Editorial Viewpoint
Partake of the process
With the entry of Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustee Dinshaw Mehta into the electoral fray, the battle lines are already being drawn for the seven new trustees to be elected under adult franchise.
Mehta had been cagy about whether he would stand or not, citing family resistance and the possibility of his one-time ally, solicitor and columnist Berjis Desai, putting up a slate of seven candidates excluding Mehta. But now the feisty Mehta is ready for the contest, denying he was ever in two minds about seeking reelection.
His candidacy will be one of several major focal issues in the upcoming election tentatively scheduled over three weekends in October this year. The judgment of the divisional bench of Justices Dr S. Radhakrishnan and Anoop Mohta decreed the election be held within six months from the date of their April 30, 2008 pronouncement. The World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) will challenge the judgment in the Supreme Court which may result in further delay.
While concerns such as housing, allotment of flats, ownership versus rental, rent deposits, new construction, sale of property, etc are bound to dominate the contest, there are other more pertinent dilemmas facing the community. And unless the voters raise these points the issues may be sidestepped.
In the past candidates seeking elections have nearly all pledged to uphold “time honored” customs and traditions and have kowtowed to the orthodoxy even going so far as to state that all religious matters will be referred to the clergy for consideration.
With a restricted electoral base the compulsions of toeing the conservative line was understandable. But now with around 20,000 or so eligible voters out of whom at least half are expected to vote as versus 1,600 or so in the past, the rules of the game are bound to change. Candidates who expect to win cannot buck traditional beliefs. But at the same time they cannot ignore the liberal sentiment.
In 1981 the moderate Committee for Electoral Rights swept the Anjuman Committee (AC) elections defeating the orthodox Committee of United Zoroastrians. In the last decade candidates like former BPP trustee Rustom Tirandaz and WAPIZ founder trustee Yazdi Desai lost elections spouting the orthodox line. There were of course other factors involved. Aspirants such as BPP trustees Minoo Shroff, Dinshaw Tamboly and Maneck Engineer did not have to go about establishing their orthodox bonafides to win.
The differences one can expect between the candidates and their supporters will be somewhat like the dissimilarities between the Republicans and Democrats in America or the Conservatives and Labour in Britain.
The parties more or less believe and espouse the same causes but with different degrees of intensity. The Republicans want tax breaks for the more affluent, the Democrats for the less advantaged. The Republicans want business to be unfettered from excessive government controls, the Democrats believe intervention in some cases is necessary. The Republicans oppose gun control, the Democrats favor it. The Republicans state they want to reduce government spending, the Democrats say spending on social causes is necessary. But oddly enough the largest budgetary deficit occurred under Republican stewardship, while the Democrats, in Bill Clinton’s presidency, balanced the budget.
But the presidential candidates’ belief in God and the church is paramount and universal. All candidates appear at church services, family in tow. An atheist is less likely to be elected president than a woman, an Afro American or even a Jew. (In contrast, India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru was an agnostic. Communist leaders were/are atheists as reportedly were/are some European heads of state.)
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s biggest setback came not from the color of his skin or his political beliefs, but from his pastor who shocked voters with his radical anti-white rhetoric.
So who does the voter elect if the lines are blurred? The answer: sometimes Democrats, sometimes Republicans. Similarly in England, the Tories come to power, then Labour. The voter is not tied to any party or philosophy. He or she will cross party lines as and when the need is felt.
The Parsi-Irani community in Bombay will want to know the religious leanings of the candidates. And the trusteeship aspirants will have to tread a fine line if they want to win. Camouflaging their true sympathies or withholding answers to tough questions will not be an acceptable alternative. People will want to know if the aspirants favor granting the children of Parsi women married to non-Parsis the same status as those of Parsi males married outside the faith. And whether the candidates favor funerary ceremonies being performed at Doongerwadi for those opting for alternate means of disposal to dakhmenashini.
There are other issues such as poverty alleviation, care for the elderly, medical assistance, but religious sentiments will be crucial. There can be no evading or taking recourse to the standard “let the courts decide.” The successful candidates will be those who can convince the electorate that their point of view is the correct one and that their outlook is in the best interests of the community.
In turn the candidates will have to judge how much change voters want and how much of the status quo. This is all new territory for them and the community. We are living in exciting times. In 1981 the AC elections broke with all past traditions. This time the transformation is in the election of trustees. As in the past, let us partake of the process to the full.
Mehta had been cagy about whether he would stand or not, citing family resistance and the possibility of his one-time ally, solicitor and columnist Berjis Desai, putting up a slate of seven candidates excluding Mehta. But now the feisty Mehta is ready for the contest, denying he was ever in two minds about seeking reelection.
His candidacy will be one of several major focal issues in the upcoming election tentatively scheduled over three weekends in October this year. The judgment of the divisional bench of Justices Dr S. Radhakrishnan and Anoop Mohta decreed the election be held within six months from the date of their April 30, 2008 pronouncement. The World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) will challenge the judgment in the Supreme Court which may result in further delay.
While concerns such as housing, allotment of flats, ownership versus rental, rent deposits, new construction, sale of property, etc are bound to dominate the contest, there are other more pertinent dilemmas facing the community. And unless the voters raise these points the issues may be sidestepped.
In the past candidates seeking elections have nearly all pledged to uphold “time honored” customs and traditions and have kowtowed to the orthodoxy even going so far as to state that all religious matters will be referred to the clergy for consideration.
With a restricted electoral base the compulsions of toeing the conservative line was understandable. But now with around 20,000 or so eligible voters out of whom at least half are expected to vote as versus 1,600 or so in the past, the rules of the game are bound to change. Candidates who expect to win cannot buck traditional beliefs. But at the same time they cannot ignore the liberal sentiment.
In 1981 the moderate Committee for Electoral Rights swept the Anjuman Committee (AC) elections defeating the orthodox Committee of United Zoroastrians. In the last decade candidates like former BPP trustee Rustom Tirandaz and WAPIZ founder trustee Yazdi Desai lost elections spouting the orthodox line. There were of course other factors involved. Aspirants such as BPP trustees Minoo Shroff, Dinshaw Tamboly and Maneck Engineer did not have to go about establishing their orthodox bonafides to win.
The differences one can expect between the candidates and their supporters will be somewhat like the dissimilarities between the Republicans and Democrats in America or the Conservatives and Labour in Britain.
The parties more or less believe and espouse the same causes but with different degrees of intensity. The Republicans want tax breaks for the more affluent, the Democrats for the less advantaged. The Republicans want business to be unfettered from excessive government controls, the Democrats believe intervention in some cases is necessary. The Republicans oppose gun control, the Democrats favor it. The Republicans state they want to reduce government spending, the Democrats say spending on social causes is necessary. But oddly enough the largest budgetary deficit occurred under Republican stewardship, while the Democrats, in Bill Clinton’s presidency, balanced the budget.
But the presidential candidates’ belief in God and the church is paramount and universal. All candidates appear at church services, family in tow. An atheist is less likely to be elected president than a woman, an Afro American or even a Jew. (In contrast, India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru was an agnostic. Communist leaders were/are atheists as reportedly were/are some European heads of state.)
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s biggest setback came not from the color of his skin or his political beliefs, but from his pastor who shocked voters with his radical anti-white rhetoric.
So who does the voter elect if the lines are blurred? The answer: sometimes Democrats, sometimes Republicans. Similarly in England, the Tories come to power, then Labour. The voter is not tied to any party or philosophy. He or she will cross party lines as and when the need is felt.
The Parsi-Irani community in Bombay will want to know the religious leanings of the candidates. And the trusteeship aspirants will have to tread a fine line if they want to win. Camouflaging their true sympathies or withholding answers to tough questions will not be an acceptable alternative. People will want to know if the aspirants favor granting the children of Parsi women married to non-Parsis the same status as those of Parsi males married outside the faith. And whether the candidates favor funerary ceremonies being performed at Doongerwadi for those opting for alternate means of disposal to dakhmenashini.
There are other issues such as poverty alleviation, care for the elderly, medical assistance, but religious sentiments will be crucial. There can be no evading or taking recourse to the standard “let the courts decide.” The successful candidates will be those who can convince the electorate that their point of view is the correct one and that their outlook is in the best interests of the community.
In turn the candidates will have to judge how much change voters want and how much of the status quo. This is all new territory for them and the community. We are living in exciting times. In 1981 the AC elections broke with all past traditions. This time the transformation is in the election of trustees. As in the past, let us partake of the process to the full.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive