Editorial Viewpoint
Who wins?
With barely four months to go for the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trusteeship elections — barring admission of a World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) appeal in the Supreme Court — the dearth of suitable candidates is a matter of concern.
Those who have made known their intentions of contesting are sitting BPP trustee Dinshaw Mehta, former BPP trustee Rustom Tirandaz, unsuccessful BPP trusteeship candidate and WAPIZ founder trustee Yazdi Desai, social worker Arnavaz Mistry and real estate developer Jimmy Mistry. Apart from these, no significant player has publicly announced his/her candidature to date.
The five other sitting trustees of the BPP have not thrown their hat in the ring for various reasons but mainly because there has been a clamor for fresh, new faces. Of the five, chairman Minoo Shroff cannot seek reelection as he has served the maximum term of 21 years (actually more, thanks to WAPIZ’s penchant for litigation which has delayed elections. The WAPIZ founder trustees are reportedly divided on whether to challenge the holding of the elections in the Supreme Court or to proceed with the contest).
The leaders of the Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA) that has been in the forefront of the onslaught on the BPP, especially in regard to the trust’s housing policy, have stated they are not seeking public office.
Berjis Desai who strategized the move to introduce adult franchise says he has a panel of eminent individuals who will stand for office but will not declare their names till the election litigation is settled. His fear is that these candidates may be dissuaded from standing by their acquaintances.
But people who are shy of seeking public office may not be the ideal candidates for trusteeship. A person contesting an election must have an abiding desire to succeed. It is after all a quest for power. The voter has to decide whether the candidate will use or abuse that authority and what limits, if any, should be put on it.
The AZA and WAPIZ, through the courts and newspaper articles/advertisements, have tried both to curtail the BPP trustees’ authority and assert their own hegemony. The AZA wanted, and still wants, Mehta out of the Punchayet. WAPIZ wants Shroff, Dinshaw Tamboly, Maneck Engineer and Burjor Antia ousted from the BPP board of trustees. All this power play occurs at a considerable cost of time and money. But both these commodities appear to be in abundance.
Why should people who have a profound interest in community politics refrain from seeking public office? Five of the six existing trustees can and should stand for reelection. If they have the health, stamina and a proven track record there is no reason for the public not to vote them back to office. Similarly the AZA leadership is also duty bound to seek public office. Why should they remain on the sidelines carping about the state of affairs when they can enter the fray and prove their mettle?
The founders of the Committee for Electoral Rights started out as a ginger group cajoling Parsis/Iranis to register to vote. Thereafter they sought, and mostly won, elective office. And rightly so.
Politics is not the preserve of the genteel. It is the world of the power seeker, the amphitheater of the rough and tumble. For new faces unfamiliar with community politics and personalities, the time is too short to enter and make a mark. Such people should be co-opted initially on to various committees so they have an understanding of the trust and the community. Conversely, the community also will come to know of them.
If newcomers stand there is every chance they will be unintentionally manipulated by their backers or have their point of view compromised. They will not know the main power players in the community. They will not know whom to trust and distrust. It is only the candidates with their own grassroots organization and knowledge of the community who will have a free hand to frame and decide policy.
After electing candidates, the community’s responsibility is not over. They have to see that the board of trustees functions democratically and fairly. Seven independent minded candidates each with their own approach, attitude and outlook may result in exciting new initiatives or may court disaster.
The existing six trustees’ differences spilt out of the Punchayet board room into the public domain: the newspapers, the charity commissioner’s office and the High Court. The six learnt an expensive and time consuming lesson: Keep your quarrels to yourself, iron out your differences internally and work for the common weal. Having learnt those truisms, why should they not seek reelection? They are unlikely to repeat the same mistakes. They may make new ones, but so will any slate of trustees.
The present trustees, AZA, WAPIZ all have an understanding of community politics and processes. From amongst them and the other independent candidates the public has to decide who best represents their interest. The voters may be right or wrong but in a democracy we have to accept their collective wisdom, not ridicule it.
We are running out of time and options. The best candidates may not stand for trusteeship due to some misconceived notions of modesty, self-effacement, bruised egos, or even uncertainty as to whether they will win or not.
But if they do not enter the fray, the biggest loser may well be the community.
Those who have made known their intentions of contesting are sitting BPP trustee Dinshaw Mehta, former BPP trustee Rustom Tirandaz, unsuccessful BPP trusteeship candidate and WAPIZ founder trustee Yazdi Desai, social worker Arnavaz Mistry and real estate developer Jimmy Mistry. Apart from these, no significant player has publicly announced his/her candidature to date.
The five other sitting trustees of the BPP have not thrown their hat in the ring for various reasons but mainly because there has been a clamor for fresh, new faces. Of the five, chairman Minoo Shroff cannot seek reelection as he has served the maximum term of 21 years (actually more, thanks to WAPIZ’s penchant for litigation which has delayed elections. The WAPIZ founder trustees are reportedly divided on whether to challenge the holding of the elections in the Supreme Court or to proceed with the contest).
The leaders of the Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA) that has been in the forefront of the onslaught on the BPP, especially in regard to the trust’s housing policy, have stated they are not seeking public office.
Berjis Desai who strategized the move to introduce adult franchise says he has a panel of eminent individuals who will stand for office but will not declare their names till the election litigation is settled. His fear is that these candidates may be dissuaded from standing by their acquaintances.
But people who are shy of seeking public office may not be the ideal candidates for trusteeship. A person contesting an election must have an abiding desire to succeed. It is after all a quest for power. The voter has to decide whether the candidate will use or abuse that authority and what limits, if any, should be put on it.
The AZA and WAPIZ, through the courts and newspaper articles/advertisements, have tried both to curtail the BPP trustees’ authority and assert their own hegemony. The AZA wanted, and still wants, Mehta out of the Punchayet. WAPIZ wants Shroff, Dinshaw Tamboly, Maneck Engineer and Burjor Antia ousted from the BPP board of trustees. All this power play occurs at a considerable cost of time and money. But both these commodities appear to be in abundance.
Why should people who have a profound interest in community politics refrain from seeking public office? Five of the six existing trustees can and should stand for reelection. If they have the health, stamina and a proven track record there is no reason for the public not to vote them back to office. Similarly the AZA leadership is also duty bound to seek public office. Why should they remain on the sidelines carping about the state of affairs when they can enter the fray and prove their mettle?
The founders of the Committee for Electoral Rights started out as a ginger group cajoling Parsis/Iranis to register to vote. Thereafter they sought, and mostly won, elective office. And rightly so.
Politics is not the preserve of the genteel. It is the world of the power seeker, the amphitheater of the rough and tumble. For new faces unfamiliar with community politics and personalities, the time is too short to enter and make a mark. Such people should be co-opted initially on to various committees so they have an understanding of the trust and the community. Conversely, the community also will come to know of them.
If newcomers stand there is every chance they will be unintentionally manipulated by their backers or have their point of view compromised. They will not know the main power players in the community. They will not know whom to trust and distrust. It is only the candidates with their own grassroots organization and knowledge of the community who will have a free hand to frame and decide policy.
After electing candidates, the community’s responsibility is not over. They have to see that the board of trustees functions democratically and fairly. Seven independent minded candidates each with their own approach, attitude and outlook may result in exciting new initiatives or may court disaster.
The existing six trustees’ differences spilt out of the Punchayet board room into the public domain: the newspapers, the charity commissioner’s office and the High Court. The six learnt an expensive and time consuming lesson: Keep your quarrels to yourself, iron out your differences internally and work for the common weal. Having learnt those truisms, why should they not seek reelection? They are unlikely to repeat the same mistakes. They may make new ones, but so will any slate of trustees.
The present trustees, AZA, WAPIZ all have an understanding of community politics and processes. From amongst them and the other independent candidates the public has to decide who best represents their interest. The voters may be right or wrong but in a democracy we have to accept their collective wisdom, not ridicule it.
We are running out of time and options. The best candidates may not stand for trusteeship due to some misconceived notions of modesty, self-effacement, bruised egos, or even uncertainty as to whether they will win or not.
But if they do not enter the fray, the biggest loser may well be the community.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive