Flash point at the BPP

With allegations on both sides unconditionally withdrawn, the four trustees — chairman Minoo Shroff, Dinshaw Tamboly, Maneck Engineer and Burjor Antia — who had resigned from the board of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) on July 19, 2006 were invited by their remaining colleagues Dinshaw Mehta and Dadi Engineer, to rejoin the board on June 29.

The press statement announcing the end of the stalemate notes, "It is now agreed between us that any differences inter-se the trustees, which may arise and are inevitable when there are six independent-minded trustees on the board, will be amicably resolved within the confines of the board room.

"With a view to restoring amity, the allegations made by all concerned against each other are unconditionally withdrawn as never having been made. Keeping the larger interests of the community in mind, guidelines for future smooth working of BPP inter-se the trustees will be evolved.”

It took a month of badgering by Jam-e-Jamshed Weekly on the issue of allotment of two flats to a single family in the Rusi Mehta Building at Godrej Baug to evoke a response from the trustees. When four of them resigned from the BPP board attributing various instances of mismanagement to their colleague Mehta, the rift which had been known to be simmering, specifically between Tamboly and Mehta, was out in the open. With a rump of two, the BPP was reduced to only routine administrative work. Policy making and projects were perforce relegated to the back burner for want of a quorum. Even the signing of a cheque requires two signatures and needs to be sent to the B. D. Petit Parsee General Hospital (PGH) where Dadi Engineer is recuperating from a major accident (a portion of the ceiling in his office collapsed leaving him and a colleague with head injuries. Engineer also suffered a fractured leg).

In the following 10 days of hectic lobbying – Tamboly supporters claiming Mehta was running scared and desperate for a compromise, Mehta and his WAPIZ (World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthostis) supporters terming it a "conspiracy” and describing the four as "deserters” — attempts to broker a peace seemed to be repeatedly scuttled, with each side blaming the other. It was alleged that Mehta was determined to guard his foreseeable succession to BPP chairmanship, an applecart that now seemed likely to be upset. A peace patiently brokered by N. M.Wadia Charities chairman Nusli Wadia (Wadia even offered to resign from the housing committee of the Wadia Charities and the BPP if that would placate Mehta. The two have often differed on issues) on June 23 seemed to be shattered on the shoals of a journalist’s impatience to get the story into The Times of India the following day so that when this reporter sought details on June 24 after reading "All’s well in Parsi Punchayet,” she was told "Nothing is settled yet!” In the meanwhile the Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA) assured Parsiana that they had a lot of ammunition against the Punchayet’s functioning ("unbelievable data”) but had no intention of destroying the hoary institution or the community.

A list of possible Parsi administrators — all of proven ability and integrity — was making the rounds on the one hand even as the community’s tendency to panic had been stoked by Mehta’s letter to "My fellow Parsis of Mumbai” on the WAPIZ Page of the Afternoon Despatch and Courier (June 22). Mehta spoke of communal hara-kiri and the handing over of the community’s properties and funds into the hands of the charity commissioner and the state government! Shroff, Tamboly and M. Engineer pleaded inability to provide a complete picture as their negotiations dragged on from meeting to meeting – the venues shifting from the Punchayet to the offices of Mulla and Mulla, Shroff’s personal office and D. Engineer’s room at the PGH. Mehta told Parsiana on the night of June 28 that no meeting had been held for the past two days as M. Engineer had been busy. The sticking point seemed to be the acceptance of coherent guidelines for future action of the board — while one side wanted general guidelines the other was said to be insisting on particulars which was said to resemble the status quo.

So, when Tamboly informed this reporter on the evening of June 29 that all allegations had been withdrawn, the story acquired a surreal air!

Jame’s charge

Two flats in Rusi Mehta Building were allotted to a single family — Rashna Master (née Bhesania, the younger daughter of Bakhtiar Bhesania, senior partner of Mulla and Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe) and her uncle-in-law Col Cyrus Master of Indore — which was claimed to be in violation of the BPP’s policy. There is a strict rule governing allotment of flats in the buildings owned by the BPP that not more than one flat is to be allotted to a Parsi family who has no roof above their head,” Jamé reader Nariman A. Mody had objected in his letter to the BPP trustees dated April 10, 2006 published by Jamé on May 28. Moreover, it was alleged that the dividing wall between the two flats had been broken. Eventually it was also established that Bhesania’s elder daughter Farzana has a separate flat in the same building.

More than anything else, the AZA charge supported by Jamé sought to establish that this flouting of a time honored policy was because Bhesania was a good friend and advisor of Mehta who chose to rule the BPP’s housing department on the basis of exceptions rather than rules – much could be done for family and friends, especially those who were well heeled. Mehta believes that the vigilante group is a Tamboly creation.

The Rusi Mehta Building had been built and donated to the community by the Firuzgar Trust (FT) under a scheme established by the BPP whereby donor trusts use Punchayet land to build community housing, both trusts having an equal share in the right to allot the flats so constructed. Among the terms and conditions of agreement dated December 15, 1987 between FT and the BPP as published in Jamé (June 4, 2006) notes, "the gross income of the family who are to reside for a two-room flat should not exceed Rs 4,000 per month.” The charitable objects of the FT have been noted as "relief of poverty, aid for education and medical relief and providing housing accommodation to and for needy deserving Parsis.” The agreement notes that "the norms of allotment…can be revised from time to time by the trustees of the BPP in line with norms applicable to their other buildings.” Ostensibly, the Rs 4,000 income ceiling of 1987 no longer holds true, considering that the income and expenditure levels of the community in Bombay has seen enormous change in the past 19 years.

The flats in question according to Mody had been originally allotted to Anahita Mehta (thereafter allegedly married to Mr Khan, a non-Parsi gentleman) and Bomi Mehta, trustee Dinshaw Mehta’s sister and uncle respectively. As alleged by Mody and stated by the BPP CEO Behram Dastur, the flats had remained locked since 1997. The BPP policy now is to force those who do not occupy their flats, to cede them.

What further put the cat among the pigeons was Dastur’s statement dated May 2 noting that these flats (no 9 and 10) have been allotted to Rashna Bhesania and her husband Pilzad Master "only for a temporary period as transit camp till the ownership building proposed at Godrej Baug is constructed and ready for accommodation…It is a blatant falsehood that the trust has knocked out Rs 70 lakhs from the present occupant…It would be foolish for any allottee to make any payment for a transitional period of occupation.” He stoutly denied that the two allottees are members of the same family.

The Jamé ridiculed Dastur’s statements: "The BPP found it satisfactory and bonafide to allot, on tenancy basis, two adjacent flats, one to a lady who was unmarried and was intending to marry a non-Parsi and the other to her paternal uncle who apparently was unmarried also. Both of them got married in 1997. Both of them simultaneously thought of moving out and surrendering the flats, without consideration, on the same day!”

Noting that it becomes quite important to ensure that the community does not suspect and/or allege ‘insider’ advantage [Bakhtiar Bhesania like Randeria is a member of the BPP’s Housing Advisory Committee (HAC)], AZA’s Kersi Randeria, currently the prime mover in unearthing alleged housing irregularities in the BPP, stated, "It is thus critical to know if the said flats were advertised, auctioned, highest offer considered.” He also pointedly demanded a restatement of the BPP’s policy on renovation of flats including the breaking of the walls, the occupation by intermarried couples as well as maintaining an unoccupied flat.

On June 6 Randeria and Percy Patel followed up with a letter to the BPP trustees reiterating the earlier charges and requesting "detailed clarification to enable members of the community to decide whether any legal action may be contemplated on any of the issues raised herein.” A simultaneous letter to Dinshaw Mehta sought an answer to 29 detailed questions, while Dastur, whom Randeria acknowledges has a "high reputation for honesty and integrity,” was strafed with 27, beginning with "Are you employed by the FT either on a part-time or full-time basis? If not, what is your source of information regarding the functioning and finances of the FT?” Questions persisted, "Have you in the past allotted any transit accommodation in Godrej Baug to any members of the community who have actually paid monies to the BPP for the ownership project in Panthaki Baug which has now been stayed by the hon’ble charity commissioner? If not, then why have these two allottees been shown this largesse?”

Jamé’s editorial on June 18 noted "BPP and Dinshaw Mehta have never been good communicators. They have always tried to obfuscate issues by creating confusion.” The same issue published a letter of June 15 co-signed by Phiroze Amroliwala — also a member of the HAC — and Randeria addressed to the trustees of the BPP noting, "It is becoming increasingly obvious to the community that all issues related to housing seem to come and stop at the door of one trustee — Dinshaw Mehta. What is not clear or known to the community is whether everything happens with the active connivance of the other trustees or happens without their knowledge and/or their consent.”

Recapitulating the change of occupancy of the two flats in Rusi Mehta Building the letter asks, "Was all this done with the active participation of the full board of trustees? Then they must all resign. Alternately, if…only one trustee is responsible for the various acts of omission and commission, then the trustees must demand the resignation of their colleague or pass a motion of No Confidence against him and take appropriate legal and other necessary steps to protect the interests of the community at large.”

Resignations

Tamboly, Maneck Engineer and Antia tendered their resignation to the chairman on June 19. They note, "In its hoary history spanning over three centuries, BPP is presently going through perhaps its most turbulent phase. Currently a controversy has erupted over the FT. We are all aware that this is not the first time that such an unsavory situation has arisen as a result of decisions taken by us in good faith by relying upon the advice of co-trustee Mr Dinshaw Mehta having come back to not only haunt us but to lower our prestige and that of the BPP in the eyes of many in the community.

"In the past too there have been various instances when we have had to cut a sorry figure in public after following the advice of Mr Dinshaw Mehta as a result of which the three of us have lost all confidence in him. During our discussions you too have expressed similar sentiments.”

Detailing Mehta’s "sheer and solitary interest in matters concerning brick and mortar,” the frustrations of beneficiaries with him and "his earlier confidante Mrs Nergish Irani,” the letter states, "In spite of extensive criticism …Mehta has never attempted to change his methods or to distance himself from housing matters. His approach has always been commercial minded and legalistic, not charitable minded. We have never observed any of his actions to have a humane, moral or ethical touch.”

They go on to cite a number of instances including the fiascos at the charity commissioner, at Dhunbai Wadi, the election petition etc, attaching copies of their past letters of protest.

"There are many other incidents about the manner in which he has manipulated and maneuvered the board, by acting arbitrarily and thereafter presenting the board with faits accomplis whereby our institution was exposed to the risk of litigation and/or public wrath.

"The present imbroglio pertaining to the FT has arisen as …Mehta masterminded the allotment of two flats in Rusi Mehta Building at Godrej Baug from the FT quota to Ms Rashna Bhesania without informing the board that Ms Farzana Bhesania, another daughter of Bakhtiar S. Bhesainia was earlier allotted a flat in the same building…

"Mehta misguided the trustees that out of two flats one flat was for one Cyrus Master, though he is a permanent resident of Indore and relative of Ms Rashna Bhesania from her in-laws’ side. Thereafter he has given permission to have repairs and renovations carried out in the two flats, including breaking down the common wall so as to fix a common door between the two flats. The permission was given by him alone, without consulting or taking the permission of other trustees either in writing or orally.

"When the trustees wished to peruse the agreement with FT and other relevant data, we were shocked to be informed that the files pertaining to the FT were missing and could not be located anywhere in the BPP office including the vaults. Even more shocking has been the attitude of …Mehta who has been managing the affairs of FT with BPP over the years and yet refusing to share information with the other trustees, by making available relevant data from the records of the FT with which he has been connected indirectly if not directly. (He) refused to divulge the names of the trustees of the FT except to mention that (solicitor and columnist) Berjis Desai is one of them …”

The three trustees go on to note that they had made it clear to Mehta on June 17 that they had lost confidence in him and suggested that he step down as trustee. Since Mehta did not agree, the three trustees noted, "Our conscience, self-respect and dignity do not permit us to continue any further association with Mr Dinshaw Mehta…We therefore have no option but to accept moral responsibility for the turmoil the BPP finds itself embroiled in and act in an honorable manner by forthwith tendering our resignations…”

The following day Shroff added his own resignation to those of his colleagues stating, "Their letter sets out irreconcilable differences …arising out of sharp ideological and policy differences with… Mehta compounded by his peculiar style of functioning…With the resignation of our three colleagues, I cannot discharge effectively my onerous duties as the chairman of the board,” and forwarded both letters to trustees Mehta and Dadi Engineer.

Mehta strikes back

Mehta retorts that several files pertaining to other donor buildings also are missing and questions how the Jamé managed to obtain a copy of the FT agreement when the file itself was missing.

The Afternoon Despatch and Courier of June 22 published two letters from Mehta on the WAPIZ advertisement page, one addressed to "My fellow Parsis of Mumbai,” the other to the chairman of the BPP. In the letter to the community he notes that the allotments to the relatives of Mr Bhesania "were made unanimously by all the trustees at the board meeting of September 20, 2005. Earlier these flats were allotted to my step sister and uncle in October 1992 by the then trustees when I was not a trustee, since I became a trustee only on July 22, 1994. These allotments were made in accordance with the scheme framed by the then trustees of the BPP in which various leading charitable trusts participated… The allotments are subject to the norms mentioned in the legally binding agreement signed by the BPP and Firuzgar Charitable Trust. Thus there is nothing legally or ethically or even morally objectionable in these allotments.” Referring to the resignations as "a conspiracy to somehow or the other prevent me from becoming chairman of the BPP and forcing my resignation prior to that date (and) communal hara-kiri,” Mehta notes, "It is handing over of the most valuable properties including our precious Doongerwadi and funds of our community to the charity commissioner and the State Government, an act for which my former colleagues will never be forgotten and forgiven in history. I certainly do not intend to be a part of the sinful act of cowardice and conspiracy.” He then goes on to attribute "this sordid chapter in Parsi history (to) the frustrated ambition of one man, Dinshaw Tamboly, (when) the entire Parsi community of Bombay was shamelessly sold down the drain.”

In the adjoining letter addressed to the chairman, Mehta notes that the "Jamé has been carrying on one-sided vindictive reporting accusing only me of the said allotment even though all the trustees had approved the same…Instead of clearing the stigma being hurled against me alone, it seems that the rest of the trustees want to take the easy way out by asking for my resignation instead of coming out with the truth and clarifying that the allotments were approved by all the trustees as they were within the four corners of the agreement of 1987 signed with FT..”

Mehta states that when his sister married out of the community in 1997 he had informed the board that he had persuaded her not to reside in the community flat but that she refused to surrender the flat unless it was allotted to a nominee of her choice. He recalled that the board had waived legal action partly because the flat would revert to the FT and not the BPP for re-allotment and partly because of the non-Parsi issue and action needed to be considered in light of other similar instances and enforced collectively. "Our internal memo dated September 18, 2003 published in Jam-e-Jamshed of June 18, 2006 further strengthens this proposition. I had at that time, on that memo, commented that we should take legal action for enforcing the Parsi only covenant for those who marry outside the community which has till date not been accepted or acted upon by the other trustees. Thus, where the other trustees do not agree with me, my views are not accepted by them and action is taken as per the majority view…I would have expected my colleagues to rise to the occasion to be man enough to admit that all of us jointly (are) responsible for the allotment, instead of which I alone am being made a scapegoat and crucified in the Press.” Mehta proposed that his colleagues sit across the table and work out an acceptable solution "including, if need be, by all of us resigning together but only when a new board of trustees can be elected to take our place, so that continuity is maintained and an administrator kept out of the BPP.”

Bhesania’s explanation

Distressed at his name being "wrongly bandied about publicly,” Bakhtiar Bhesania issued a latter dated June 28 addressed to the trustees with copies to the Parsi Press. Recounting his daughter’s search for a flat in May 2005 he notes that he then learnt about the "building of ownership flats proposed to be constructed at Godrej Baug. I got the truth of this confirmed from Mr Russi Khambatta, the architect in charge of the project.” At the same time he came to learn of a flat in Khareghat Colony which the original occupant was willing to vacate if the Punchayet were to allot it to another Parsi licensee recommended by him. Accordingly Bhesania’s son-in-law Pilzad Master secured the flat in Batliwalla Building against a refundable security deposit of Rs 25 lakhs. During Master’s visits to the site where renovations were awaited, he mentioned to the ground floor occupant Burgis Daruwala that this would be temporary occupancy until the ownership building at Godrej Baug came up and Daruwala (who is married to Della Tecnica owner Jimmy Mistry’s sister) "persistently persuaded” Master to give up the flat in favor of his own ailing aunt Freny Dastoor so that he could look after her.

Bhesania notes that when he mentioned these matters to Dinshaw Mehta the latter suggested the use of the two flats on the fourth floor of Rusi Mehta Building. Mehta further assured him that "the FT trustees would not take any donation and that the BPP trustees under the agreement with the FT had no right to ask for deposit or donation in respect of any nominee of the FT…Before submitting the applications for the said two flats, I personally spoke to all the four trustees who have resigned and all of them assured me that they saw nothing wrong in the proposed allotment of the two flats, one to my daughter, i.e. Mr and Mrs Pilzad Master and the other to Col Cyrus Master. There was no question of any misunderstanding or Mr Dinshaw Mehta misguiding the trustees.”

The allotment was sanctioned on September 20, 2005 after which Master vacated the Khareghat Colony flat in favor of Daruwala’s aunt and the BPP refunded the 25 lakh rupee deposit on January 30, 2006. "As in the case of the Khareghat Colony flat, the flats in Godrej Baug were in the possession of Mr Mehta’s sister and cousin,” notes Bhesania.

Decrying the publication of half-truths, distortions of the truth, etc Bhesania notes that he had waited for the chairman of the BPP to explain the circumstances of the allotment of the two flats. "Instead in their letter of resignation the BPP trustees have chosen to plead ignorance about even another flat, no 12 of the Rusi Mehta building, which they agreed to transfer to my sister (since deceased) long ago and later in the routine course of ‘inheritance’ after my sister’s death allotted to my elder daughter.” Bhesania goes on to explain that his spinster sister who lived in the Bai Soonabai Banajee Agiary Building at Gowalia Tank had become physically unable to climb four floors. She had given up that flat to Vispy Ardesher whose application for accommodation was registered and pending with the BPP in exchange for the Godrej Baug flat for which Bhesania notes, "I must clarify that for this flat a sum of Rs 30 lakhs was paid to the BPP trustees and allotted to my sister as recommended by the executors and trustees of the estate of the late Col P. M. R. Bharoacha against a transfer/exchange of her flat. For allotment of this flat the FT was not concerned. On the death of my sister, the flat came to my elder daughter Farzana by way of ‘inheritance’ and in the routine course, a leave and license agreement was executed by the BPP in February 2001 in favor of …Farzana.”

Desai’s rejoinder

FT trustee Berjis Desai in a letter to the Jamé of July 2 while chastising Mehta for not answering his BPP co-trustees questions on the Firuzgar Trust clarifies his own position and that of the trust: "Assume for a moment that Solicitor Bhesania’s daughter’s allotments, as recommended by the Firuzgar Trust, did not satisfy the BPP norms. What prevented the trustees of the BPP from exercising their right of refusal to accept Firuzgars recommendation... There is nothing legally wrong in the Firuzgar Trust recommending Bhesania’s daughter and her in-laws, even if it is correct that Bhesania is a great friend of Dinshaw Mehta. The BPP Trustees were under no obligation whatsoever to unanimously approve the Firuzgar Trust’s recommendations, which they did!”

Aware of the flak the BPP trustees actions had drawn, the BPP press statement notes, "during this unforeseen interlude we have received many valued suggestions from well meaning individuals and community elders... All of us are committed to serve the community with zeal and ensure smooth and harmonious working of the trust as long as we are trustees.” Their good intentions will be severely tested with the approaching Anjuman Committee Elections to be held within the next year.