“Capital punishment”

With reference to the article "Capital punishment” and your editorial "Form wise” (Parsiana, July 21, 2008), I fail to understand why a community magazine such as yours should carry a four-page write-up on the issue of the Godrej Baug Residents Welfare Association (GBRWA) elections when there are more pressing issues facing the community. This is very much an internal matter to be resolved within the Baug and not a piece of gossip for anyone to write about. We, the residents of the Baug are trying to resolve our internal matters as most colonies do and need no external uninvited interference.

Of the 11 disqualified candidates most have moved out gracefully at various stages leaving a team of four who have and are still trying various means to topple the managing committee which stands elected as per the constitution (a fact which they themselves confess) and will one day eventually be termed as being of nuisance value if this is prolonged further. Let me justify this.

Initially seven of the 11 disqualified persons wrote a letter and approached Election Commissioner Rustom Nargol­walla at his house late one evening asking him to withdraw the notice regarding six elected members to maintain peace and harmony in the colony. They could have approached the managing committee. Either they did not follow the protocol or they were ignorant regarding it.

These seven discussed their grievances in the general body meeting after the elections and the mandate of the majority members was clear that the decision of the Election Commission is final.

Cawas Sukheshwala later wrote a letter to the managing committee along with 46 other signatories to call for the special general body meeting for re-elections. His wife Shernaz, who was among the 11 disqualified ones, was not a signatory to the letter. Why? Later, the number was reduced to four who did not put their signatures to the letter calling for the special general body meeting. Why? Because they wanted the 47 signatories to fight their battle for them.

The 47 signatories petitioned the new managing committee and called for a special general body meeting and wanted members to come in large numbers to vote for a re-election. Of these 47 only three turned up, and one of them voted against re-election. Of the 60-65 members present at the meeting, only six were in favor of re-elections. The six are Tehmtan Dumasia, Sukheshwala, Homiyar Nasirabadwalla and their wives — all interested parties, directly or indirectly. Why did these four persons use 47 people to fight their battle for them when they should have fought it themselves? It shows their desperation to be on the committee and frustration at not being there.

On the issue of Pervez Gadiwalla’s letter, I had informed him during our earlier meeting that he should not have signed the letter disqualifying the 11 members if he was not convinced or else he should have signed it "under protest,” but to back out at the last moment when the notice was about to be displayed is not ethical. One must think before signing any document. The letter written by Gadiwalla to the election commissioner with copies to some committee members was an internal document and (they) had no right to pass on an internal letter of this nature.

The four disqualified persons can still work for the betterment of the Baug, as it is not necessary to be on the committee in order to do so. One can work without post or power like many do in most colonies.

I am very much against such internal matters being published, but since the harm has already been done I feel one should correct the situation by publishing the facts and hence this communication.

ARZAN J. GHADIALLY