Editorial Viewpoint
Anger management
One had looked forward to the Anjuman meeting of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) called to mark the end of their 365 days in office. After contesting keenly fought election battles and going through a trial by fire in their first year in office, one believed this auspicious public accounting would lay the groundwork for future developments and provide insights to the trustees’ vision for the community.
After all, the seven had successfully fought off legal assaults by their detractors, held off threats of expulsion from the Charity Commissioner’s office and had partially achieved their short-term objectives.
But instead the Dadar Parsee Colony Gymkhana meet of October 25, 2009 was marred by the trustees’ outpouring of invective against their bête noires, the Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA) and the Parsi Press, especially the Jam-e-Jamshed Weekly. The name calling and barbs spilled over into the pages of the Jamé and the WAPIZ (World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis) advertisement Page in The Free Press Journal with the Jamé terming the trustees’ acts “shameful” and the WAPIZ Page terming the AZA and Jamé “dumb.”
Any hope that the October meet would mark the start of rapprochement between the BPP and its detractors was shattered. Instead a new front of attack has been opened.
Acrimony generated during an election campaign is understandable. But after having won decisively one assumed the new board would strive to represent the needs and aspirations of the entire community, not only their partisan constituency. People who hold public office have to work for the welfare of all their subjects.
One can empathize with the trustees’ need to tom-tom their orthodoxy, to pledge continued allegiance to conservative causes. But can one overlook their reneging on their campaign promise to convert leave and license agreements to tenancy so as to allegedly preserve the Parsi-only covenant? Can we condone their ban on two supposedly “renegade priests” from performing religious ceremonies on trust properties controlled by the BPP?
When chief minister Narendra Modi won office in Gujarat he primarily looked to the welfare of his core constituency, the Hindus. In Uttar Pradesh, chief minister Mayawati built statues of herself, a Dalit, all over the state to glorify the aspirations of the lower castes.
Both Modi and Mayawati paid a price for their partisanship. Modi was denied a US visa due to his government’s complicity in the massacre of Muslims following the fire in the Sabarmati Express in Godhra in 2002. Mayawati’s wasteful statue spree has been temporarily halted by the Supreme Court. Though her government tried to disregard the Court’s directions eventually she had to fall in line when the judges warned her she was “playing with fire.”
There are those who will argue that a trust is not a political body and therefore the analogy to politics is incorrect. The basic difference between the two institutions is that a trust has no power to legislate or enforce legislation except through the courts. But at one time the BPP did have legislative powers. As civil laws expanded their scope, the authority of the BPP, as also many other bodies, was clipped.
Other than that both bodies hold property and funds in trust for the people they represent. The public anticipates their elected representatives will utilize these assets for the common weal. They expect their chosen leaders to be fair, honest, transparent and accountable.
The constitution of democracies safeguards the right to dissent and protects minorities — ethnic, religious and others. In the BPP also, the opposition has a right to exist. At present six trustees are lined up against one. In the past it has been four to three and even three to three when the board had only six sitting members. At one time four trustees resigned because they alleged they could not function with one of their co-trustees. They relented and withdrew their resignations. Throughout the affair the trust continued to function just as governments do despite the ups and downs of their political mentors.
At the Dadar Anjuman meeting one trustee was purposefully absent. The other six were apparently unable or unwilling to persuade him to attend. This is all par for the course. Political parties fight, families differ, friends quarrel. Why should a trust be any different?
Perhaps the only reason the community expects the BPP to differ from a political organization is because Parsis/Iranis believe they are more civilized and cultured than others; that their leaders will not resort to demagogy and scaremongering. But this has proved to be illusory. The Iranian Zoroastrian Anjuman’s activities are shrouded in secrecy and its leaders are paranoiac about journalistic coverage. The abuse hurled by the new BPP trustees at their opponents during the election and the ensuing 12 months demonstrates we are not that dissimilar from our compatriots.
‘Either you are with us or you are against us’ appears to be the guiding philosophy of our trustees. Dissent is viewed as betrayal. Even the bureaucratic wrangling that resulted in the denial of permission to use a microphone beyond an hour at the Dadar meet became an excuse to hit out at the BPP’s detractors. They, apparently, were not to blame.
One can understand heated words exchanged in a moment of anger or frustration. But to see it as a regular feature, meeting after meeting, article after article, becomes a cause for concern. The trustees have to temper their resentment. They have to win the community over to their way of thinking and/or think anew. The difference between political office and a trusteeship is that the politicians get paid to perform a duty, the trustees do it gratis. So we rightly or wrongly expect better from trusts.
One would have liked to assess the 365-day performance of the trustees as per their perspective. But this opportunity was lost in the venomous outpouring, the frenzied allegations of misfeasance against all and sundry.
One was left questioning whether the new trustees were up to the task of managing the community’s affairs judiciously. They have six more years to prove their mettle. Perhaps this Anjuman meeting started on the wrong foot. But the next meet, assuming it is held, will clearly indicate whether the trustees have got their act together or whether they are still groping in the abyss.
After all, the seven had successfully fought off legal assaults by their detractors, held off threats of expulsion from the Charity Commissioner’s office and had partially achieved their short-term objectives.
But instead the Dadar Parsee Colony Gymkhana meet of October 25, 2009 was marred by the trustees’ outpouring of invective against their bête noires, the Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA) and the Parsi Press, especially the Jam-e-Jamshed Weekly. The name calling and barbs spilled over into the pages of the Jamé and the WAPIZ (World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis) advertisement Page in The Free Press Journal with the Jamé terming the trustees’ acts “shameful” and the WAPIZ Page terming the AZA and Jamé “dumb.”
Any hope that the October meet would mark the start of rapprochement between the BPP and its detractors was shattered. Instead a new front of attack has been opened.
Acrimony generated during an election campaign is understandable. But after having won decisively one assumed the new board would strive to represent the needs and aspirations of the entire community, not only their partisan constituency. People who hold public office have to work for the welfare of all their subjects.
One can empathize with the trustees’ need to tom-tom their orthodoxy, to pledge continued allegiance to conservative causes. But can one overlook their reneging on their campaign promise to convert leave and license agreements to tenancy so as to allegedly preserve the Parsi-only covenant? Can we condone their ban on two supposedly “renegade priests” from performing religious ceremonies on trust properties controlled by the BPP?
When chief minister Narendra Modi won office in Gujarat he primarily looked to the welfare of his core constituency, the Hindus. In Uttar Pradesh, chief minister Mayawati built statues of herself, a Dalit, all over the state to glorify the aspirations of the lower castes.
Both Modi and Mayawati paid a price for their partisanship. Modi was denied a US visa due to his government’s complicity in the massacre of Muslims following the fire in the Sabarmati Express in Godhra in 2002. Mayawati’s wasteful statue spree has been temporarily halted by the Supreme Court. Though her government tried to disregard the Court’s directions eventually she had to fall in line when the judges warned her she was “playing with fire.”
There are those who will argue that a trust is not a political body and therefore the analogy to politics is incorrect. The basic difference between the two institutions is that a trust has no power to legislate or enforce legislation except through the courts. But at one time the BPP did have legislative powers. As civil laws expanded their scope, the authority of the BPP, as also many other bodies, was clipped.
Other than that both bodies hold property and funds in trust for the people they represent. The public anticipates their elected representatives will utilize these assets for the common weal. They expect their chosen leaders to be fair, honest, transparent and accountable.
The constitution of democracies safeguards the right to dissent and protects minorities — ethnic, religious and others. In the BPP also, the opposition has a right to exist. At present six trustees are lined up against one. In the past it has been four to three and even three to three when the board had only six sitting members. At one time four trustees resigned because they alleged they could not function with one of their co-trustees. They relented and withdrew their resignations. Throughout the affair the trust continued to function just as governments do despite the ups and downs of their political mentors.
At the Dadar Anjuman meeting one trustee was purposefully absent. The other six were apparently unable or unwilling to persuade him to attend. This is all par for the course. Political parties fight, families differ, friends quarrel. Why should a trust be any different?
Perhaps the only reason the community expects the BPP to differ from a political organization is because Parsis/Iranis believe they are more civilized and cultured than others; that their leaders will not resort to demagogy and scaremongering. But this has proved to be illusory. The Iranian Zoroastrian Anjuman’s activities are shrouded in secrecy and its leaders are paranoiac about journalistic coverage. The abuse hurled by the new BPP trustees at their opponents during the election and the ensuing 12 months demonstrates we are not that dissimilar from our compatriots.
‘Either you are with us or you are against us’ appears to be the guiding philosophy of our trustees. Dissent is viewed as betrayal. Even the bureaucratic wrangling that resulted in the denial of permission to use a microphone beyond an hour at the Dadar meet became an excuse to hit out at the BPP’s detractors. They, apparently, were not to blame.
One can understand heated words exchanged in a moment of anger or frustration. But to see it as a regular feature, meeting after meeting, article after article, becomes a cause for concern. The trustees have to temper their resentment. They have to win the community over to their way of thinking and/or think anew. The difference between political office and a trusteeship is that the politicians get paid to perform a duty, the trustees do it gratis. So we rightly or wrongly expect better from trusts.
One would have liked to assess the 365-day performance of the trustees as per their perspective. But this opportunity was lost in the venomous outpouring, the frenzied allegations of misfeasance against all and sundry.
One was left questioning whether the new trustees were up to the task of managing the community’s affairs judiciously. They have six more years to prove their mettle. Perhaps this Anjuman meeting started on the wrong foot. But the next meet, assuming it is held, will clearly indicate whether the trustees have got their act together or whether they are still groping in the abyss.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive