“(De)Pressing matters”

Apropos the article "(De)Pressing matters” (Parsiana, January 21, 2009), sparks are flying thick and fast. Allegations, denials, contradictions are the order of the day, with the trustees and the ordinary bawaji in the fray. The confusion caused is very interesting, and I am confused.

According to Mehli Colah, chief executive officer of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP), the Joint Charity Commissioner (JtCC) made oral threats of removal/suspension of trustees (Parsiana, January 7, 2009). According to chairman Dinshaw Mehta, Kersi Randeria threatened several trustees, who buckled and surrendered. (No one wants to tell us why these threats were made nor the reason why the trustees danced to Randeria’s tune.) "The whole office staff are aware and I am sure will give evidence how Randeria was threatening the trustees into submission. All of us had discussed the ramifications of these threats when conveyed to us by our legal representative and our office staff attending the Charity Commis­sioner’s (CC) office.”

So, according to Mehta and the legal representatives, there were ramifications.

Community activist Phiroze Amroli­walla has his own take on the issue which is quite interesting. In the WAPIZ Page of the Free Press Journal of January 23, 2009 he writes: "(JtCC) Deshmukh has taken a humane approach…To my mind the learned JtCC who was primarily required to hear the application under sec 41D for removal of the trustees with a bona fide desire to help the poor and needy who approached his office for an allotment did suggest ways and means to help in the allotment.”

Amroliwalla is silent on the issue of the threat issued either by the JtCC or by Randeria. On the contrary he is full of praise and appreciation for the JtCC’s actions and conduct. But someone outside the CC’s office did threaten to expose the whole tamasha. (I wish that someone would do so. What is he waiting for?) Amroliwalla inter alia states: "JtCC had directed the then trustees to hear the grievances of the applicants… it was mainly then chairman Minoo Shroff, Dinshaw Tamboly and Dinshaw Mehta who were present at most interviews along with applicants Phiroz Bulsara, Zeree Jehangirji and interveners Kersi Randeria, Percy Patel and myself.”

So whom should we believe and whose word should we accept?

Amroliwalla writes: "I now do believe that in this whole sordid drama it is only the really poor and deserving who have suffered most (they were suffering even otherwise for years) due to a political one-upmanship being fought out by two camps and in which the office of the Honorable JtCC has been dragged in only because to my mind the Honorable JtCC Mr Deshmukh has taken a humane approach.”

Just like Dadrawala is doing now (for which he was asked to resign), Mehta dissented, wrote letters and raised objections at that time. He did not resign or lodge his protest with the JtCC. It was the then chairman Shroff who, in his affidavit, enclosed Mehta’s dissenting letter which Mehta could himself have done, but did not for reasons best known to him. So the ramifications appear to be quite serious and sent chills down the spines of the then trustees. The possibility of illegality on their part cannot be ruled out. We are kept in the dark regarding the opinion/views of the legal representatives, so we may safely presume that where there is smoke there is fire.

Prima facie it appears that for the last one decade and more allotments were made on an ad hoc, arbitrary basis, the laid down procedure (if any) was thrown to the winds and the trust deeds were flouted with impunity. There was a strong case for removal of the board of trustees by the JtCC, with the result that the trustees had no option but to right away accept 39 applicants cited by Randeria. Out of the 104, 13 were found to be undeserving (WAPIZ Page, Free Press Journal, February 6, 2009). It is further admitted that another 900 deserving applicants are waiting for their fate to be decided, which strengthens Randeria’s case. Hence, there was merit in Randeria’s application and a distinct possibility of the trustees being removed and an administrator appointed.

Mehta said, "Instead of squandering charity funds in litigation all occupants of our various colonies, be they tenants or licensees, will be allowed to benefit from tenancies if they desire to vacate their premises, subject to the trust getting a fair share of their transfer fees, as the law now allows this.” (Merit list rating must take a backseat, for it’s all about money, honey.)

The Adult Franchise for Progress (AFP) manifesto had promised, "No commercialization of charity. To run the BPP as a true charity by stopping the present policy of commercialization of charity. Charity is not a business. Increase in BPP funds by attracting donations, not by charging large pugrees. Only the rich can afford these pugrees or so-called refundable security deposits, and these flats were built for the use of the poor and the middle classes, not the rich. There shall be no waiting list for houses (950 families presently) at the end of our seven-year term.”

The WAPIZ had promised at the time of the elections: "Transparent, fair and just allotment of flats. Transparent merit system understood by all with easy access on the Internet. Priority housing to full time mobeds, young couples, poor and those with disabled family members. Pledge to remove waiting list for housing within five years.” (What about pugrees and fat deposits?)

The only mission at present seems to be to see that the 104 applicants do not get any allotment, due to the political one-upmanship and brinkmanship of the vested interests, and the induction of some from the 900 who are the blue eyed boys. Can anyone explain why these 900 were hanging fire and only surfaced because of Randeria’s crusade?

The solution would be for all the trustees who are interested in wiping out the waiting list to bury the hatchet, treat this incident as a one-time aberration and show some statesmanship. Review the 104 allotments, remove the undeserving and allot flats to the rest to get rid of the mess created in the past. The trustees can then get on with their mission statements to wipe out the waiting list within five to seven years without squandering the charity funds in litigation. However, in the process, some egos will certainly get punctured!

I have also read the item "Not interested” (Parsiana, January 7, 2009) about the refusal by BPP trustees Khojeste Mistree and Yazdi Desai to be interviewed by your magazine. These chaps have exposed their character and class, and shown how accessible and approachable they are as public figures. Don’t run after them. There is no need to give them undue importance.

BEHRAM AGA

behram_r_aga@yahoo.co.in