Editorial Viewpoint
An objective study
The issue of housing the community’s families is a long and contentious one. Reams have been written in the Parsi Press on the subject, with claims and counter claims, allegations, slander and libel being freely indulged in.
One of the major slurs against the trustees in the past was that they enriched themselves in the process of allotting housing. It was a baseless charge as far as the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) was concerned. As the law prohibited the system of pugree, whereby an outgoing tenant and the landlord received money from the incoming tenant for vacating and transferring tenancy, the transaction was conducted in cash.
This money was then funneled back into the trust or used for expenses. But because it was all unofficial and illegal it had to be done surreptitiously. So prevalent was the practice among the general public in Bombay that finally the government had to legalize pugree.
This raised the moral and ethical question: should a flat built for the disadvantaged change hands for a large monetary sum and if not, why would any tenant vacate his/her premises if no consideration was given?
The BPP and the Wadia trusts who own and control around 6,000 flats, reluctantly agreed that flats in existing baugs may change hands with the trusts receiving around 40 percent of the amount. That money would be used for repairs to existing colonies, construction of new housing and for other charitable purposes.
Income derived from ownership buildings such as Spenta on Ridge Road and Shahnazeen in Khareghat Colony filled the BPP coffers. Streamlining of the waiting list for housing applications and development of community housing reduced the number on the list from 3,000-4,000 to around 900.
But the ticklish question of who constitutes “the most deserving” remains to haunt all involved in the process. The BPP introduced a merit rating system allotting points for various criteria such as seniority, homelessness, the economic condition of the family, postponement of marriage (in the hope that the newly married would procreate and add to the community’s dwindling population) and so on.
But the element of subjectivity always remains. If there are two families whose homes have collapsed or are shifting from sanatorium to sanatorium, who should be given a flat, assuming only one is available for allotment at the time?
So it was in the Joint Charity Commissioner’s (JtCC) office on July 23, 2008 that those who were not among the lucky 42 to be allotted flats were upset and annoyed. Some of them even vented their ire at the representatives of the Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA), who ironically had intervened to assist them, alleging the system of allocation was not transparent and fair.
While the JtCC was keen to assist all the applicants and listened patiently to their outbursts, he made it clear that it was not his duty to allot flats but only to help in the process. After all with 900 applicants and only 91 flats ready for occupation, only one in 10 applicants could be accommodated.
The AZA having raised the hopes of those appealing to the JtCC now had to argue their case vis-à-vis the remaining 800 applicants on the waiting list. Their contention that the court helps those who come before it overlooks the fact that many of the other 800 applicants may be old and infirm, unfamiliar with legal issues or wary of annoying the BPP trustees by taking recourse to courts.
The BPP and other trusts are responsible to see that justice is done to all the applicants, not only the most vociferous. The BPP counsel alleged in court that future development plans and construction have been held up by litigation, implying that more applicants could be housed if the legal impediments were removed. The AZA countered by urging the JtCC to expedite hearings for removal of the BPP trustees.
The Parsi/Irani population in Bombay according to the censuses dwindled from around 76,000 in 1940 to around 46,000 in 2000. Today, eight years later, the figure would be around 42,000. Logically this would imply there should have been a surplus of housing in the last 70 years. But it is also possible that the density per flat has decreased. Thus if in 1940 six occupants resided in a flat and if today the figure is three, there would be no reduction in the number of flats occupied by the community. The BPP studies show density in some of the old baugs to average three per flat. At that rate one would require 14,000 flats to house 42,000 Parsis/Iranis at three per flat.
Of course, in the intervening years, the BPP and other trusts have constructed considerable housing. Zoroastrians have also moved to the suburbs and some have emigrated overseas. And Parsis/Iranis from elsewhere in India have flocked to Bombay adding to the housing crunch.
Perhaps the time has come to do a holistic study of the present and future housing needs of the community allowing for the present demographic trends. The examination can also consider whether tenanted premises should be converted to ownership. After all those who are being allocated flats today at no additional consideration will not vacate in the years to come without receiving a market price compensation. In the intervening years the BPP and other trusts will have to spend heavily on repairs, maintenance, security and legal fees. Only if a fair and objective study is done on this crucial issue can more light than heat be generated on all sides.
One of the major slurs against the trustees in the past was that they enriched themselves in the process of allotting housing. It was a baseless charge as far as the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) was concerned. As the law prohibited the system of pugree, whereby an outgoing tenant and the landlord received money from the incoming tenant for vacating and transferring tenancy, the transaction was conducted in cash.
This money was then funneled back into the trust or used for expenses. But because it was all unofficial and illegal it had to be done surreptitiously. So prevalent was the practice among the general public in Bombay that finally the government had to legalize pugree.
This raised the moral and ethical question: should a flat built for the disadvantaged change hands for a large monetary sum and if not, why would any tenant vacate his/her premises if no consideration was given?
The BPP and the Wadia trusts who own and control around 6,000 flats, reluctantly agreed that flats in existing baugs may change hands with the trusts receiving around 40 percent of the amount. That money would be used for repairs to existing colonies, construction of new housing and for other charitable purposes.
Income derived from ownership buildings such as Spenta on Ridge Road and Shahnazeen in Khareghat Colony filled the BPP coffers. Streamlining of the waiting list for housing applications and development of community housing reduced the number on the list from 3,000-4,000 to around 900.
But the ticklish question of who constitutes “the most deserving” remains to haunt all involved in the process. The BPP introduced a merit rating system allotting points for various criteria such as seniority, homelessness, the economic condition of the family, postponement of marriage (in the hope that the newly married would procreate and add to the community’s dwindling population) and so on.
But the element of subjectivity always remains. If there are two families whose homes have collapsed or are shifting from sanatorium to sanatorium, who should be given a flat, assuming only one is available for allotment at the time?
So it was in the Joint Charity Commissioner’s (JtCC) office on July 23, 2008 that those who were not among the lucky 42 to be allotted flats were upset and annoyed. Some of them even vented their ire at the representatives of the Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA), who ironically had intervened to assist them, alleging the system of allocation was not transparent and fair.
While the JtCC was keen to assist all the applicants and listened patiently to their outbursts, he made it clear that it was not his duty to allot flats but only to help in the process. After all with 900 applicants and only 91 flats ready for occupation, only one in 10 applicants could be accommodated.
The AZA having raised the hopes of those appealing to the JtCC now had to argue their case vis-à-vis the remaining 800 applicants on the waiting list. Their contention that the court helps those who come before it overlooks the fact that many of the other 800 applicants may be old and infirm, unfamiliar with legal issues or wary of annoying the BPP trustees by taking recourse to courts.
The BPP and other trusts are responsible to see that justice is done to all the applicants, not only the most vociferous. The BPP counsel alleged in court that future development plans and construction have been held up by litigation, implying that more applicants could be housed if the legal impediments were removed. The AZA countered by urging the JtCC to expedite hearings for removal of the BPP trustees.
The Parsi/Irani population in Bombay according to the censuses dwindled from around 76,000 in 1940 to around 46,000 in 2000. Today, eight years later, the figure would be around 42,000. Logically this would imply there should have been a surplus of housing in the last 70 years. But it is also possible that the density per flat has decreased. Thus if in 1940 six occupants resided in a flat and if today the figure is three, there would be no reduction in the number of flats occupied by the community. The BPP studies show density in some of the old baugs to average three per flat. At that rate one would require 14,000 flats to house 42,000 Parsis/Iranis at three per flat.
Of course, in the intervening years, the BPP and other trusts have constructed considerable housing. Zoroastrians have also moved to the suburbs and some have emigrated overseas. And Parsis/Iranis from elsewhere in India have flocked to Bombay adding to the housing crunch.
Perhaps the time has come to do a holistic study of the present and future housing needs of the community allowing for the present demographic trends. The examination can also consider whether tenanted premises should be converted to ownership. After all those who are being allocated flats today at no additional consideration will not vacate in the years to come without receiving a market price compensation. In the intervening years the BPP and other trusts will have to spend heavily on repairs, maintenance, security and legal fees. Only if a fair and objective study is done on this crucial issue can more light than heat be generated on all sides.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive