Editorial Viewpoint
Back to the basics
The violence that erupted at Rustom Baug on the third day of polling both shocked and stunned the community. It was not the first time that scuffles have broken out during an election though not on this scale. In 2001, community activist Rashid Khosravi had been assaulted allegedly by supporters of the then reelected Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trustee Dinshaw Mehta at Khareghat Colony (Mehta alleged Khosravi attacked first). The event took place in the evening after most of the crowd had left the venue as a result not many were aware of the episode. Aside from Parsiana, hardly any other media carried note of the incident.
But the events of Sunday, June 26, 2011 took place while voting was in progress in full view of around 300 spectators. Unlike in 2001, inexpensive telecommunication gadgetry spread the word across the globe instantaneously. Text messages and e-mails abounded, some depicting the event with a modicum of accuracy and others grossly exaggerating the episode.
One e-mail alleged, “Car loads of hoodlums…joined in the attack with wooden and iron rods…it was obvious that this was all pre-planned.” While a text message from former BPP trustee Noshir Dadrawala whose resignation resulted in the present election stated bitterly, “After observing today’s fracas at Rustom Baug, people may get a fair sense why I was such a misfit amongst these gutter class hooligans. As I have always said, I’m a fighter but not a street fighter! My exit has made all six come out in their true colors.”
In 1974 when police were called outside the Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Parsee Benevolent Institution (SJJPBT) building on Dr Dadabhai Naoroji Road which houses the BPP offices there was much consternation. Threats of a demonstration had been made against sitting trustee Shiavax Vakil, legal advisor to the House of Tatas and a leading criminal lawyer before, for his statement on the unhygienic conditions prevalent in the Bombay Towers of Silence. Vakil along with then BPP trustee Dr Aspi Golwalla had entered the dakhmas at Doongerwadi a few months prior for inspection; Vakil had made his views public while Golwalla remained silent. [Decades later Golwalla also decried the state of the Towers and joined a petition filed before the Bombay High Court (BHC) seeking the use of Doongerwadi bunglis for funerary rites of those opting for alternate means of disposal.]
Since then the law enforcement agency has made sporadic appearances at community meets. In the 1981 Anjuman Committee elections a voter was caught trying to impersonate another and carted off to the police station by volunteers, but no lawmen were present at the venue. With the advent of adult franchise in 2008, the presence of policemen and women became part and parcel of the electoral scene. But this is the first time they have had to physically intervene.
In the 2009 elections, during the polling at Bharucha Baug, Mehta got into a heated argument with supporters of the opposite candidate over the presence of cameramen on the premises who he threatened to physically evict. But matters were diffused before any force was resorted to.
In 2010 Mehta and a group of around 45 comprising his loyalists, members of the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zar-thoshtis (WAPIZ) and Jimmy Mistry’s Parsi Resource Group (PRG) allegedly stormed into Meher Master-Moos’ Zoroastrian College in Sanjan because a Russian Zoroastrian was being initiated into the priesthood. The local police again came into play. The matter is now before the BHC with the Russian and Master-Moos having filed a criminal writ petition against Mehta, his co-trustees and some of the alleged assailants.
Even in the renegade priests case Ervad Khushroo Madon related that on more than one occasion Mehta and at least one of the other trustees threatened to physically evict him from the Doongerwadi premises should he venture to perform religious ceremonies there.
Historically also violence is part and parcel of Parsi life. In 1832 to protest against the killing of stray dogs by the British administration some Parsis called a hartal to oppose the slaughter, using force to implement the strike. In 1873 when Parsis physically evicted squatters from the Doogerwadi lands, criminal charges were slapped against them. And let’s not forget the two Parsi-Muslim riots that took place around the 1800s.
So is violence as Parsi as papri and malido — a savory and sweet snack (to borrow from the former Black Panther leader and convicted murderer H. Rap Brown’s claim that “Violence is as American as cherry pie”)? Not really. In over 37 years of reporting on the community, incidents of violence are few and far between. Parsis are far more likely to go to court, wave placards, posture or write angry letters to the editors, than take up cudgels.
Nor can one blame the spurt in violence on the general environment. The Shiv Sena and its nemesis the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), both notorious for their bloodthirsty ways, have been lying low of late; no doubt the 100 or so criminal cases against the MNS leader may be responsible for cooling his ardor for mayhem. Fear of legal retribution is a great deterrent to criminality. In the past the state government not only turned a blind eye to politicians breaking the law but connived at it. Not so now thanks to a more involved citizenry.
So why then the outbreak of violence on the third polling day? As WAPIZ activist Tannaz Parakh mentioned, trouble was brewing from that morning. A bus load of voters from Gujarat accompanied by WAPIZ chairman Areez Khambatta were fed and reportedly given bundles of clothes at the polling site. This angered the Cama supporters who wanted to record the irregularity on film. According to some reports, one of the WAPIZ leaders struck the camera recording the event or the person holding the equipment. This resulted in a heated exchange between the two camps. So when the incident regarding the bodyguard occurred, tempers were already frayed.
There is no code of conduct for holding the elections and even if there was there is no mechanism to enforce or monitor compliance. The community relies on the supposed good sense of all concerned to keep things on an even keel. That did not occur. What then can prevent another such incident? Perhaps adherence to the community’s much vaunted but often neglected belief in good thoughts, good words and good deeds may help.
But the events of Sunday, June 26, 2011 took place while voting was in progress in full view of around 300 spectators. Unlike in 2001, inexpensive telecommunication gadgetry spread the word across the globe instantaneously. Text messages and e-mails abounded, some depicting the event with a modicum of accuracy and others grossly exaggerating the episode.
One e-mail alleged, “Car loads of hoodlums…joined in the attack with wooden and iron rods…it was obvious that this was all pre-planned.” While a text message from former BPP trustee Noshir Dadrawala whose resignation resulted in the present election stated bitterly, “After observing today’s fracas at Rustom Baug, people may get a fair sense why I was such a misfit amongst these gutter class hooligans. As I have always said, I’m a fighter but not a street fighter! My exit has made all six come out in their true colors.”
In 1974 when police were called outside the Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Parsee Benevolent Institution (SJJPBT) building on Dr Dadabhai Naoroji Road which houses the BPP offices there was much consternation. Threats of a demonstration had been made against sitting trustee Shiavax Vakil, legal advisor to the House of Tatas and a leading criminal lawyer before, for his statement on the unhygienic conditions prevalent in the Bombay Towers of Silence. Vakil along with then BPP trustee Dr Aspi Golwalla had entered the dakhmas at Doongerwadi a few months prior for inspection; Vakil had made his views public while Golwalla remained silent. [Decades later Golwalla also decried the state of the Towers and joined a petition filed before the Bombay High Court (BHC) seeking the use of Doongerwadi bunglis for funerary rites of those opting for alternate means of disposal.]
Since then the law enforcement agency has made sporadic appearances at community meets. In the 1981 Anjuman Committee elections a voter was caught trying to impersonate another and carted off to the police station by volunteers, but no lawmen were present at the venue. With the advent of adult franchise in 2008, the presence of policemen and women became part and parcel of the electoral scene. But this is the first time they have had to physically intervene.
In the 2009 elections, during the polling at Bharucha Baug, Mehta got into a heated argument with supporters of the opposite candidate over the presence of cameramen on the premises who he threatened to physically evict. But matters were diffused before any force was resorted to.
In 2010 Mehta and a group of around 45 comprising his loyalists, members of the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zar-thoshtis (WAPIZ) and Jimmy Mistry’s Parsi Resource Group (PRG) allegedly stormed into Meher Master-Moos’ Zoroastrian College in Sanjan because a Russian Zoroastrian was being initiated into the priesthood. The local police again came into play. The matter is now before the BHC with the Russian and Master-Moos having filed a criminal writ petition against Mehta, his co-trustees and some of the alleged assailants.
Even in the renegade priests case Ervad Khushroo Madon related that on more than one occasion Mehta and at least one of the other trustees threatened to physically evict him from the Doongerwadi premises should he venture to perform religious ceremonies there.
Historically also violence is part and parcel of Parsi life. In 1832 to protest against the killing of stray dogs by the British administration some Parsis called a hartal to oppose the slaughter, using force to implement the strike. In 1873 when Parsis physically evicted squatters from the Doogerwadi lands, criminal charges were slapped against them. And let’s not forget the two Parsi-Muslim riots that took place around the 1800s.
So is violence as Parsi as papri and malido — a savory and sweet snack (to borrow from the former Black Panther leader and convicted murderer H. Rap Brown’s claim that “Violence is as American as cherry pie”)? Not really. In over 37 years of reporting on the community, incidents of violence are few and far between. Parsis are far more likely to go to court, wave placards, posture or write angry letters to the editors, than take up cudgels.
Nor can one blame the spurt in violence on the general environment. The Shiv Sena and its nemesis the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), both notorious for their bloodthirsty ways, have been lying low of late; no doubt the 100 or so criminal cases against the MNS leader may be responsible for cooling his ardor for mayhem. Fear of legal retribution is a great deterrent to criminality. In the past the state government not only turned a blind eye to politicians breaking the law but connived at it. Not so now thanks to a more involved citizenry.
So why then the outbreak of violence on the third polling day? As WAPIZ activist Tannaz Parakh mentioned, trouble was brewing from that morning. A bus load of voters from Gujarat accompanied by WAPIZ chairman Areez Khambatta were fed and reportedly given bundles of clothes at the polling site. This angered the Cama supporters who wanted to record the irregularity on film. According to some reports, one of the WAPIZ leaders struck the camera recording the event or the person holding the equipment. This resulted in a heated exchange between the two camps. So when the incident regarding the bodyguard occurred, tempers were already frayed.
There is no code of conduct for holding the elections and even if there was there is no mechanism to enforce or monitor compliance. The community relies on the supposed good sense of all concerned to keep things on an even keel. That did not occur. What then can prevent another such incident? Perhaps adherence to the community’s much vaunted but often neglected belief in good thoughts, good words and good deeds may help.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive