Editorial Viewpoint
Form wise
The role of the election commission (EC) in community politics is seldom in the forefront. Most Zoroastrians assume that the elections will be conducted freely, fairly and as per the rules and regulations.
Most often the appointment of commissioners is viewed as a formality. In all these years one has been covering elections at the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP), controversies over the role of the EC have not arisen. Complaints about bureaucratic procedures or the rare charge of impersonation may have risen, but generally events flow smoothly.
Thus the controversy over the Godrej Baug Residents Welfare Association (GBRWA) managing committee elections (see “Form fiasco,” page 29) makes one realize how even well-meaning people can sometimes stir up a hornet’s nest.
Of the 17 candidates for the 11 seats, 11 found their nomination forms rejected on a technicality: instead of writing all the details in capital letters some names/words were filled in upper-lowercase.
Despite protests, two of the three-member EC team stood their grounds. Rules had to be followed, they averred. When we sought the views of Rustom Hormuzdiyar who along with others and the BPP staff has ably conducted numerous BPP elections, he noted there was a tendency for people to be excessively technical at times. A more pragmatic approach is better suited to the purpose, he counseled.
What in effect the GBRWA EC did was to deny, on a technicality, the Godrej Baug residents the right to elect their representatives. This is an extreme step. One asks for details to be filled in capitals so that the writing is legible and chances are fewer for misspelling candidates’ names and personal details on election ballots, certificates, etc. Mostly grounds for disqualification are for misrepresentations or falsifying of facts. In national, state and municipal elections a candidate from a particular district may be disqualified and his/her opponent elected unopposed. But here the entire slate won unopposed.
Of course it can be argued that people are apathetic, that less than 50 percent exercise their franchise, that people don’t want to enter into quarrels and litigations and that one should accept as fait accompli the new appointees. In Navsari where two anjumans exist (the Navsari Samast Anjuman and the Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman) neither has held elections for years on end even though the course of their office bearers’ terms are well over. And the general populace does not appear to be overly concerned.
Three of the new GBRWA committee members, president Urvax Dhanda, secretary Shahrukh Bilimoria and Yezdi Panthaki accompanied by residents Kersi Sanjana (a member of the EC) and Homi Cooper called on Parsiana on July 12, 2008 to put forward their point of view.
They noted the EC had acted in an unbiased manner as individual candidates from all parties had been disqualified. The rejection of application forms was not selectively done. Second, the EC acted within the powers allotted them and their decision was final and binding. No illegalities had been committed nor was there outside interference.
The new office bearers also stated that with like-minded people on the committee and five more similarly thinking people being co-opted, the managing committee would not be hampered by dissension as had happened in the past. The opposition in the meanwhile has called for an extraordinary general meeting to discuss the issue.
But the question arises: is it better to have your opponents within the organization’s hierarchy or without? It was pointed out that the functioning of the BPP was largely paralyzed by people who were not trustees and held no elective public office. By approaching the various courts of law the dissenters played havoc with the functioning of the BPP. Flats remained unoccupied as property could not be “alienated,” elections were delayed, countless rupees were spent on litigation (the election spats alone have already cost the BPP over Rs 50 lakh in legal fees).
While the BPP trustees were quarrelling amongst themselves the trust was still able to function. But by trying to drive out one trustee and failing to do so and then four other trustees resigning in exasperation, the BPP and the community were thrown into turmoil. The BPP’s critics used that weakness to flex their muscle.
The Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India has not met for the last two years as people who hold no elected public office managed to avail of a lacuna in the Federation’s rules and regulations that permit anjumans to nominate any person of their choosing to represent them. Thus people with no connection whatsoever with the concerned anjumans are able to turn the Federation meets into slanging matches.
Thus, might does not always lie within the corridors of power. It exists equally, if not sometimes more, without. Mahatma Gandhi proved this during India’s freedom struggle.
Only when those in office and those who elect them arrive at a certain balance, an understanding on the sharing of power, can some semblance of harmony exist.
At the Ripon Club, the managing committee’s decision to hive off a portion of the fourth floor was opposed by 90 percent of the members present at the annual general meeting of the Parsi Club. Who then wields the power?
In our last editorial we had stated that no rules were framed for the holding of the BPP trusteeship elections outside the BPP electoral scheme. These rules largely refer to the format and procedure to be followed. But Hormuzdiyar points out that where the BPP scheme is silent, the Representation of the People Act of 1950 applies. The Act however will not delve into the ethical, moral or fiscal aspects of an election. Nor will it state whether the EC should accept or reject technically incorrectly filled forms. This is left to the sound judgment of the individuals concerned.
The GBRWA representatives wanted to know why only Godrej Baug was being singled out by Parsiana for adverse publicity when their beneficial activities in the past had not been given coverage. We shamefacedly explained that editorial constraints may not always permit us to give coverage even though the occasion was worthy of it but the elections imbroglio gained our attention because of the forthcoming BPP elections. Assume 50 people contested for the seven seats and 43 found their forms invalid, there would be chaos. After waiting 100 years for adult franchise, to be denied a vote would be catastrophic. The GBRWA elections thus serve to remind us not to take the role of the individuals conducting the elections lightly. A vigilant and involved citizenry is the best safeguard for preserving democratic norms.
Most often the appointment of commissioners is viewed as a formality. In all these years one has been covering elections at the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP), controversies over the role of the EC have not arisen. Complaints about bureaucratic procedures or the rare charge of impersonation may have risen, but generally events flow smoothly.
Thus the controversy over the Godrej Baug Residents Welfare Association (GBRWA) managing committee elections (see “Form fiasco,” page 29) makes one realize how even well-meaning people can sometimes stir up a hornet’s nest.
Of the 17 candidates for the 11 seats, 11 found their nomination forms rejected on a technicality: instead of writing all the details in capital letters some names/words were filled in upper-lowercase.
Despite protests, two of the three-member EC team stood their grounds. Rules had to be followed, they averred. When we sought the views of Rustom Hormuzdiyar who along with others and the BPP staff has ably conducted numerous BPP elections, he noted there was a tendency for people to be excessively technical at times. A more pragmatic approach is better suited to the purpose, he counseled.
What in effect the GBRWA EC did was to deny, on a technicality, the Godrej Baug residents the right to elect their representatives. This is an extreme step. One asks for details to be filled in capitals so that the writing is legible and chances are fewer for misspelling candidates’ names and personal details on election ballots, certificates, etc. Mostly grounds for disqualification are for misrepresentations or falsifying of facts. In national, state and municipal elections a candidate from a particular district may be disqualified and his/her opponent elected unopposed. But here the entire slate won unopposed.
Of course it can be argued that people are apathetic, that less than 50 percent exercise their franchise, that people don’t want to enter into quarrels and litigations and that one should accept as fait accompli the new appointees. In Navsari where two anjumans exist (the Navsari Samast Anjuman and the Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman) neither has held elections for years on end even though the course of their office bearers’ terms are well over. And the general populace does not appear to be overly concerned.
Three of the new GBRWA committee members, president Urvax Dhanda, secretary Shahrukh Bilimoria and Yezdi Panthaki accompanied by residents Kersi Sanjana (a member of the EC) and Homi Cooper called on Parsiana on July 12, 2008 to put forward their point of view.
They noted the EC had acted in an unbiased manner as individual candidates from all parties had been disqualified. The rejection of application forms was not selectively done. Second, the EC acted within the powers allotted them and their decision was final and binding. No illegalities had been committed nor was there outside interference.
The new office bearers also stated that with like-minded people on the committee and five more similarly thinking people being co-opted, the managing committee would not be hampered by dissension as had happened in the past. The opposition in the meanwhile has called for an extraordinary general meeting to discuss the issue.
But the question arises: is it better to have your opponents within the organization’s hierarchy or without? It was pointed out that the functioning of the BPP was largely paralyzed by people who were not trustees and held no elective public office. By approaching the various courts of law the dissenters played havoc with the functioning of the BPP. Flats remained unoccupied as property could not be “alienated,” elections were delayed, countless rupees were spent on litigation (the election spats alone have already cost the BPP over Rs 50 lakh in legal fees).
While the BPP trustees were quarrelling amongst themselves the trust was still able to function. But by trying to drive out one trustee and failing to do so and then four other trustees resigning in exasperation, the BPP and the community were thrown into turmoil. The BPP’s critics used that weakness to flex their muscle.
The Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India has not met for the last two years as people who hold no elected public office managed to avail of a lacuna in the Federation’s rules and regulations that permit anjumans to nominate any person of their choosing to represent them. Thus people with no connection whatsoever with the concerned anjumans are able to turn the Federation meets into slanging matches.
Thus, might does not always lie within the corridors of power. It exists equally, if not sometimes more, without. Mahatma Gandhi proved this during India’s freedom struggle.
Only when those in office and those who elect them arrive at a certain balance, an understanding on the sharing of power, can some semblance of harmony exist.
At the Ripon Club, the managing committee’s decision to hive off a portion of the fourth floor was opposed by 90 percent of the members present at the annual general meeting of the Parsi Club. Who then wields the power?
In our last editorial we had stated that no rules were framed for the holding of the BPP trusteeship elections outside the BPP electoral scheme. These rules largely refer to the format and procedure to be followed. But Hormuzdiyar points out that where the BPP scheme is silent, the Representation of the People Act of 1950 applies. The Act however will not delve into the ethical, moral or fiscal aspects of an election. Nor will it state whether the EC should accept or reject technically incorrectly filled forms. This is left to the sound judgment of the individuals concerned.
The GBRWA representatives wanted to know why only Godrej Baug was being singled out by Parsiana for adverse publicity when their beneficial activities in the past had not been given coverage. We shamefacedly explained that editorial constraints may not always permit us to give coverage even though the occasion was worthy of it but the elections imbroglio gained our attention because of the forthcoming BPP elections. Assume 50 people contested for the seven seats and 43 found their forms invalid, there would be chaos. After waiting 100 years for adult franchise, to be denied a vote would be catastrophic. The GBRWA elections thus serve to remind us not to take the role of the individuals conducting the elections lightly. A vigilant and involved citizenry is the best safeguard for preserving democratic norms.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive