To own or be owned

The residents of Aderbad building on the border of Khareghat Colony find themselves in a quandary. They are not tenants, licensees, lessees or owners of the property they reside in.
The land and building have been leased for 90 years to the Aderbad Cooperative Housing Society Limited by the owners of the property, the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP). Thirty-four years are already over but the lease agreement has not been signed and no conveyance of the land or building has taken place. The dispute on this and several other issues pertaining to the building are pending before the Charity Commissioner. The case was filed in 1984 but recording of statements has just begun.
The chairman of the BPP, Dinshaw Mehta is opposed signing the lease deed or to conveying the property. He believes that only the BPP can enforce the covenant stipulating Parsi Zoroastrians alone can reside in community housing. Should the property be conveyed, the rule may be relaxed or not legally enforced. Except for the Shanazeen ownership building in Khareghat Colony no lease deed has been signed for any ownership building built on BPP land.
But can the BPP truly safeguard the vast community property under their custodianship? Leave aside the 5,500 or so flats they control in which several non-Parsis reside, even the sacred Doongerwadi land was encroached upon for decades, right under the noses of the then trustees. After strenuous efforts the BPP did finally manage to oust the squatters a few years ago and recover the property. But the trustees often lament that squatters, illegal occupants, trespassers, recalcitrant tenants and so on prevent ambitious plans to develop existing properties.
Hence the notion that the BPP alone can safeguard community property is flawed. They need the assistance of those residing on the property. Studies have shown that when people own the property they reside or work in, they attempt to maintain and improve the premises and also the surrounding environment. The transformation from occupant to owner though can be also fraught with dangers. The replacement of a single owner who makes all the decisions, to a conglomerate of stakeholders often pulling in different directions, can be trying. The property may land in the hands of government appointed administrators. But eventually people pull together and learn to live and let live. Aderbad is a case in point. Aside from one major defaulting resident, the rest pay their dues. The managing committee members say they are as much concerned about preserving Parsipanu as any BPP trustee, if not more so as it affects them directly.
But there is another pressing reason to devolve more authority and ownership to legal occupants. So much of the owners’ energies and resources are devoted to managing property that there is limited time and vitality left to tackle other crucial social, legal and economic issues. Thus it is not surprising for example that between 1964 and 1978 and then again between 1990 and 2013, the BPP did not host any world or all-India congress; the latter of course has never been held in living memory. For the 10th World Zoroastrian Congress (WZC) to be held in Bombay in December 2013, preparations began mid to late 2012. The venue was decided by default only a month or two ago.
And even the world meets held earlier in Bombay constituted such a mismatch of speakers, many of them selected because of their clout with BPP trustees. With the number of speakers to be accommodated growing exponentially at the 1985 Congress, the time allotted to each shrank. As Prof Kaikosrov Irani of New York lamented, "When I prepared the paper I thought it would be a summary of what I was going to say. Now my talk will be a summary of my paper.”
The intellectual level of the 1985 Congress was so dismal at times that community thinker Aspi Moddie, after hearing all the chaff spoken, urged the congregation to "raise the standard of your debates,” while the Delhi Parsi Anjuman president, the late Shiavax Nargolwala observed speakers "were attempting to be miniature Demosthenes (ancient Greek orator) with their oratory leading to rhetoric and finally ending with a joke.” The 1990 Congress, however, saw a marked improvement in the level of talks and debates.
Between 1964 and 1978 the BPP probably was preoccupied with its own affairs and their sense of self importance probably let them to believe there was no need for an international meet. The BPP was the defacto world body. The anjumans abroad were either non-existent or too hesitant to take on the mantle though the first world congress had been hosted by Iran in 1960.
After 1990 smaller anjumans with limited resources and restricted numbers such as Houston, Tehran, London and Dubai hosted the world congresses in between. Even the 2013 WZC should rightly have gone to Singapore but it was denied the opportunity by the BPP’s strong-arm tactics. The Southeast Asian city-state however has been selected to host the 2017 congress.
The present advocate general of Maharashtra Darius Khambata stated in an interview ("Independent and impartial advice,” Parsiana, October 7, 2012) that Zoroastrianism is held hostage by property. He was of course referring to the fire temples and doongerwadis and their discriminatory policies based on race and gender. But the same can be said of other properties.
Most of the anjumans’ energies are absorbed in managing residential buildings, vacant land, doongerwadis, aramgahs and fire temples. Many of the differences voiced in the Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI) meetings revolve around property. At the last FPZAI meet in Bombay, Iranian Zoroastrian Anjuman trustee Khodadad Irani rightly spoke of the difficulties his anjuman faces in safeguarding their 963 acre grassland in Palghar.
The Zoroastrian associations abroad are not so burdened with immovable properties. Therefore the few they have they can look after and develop. Hong Kong is a prime example of a small anjuman amassing a fortune by developing their valuable real estate in the heart of the city. From the monies accrued by way of rentals, the Incorporated Trustees of the Zoroastrian Charity Funds of Hong Kong, Canton and Macao has globally assisted countless community institutions and individuals, amongst others. Thanks to their largesse residential housing has been constructed, fire temples repaired, protective walls built, scholarships and medical aid given…
The North American Zoroastrians hold local congresses every two years. Many of the associations have community centers, founded either as a result of the generosity of a few philanthropic donors or by members contributing their mite. But with housing not being an issue and no fire temples to manage, the local residents have been able to channel their energies into meaningful and intellectual pursuits as well.
It is noteworthy that neither Dubai nor Singapore had a community center or paid staff, yet opted to host congresses. Only in 2010 was Singapore leased a center at a nominal rent of one dollar a month by a charitably inclined Zoroastrian resident.
Property is both an asset and a liability. What makes the difference is the approach one adopts.