Editing Parsis (section)

=== Self-perceptions ===
[[Image:Parsi-navjote-sitting.jpg|thumb|upright|right|Parsi ''[[Navjote]]'' ceremony (rites of admission into the Zoroastrian faith)]]
The definition of who is, and is not, a Parsi is a matter of great contention within the Zoroastrian community in India. It is generally accepted that a Parsi is a person who:

:(a) is directly descended from the original Persian refugees, and
:(b) has been formally admitted into the Zoroastrian religion, through the [[navjote]] ceremony.

In this sense, ''Parsi'' is an ethno-religious designator, whose definition is of contention among its members, similar to the [[Who is a Jew?|identity question among Jews]].

Some members of the community additionally contend that a child must have a Parsi father to be eligible for introduction into the faith, but this assertion is considered by most to be a violation of the Zoroastrian tenets of [[gender equality]] and may be a remnant of an old legal definition of the term Parsi.

An oft-quoted legal definition of Parsi is based on a 1909 ruling (since nullified) that not only stipulated that a person could not become a Parsi by converting to the Zoroastrian faith but also noted:

{{Blockquote|the Parsi community consists of: a) Parsis who are descended from the original Persian emigrants and who are born of both Zoroastrian parents and who profess the Zoroastrian religion; b) Iranis [here meaning [[Iranian peoples|Iranians]], not the other group of Indian Zoroastrians] professing the Zoroastrian religion; c) the children of Parsi fathers by alien mothers who have been duly and properly admitted into the religion.<ref>{{Citation |last=Sir Dinsha Manekji Petit v. Sir Jamsetji Jijibhai |year=1909 |title=33 ILR 509 and 11 BLR 85 |publisher=Justices Dinshaw Davar and Frank Beaman}}</ref>}}

This definition was overturned several times. The equality principles of the [[Constitution of India|Indian Constitution]] void the [[patrilineality|patrilineal]] restrictions expressed in the third clause. The second clause was contested and overturned in 1948.<ref>{{Citation |last=Sarwar Merwan Yezdiar v. Merwan Rashid Yezdiar |year=1948 |title=Parsi Matrimonial Court |publisher=Justice Coyaji}}</ref> On appeal in 1950, the 1948 ruling was upheld and the entire 1909 definition was deemed an [[obiter dictum]] – a collateral opinion and not legally binding (re-affirmed in 1966).<ref name="Jamshed Irani v. Banu Irani"/><ref>{{Citation |last=Merwan Rashid Yezdiar v. Sarwar Merwan Yezdiar |year=1950 |title=52 blr 876 |publisher=Justices Chagla and Gajendragadkar}}</ref>)