Editorial Viewpoint
Building bridges?
For those who thought the month of May was hot, expect the community mercury to soar further in June. Peace talks between the trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) and the Alert Zoroastrians Association (AZA) have ended without any agreement being reached.
A four-man committee consisting of BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta, AZA leader Kersi Randeria, lawyer and The Bombay Samachar columnist Berjis Desai and builder Zarir Bhathena had hammered out a compromise formula whereby all litigation initiated by AZA would be withdrawn, flats would be allotted to those amongst the 104 agreed upon and a “gentlemen’s agreement” that the AZA would not initiate litigation on the ownership building being built by the BPP at Godrej Baug or pursue alleged irregularities in the Shanazeen ownership building at Khareghat Colony.
In the May 2010 issue of The BPP Review Mehta had stated in his chairman’s message titled “Towards a more professional, benevolent BPP” that “the trustees are working towards some consensual agreement with AZA… so that harmony can reign within the community.”
But when Randeria and four other signatories to the various cases marched into BPP trustee Jimmy Mistry’s office at 11 p.m. in mid-May to meet the trustees they were in for a shock. Aside from trustees Mehta, Khojeste Mistree, Yazdi Desai and Armaity Tirandaz, Mehta’s son Viraf was present as were Mistree’s daughter Tashan, Tirandaz’s son Darius, Desai’s wife Anahita and community activist and the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis supporter Tannaz Parakh. Mistry apologized for forgetting to invite BPP trustee and odd man out Noshir Dadrawala and there was no mention as to why BPP trustee Arnavaz Mistry was not present.
When a baffled Randeria questioned who all the people present were he was reportedly told by Parakh, “future trustees.”
As the discussions ensued Parakh reportedly inquired as to what “safeguards” there were in the agreement. A nonplussed Randeria then realized that Mehta had not succeeded in carrying the board with him. A subsequent meeting on May 23, over a week later where all seven trustees met again at Mistry’s office minus their family members and friends and only Randeria was present from the AZA, failed to resolve the impasse.
This episode offers insights into the functioning of the BPP board and the intrigues that bedevil it. What role did the family members and friend have to play in a matter between elected representatives and their opponents? Why should they have a say in contentious matters? And are not the trustees capable of deciding issues on their own?
It’s one thing to return home and tell your spouse, children and other family members of the day’s events and to seek their opinions. Access to differing perspectives, opposing points of view, are crucial to forming policies. Family members and friends can help in election campaigns, raising funds, addressing gatherings, planning strategy, organizing logistics. But once the election is over, they have to either withdraw or be given some official position in the public organization.
Even that would not legitimize their involvement in matters elected officials should be deciding. An Indian Administrative Services officer cannot take part in parliamentary or assembly debates. Nor can the governor of a state. They may be called for reasons of protocol or to answer any specific queries. Similarly, the Press can report on proceedings but not participate in them.
Granted the meet was not on the BPP premises and presumably no minutes were officially recorded. But why hold a meeting at 11 p.m. when people would presumably be fatigued after a full day at work or play? And why are certain trustees not called and lay people who have no locus standi present?
In the same issue Mehta writes that “the BPP requires to be run professionally and on sound management principles and not like an ageing Parsi trust.” Then why is it being run like a family concern?
The ancient Greeks, when they had to deliberate on important matters, would hold one formal meeting and later another where alcohol was served and consumed in substantial quantities. They would then meet a third time, sober, and take a final decision. The belief was that with alcohol their inhibitions were fewer and they may more honestly express their beliefs. (Had the Greeks still followed this policy they may have averted their present financial insolvency.)
But sober or drunk, the present trustees’ erratic behavior makes one wonder what is transpiring in the 209 Dadabhai Naoroji Road boardroom. Instead of minding the shop they are rushing off to Sanjan to scuttle a navar initiation of a Russian Zoroastrian or scurrying off to meet the state’s home minister and police officials to thwart the performance of navjotes of children born to a Parsi mother and Christian father.
It is possible that with nearly all their housing plans on hold or in jeopardy, the trustees really don’t have much to do. Aside from sprucing up a bungli at Doongerwadi or giving a fresh coat of paint to a boys’ hostel or shortlisting applicants for ownership flats built years ago but never occupied to flexing their muscle to block another group from holding a function at a baug and then hosting the event themselves, they appear at a loose end. Even The BPP Review reflects this state of inactivity. The list of accomplishments published showcases ongoing programs started prior to the new board assuming office: housing, Doongerwadi, youth development, third child scheme, doles (they still refer to assistance by that term), Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India meetings, Gamadia Hostel developments, etc. The new items include the Sanjan incident, the Maloo-D’Souza navjotes and the court victory in the “renegade” priests case — none of the issues the BPP should have been involved in in the first place. (The priests case is now set to be challenged before a divisional bench of the Bombay High Court. In the earlier tussle the BPP spent Rs 24,00,000 or around US $ 50,000 fighting the petitioners. The judge refused to take a decision so the trustees won by default. Now once again hefty legal bills will be presented. And expect more litigation with an AZA contempt case against the BPP pending before the Charity Commissioner’s (CC) office, Dadrawala’s case before the CC asserting his right to information on BPP matters, an audit to be undertaken by the CC for the last 10 years of the BPP accounts, a legal challenge on the Godrej Baug ownership building and so on.) Why then are meetings scheduled at 11 p.m. or weekly boardroom meetings extended to four and five hours? Is it for BPP work or the legal battles the trust is embroiled in?
In his May message Mehta stated, “I firmly believe that if our community has to progress and prosper we must put aside our differences and build bridges to a prosperous future.” Then why burn bridges and quarrel with all and sundry?
A four-man committee consisting of BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta, AZA leader Kersi Randeria, lawyer and The Bombay Samachar columnist Berjis Desai and builder Zarir Bhathena had hammered out a compromise formula whereby all litigation initiated by AZA would be withdrawn, flats would be allotted to those amongst the 104 agreed upon and a “gentlemen’s agreement” that the AZA would not initiate litigation on the ownership building being built by the BPP at Godrej Baug or pursue alleged irregularities in the Shanazeen ownership building at Khareghat Colony.
In the May 2010 issue of The BPP Review Mehta had stated in his chairman’s message titled “Towards a more professional, benevolent BPP” that “the trustees are working towards some consensual agreement with AZA… so that harmony can reign within the community.”
But when Randeria and four other signatories to the various cases marched into BPP trustee Jimmy Mistry’s office at 11 p.m. in mid-May to meet the trustees they were in for a shock. Aside from trustees Mehta, Khojeste Mistree, Yazdi Desai and Armaity Tirandaz, Mehta’s son Viraf was present as were Mistree’s daughter Tashan, Tirandaz’s son Darius, Desai’s wife Anahita and community activist and the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis supporter Tannaz Parakh. Mistry apologized for forgetting to invite BPP trustee and odd man out Noshir Dadrawala and there was no mention as to why BPP trustee Arnavaz Mistry was not present.
When a baffled Randeria questioned who all the people present were he was reportedly told by Parakh, “future trustees.”
As the discussions ensued Parakh reportedly inquired as to what “safeguards” there were in the agreement. A nonplussed Randeria then realized that Mehta had not succeeded in carrying the board with him. A subsequent meeting on May 23, over a week later where all seven trustees met again at Mistry’s office minus their family members and friends and only Randeria was present from the AZA, failed to resolve the impasse.
This episode offers insights into the functioning of the BPP board and the intrigues that bedevil it. What role did the family members and friend have to play in a matter between elected representatives and their opponents? Why should they have a say in contentious matters? And are not the trustees capable of deciding issues on their own?
It’s one thing to return home and tell your spouse, children and other family members of the day’s events and to seek their opinions. Access to differing perspectives, opposing points of view, are crucial to forming policies. Family members and friends can help in election campaigns, raising funds, addressing gatherings, planning strategy, organizing logistics. But once the election is over, they have to either withdraw or be given some official position in the public organization.
Even that would not legitimize their involvement in matters elected officials should be deciding. An Indian Administrative Services officer cannot take part in parliamentary or assembly debates. Nor can the governor of a state. They may be called for reasons of protocol or to answer any specific queries. Similarly, the Press can report on proceedings but not participate in them.
Granted the meet was not on the BPP premises and presumably no minutes were officially recorded. But why hold a meeting at 11 p.m. when people would presumably be fatigued after a full day at work or play? And why are certain trustees not called and lay people who have no locus standi present?
In the same issue Mehta writes that “the BPP requires to be run professionally and on sound management principles and not like an ageing Parsi trust.” Then why is it being run like a family concern?
The ancient Greeks, when they had to deliberate on important matters, would hold one formal meeting and later another where alcohol was served and consumed in substantial quantities. They would then meet a third time, sober, and take a final decision. The belief was that with alcohol their inhibitions were fewer and they may more honestly express their beliefs. (Had the Greeks still followed this policy they may have averted their present financial insolvency.)
But sober or drunk, the present trustees’ erratic behavior makes one wonder what is transpiring in the 209 Dadabhai Naoroji Road boardroom. Instead of minding the shop they are rushing off to Sanjan to scuttle a navar initiation of a Russian Zoroastrian or scurrying off to meet the state’s home minister and police officials to thwart the performance of navjotes of children born to a Parsi mother and Christian father.
It is possible that with nearly all their housing plans on hold or in jeopardy, the trustees really don’t have much to do. Aside from sprucing up a bungli at Doongerwadi or giving a fresh coat of paint to a boys’ hostel or shortlisting applicants for ownership flats built years ago but never occupied to flexing their muscle to block another group from holding a function at a baug and then hosting the event themselves, they appear at a loose end. Even The BPP Review reflects this state of inactivity. The list of accomplishments published showcases ongoing programs started prior to the new board assuming office: housing, Doongerwadi, youth development, third child scheme, doles (they still refer to assistance by that term), Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India meetings, Gamadia Hostel developments, etc. The new items include the Sanjan incident, the Maloo-D’Souza navjotes and the court victory in the “renegade” priests case — none of the issues the BPP should have been involved in in the first place. (The priests case is now set to be challenged before a divisional bench of the Bombay High Court. In the earlier tussle the BPP spent Rs 24,00,000 or around US $ 50,000 fighting the petitioners. The judge refused to take a decision so the trustees won by default. Now once again hefty legal bills will be presented. And expect more litigation with an AZA contempt case against the BPP pending before the Charity Commissioner’s (CC) office, Dadrawala’s case before the CC asserting his right to information on BPP matters, an audit to be undertaken by the CC for the last 10 years of the BPP accounts, a legal challenge on the Godrej Baug ownership building and so on.) Why then are meetings scheduled at 11 p.m. or weekly boardroom meetings extended to four and five hours? Is it for BPP work or the legal battles the trust is embroiled in?
In his May message Mehta stated, “I firmly believe that if our community has to progress and prosper we must put aside our differences and build bridges to a prosperous future.” Then why burn bridges and quarrel with all and sundry?
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive