Editorial Viewpoint
An exercise in brinkmanship
The trustees had terrible spats
Over the allotment of donor flats
Ten days after the imbroglio shook the very foundations of the community’s most revered trust, the issue was over. Better sense prevailed and the four trustees who had resigned from the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) board withdrew their resignations.
The drama followed a series of articles and letters in the Jam-e-Jamshed Weekly alleging preferential allotment of two flats to a couple (see “Flash point at the BPP,” pg 16). In the eye of the storm was BPP trustee Dinshaw R. Mehta who was supposed to have okayed the allocation.
But the allotment was sanctioned by all the trustees. So why the brouhaha? And why such extreme reactions, virtually handing the management of the community’s largest trust to an administrator appointed by the state’s Charity Commissioner?
It is the waking, though probably unfounded, fear of every Parsi (and probably every minority group) that the government is eyeing their assets and will, given half a chance, usurp them. This is similar to the orthodox claim that aircrafts and ships loaded with converts will converge on the city and occupy all our housing colonies and fire temples.
Thus to have the akabars of the community opting for a government administrator to step in was unthinkable and unacceptable. Prominent community members intervened including industrialist and Wadia family scion Nusli Wadia whose trusts along with the BPP, control around 1,500 flats. Whatever differences people had, one thing most agreed upon. You have to manage your own affairs.
But what was the genesis of this distasteful squabble? That the trustees had their differences was well known. The Press highlighted the splits within the board. But this is not a new development. Trustees have always battled it out amongst themselves. Some have stepped down quietly, others creating a stir.
Mehta, one of the early strategists of the CER (Committee for Electoral Rights) and next in line for chairmanship of the BPP evokes strong emotions, because of his doggedness and volatility.
His forte is housing but it also proves to be his nemesis. For while he has helped the trust to realize large sums from transfers of tenancy and property transactions, he is also viewed by the public as the trustee responsible for filing cases against alleged erring tenants.
Mehta crosses swords with real estate developers and even close friends when he believes the interests of the trust are not being fully safeguarded. Some allege he functions more like a rapacious landlord jealously guarding his turf rather than a charitable dispenser of community funds and assets.
Probing every case in detail, knowledgeable about the Rent Act, Mehta is able to put across his point of view forcefully. Differing with him proves difficult. Acquiescence appears to be the wiser alternative. Had the other trustees been more assertive, their resentment would not have led them to believe that the best way of settling scores was to show the public that Mehta was a despised minority.
The rumor mills never ceased to allege wrong doings by Mehta but his answer to critics, as in the latest episode, is that all decisions are taken by the board and not him alone. But he complains that everyone pictures him as the villain of the piece.
There was also talk of the other trustees not wanting to serve under his chairmanship. But in public life you have to compromise. An elected official has to be flexible. A long-term perspective, a willingness to stomach insults and take spiteful public baiting in one’s stride are essential.
The simmering differences between Mehta and his co-trustees was made public when he was the sole trustee to attend the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) inaugural jashan and dinner in May 2005. The WAPIZ founders had been at loggerheads with trustees Minoo Shroff,
Over the allotment of donor flats
Ten days after the imbroglio shook the very foundations of the community’s most revered trust, the issue was over. Better sense prevailed and the four trustees who had resigned from the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) board withdrew their resignations.
The drama followed a series of articles and letters in the Jam-e-Jamshed Weekly alleging preferential allotment of two flats to a couple (see “Flash point at the BPP,” pg 16). In the eye of the storm was BPP trustee Dinshaw R. Mehta who was supposed to have okayed the allocation.
But the allotment was sanctioned by all the trustees. So why the brouhaha? And why such extreme reactions, virtually handing the management of the community’s largest trust to an administrator appointed by the state’s Charity Commissioner?
It is the waking, though probably unfounded, fear of every Parsi (and probably every minority group) that the government is eyeing their assets and will, given half a chance, usurp them. This is similar to the orthodox claim that aircrafts and ships loaded with converts will converge on the city and occupy all our housing colonies and fire temples.
Thus to have the akabars of the community opting for a government administrator to step in was unthinkable and unacceptable. Prominent community members intervened including industrialist and Wadia family scion Nusli Wadia whose trusts along with the BPP, control around 1,500 flats. Whatever differences people had, one thing most agreed upon. You have to manage your own affairs.
But what was the genesis of this distasteful squabble? That the trustees had their differences was well known. The Press highlighted the splits within the board. But this is not a new development. Trustees have always battled it out amongst themselves. Some have stepped down quietly, others creating a stir.
Mehta, one of the early strategists of the CER (Committee for Electoral Rights) and next in line for chairmanship of the BPP evokes strong emotions, because of his doggedness and volatility.
His forte is housing but it also proves to be his nemesis. For while he has helped the trust to realize large sums from transfers of tenancy and property transactions, he is also viewed by the public as the trustee responsible for filing cases against alleged erring tenants.
Mehta crosses swords with real estate developers and even close friends when he believes the interests of the trust are not being fully safeguarded. Some allege he functions more like a rapacious landlord jealously guarding his turf rather than a charitable dispenser of community funds and assets.
Probing every case in detail, knowledgeable about the Rent Act, Mehta is able to put across his point of view forcefully. Differing with him proves difficult. Acquiescence appears to be the wiser alternative. Had the other trustees been more assertive, their resentment would not have led them to believe that the best way of settling scores was to show the public that Mehta was a despised minority.
The rumor mills never ceased to allege wrong doings by Mehta but his answer to critics, as in the latest episode, is that all decisions are taken by the board and not him alone. But he complains that everyone pictures him as the villain of the piece.
There was also talk of the other trustees not wanting to serve under his chairmanship. But in public life you have to compromise. An elected official has to be flexible. A long-term perspective, a willingness to stomach insults and take spiteful public baiting in one’s stride are essential.
The simmering differences between Mehta and his co-trustees was made public when he was the sole trustee to attend the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) inaugural jashan and dinner in May 2005. The WAPIZ founders had been at loggerheads with trustees Minoo Shroff,
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive