Editorial Viewpoint
Setting an example
Most elections to public office are governed by legislative norms. Violating any of the stated codes can result in penalties, forfeiture of office and in extreme cases, imprisonment.
A purported, technical irregularity resulted in an Allahabad High Court judge in 1975 disqualifying the parliamentary election of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Not one to be put off by such niceties, she declared an emergency, imprisoned her opponents, gagged the Press, modified the election laws and held a general election two years later. She lost, her party lost and she spent a short stint in prison.
In Zimbabwe, the national elections became a matter of international concern and outrage. So shaky is the position of the present brutal despot that he used torture, murder, ethnic cleansing, etc to intimidate his opponents. The strategy worked. The opposition boycotted the election.
Not long ago in India the outcome of elections depended to some extent on the ability of the incumbent candidates to manipulate government machinery in their favor. In addition, booth capturing, cajoling, threatening or buying voters were often the norm.
But things changed. The election commissioners started to flex their muscles. Laws were tightened, courts penalized those who violated norms, the process began to insure an equitable playing field for all contestants.
Elections affect the entire functioning of a country, an institution or even a trust. The inauguration of the Zoroastrian Information Centre established by the Foundation for the Development of Udvada (FDU) was put off twice as the State was to hold elections, the Gujarat chief minister also being barred by law from opening the museum on those dates (since the State had contributed funds, it might have appeared he was capitalizing on the government largesse).
Now with elections looming for seven trusteeship seats on the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP), the community will have to discuss and consider possible guidelines for candidates to follow. At present there are no rules or regulations governing the electioneering process of trustees. The BPP election scheme lays down the legal framework of who is eligible to stand for election, to register to vote and related formalities. Dates for elections, venues, etc are at the discretion of the trustees as per the guidelines laid down in the scheme. But nowhere is there mention of any norms governing the mode of electioneering.
Even if the BPP trustees were to draw guidelines they would have to be ratified by the courts to have any meaning. The question arises whether guidelines are required or whether we can count on the good sense of the public and the candidates to ensure a free and fair election.
In the 2001 trusteeship election between BPP sitting trustee Dinshaw Mehta and Maneck Engineer, the latter alleged amongst other things that the position of Mehta’s booth as well as the placement of the banners at the Khareghat Colony venue were advantageous to Mehta.
In most of the Zoroastrian associations in India and abroad we are not aware of any restrictions governing electioneering. It is mostly left to the sound judgment of the candidate and the voters. A candidate who attempts to buy over voters by promising them monetary returns will not curry much favor in a community where literacy levels are close to 100 percent.
While the community has economically disadvantaged members, the extent of poverty is not comparable to other Indians below the poverty line. Trusts, family members, well-wishers, social workers ensure the basic necessities of food, shelter, education and medicine are met in nearly all cases. Buying of votes thus is a remote possibility. And anyway how would the candidate know if the voters kept their word after accepting the gratuities?
How much should candidates spend on their elections and what about the contestants who do not have deep pockets? It does appear that serious candidates or their supporters will have to spend around two to five lakh rupees to get their message across effectively. Just the printing and possible media advertising of manifestoes, etc will cost a sizeable amount of money.
No one knows the number of candidates who will stand for office but a number that is being bandied about is around 40. Most of these will be local candidates, known in their geographic neighborhood or social circles but not in the entire community. A candidate from say Godrej Baug in south Bombay may not be known to Zoroastrians residing in the suburbs and vice versa.
So money will play an important role in creating awareness. But more
importantly it will inform the community of the contestants’ point of view, their thoughts on the key issues like the dwindling numbers (though some will argue this is just a bogey), interfaith marriages, housing and disposal of the dead, outlook on religious issues like the dearth of priests, the excess of fire temples and possible solutions to problems.
Of course there will be mudslinging, name calling, heated debates and acrimony. But the circumspect candidates will ensure that they and their supporters don’t cross the line of acceptable conduct.
The community by and large believes in fair play and standards of decency. Those who disregard social and political norms many find themselves ostracized. Only those candidates who put across their point of view intelligently, articulately and honestly stand the best chance of winning. Of course those views must be in consonance with voter beliefs and values.
The Parsis/Iranis of Bombay may be 60 years behind the rest of the country in terms of being bestowed a direct vote. But by conducting a responsible and reasonable campaign without specified or legislated norms, they may be able to demonstrate how such elections can be conducted.
A purported, technical irregularity resulted in an Allahabad High Court judge in 1975 disqualifying the parliamentary election of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Not one to be put off by such niceties, she declared an emergency, imprisoned her opponents, gagged the Press, modified the election laws and held a general election two years later. She lost, her party lost and she spent a short stint in prison.
In Zimbabwe, the national elections became a matter of international concern and outrage. So shaky is the position of the present brutal despot that he used torture, murder, ethnic cleansing, etc to intimidate his opponents. The strategy worked. The opposition boycotted the election.
Not long ago in India the outcome of elections depended to some extent on the ability of the incumbent candidates to manipulate government machinery in their favor. In addition, booth capturing, cajoling, threatening or buying voters were often the norm.
But things changed. The election commissioners started to flex their muscles. Laws were tightened, courts penalized those who violated norms, the process began to insure an equitable playing field for all contestants.
Elections affect the entire functioning of a country, an institution or even a trust. The inauguration of the Zoroastrian Information Centre established by the Foundation for the Development of Udvada (FDU) was put off twice as the State was to hold elections, the Gujarat chief minister also being barred by law from opening the museum on those dates (since the State had contributed funds, it might have appeared he was capitalizing on the government largesse).
Now with elections looming for seven trusteeship seats on the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP), the community will have to discuss and consider possible guidelines for candidates to follow. At present there are no rules or regulations governing the electioneering process of trustees. The BPP election scheme lays down the legal framework of who is eligible to stand for election, to register to vote and related formalities. Dates for elections, venues, etc are at the discretion of the trustees as per the guidelines laid down in the scheme. But nowhere is there mention of any norms governing the mode of electioneering.
Even if the BPP trustees were to draw guidelines they would have to be ratified by the courts to have any meaning. The question arises whether guidelines are required or whether we can count on the good sense of the public and the candidates to ensure a free and fair election.
In the 2001 trusteeship election between BPP sitting trustee Dinshaw Mehta and Maneck Engineer, the latter alleged amongst other things that the position of Mehta’s booth as well as the placement of the banners at the Khareghat Colony venue were advantageous to Mehta.
In most of the Zoroastrian associations in India and abroad we are not aware of any restrictions governing electioneering. It is mostly left to the sound judgment of the candidate and the voters. A candidate who attempts to buy over voters by promising them monetary returns will not curry much favor in a community where literacy levels are close to 100 percent.
While the community has economically disadvantaged members, the extent of poverty is not comparable to other Indians below the poverty line. Trusts, family members, well-wishers, social workers ensure the basic necessities of food, shelter, education and medicine are met in nearly all cases. Buying of votes thus is a remote possibility. And anyway how would the candidate know if the voters kept their word after accepting the gratuities?
How much should candidates spend on their elections and what about the contestants who do not have deep pockets? It does appear that serious candidates or their supporters will have to spend around two to five lakh rupees to get their message across effectively. Just the printing and possible media advertising of manifestoes, etc will cost a sizeable amount of money.
No one knows the number of candidates who will stand for office but a number that is being bandied about is around 40. Most of these will be local candidates, known in their geographic neighborhood or social circles but not in the entire community. A candidate from say Godrej Baug in south Bombay may not be known to Zoroastrians residing in the suburbs and vice versa.
So money will play an important role in creating awareness. But more
importantly it will inform the community of the contestants’ point of view, their thoughts on the key issues like the dwindling numbers (though some will argue this is just a bogey), interfaith marriages, housing and disposal of the dead, outlook on religious issues like the dearth of priests, the excess of fire temples and possible solutions to problems.
Of course there will be mudslinging, name calling, heated debates and acrimony. But the circumspect candidates will ensure that they and their supporters don’t cross the line of acceptable conduct.
The community by and large believes in fair play and standards of decency. Those who disregard social and political norms many find themselves ostracized. Only those candidates who put across their point of view intelligently, articulately and honestly stand the best chance of winning. Of course those views must be in consonance with voter beliefs and values.
The Parsis/Iranis of Bombay may be 60 years behind the rest of the country in terms of being bestowed a direct vote. But by conducting a responsible and reasonable campaign without specified or legislated norms, they may be able to demonstrate how such elections can be conducted.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive