Editorial Viewpoint
A community report
The proposed holding of an Anjuman meeting (probably at Rustom Baug) on November 12, 2011 by the trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) after a gap of two years is an indication that the board of seven feels the need to be accountable and transparent. Despite solemn electoral promises to communicate their deeds to the Parsi public, the trustees shunned the community following the first disastrous Anjuman meet on October 25, 2009 at the Dadar Parsee Colony Gymkhana grounds. On that occasion the trustees bungled in obtaining the requisite licenses to use loudspeakers, with a result that at least one trustee, Khojeste Mistree, had to speak without a microphone. Needless to say most of the time was spent attacking their perceived opponents who, according to them, had sabotaged their function.
The mike malfunction may have been a blessing in disguise because the trustees had little to brag about; their achievements were minor as their energies were directed in squabbling with their opponents including one of their own, Noshir Dadrawala. They denied him access to trust records, files, accounts and minutes. The trustees had also barred two priests from performing religious ceremonies at Doongerwadi and two agiaries controlled by the BPP. The ban was challenged legally resulting in the apex trust having spent close to two crore rupees in legal fees so far.
The trustees had of course faced the electorate mid-2011 when a keenly contested election was fought to fill the vacancy caused by Dadrawala’s resignation. But here the rhetoric dished out at the various podiums shed more heat than light on the BPP’s workings. One group was led by BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta and the other by the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) trustees on the BPP board, Mistree and Yazdi Desai. The WAPIZ trustees shot themselves in the foot by supporting the candidature of Desai’s wife, Anahita, giving ample scope for the opposition to raise the bogey of the BPP becoming a family affair, a gher no ghambar (a feast for the family).
The newly elected trustee Muncherji (“Munchi” as he is popularly referred to) Cama promised transparency and accountability. In an interview with Parsiana he had stated that if the BPP did not hold an annual Anjuman meeting as it was morally bound to do, he would hold his own meeting to give an account of his doings. Whether it was that pledge or the fact that Mehta feels increasingly isolated, or that his co-trustees have something to say, is not known. In the dark, Byzantine labyrinth of the BPP, little is disclosed unless by accident or compulsion.
BPP trustee Jimmy Mistry, Mistree and Desai have formed a clique and are overtly trying to win Cama over to their side. That would give them a four to three majority on the board. BPP trustee Arnavaz Mistry is in Mehta’s camp but there are rumors of the trio dangling the possibility of a future chairmanship if she votes their way. BPP trustee Armaity Tirandaz says she is neutral and there are even rumors (and nothing more) that she may one day resign to make way for builder Zarir Bhathena to stand. Bhathena is at loggerheads with Mistree and Desai and had got into a squabble with Jimmy Mistry over some allegations of impropriety; the dispute resulted in the shameful fracas that marred the June 26, 2011 polling at Rustom Baug.
While the rumors concerning Arnavaz Mistry and Tirandaz may be no more than loose talk, the November 12 meet would be a good time for all the trustees to state where they stand vis-à-vis each other, the BPP and the community. At the 2009 gathering only Mehta, Mistree and Jimmy Mistry were supposed to speak. At that time Mehta and Mistree were allies and dominated the BPP board. Their word was law (except for Dadrawala who as a consequence was treated as persona non grata). Now at the anjuman meet there is no reason why each and every trustee should not give an account of his or her activities, attendance (with timings), achievements and failings. Questions can be submitted beforehand and answered at the meeting by the trustee concerned.
The detailed accounts of the BPP since 2008 should be displayed on its website and printed copies made available at a nominal price from the BPP office. Carrying a brief summary in the BPP Review may not serve the larger interest. For example, many want to know how much the BPP spends on litigation. But that figure may be clubbed under some general expense heading. How large is the BPP’s corpus and how much consists of deposits received from the transfer of flats?
The BPP could take a leaf from the Surat Parsi Panchayat (SPP) which every year without fail sends Parsiana a one-and-a-half to two-inch thick sheaf of papers containing their accounts without our even asking for it. And the SPP trustees are not even elected; they are nominated. If everything is above board why should the BPP refrain from making their accounts public? The BPP must be preparing an annual budget. Why is the budget not made public, discussed and finalized? Is the public not entitled to know how their monies, entrusted to the BPP for safekeeping, are being utilized? Do not democratically elected governments the world over announce their budgets, expenditures, revenues and deficits? And is not everyone, however high or low, tax payers or not, entitled to this information?
Why are board decisions kept hidden under a cloak of secrecy? Why is no democratic right given to the community aside from the right to vote? Why do the trustees seek votes from the Parsi populace and, after getting elected, become a closed shop?
The decision to hold an Anjuman meeting, however overdue, is to be applauded. So also the appointment of high priests and lay people on the Doongerwadi Advisory Committee, once the preserve of the trustees, though in fact only of one trustee.
The notion of charity being decided by a handful in isolation is no longer in vogue. If the trustees truly want to serve the public, they have to share power and responsibility with all the stakeholders — from the rich to the poor, from the homeless to the housed, from the disabled and the able bodied, from those who marry within and without the fold and those who opt to be cremated or consigned to the Towers of Silence.
Then only will the trust’s true potential to optimally serve the community be achieved.
The mike malfunction may have been a blessing in disguise because the trustees had little to brag about; their achievements were minor as their energies were directed in squabbling with their opponents including one of their own, Noshir Dadrawala. They denied him access to trust records, files, accounts and minutes. The trustees had also barred two priests from performing religious ceremonies at Doongerwadi and two agiaries controlled by the BPP. The ban was challenged legally resulting in the apex trust having spent close to two crore rupees in legal fees so far.
The trustees had of course faced the electorate mid-2011 when a keenly contested election was fought to fill the vacancy caused by Dadrawala’s resignation. But here the rhetoric dished out at the various podiums shed more heat than light on the BPP’s workings. One group was led by BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta and the other by the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) trustees on the BPP board, Mistree and Yazdi Desai. The WAPIZ trustees shot themselves in the foot by supporting the candidature of Desai’s wife, Anahita, giving ample scope for the opposition to raise the bogey of the BPP becoming a family affair, a gher no ghambar (a feast for the family).
The newly elected trustee Muncherji (“Munchi” as he is popularly referred to) Cama promised transparency and accountability. In an interview with Parsiana he had stated that if the BPP did not hold an annual Anjuman meeting as it was morally bound to do, he would hold his own meeting to give an account of his doings. Whether it was that pledge or the fact that Mehta feels increasingly isolated, or that his co-trustees have something to say, is not known. In the dark, Byzantine labyrinth of the BPP, little is disclosed unless by accident or compulsion.
BPP trustee Jimmy Mistry, Mistree and Desai have formed a clique and are overtly trying to win Cama over to their side. That would give them a four to three majority on the board. BPP trustee Arnavaz Mistry is in Mehta’s camp but there are rumors of the trio dangling the possibility of a future chairmanship if she votes their way. BPP trustee Armaity Tirandaz says she is neutral and there are even rumors (and nothing more) that she may one day resign to make way for builder Zarir Bhathena to stand. Bhathena is at loggerheads with Mistree and Desai and had got into a squabble with Jimmy Mistry over some allegations of impropriety; the dispute resulted in the shameful fracas that marred the June 26, 2011 polling at Rustom Baug.
While the rumors concerning Arnavaz Mistry and Tirandaz may be no more than loose talk, the November 12 meet would be a good time for all the trustees to state where they stand vis-à-vis each other, the BPP and the community. At the 2009 gathering only Mehta, Mistree and Jimmy Mistry were supposed to speak. At that time Mehta and Mistree were allies and dominated the BPP board. Their word was law (except for Dadrawala who as a consequence was treated as persona non grata). Now at the anjuman meet there is no reason why each and every trustee should not give an account of his or her activities, attendance (with timings), achievements and failings. Questions can be submitted beforehand and answered at the meeting by the trustee concerned.
The detailed accounts of the BPP since 2008 should be displayed on its website and printed copies made available at a nominal price from the BPP office. Carrying a brief summary in the BPP Review may not serve the larger interest. For example, many want to know how much the BPP spends on litigation. But that figure may be clubbed under some general expense heading. How large is the BPP’s corpus and how much consists of deposits received from the transfer of flats?
The BPP could take a leaf from the Surat Parsi Panchayat (SPP) which every year without fail sends Parsiana a one-and-a-half to two-inch thick sheaf of papers containing their accounts without our even asking for it. And the SPP trustees are not even elected; they are nominated. If everything is above board why should the BPP refrain from making their accounts public? The BPP must be preparing an annual budget. Why is the budget not made public, discussed and finalized? Is the public not entitled to know how their monies, entrusted to the BPP for safekeeping, are being utilized? Do not democratically elected governments the world over announce their budgets, expenditures, revenues and deficits? And is not everyone, however high or low, tax payers or not, entitled to this information?
Why are board decisions kept hidden under a cloak of secrecy? Why is no democratic right given to the community aside from the right to vote? Why do the trustees seek votes from the Parsi populace and, after getting elected, become a closed shop?
The decision to hold an Anjuman meeting, however overdue, is to be applauded. So also the appointment of high priests and lay people on the Doongerwadi Advisory Committee, once the preserve of the trustees, though in fact only of one trustee.
The notion of charity being decided by a handful in isolation is no longer in vogue. If the trustees truly want to serve the public, they have to share power and responsibility with all the stakeholders — from the rich to the poor, from the homeless to the housed, from the disabled and the able bodied, from those who marry within and without the fold and those who opt to be cremated or consigned to the Towers of Silence.
Then only will the trust’s true potential to optimally serve the community be achieved.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive