Power to the people?

The proposed sale of community property has raised hackles yet again, this time between the trustees of the Parsee Surat Charity Fund (PSCF) and the Surat Parsi Panchayat (SPP) president Darayas Master. While the PSCF has ousted Master from his post, the Joint Charity Commissioner (JtCC) has stayed the expulsion.
Unless both parties resolve the issue amicably, the dispute will join countless others in the courts of law. The uncertainty will surely affect the workings of the SPP which runs several community institutions and has vast assets.
Eleven years ago when charges of mismanagement and high-handedness were levied against the then SPP president Dr Sam Bhacca by some of his co-trustees and local residents, the PSCF intervened resulting in the resignation of the SPP president.
According to a 1841 trust deed the PSCF which created the SPP has the power to appoint and remove trustees of the SPP. There are no elections for trusteeship, a practice which has caused much heartburn among the local population.
While the draconian power to remove trustees may be sparingly used, it is bound to create discord when invoked. More so when due process is not observed or is done with unseemly haste. Procedures for removing officials, elected or selected, are normally specified in the constitution or the rules and regulations of a public body. Ousting a person who holds elected office is an even more cumbersome and complicated process. It is only when there is irrefutable evidence and the threat of legal action that an official may voluntarily step down.
Discharging an employee, especially in the non-managerial category, takes years with the issuance of numerous reprimands, verbal and written warnings, show cause notices, enquiries, punishment and in the case of a habitual offender, dismissal. Here too, the matter has to stand the scrutiny of the labor commissioner, the labor courts and all the higher courts of the land.
For corporate heads, of course, summary dismissals are known. But here too the sacking has to withstand the possibility of judicial scrutiny should the aggrieved party appeal.
The PSCF trustees are all people of public standing and there is no doubt they wish to act in the best interests of the Surat community. But the clauses of a trust deed created 172 years ago may not be suitable for today. Times have changed. People yearn for a say in governance. They want their voices heard in the disbursal of funds and properties.
No matter how discretionarily the PSCF may exercise their powers, there will always be questions raised on the bona fides of their decisions. The public will want to know whether decisions were taken on the basis of facts and fairness.
The correspondence between the PSCF and Master shows the latter expressing his inability to travel to Bombay on a particular date due to a leg injury from an accident. He therefore requests the meeting be held in Surat, Navsari or Valsad.
PSCF chairman Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy replies that as the PSCF trustees reside in Bombay it would be inconvenient for all of them to travel to Gujarat. This raises the pertinent question of why Bombay based trustees should appoint and remove trustees in Surat. Logically the local community that is knowledgeable about the goings-on should decide. How often do the PSCF trustees travel to Surat in a year to assess the ground realities and what are their ties to Surat? Do they still have family and property there? Are any joint PSCF and SPP meetings held in Surat? The PSCF trustees are unelected. How are they selected? Who are they answerable to besides the Charity Commissioner who anyway has his or her hands full with the work of thousands of other trusts?
While the PSCF trustees may have their roots in Surat like trustee Burjor Antia, the others may or may not have close ties. And even Antia has spent his adult years in Bombay. While he may be in the know of Surat developments, can he be as knowledgeable as a local person? Would, for example, the Bombay Parsis accept Surat Parsis deciding on who should or should not be trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP)? Would the Surat Parsis be in a position to weigh the pros and cons of each deserving BPP candidate?
The elections in Bombay are keenly contested. Candidates issue manifestoes, hold public meetings to spell out their program, go door to door to meet voters, make promises (a few of which may hopefully be kept) and seven years later either step down or seek reelection. After 21years they can no longer occupy the office.
In Surat both the SPP and the PSCF are trustees for life unless they resign, die or are dismissed. While the PSCF can oust an SPP trustee, who has the power to remove the PSCF trustee if he (there are no lady trustees) is not able to perform his duties or is dishonest or partisan or is physically and mentally incapacitated?
The PSCF sits in judgment on others in another state but is not subject to any form of scrutiny itself. This, of course, is the case with 99 percent of trusts.
The BPP also followed an archaic, indirect polling system but fortunately, in 2008, opted for universal adult franchise after the then trustees moved the Bombay High Court to amend the scheme. People are dying in Syria fighting for democratic rights. The citizens of Libya, Egypt, Tunisia made huge sacrifices to win the right to decide who governs them. Britain and other colonial powers relinquished hold of their colonies because the native populations wanted the right to determine their own destinies. Plus the colonies were proving to be a financial drain.
Whether Master deserved to be sacked will be decided by the judiciary, assuming the matter goes to court. Evidence will have to be presented, lawyers will argue, judges will weigh the merits of the case. And even after all this, there is a possibility the final judgment arrived at may or may not necessarily be just or fair. But that is the risk one takes when approaching a third party unfamiliar with the background and nuances of the matter to resolve a dispute.
A far better solution to a public slugfest would be for the PSCF and Master to sit together and find an amicable settlement after tempers cool. Already the local Press is highlighting the battle. Once peace is restored, the PSCF has to find a more equitable manner for the Surat Parsis to manage their affairs.