Editorial Viewpoint
The greater purpose
With the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trusteeship elections tentatively scheduled for October — barring a successful World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) appeal to the Supreme Court — the question arises as to how the candidates will go about preparing for the contest.
Those nominees endorsed by grass roots organizations will have an edge. Thus if the Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA) supports a plank of candidates or WAPIZ, campaigning and funding will be easier.
Groups like the Association of Inter-Married Zoroastrians (AIMZ) and the Association for Revival of Zoroastrianism (ARZ) which are focused on religious and legal issues, will lend support to aspirants of their choice. The two groups also have demonstrated an ability to organize talks, publish literature, advertise, influence people and raise funds.
The other Parsi/Irani associations are largely geographically located, mainly in the baugs or in other Parsi clusters. They may provide logistic support to candidates by arranging voter meets but may not endorse a particular aspirant.
The Iranian Zoroastrian Anjuman (IZA) in the past has unwisely endorsed candidates for the BPP trusteeship. IZA’s priority is to tend to the needs of the Iranian Zoroastrians. Antagonizing potential BPP trustees is counter productive to their main objective. But they can facilitate the process and encourage Irani Zoroastrians to contest.
Other candidates like developer Jimmy Mistry have already built from scratch an effective grass roots organization: the Parsi Resource Group.
In 1980-81 the Committee for Electoral Rights (CER) came into being when well intentioned and concerned Zoroastrians decided to take the then BPP chairman B. K. Boman-Behram, and his supporters head-on. CER’s objective was to enroll all Parsi/Irani Zoroastrians over 21 on the general and other voter registers. Strategy meetings were held in the offices of well wishers. Public meetings were held at various colonies, the Tata Auditorium at Bombay House and a mammoth gathering at the Cowasjee Jehangir Hall, now converted into a museum of modern art. Voter registration forms were distributed all over Bombay and close to 20,000 people enrolled.
The CER had to reach out to the entire community, a costly and time consuming exercise. But costs were kept to the minimum, volunteers were roped in and people contributed funds. With universal adult franchise (UAF) the exercise will have to be repeated.
In the USA acceptable candidates for public office need two primary assets: visibility (they must be known names) and money (or the ability to raise it).
As this is our first election under UAF we can only guess at the cost of running an election campaign reaching out to over 30,700 registered voters. A safe estimate would be anywhere from one lakh rupees onwards for a serious candidate. The cost of printing and distributing literature, publishing manifestos, organizing meetings, transporting and funding volunteers and one or two full time staff will prove costly. By forming a slate, the costs per candidate can be reduced.
If candidates want to spread their message to the 40,000 or so strong Parsi/Irani population in Bombay (the census taken in 2000 put the figure at 46,557 but eight years later the figure will be closer to 42,000) they will have to address around 30 meetings (there are over 15 baugs and many other Zoroastrian clusters). Each meeting will entail a cost of Rs 2,000 or more and will involve around four hours (two hours for the meeting, two hours traveling to and fro — may be even more during the evening commuter rush hours).
There will have to be pre-meeting publicity, text messages to be sent, websites and blogs to be updated, posters to be displayed, hand bills distributed and so on. An enterprising candidate may offer refreshments to lure potential voters, adding to the costs.
If the person is little known but a serious, lone, candidate, he/she will have to spend exponentially more. But it is unlikely any unknown individuals will stand. And if they do they will not be taken seriously. Voters will look at the candidates’ track record of community/public service. Why would anyone vote for a person who has hitherto not participated in community or public affairs?
In 1980 the CER consisted of unfamiliar faces in the community. The CER founders Jamsheed Kanga (an Indian Administrative Service officer) and Dadi Engineer (a noted solicitor) were not visibly involved with community institutions. Nor were people like Silloo Kavarana, Noshir Sidhwa or Fali Poncha. Dinshaw Mehta, who joined the CER after the voter registration drive was over, also was a newcomer to community politics. His father had been a corporator in the Bombay Municipal Corporation, a seat subsequently held by his brother and sister. Berjis Desai of course was known because of his editorial involvement with The Bombay Samachar. But the voter registration drive proved the CER pioneers’ bonafides and made the organization a household name. When several of them stood for trusteeship elections subsequently, they were largely successful.
But only a name, money and visibility will not be sufficient to win an election. In the past eminent men like Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, Sir Jamshedji Jeejeebhoy, seventh baronet and economist A. D. Shroff stood and lost. What makes for a winner? One is perseverance. A candidate must have a strong desire to win. In a democracy, the winners are those who put their point of view across convincingly and exhaustively. They are the ones who have the greatest possibility of winning. You need stamina, patience, tolerance, understanding and an ability to take fools lightly. And you need to be physically fit to endure the demanding rigors of campaigning.
The community has many key concerns that need addressing. They are the lot of the disadvantaged, the homeless, the elderly, the ill, the physically and mentally challenged the unemployed, the unemployable and others. There are community institutions without suitable people to run them and institutions that need to transform themselves if they are to remain meaningful and relevant to contemporary requirements.
Trusteeship is both a thankless and misconceived office. Some view the trustees as leaders of the community, others as glorified landlords. But whatever the perception, trusteeship is a calling. It is a public office through which one can do much for the betterment of others in Bombay and elsewhere. Amid all the rancor and cacophony that will ensue, let us not lose sight of the greater purpose.
Those nominees endorsed by grass roots organizations will have an edge. Thus if the Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA) supports a plank of candidates or WAPIZ, campaigning and funding will be easier.
Groups like the Association of Inter-Married Zoroastrians (AIMZ) and the Association for Revival of Zoroastrianism (ARZ) which are focused on religious and legal issues, will lend support to aspirants of their choice. The two groups also have demonstrated an ability to organize talks, publish literature, advertise, influence people and raise funds.
The other Parsi/Irani associations are largely geographically located, mainly in the baugs or in other Parsi clusters. They may provide logistic support to candidates by arranging voter meets but may not endorse a particular aspirant.
The Iranian Zoroastrian Anjuman (IZA) in the past has unwisely endorsed candidates for the BPP trusteeship. IZA’s priority is to tend to the needs of the Iranian Zoroastrians. Antagonizing potential BPP trustees is counter productive to their main objective. But they can facilitate the process and encourage Irani Zoroastrians to contest.
Other candidates like developer Jimmy Mistry have already built from scratch an effective grass roots organization: the Parsi Resource Group.
In 1980-81 the Committee for Electoral Rights (CER) came into being when well intentioned and concerned Zoroastrians decided to take the then BPP chairman B. K. Boman-Behram, and his supporters head-on. CER’s objective was to enroll all Parsi/Irani Zoroastrians over 21 on the general and other voter registers. Strategy meetings were held in the offices of well wishers. Public meetings were held at various colonies, the Tata Auditorium at Bombay House and a mammoth gathering at the Cowasjee Jehangir Hall, now converted into a museum of modern art. Voter registration forms were distributed all over Bombay and close to 20,000 people enrolled.
The CER had to reach out to the entire community, a costly and time consuming exercise. But costs were kept to the minimum, volunteers were roped in and people contributed funds. With universal adult franchise (UAF) the exercise will have to be repeated.
In the USA acceptable candidates for public office need two primary assets: visibility (they must be known names) and money (or the ability to raise it).
As this is our first election under UAF we can only guess at the cost of running an election campaign reaching out to over 30,700 registered voters. A safe estimate would be anywhere from one lakh rupees onwards for a serious candidate. The cost of printing and distributing literature, publishing manifestos, organizing meetings, transporting and funding volunteers and one or two full time staff will prove costly. By forming a slate, the costs per candidate can be reduced.
If candidates want to spread their message to the 40,000 or so strong Parsi/Irani population in Bombay (the census taken in 2000 put the figure at 46,557 but eight years later the figure will be closer to 42,000) they will have to address around 30 meetings (there are over 15 baugs and many other Zoroastrian clusters). Each meeting will entail a cost of Rs 2,000 or more and will involve around four hours (two hours for the meeting, two hours traveling to and fro — may be even more during the evening commuter rush hours).
There will have to be pre-meeting publicity, text messages to be sent, websites and blogs to be updated, posters to be displayed, hand bills distributed and so on. An enterprising candidate may offer refreshments to lure potential voters, adding to the costs.
If the person is little known but a serious, lone, candidate, he/she will have to spend exponentially more. But it is unlikely any unknown individuals will stand. And if they do they will not be taken seriously. Voters will look at the candidates’ track record of community/public service. Why would anyone vote for a person who has hitherto not participated in community or public affairs?
In 1980 the CER consisted of unfamiliar faces in the community. The CER founders Jamsheed Kanga (an Indian Administrative Service officer) and Dadi Engineer (a noted solicitor) were not visibly involved with community institutions. Nor were people like Silloo Kavarana, Noshir Sidhwa or Fali Poncha. Dinshaw Mehta, who joined the CER after the voter registration drive was over, also was a newcomer to community politics. His father had been a corporator in the Bombay Municipal Corporation, a seat subsequently held by his brother and sister. Berjis Desai of course was known because of his editorial involvement with The Bombay Samachar. But the voter registration drive proved the CER pioneers’ bonafides and made the organization a household name. When several of them stood for trusteeship elections subsequently, they were largely successful.
But only a name, money and visibility will not be sufficient to win an election. In the past eminent men like Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, Sir Jamshedji Jeejeebhoy, seventh baronet and economist A. D. Shroff stood and lost. What makes for a winner? One is perseverance. A candidate must have a strong desire to win. In a democracy, the winners are those who put their point of view across convincingly and exhaustively. They are the ones who have the greatest possibility of winning. You need stamina, patience, tolerance, understanding and an ability to take fools lightly. And you need to be physically fit to endure the demanding rigors of campaigning.
The community has many key concerns that need addressing. They are the lot of the disadvantaged, the homeless, the elderly, the ill, the physically and mentally challenged the unemployed, the unemployable and others. There are community institutions without suitable people to run them and institutions that need to transform themselves if they are to remain meaningful and relevant to contemporary requirements.
Trusteeship is both a thankless and misconceived office. Some view the trustees as leaders of the community, others as glorified landlords. But whatever the perception, trusteeship is a calling. It is a public office through which one can do much for the betterment of others in Bombay and elsewhere. Amid all the rancor and cacophony that will ensue, let us not lose sight of the greater purpose.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive