Editorial Viewpoint
Reining in WAPIZ
During the heated debates that took place at the executive council and annual general meeting of the Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI) on February 11 and 12, 2012, a few delegates referred to the “wisdom” of the founders of the 41-year-old all-India body in drafting the governing rules and regulations.
While no one can deny the bona fides of the framers, there is little doubt they failed to foresee the level of malfeasance, skullduggery and horse trading that their successors would indulge in. The contentious FPZAI clause availed of by the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) and others permit anjumans to “authorize from time to time any one or more persons, being preferably members of such anjuman, as it thinks fit” to attend the meets. Thus any Parsi or Irani Zoroastrian even though he or she is not, nor has ever been a resident of the place, nor holds any elected office, can come and play havoc at the meet. The intention of the founding fathers was that financially disadvantaged anjumans who could not afford to pay for their representative’s travel and boarding, could appoint someone else to speak on their behalf. The clause that was meant to assist the all-India community is now abused by a handful of powerful, wealthy individuals to further their own goals. As the Satara representative Jamsheed Kanga opined at the meet, values were being subverted “for the sake of a rich man who can buy over any anjuman or punchayet.”
His sentiments were echoed by Federation president and BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta who reiterated, “WAPIZ has done enough damage… (created) complete disunity in the community.”
By masquerading Bombay based WAPIZ loyalists as representatives of various minuscule anjumans, WAPIZ has done a great disservice not only to the FPZAI but also the associations they feign to represent. Perhaps this was exemplified in the case of Khergam where a livid Pervez Khergamwalla tore into defunct anjumans subcommittee coordinator Sohrab Katpitia for alleging that Parsi property there was being taken advantage of by individuals for personal gain. Khergam has been represented by Dadar based WAPIZ activist Tannaz Parakh who had not disputed the allegations earlier. Parakh apologized but her lack of knowledge of events in a constituency she professes to represent, is probably true of the vast majority of WAPIZ plants in the FPZAI.
Even where the inhabitants of the anjuman are present, WAPIZ brought in their loyalists to supplement their vocal power. Jabalpur, which has offered to host the next FPZAI executive council meeting was represented by Kerman Batliwala of that Madhya Pradesh town and Bakhtawar Karbhari, a lawyer residing in Godrej Baug. Whether she has ever been to Jabalpur or has any connection with that anjuman is not known but she lent her vociferous support to the contentious issues before the all-India body.
So much so was the FPZAI agenda sidetracked with peripheral issues, that even WAPIZ supporter from Surat (though representing Nargol) Noshir Dordee inquired heatedly why the problems of anjumans were not being discussed instead of extraneous matters. Dordee was among those who disrupted the FPZAI meet in Ahmedabad in December 2004 and was also part of the assault conspiracy on Meher Master-Moos and the Russian Zoroastrian Herbad Mikhail Chistyakov in Sanjan in February 2010.
Interestingly enough when the discussion turned to the FPZAI participation in the Global Working Group (GWG), an informal association of world Zoroastrian federations that is to meet once again in New York this August, and the possibility of foreign scholars coming to India daring to enter agiaries, BPP trustee Jimmy Mistry (who attended the two-day meet for two hours) told the gathering that if any threat to the religion arose, “we will do the same as we did in Sanjan. We gave a befitting reply to Meher Master-Moos and showed her her place.” At that time a group of around 45 vigilantes led by Mehta allegedly attacked the lone woman and the foreigner. Members of Mistry’s Parsi Resource Group participated in the alleged onslaught. An embarrassed Mehta said the incident was in the past and did not endorse Mistry’s violent mob approach.
Those who cross swords with WAPIZ pay the price. The FPZAI’s joint honorary secretary Pervez Mehta found himself seated amongst the delegates rather than at the main table next to the chairman as is the custom. Mehta is from Bardoli whose former president, Jamshed Mohta, is one of the founder trustees of WAPIZ. When infighting broke out in the Bardoli anjuman and Mohta was unseated, Dinshaw Mehta sided with Mohta. Dinshaw did not want to offend his allies, WAPIZ honchos Areez Khambatta and Khojeste Mistree. Consequently the president let WAPIZ have a free hand in the running of the FPZAI. The WAPIZ grip would have tightened even further over the all-India body at the February meet except for the fact that Mehta and Mistree fell out with each other over the mid-2011 BPP trusteeship election.
At that time to strengthen their control over the BPP, WAPIZ wanted to bring in BPP trustee Yazdi Desai’s wife, Anahita, a WAPIZ activist (she and Parakh edit the WAPIZ Page that appears sporadically in The Free Press Journal). Mehta in desperation supported his earlier electoral opponent Muncherji Cama. Fortunately Cama won, and that too handsomely. The community had sent out a message. No one party or body is to control their premier institutions.
If Mehta masterfully succeeded in preventing a WAPIZ takeover of the BPP, he partly thwarted the same attempt at the FPZAI meet. Of course both problems arose partly of Mehta’s own making. When one of the delegates pointed out that earlier Dinshaw was on WAPIZ’s side and now he opposed them, the president replied, “we have divorced.” This was certainly one marriage not worth saving.
While no one can deny the bona fides of the framers, there is little doubt they failed to foresee the level of malfeasance, skullduggery and horse trading that their successors would indulge in. The contentious FPZAI clause availed of by the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) and others permit anjumans to “authorize from time to time any one or more persons, being preferably members of such anjuman, as it thinks fit” to attend the meets. Thus any Parsi or Irani Zoroastrian even though he or she is not, nor has ever been a resident of the place, nor holds any elected office, can come and play havoc at the meet. The intention of the founding fathers was that financially disadvantaged anjumans who could not afford to pay for their representative’s travel and boarding, could appoint someone else to speak on their behalf. The clause that was meant to assist the all-India community is now abused by a handful of powerful, wealthy individuals to further their own goals. As the Satara representative Jamsheed Kanga opined at the meet, values were being subverted “for the sake of a rich man who can buy over any anjuman or punchayet.”
His sentiments were echoed by Federation president and BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta who reiterated, “WAPIZ has done enough damage… (created) complete disunity in the community.”
By masquerading Bombay based WAPIZ loyalists as representatives of various minuscule anjumans, WAPIZ has done a great disservice not only to the FPZAI but also the associations they feign to represent. Perhaps this was exemplified in the case of Khergam where a livid Pervez Khergamwalla tore into defunct anjumans subcommittee coordinator Sohrab Katpitia for alleging that Parsi property there was being taken advantage of by individuals for personal gain. Khergam has been represented by Dadar based WAPIZ activist Tannaz Parakh who had not disputed the allegations earlier. Parakh apologized but her lack of knowledge of events in a constituency she professes to represent, is probably true of the vast majority of WAPIZ plants in the FPZAI.
Even where the inhabitants of the anjuman are present, WAPIZ brought in their loyalists to supplement their vocal power. Jabalpur, which has offered to host the next FPZAI executive council meeting was represented by Kerman Batliwala of that Madhya Pradesh town and Bakhtawar Karbhari, a lawyer residing in Godrej Baug. Whether she has ever been to Jabalpur or has any connection with that anjuman is not known but she lent her vociferous support to the contentious issues before the all-India body.
So much so was the FPZAI agenda sidetracked with peripheral issues, that even WAPIZ supporter from Surat (though representing Nargol) Noshir Dordee inquired heatedly why the problems of anjumans were not being discussed instead of extraneous matters. Dordee was among those who disrupted the FPZAI meet in Ahmedabad in December 2004 and was also part of the assault conspiracy on Meher Master-Moos and the Russian Zoroastrian Herbad Mikhail Chistyakov in Sanjan in February 2010.
Interestingly enough when the discussion turned to the FPZAI participation in the Global Working Group (GWG), an informal association of world Zoroastrian federations that is to meet once again in New York this August, and the possibility of foreign scholars coming to India daring to enter agiaries, BPP trustee Jimmy Mistry (who attended the two-day meet for two hours) told the gathering that if any threat to the religion arose, “we will do the same as we did in Sanjan. We gave a befitting reply to Meher Master-Moos and showed her her place.” At that time a group of around 45 vigilantes led by Mehta allegedly attacked the lone woman and the foreigner. Members of Mistry’s Parsi Resource Group participated in the alleged onslaught. An embarrassed Mehta said the incident was in the past and did not endorse Mistry’s violent mob approach.
Those who cross swords with WAPIZ pay the price. The FPZAI’s joint honorary secretary Pervez Mehta found himself seated amongst the delegates rather than at the main table next to the chairman as is the custom. Mehta is from Bardoli whose former president, Jamshed Mohta, is one of the founder trustees of WAPIZ. When infighting broke out in the Bardoli anjuman and Mohta was unseated, Dinshaw Mehta sided with Mohta. Dinshaw did not want to offend his allies, WAPIZ honchos Areez Khambatta and Khojeste Mistree. Consequently the president let WAPIZ have a free hand in the running of the FPZAI. The WAPIZ grip would have tightened even further over the all-India body at the February meet except for the fact that Mehta and Mistree fell out with each other over the mid-2011 BPP trusteeship election.
At that time to strengthen their control over the BPP, WAPIZ wanted to bring in BPP trustee Yazdi Desai’s wife, Anahita, a WAPIZ activist (she and Parakh edit the WAPIZ Page that appears sporadically in The Free Press Journal). Mehta in desperation supported his earlier electoral opponent Muncherji Cama. Fortunately Cama won, and that too handsomely. The community had sent out a message. No one party or body is to control their premier institutions.
If Mehta masterfully succeeded in preventing a WAPIZ takeover of the BPP, he partly thwarted the same attempt at the FPZAI meet. Of course both problems arose partly of Mehta’s own making. When one of the delegates pointed out that earlier Dinshaw was on WAPIZ’s side and now he opposed them, the president replied, “we have divorced.” This was certainly one marriage not worth saving.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive