Amordad: Following the launch of the 40th cycle of the Zoroastrian Association of Tehran, issue 106 of Amordad Weekly (7 Bahman 1383 / January 27, 2005) published “The 40th Association and Reflections on Factional Lines” by Khosrow Behdin. A response by Farshid Ezati appeared in the next issue. After 21 years, revisiting these contrasting views with the start of the 46th cycle remains insightful.
Khosrow Behdin: The newly empowered leadership took office, and the 40th cycle officially began. Many believed it would closely align with the Zoroastrian representative in the 7th Parliament.
A key challenge for the new members was their approach to social and political alignments. These divisions trace back to the late 1980s, when conflicts arose between the parliamentary representative and the association’s leadership.
Today, however, traditional factional lines no longer reflect the community’s realities. Political debates have evolved, and new currents—seen in developments over the past four years—suggest that the Zoroastrian community is gradually moving toward a more unified structure.
Due to the lack of fully developed civil structures—such as political parties and independent media—and the support of veteran leaders and wealthy backers for a single-pole approach, the current alignment in the Zoroastrian community has emerged within the old traditional framework, often misleadingly. The reason is clear: the community is not meant to fully know or act openly; any action risks being sidelined. This has led to a quiet, gradual move toward a single-pole structure, largely unnoticed by the wider community.
Next month, the 21 members of the Tehran Zoroastrian Association will face a key challenge in evaluating these currents. What matters most is balancing the preservation of Zoroastrian traditions and culture with demonstration and freedom of thought. Their decisions will reveal their approach to social and political alignments in the community.
Farshid Azati: In issue 106 of Amordad, I wrote “The 40th Association and Factional Lines” to offer a friendly critique. Yet it seems there is a persistent tendency to divide the still-forming 40th Association into factions, link it to the 7th-term parliamentary representative, or label it single-pole—assuming this mindset is an inherited, unchangeable trait from the 1980s. Even well-intentioned members may be unintentionally pushed toward uniformity under the notion of “you follow what I say, and nothing else.” Such preconceptions risk shaping the community in ways that may not reflect its true needs.
In my view, rushing to judge the association or insisting it must be “unified” risks pushing it in that direction prematurely. We should let the 21 members deliberate, decide, and act first. Only afterward, if their actions conflict with the community’s interests, can we fairly critique them and work together to protect those interests.
No organization deserves judgment before taking action. Instead, we should focus on transparency, highlight the bylaws and commissions, encourage public participation, and avoid closed-door decisions. Everyone can observe and contribute—board meetings of the 40th Association are open on Monday afternoons. By staying engaged, not only in the association but across Iran, we show that we are active, committed, and devoted to truth and Asha.
