly have been able to survive as a minority in India."
Read more about this topic: Qissa-i Sanjan
Famous quotes containing the words the text, issues, raised and/or text:
“Upon looking back from the end of the last chapter and surveying the texture of what has been wrote, it is necessary, that upon this page and the five following, a good quantity of heterogeneous matter be inserted, to keep up that just balance betwixt wisdom and folly, without which a book would not hold together a single year.”
—Laurence Sterne (17131768)
“Cynicism formulates issues clearly, but only to dismiss them.”
—Mason Cooley (b. 1927)
“We carved not a line, and we raised not a stone,
But we left him alone with his glory.”
—Charles Wolfe (17911823)
“Literature is not exhaustible, for the sufficient and simple reason that a single book is not. A book is not an isolated entity: it is a narration, an axis of innumerable narrations. One literature differs from another, either before or after it, not so much because of the text as for the manner in which it is read.”
—Jorge Luis Borges (18991986)