Editorial Viewpoint
A new beginning
The community can heave a collective sigh of relief. The World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis’ (WAPIZ) grand design of gaining control of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) has been ably thwarted. Contrary to popular belief it was not only the liberals and moderates who campaigned long and hard for the opposition candidate Muncherji Cama but also the diehard orthodox. When the victory garlands were being placed on Cama’s major supporters, Tehmtan and Godarfrid Aresh were amongst those whose names were called out and felicitated on the steps of the Khareghat Colony hall on July 4, 2011. The Areshs are the founders of the Traditional Mazdayasni Zoroastrian Association in California, USA. Even Pervin Mistry of Ontario, Canada, who was instrumental in the formation of the Council of High Priests and is a staunch conservative, threw her support behind Cama.
The onslaught was so virulent that a bewildered WAPIZ and BPP trustee Khojeste Mistree plaintively inquired at one of the electoral meets for Anahita Desai at which Parsiana was present, “Aapré soo keedhuch (what have we done)?” to earn such calumny and be likened to the Taliban? he asked. “Who have we thrown out of their (BPP) flats?” He pointed out that the Taliban kill their opponents, not so WAPIZ.
WAPIZ trustee and former BPP trustee Homi Ranina blamed The Bombay Samachar and Parsiana for besmirching WAPIZ’s fair name. Following in the footsteps of her husband Yazdi, also a BPP and WAPIZ trustee, and Mistree, Anahita refused to part with any campaign material to Parsiana and after the elections politely turned down a request for an interview saying she did not approve of Parsiana’s coverage of WAPIZ. Both Mistree and Yazdi had similarly rejected Parsiana’s request for interviews after their electoral victories.
But the perceived hostility of the liberal Press would not in itself explain a defeat by 1,624 votes out of a total of 8,346 voters. In the 2008 elections, with both The Bombay Samachar and Jam-e-Jamshed rooting for the Adult Franchise for Progress (AFP) slate of seven candidates (one of whom was Cama), only Noshir Dadrawala emerged successful. This time Jamé remained neutral. Editorial coverage of the electioneering process was at a minimal but the weekly was flooded with advertising from both factions.
So why did Cama win so overwhelmingly in 2011 when less than three years earlier the electorate had rejected his candidature? One factor could be his late entry to the fray in 2008 and the AFP being perceived as pro-liberal. By contrast this time his campaign was launched over a week before Anahita’s with emphasis on his orthodox leanings. Cama had the support of not only his erstwhile AFP backers, namely Kersi Randeria and Berjis Desai (though the latter played little role in the campaigning, being considered a liability because of his liberal stance in his “Parsi Tari Arsi” Sunday column in The Samachar; the newspaper is owned by Cama and his family), but also the well oiled and extremely efficient campaign machinery of both BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta and trustee Arnavaz Mistry.
In actuality it was Mehta’s sons Viraf, Hormuz and Darayus, and Mistry’s daughter Yasmin, who ran the campaign along with Randeria. Added to that was the might of property developer Zarir Bhathena with whom WAPIZ has had a long-standing feud over the development of the Wadia Agiary compound in Lalbaug and Dastur Khurshed Dastoor of Udwada who WAPIZ is feuding with. Of course local satraps such as the formidable Mithoo Jesia in Dadar ensured that voters, apathetic, incapacitated or otherwise were relayed to the voting booths.
WAPIZ in contrast had the considerable backing of BPP trustee Jimmy Mistry’s Parsi Resource Group (PRG) volunteers in addition to their own ardent and dedicated supporters headed by the redoubtable Tannaz Parakh. But in terms of personnel power and money, the advantage was with Cama. This was also the case in 2008. At that time the AFP appeared like a formidable juggernaut; Dinshaw, Arnavaz, Jimmy and WAPIZ had campaigned separately (though at the end Mehta, believing he was being isolated, teamed up with WAPIZ).
One reason the independents won in 2008 is because they were known to the general Parsi population, many of them being grass root workers. They were also more persuasive speakers. The AFP team, on the other hand, appeared more elite and distant from the common person.
This time Cama proved an effective public speaker, winning the crowd over with his gentle humor and narration of community service. Anahita also proved to be an able public speaker as were those who shared the stage with her. But her campaign hit a new low when they taunted Cama on account of his girth, likening him to a “big fat potato.” That Cama turned the derision to his advantage, pointing out how perceptive homemakers preferred succulent potatoes to shrunken ones, does not detract from the crassness of the attack; mocking someone on account of their physical disabilities or appearance is unacceptable political behavior.
With both candidates seemingly well matched (though Cama is more seasoned and experienced in matters of trusts, finance and legalities) why did Anahita lose? After all there is considerable indifference and ignorance amongst Parsis; many had not bothered to register to vote, others were unsure where their certificates were stored (the BPP follows one of the most archaic systems for registering and voting) and many asked, “Who’s standing? Who should I vote for?”
Anahita lost because the community did not want a one-party BPP, more so a family affair. In their collective wisdom they realized the inherent dangers of handing over the Punchayet to a formalized group with an orthodox agenda. Most Parsis steer to the middle-of-the-road. They don’t want elected leaders who are at the extremes of orthodoxy or liberalism.
In Cama they found a candidate who reached out to them with his candor and integrity. He said he was no one’s pawn and the next seven years will reveal the veracity of his statement. With no axe to grind, a sharp intellect and fearlessness, he may be just what the BPP requires to lift the beleaguered trust out of its present morass.
The onslaught was so virulent that a bewildered WAPIZ and BPP trustee Khojeste Mistree plaintively inquired at one of the electoral meets for Anahita Desai at which Parsiana was present, “Aapré soo keedhuch (what have we done)?” to earn such calumny and be likened to the Taliban? he asked. “Who have we thrown out of their (BPP) flats?” He pointed out that the Taliban kill their opponents, not so WAPIZ.
WAPIZ trustee and former BPP trustee Homi Ranina blamed The Bombay Samachar and Parsiana for besmirching WAPIZ’s fair name. Following in the footsteps of her husband Yazdi, also a BPP and WAPIZ trustee, and Mistree, Anahita refused to part with any campaign material to Parsiana and after the elections politely turned down a request for an interview saying she did not approve of Parsiana’s coverage of WAPIZ. Both Mistree and Yazdi had similarly rejected Parsiana’s request for interviews after their electoral victories.
But the perceived hostility of the liberal Press would not in itself explain a defeat by 1,624 votes out of a total of 8,346 voters. In the 2008 elections, with both The Bombay Samachar and Jam-e-Jamshed rooting for the Adult Franchise for Progress (AFP) slate of seven candidates (one of whom was Cama), only Noshir Dadrawala emerged successful. This time Jamé remained neutral. Editorial coverage of the electioneering process was at a minimal but the weekly was flooded with advertising from both factions.
So why did Cama win so overwhelmingly in 2011 when less than three years earlier the electorate had rejected his candidature? One factor could be his late entry to the fray in 2008 and the AFP being perceived as pro-liberal. By contrast this time his campaign was launched over a week before Anahita’s with emphasis on his orthodox leanings. Cama had the support of not only his erstwhile AFP backers, namely Kersi Randeria and Berjis Desai (though the latter played little role in the campaigning, being considered a liability because of his liberal stance in his “Parsi Tari Arsi” Sunday column in The Samachar; the newspaper is owned by Cama and his family), but also the well oiled and extremely efficient campaign machinery of both BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta and trustee Arnavaz Mistry.
In actuality it was Mehta’s sons Viraf, Hormuz and Darayus, and Mistry’s daughter Yasmin, who ran the campaign along with Randeria. Added to that was the might of property developer Zarir Bhathena with whom WAPIZ has had a long-standing feud over the development of the Wadia Agiary compound in Lalbaug and Dastur Khurshed Dastoor of Udwada who WAPIZ is feuding with. Of course local satraps such as the formidable Mithoo Jesia in Dadar ensured that voters, apathetic, incapacitated or otherwise were relayed to the voting booths.
WAPIZ in contrast had the considerable backing of BPP trustee Jimmy Mistry’s Parsi Resource Group (PRG) volunteers in addition to their own ardent and dedicated supporters headed by the redoubtable Tannaz Parakh. But in terms of personnel power and money, the advantage was with Cama. This was also the case in 2008. At that time the AFP appeared like a formidable juggernaut; Dinshaw, Arnavaz, Jimmy and WAPIZ had campaigned separately (though at the end Mehta, believing he was being isolated, teamed up with WAPIZ).
One reason the independents won in 2008 is because they were known to the general Parsi population, many of them being grass root workers. They were also more persuasive speakers. The AFP team, on the other hand, appeared more elite and distant from the common person.
This time Cama proved an effective public speaker, winning the crowd over with his gentle humor and narration of community service. Anahita also proved to be an able public speaker as were those who shared the stage with her. But her campaign hit a new low when they taunted Cama on account of his girth, likening him to a “big fat potato.” That Cama turned the derision to his advantage, pointing out how perceptive homemakers preferred succulent potatoes to shrunken ones, does not detract from the crassness of the attack; mocking someone on account of their physical disabilities or appearance is unacceptable political behavior.
With both candidates seemingly well matched (though Cama is more seasoned and experienced in matters of trusts, finance and legalities) why did Anahita lose? After all there is considerable indifference and ignorance amongst Parsis; many had not bothered to register to vote, others were unsure where their certificates were stored (the BPP follows one of the most archaic systems for registering and voting) and many asked, “Who’s standing? Who should I vote for?”
Anahita lost because the community did not want a one-party BPP, more so a family affair. In their collective wisdom they realized the inherent dangers of handing over the Punchayet to a formalized group with an orthodox agenda. Most Parsis steer to the middle-of-the-road. They don’t want elected leaders who are at the extremes of orthodoxy or liberalism.
In Cama they found a candidate who reached out to them with his candor and integrity. He said he was no one’s pawn and the next seven years will reveal the veracity of his statement. With no axe to grind, a sharp intellect and fearlessness, he may be just what the BPP requires to lift the beleaguered trust out of its present morass.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive