Editorial Viewpoint
“Command and control”
The Times of India (TOI — June 15, 2009) carried a front page article titled “Bohris to redevelop Bhendi Bazaar.” The story focused on the plan of the Dawoodi Bohra spiritual head Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin to redevelop 270 buildings and 2,000 commercial establishments spread over 18 acres in the heart of Bombay at a cost of around 1,500 crore rupees. “Over 25,000 people are expected to be rehoused,” stated the TOI writer Nauzer Bharucha. “The 98-year-old Syedna… initiated the plan recently after witnessing the pathetic living conditions of Bhendi Bazaar’s residents — mainly Muslims of various sects, 80 percent of whom belong to his community.”
The next day, June 16, the trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) reportedly held a meeting with leading architects at the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower to explore the possibilities of redeveloping their colonies and other properties. As most of the BPP functioning is in secrecy with trustees’ meetings being held at various venues to avoid the presence of dissenting trustees or voluble staff, it is hard to know exactly what transpired or the true purpose of the meet or if indeed it took place. Two text messages sent to BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta requesting confirmation met with no response.
Assuming the report is correct, it raises some very fundamental questions, namely who decides if property is to be redeveloped and by what means? During the recent BPP election this April there was much heated debate over the development of a building or buildings at the Mancherji Joshi Parsi Colony at Dadar. Mehta alleged that former BPP trustee Maneck Engineer who was seeking reelection after an earlier failed attempt in October last year, had sabotaged a proposal to build over 1,00,000 square feet of residential accommodation near the Rustom Faramna Agiary.
Engineer and some Dadar residents such as Mithoo Jesia stated the plan was dropped after consulting all the parties involved and finding the scheme unviable. By opting for redevelopment under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) scheme not only would the outgoings per square foot shoot up but 15 percent of the flats would have had to be offered to MHADA for allocation or bought back at market prices. Instead, Engineer favored building on the available floor space index (FSI) as it would not increase outgoings for the existing tenants and no flats would have to be surrendered.
Another contestant for the April BPP trusteeship vacancy Ervad Adi Govadia opted to stand because he was opposed to the redevelopment of Nowroz Baug at Lalbaug where he resides. He too was of the opinion that the outgoings would shoot up and flats would have to be surrendered to MHADA, adding to the community’s financial burden. He felt so strongly about the issue that he decided to contest the election. That he lost and only received a handful of votes does not detract from the strong emotional reaction any redevelopment of property evokes.
Those who favor redevelopment will point to the waiting list of 900 applicants of whom around 500 or so, according to Engineer, appear to be genuinely deserving and prepared to move to any part of the city. Should not the community make sacrifices to house their less fortunate brethren?
There can be no doubt that all would agree with this premise. The debate is over the best way to go about achieving this objective with the least amount of disruption and expense to all concerned. We have already witnessed and are still witnessing the time consuming and expensive litigation over allotment of 104 flats, many of them constructed several years ago but never occupied. We do not want such farces repeated. Thoughtful and cogent planning can prevent pride and vanity from thwarting good intentions.
The BPP trustees no doubt are under pressure to show results. They have electoral promises to keep and as yet their score card has little to show. The BPP Review of May 2009 lists the following accomplishments under the headline “BPP board — first 150 days in office”: doubling of all doles effective April 1, 2009, third child subsidy raised to Rs 3,000 and Rs 1,000 for a second child, a parenting workshop, plans for aforestation of Doongerwadi and housing at Panthaky Baug, a jashan cum gahanbar, plans to renovate the Gamadia Colony Boys Hostel and so on.
The publication itself is the first issue to be brought out in eight months under the new board. So much for the promises to keep the community informed promptly of developments.
Before the trustees rush headlong into any major housing program they have to collect data on the community’s housing requirements for at least the next 20 years, prepare a proposal, discuss it with the concerned people, find points of mutual agreement and then start work on architectural plans. Some may argue that these preliminary exercises are all academic and cause needless delay. But as the stalemate over the 104 allotments shows, without community support and cooperation, little can be accomplished.
The BPP will realize this when it hosts the 10th World Zoroastrian Congress in Bombay. Instead of following procedure and making a bid for holding the meet as is the custom for all such global gatherings, the BPP unilaterally decided they were going to be the hosts. They see little merit in filling out forms, stating their objectives, programs, etc. Already FEZANA (Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America) Journal editor and former FEZANA president Dolly Dastoor has stated in the quarterly publication (Spring 2009), “Dismissing the diaspora outside of India as of no consequence, and making unilateral ‘top-down’ decisions for world events like the venue of the world congresses in ‘command and control’ style will serve no purpose.”
The BPP may go ahead with the meet but what if the North American associations do not participate? Will it be a truly global meet if Bombay or India and its few allies decide everything? Why hold a world congress at all? A zonal meeting of the Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India would serve the purpose just as well.
After eight months in office the BPP still gives the impression of being a rudderless ship. They may stay the course in calm waters but when the seas get rough their vessel may run aground.
The next day, June 16, the trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) reportedly held a meeting with leading architects at the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower to explore the possibilities of redeveloping their colonies and other properties. As most of the BPP functioning is in secrecy with trustees’ meetings being held at various venues to avoid the presence of dissenting trustees or voluble staff, it is hard to know exactly what transpired or the true purpose of the meet or if indeed it took place. Two text messages sent to BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta requesting confirmation met with no response.
Assuming the report is correct, it raises some very fundamental questions, namely who decides if property is to be redeveloped and by what means? During the recent BPP election this April there was much heated debate over the development of a building or buildings at the Mancherji Joshi Parsi Colony at Dadar. Mehta alleged that former BPP trustee Maneck Engineer who was seeking reelection after an earlier failed attempt in October last year, had sabotaged a proposal to build over 1,00,000 square feet of residential accommodation near the Rustom Faramna Agiary.
Engineer and some Dadar residents such as Mithoo Jesia stated the plan was dropped after consulting all the parties involved and finding the scheme unviable. By opting for redevelopment under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) scheme not only would the outgoings per square foot shoot up but 15 percent of the flats would have had to be offered to MHADA for allocation or bought back at market prices. Instead, Engineer favored building on the available floor space index (FSI) as it would not increase outgoings for the existing tenants and no flats would have to be surrendered.
Another contestant for the April BPP trusteeship vacancy Ervad Adi Govadia opted to stand because he was opposed to the redevelopment of Nowroz Baug at Lalbaug where he resides. He too was of the opinion that the outgoings would shoot up and flats would have to be surrendered to MHADA, adding to the community’s financial burden. He felt so strongly about the issue that he decided to contest the election. That he lost and only received a handful of votes does not detract from the strong emotional reaction any redevelopment of property evokes.
Those who favor redevelopment will point to the waiting list of 900 applicants of whom around 500 or so, according to Engineer, appear to be genuinely deserving and prepared to move to any part of the city. Should not the community make sacrifices to house their less fortunate brethren?
There can be no doubt that all would agree with this premise. The debate is over the best way to go about achieving this objective with the least amount of disruption and expense to all concerned. We have already witnessed and are still witnessing the time consuming and expensive litigation over allotment of 104 flats, many of them constructed several years ago but never occupied. We do not want such farces repeated. Thoughtful and cogent planning can prevent pride and vanity from thwarting good intentions.
The BPP trustees no doubt are under pressure to show results. They have electoral promises to keep and as yet their score card has little to show. The BPP Review of May 2009 lists the following accomplishments under the headline “BPP board — first 150 days in office”: doubling of all doles effective April 1, 2009, third child subsidy raised to Rs 3,000 and Rs 1,000 for a second child, a parenting workshop, plans for aforestation of Doongerwadi and housing at Panthaky Baug, a jashan cum gahanbar, plans to renovate the Gamadia Colony Boys Hostel and so on.
The publication itself is the first issue to be brought out in eight months under the new board. So much for the promises to keep the community informed promptly of developments.
Before the trustees rush headlong into any major housing program they have to collect data on the community’s housing requirements for at least the next 20 years, prepare a proposal, discuss it with the concerned people, find points of mutual agreement and then start work on architectural plans. Some may argue that these preliminary exercises are all academic and cause needless delay. But as the stalemate over the 104 allotments shows, without community support and cooperation, little can be accomplished.
The BPP will realize this when it hosts the 10th World Zoroastrian Congress in Bombay. Instead of following procedure and making a bid for holding the meet as is the custom for all such global gatherings, the BPP unilaterally decided they were going to be the hosts. They see little merit in filling out forms, stating their objectives, programs, etc. Already FEZANA (Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America) Journal editor and former FEZANA president Dolly Dastoor has stated in the quarterly publication (Spring 2009), “Dismissing the diaspora outside of India as of no consequence, and making unilateral ‘top-down’ decisions for world events like the venue of the world congresses in ‘command and control’ style will serve no purpose.”
The BPP may go ahead with the meet but what if the North American associations do not participate? Will it be a truly global meet if Bombay or India and its few allies decide everything? Why hold a world congress at all? A zonal meeting of the Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India would serve the purpose just as well.
After eight months in office the BPP still gives the impression of being a rudderless ship. They may stay the course in calm waters but when the seas get rough their vessel may run aground.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive