Editorial Viewpoint
The New Year gift
Has the past year been a good one and will the New Year be better? The answer depends on your perspective. The hosting of a World Zoroastrian Congress, the United Nations General Assembly including the spring festival of Navroz into the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, the formation of youth groups, the holding of a Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI) annual general meeting, a public reporting of the year’s development by the new board of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) were all positive developments though the outcome may not have been all that one hoped for.
But we have to tread slowly. We have a relatively new board of BPP trustees elected by universal adult franchise with six of the seven trustees holding the office for the first time. Only the chairman, Dinshaw Mehta is a veteran of many years. To some extent the functioning of the premier Bombay trust marginally affects Zoroastrian associations around India and the globe. The BPP chairman is the ex-officio head of the FPZAI and the BPP is hosting the next World Zoroastrian Congress.
The neophyte board is still testing its strength vis-à-vis the community, trying to determine how far they can go and what if any projects they can execute in the five-and-a-half years they have left in office. But judging by the past year-and-a-half, the BPP is unlikely to accomplish much.
In his chairman’s message in the March 2010 issue of the BPP Review, Mehta states, “It is unfortunate that a small group of people have together filed a shocking 16 cases against the BPP specifically with the aim to continuously thwart the BPP and prevent us from working in the interest of the poor and particularly providing housing.”
Mehta sees a conspiracy “to ensure the takeover of the BPP and its properties and estates by a government administrator” with the Parsi media playing “a detrimental role in encouraging this group with the hope of preventing a largely traditional BPP board from functioning.” The conspirators, according to Mehta, have “consistently and shamelessly rejected our offers of peace.”
Parsis being as individualistic and hot tempered as they are, it’s hard to imagine several groups working in tandem for or against any trust or institution. Many of the people who have filed cases probably do not even know one another. And as for the Parsi media, with a more sympathetic editor heading the Jam-e-Jamshed Weekly and The Bombay Samachar Parsi Tari Arsi column rhetoric toned down, the infamous WAPIZ (World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis) Page extolling the trustees’ actions and the BPP Review propagating their accomplishments the Parsi media can hardly serve as a convenient whipping boy for all the BPP’s imagined and real ills.
Anyway the Press does not possess the powers Mehta ascribes to it. People act and reporters write about their actions. Not the other way round. The case in the Bombay High Court pertaining to the ban on the two priests who allegedly performed “irreligious” ceremonies was not initiated by the Press or the conspirators. The trustees probably believed this was a suitable diversionary tactic from their inability to allot flats, leave aside build new ones, or for that matter do anything of substance.
The conspirators did not tell the lawyers to fight without charge, the petitioners’ case, banning the two priests. In nearly all the other cases the lawyers levy their fees. In this case the legal practioners felt strongly about the injustice done and saw the inherent dangers in the trustees’ action, even if one of the concerned priests did not. Tomorrow the trustees of a baug could tell those hiring the premises for a jashan or navjote or wedding “you cannot have such and such priest or high priest performing the ceremony on our premises.” Or worse still, they may state, “We don’t want to hire our premises to you because one of your relations was cremated or married a non-Parsi” or “You can only invite Parsi/Irani guests, no non-Parsis. And if you don’t like it go to court.” Hopefully the two petitioners may just do that and appeal against the judge’s decision or file a civil suit.
The BPP’s opponents did not tell Mehta and 40 others to go to Sanjan and assault a Russian Zoroastrian who wanted to be initiated as a navar so he could perform religious ceremonies in St Petersburg. No doubt the same compulsions that prompted the priestly ban — quick, favorable, low cost, publicity — motivated this act of vandalism.
The trustees therefore seem to be operating in a vacuum. Mehta’s expertise is in housing but all plans to build new homes appear to be on hold. Aside from managing the funds and properties there appears little else the seven can do. And who wants to sit around every week for hours talking about leaky roofs, wearisome tenants, errant workmen and legal fees? As it is some of the trustees attend the meetings only towards the end to mark themselves present. In another year or two, even less work will be executed as five of the seven will be too busy jockeying for the chairman’s position to worry about performance. Mehta will complete 21 years in office on June 2, 2015 and as per the scheme cannot serve further. Of the remaining six, the terms of five expire in October 2015. Armaity Tirandaz is the junior most, being elected in April 2009. The chairperson’s post normally goes by seniority.
So have the duly elected BPP trustees failed the electorate? Not really. The last two years have witnessed a vitality seldom seen in the community. As journalists we have our hands full trying to keep pace with the hectic developments in the courts, at public events, at meetings and congresses. The energy levels of a once dormant, somnambulant community have shot up. The activity may not be the type we want to see. But it is better than apathy and indifference.
Perhaps this is the gift of the New Year: A leadership stumbling in the dark but a community shedding light.
But we have to tread slowly. We have a relatively new board of BPP trustees elected by universal adult franchise with six of the seven trustees holding the office for the first time. Only the chairman, Dinshaw Mehta is a veteran of many years. To some extent the functioning of the premier Bombay trust marginally affects Zoroastrian associations around India and the globe. The BPP chairman is the ex-officio head of the FPZAI and the BPP is hosting the next World Zoroastrian Congress.
The neophyte board is still testing its strength vis-à-vis the community, trying to determine how far they can go and what if any projects they can execute in the five-and-a-half years they have left in office. But judging by the past year-and-a-half, the BPP is unlikely to accomplish much.
In his chairman’s message in the March 2010 issue of the BPP Review, Mehta states, “It is unfortunate that a small group of people have together filed a shocking 16 cases against the BPP specifically with the aim to continuously thwart the BPP and prevent us from working in the interest of the poor and particularly providing housing.”
Mehta sees a conspiracy “to ensure the takeover of the BPP and its properties and estates by a government administrator” with the Parsi media playing “a detrimental role in encouraging this group with the hope of preventing a largely traditional BPP board from functioning.” The conspirators, according to Mehta, have “consistently and shamelessly rejected our offers of peace.”
Parsis being as individualistic and hot tempered as they are, it’s hard to imagine several groups working in tandem for or against any trust or institution. Many of the people who have filed cases probably do not even know one another. And as for the Parsi media, with a more sympathetic editor heading the Jam-e-Jamshed Weekly and The Bombay Samachar Parsi Tari Arsi column rhetoric toned down, the infamous WAPIZ (World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis) Page extolling the trustees’ actions and the BPP Review propagating their accomplishments the Parsi media can hardly serve as a convenient whipping boy for all the BPP’s imagined and real ills.
Anyway the Press does not possess the powers Mehta ascribes to it. People act and reporters write about their actions. Not the other way round. The case in the Bombay High Court pertaining to the ban on the two priests who allegedly performed “irreligious” ceremonies was not initiated by the Press or the conspirators. The trustees probably believed this was a suitable diversionary tactic from their inability to allot flats, leave aside build new ones, or for that matter do anything of substance.
The conspirators did not tell the lawyers to fight without charge, the petitioners’ case, banning the two priests. In nearly all the other cases the lawyers levy their fees. In this case the legal practioners felt strongly about the injustice done and saw the inherent dangers in the trustees’ action, even if one of the concerned priests did not. Tomorrow the trustees of a baug could tell those hiring the premises for a jashan or navjote or wedding “you cannot have such and such priest or high priest performing the ceremony on our premises.” Or worse still, they may state, “We don’t want to hire our premises to you because one of your relations was cremated or married a non-Parsi” or “You can only invite Parsi/Irani guests, no non-Parsis. And if you don’t like it go to court.” Hopefully the two petitioners may just do that and appeal against the judge’s decision or file a civil suit.
The BPP’s opponents did not tell Mehta and 40 others to go to Sanjan and assault a Russian Zoroastrian who wanted to be initiated as a navar so he could perform religious ceremonies in St Petersburg. No doubt the same compulsions that prompted the priestly ban — quick, favorable, low cost, publicity — motivated this act of vandalism.
The trustees therefore seem to be operating in a vacuum. Mehta’s expertise is in housing but all plans to build new homes appear to be on hold. Aside from managing the funds and properties there appears little else the seven can do. And who wants to sit around every week for hours talking about leaky roofs, wearisome tenants, errant workmen and legal fees? As it is some of the trustees attend the meetings only towards the end to mark themselves present. In another year or two, even less work will be executed as five of the seven will be too busy jockeying for the chairman’s position to worry about performance. Mehta will complete 21 years in office on June 2, 2015 and as per the scheme cannot serve further. Of the remaining six, the terms of five expire in October 2015. Armaity Tirandaz is the junior most, being elected in April 2009. The chairperson’s post normally goes by seniority.
So have the duly elected BPP trustees failed the electorate? Not really. The last two years have witnessed a vitality seldom seen in the community. As journalists we have our hands full trying to keep pace with the hectic developments in the courts, at public events, at meetings and congresses. The energy levels of a once dormant, somnambulant community have shot up. The activity may not be the type we want to see. But it is better than apathy and indifference.
Perhaps this is the gift of the New Year: A leadership stumbling in the dark but a community shedding light.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive