BPP election drama

When I stepped down as trustee of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) on March 31, 2011, I thought that all my six erstwhile colleague trustees would bring in a consensus candidate and, as in fairy tales, all of them would live happily ever after!

Frankly, I am a bit surprised seeing chairman Dinshaw Mehta supporting a former Adult Franchise for Progress (AFP) candidate, though, I am not so surprised seeing other members of the current board rooting for the spouse of a sitting trustee. After all, logically, if the widow of a deceased trustee could ride on a sympathy wave and win, then why not the spouse of a sitting trustee?

Many have asked me for my views regarding Anahita Desai’s candidature. Is it legally proper? As beneficiaries of the trust, can even Yazdi Desai be a trustee? Would the trust stand to lose its tax exemption?

Well, legally there is no problem at all. The test for a public charitable trust is not who governs it, but who the beneficiaries are. In other words, even if a public charitable trust is governed only by family members it does not become a private trust so long as the beneficiaries are members of the public.

Also, there is no general law that a person who has acquired tenancy rights in a trust property at a time when he/she was not a trustee cannot become a trustee subsequently. So far as trustees are concerned their interests should not conflict with their duty. However, merely because a person happens to be a tenant before he/she becomes a trustee, by itself does not mean that he/she has any interests which conflict with his/her duties when he/she becomes a trustee. And, in case a conflict arises, the trustee/s having a conflict of interest in the matter can always abstain from voting.

However, having said that and giving a clean chit from a legal point of view, the question arises: Is this good governance? And, my answer to that is a definite NO.

Legally, a public charitable trust can have an "all family” board and yet retain its public status, as long as the beneficiaries are members of the public. However, the point is, the BPP is more than just a public charitable trust. Traditionally, and over the centuries, it is perceived as the apex body of the community — the very voice of the community. If the government of India decides to seek the community’s opinion on say an issue concerning the minorities, it would not approach a Tata, Wadia or a Godrej Foundation — it would approach the BPP. And, indeed, over the years, the trustees have been viewed as akabars or leaders — the very conscience-keepers of the community and not merely custodians of the vast funds, assets and properties vested in them. Viewed from this perspective, it would not be proper for the wife of a sitting trustee to be on the board.

As it is, the BPP lacks credibility in the eyes the community. What sort of a signal will we be sending out by packing the board with family members? First we made housing (ostensibly for the poor or deserving) into a business enterprise. Now we are attempting to take BPP to yet another level by making it into a family enterprise.

At the moment there are two WAPIZ (World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis) trustees on the BPP board. Should another WAPIZ trustee come on the board, there would be three which is the quorum required for a BPP board meeting. Therefore, the claim that on the board of seven, WAPIZ would still be in minority is misleading.

There is no doubting the fact that Anahita Desai is an energetic activist and a committed social worker. But, is there any dearth of social workers on the current board? What is it that she hopes or aspires to achieve as trustee that she is unable to do right now as CEO of WAPIZ and wife of a sitting trustee?

On the other hand, Muncherji Cama is a man of vast and varied experience in matters concerning trust management. He has the financial acumen of a businessman combined with a heart that genuinely cares for the needy and deserving. I must have recommended scores of deserving students and patients requiring medical assistance to him and he has never been known to turn down any genuine request.

About two years ago a middle class Parsi lady residing in Poona required a whopping sum of Rs 13 lakhs for chemotherapy. On applying to various Parsi trusts, sums started coming in but, only in a few thousands. Even the BPP sanctioned just Rs 15,000. The lady and her husband were devastated. Finally, I decided to speak to Cama about the case. Even before the lady’s written application could reach him, Cama had arranged for the funds to be sent to the hospital. That’s the promptness and effectiveness with which Cama works.

He is well qualified, dignified and a true Parsi Zoroastrian to the core. He is orthodox in his leanings but not a fanatic. He is an independent thinker and a man of total integrity.

Parsis love to think that we are an enlightened community. This election will truly be a test of our so-called "enlightened” status. It’s time to put on our thinking caps. It’s time to set aside false sentiments and think objectively and rationally.

Doubtlessly, to my mind, Cama is the right choice for trusteeship, for in him one can find all three — the discretion of an independent mind, the wisdom of a seasoned trustee who has served on several boards and above all else a man of integrity and stature having the highest good of the common man at heart.

NOSHIR H. DADRAWALA

noshir@capindia.in

It is heartening to see Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) chairman Dinshaw Mehta extending support to Muncherji Cama, the original candidate of Adult Franchise for Progress who unfortunately lost the 2008 BPP trusteeship election. There is no doubt about Cama’s ability, knowledge and sincerity. He deserves to be a BPP trustee and is assured of my vote. It will be a great misfortune for the community if he loses and I pray that the community displays the maturity to reject family domination in a public charity trust.

If the voters once again fall for the WAPIZ (World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis) war cry of "religion in danger” they will drive the last nail into the coffin of the BPP. Tall promises made by them are only intended to fool the masses. For example, they had promised in their manifesto that they will declare their assets if elected but have failed to keep it till today. It appears that they have more unaccounted for assets than accounted for ones. Rumors abound about two trustees being heavily leveraged and unable to repay their dues.

If the community foolishly decides to vote for Anahita Desai then in future Khojeste Mistree’s wife, Armaity Tirandaz’s son and Jimmy Mistry’s wife will offer their candidatures, converting a public charity trust into a limited liability partnership. Do we, as an enlightened community, want family rule in the guise of fake democracy? Yes, I would support Anahita Desai if she were to contest in place of her husband who has not been able to attend most board meetings, but not a husband and wife combination. The community is not so short of competent and dedicated workers.

HOMI DALAL

homeedalal@gmail.com