Enlightened self-interest

There are two infallible ways to fill a venue. One is by inducement, the other by fear. The Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) opted for neither which may explain why 75 percent of the 2,500 chairs placed on the Rustom Baug lawns for a Samast Anjuman Meeting on May 25, 2013 remained empty.
In the recent past whenever the BPP would call similar meets, dinner was the main attraction. The talks were a side show. The crowds trickled in during and after the speeches, largely unconcerned about the purpose or intent of the meet. If one is going to listen to bhaashans (tedious talks) about the well-being and betterment of the community, there should be an immediate and gratifying reward for doing so, they reasoned.
But at this meet instead of sali ma murghi and pulao dar all there was on offer was a bottle of mineral water.
As for option two, the fear factor, the BPP trustees did not use it to full advantage, no doubt lacking expertise on the methodology. They are more attuned to pampering and pleading than wielding the big stick.
Thus though the BPP had a trump card they did not play it to advantage. The fact that all the tenants/licensees/occupants of the 5,500 or so flats the trust manages are liable to pay double the property tax with three years’ retrospective effect, was not drummed home effectively prior to the meeting. No portentous pamphlets were distributed door to door.
There was an ambiguous reference in the "Chairman’s Message” (The BPP Review, March 2013) where Dinshaw Mehta wrote about "the death knell of cheap subsidized housing in South Bombay with the taxes projected to increase 20 to 40 times the present levy. We have filed our objections and appeals against this draconian increase but time alone will show the future trend.”
What Mehta did not categorically state was this "draconian increase” will have to be borne solely by the residents of the colonies. Had he done that the crowd would possibly have been larger and certainly more vociferous? "Important announcement” notices in a section of the Parsi Press regarding the proposed meeting, however, were more forthright. The trustees talked of "the seriousness of the proposed property tax” and warned that the "heavy financial burden…would perforce have to be recovered from the flats/shops, occupants as in no way the Trust can take such a heavy impact.”
Contrast the public reaction to the Samast Anjuman Meeting with that of the trustees of the fire temples. Once the trustees received individual notices for their specific fire temples, they responded to the clarion call made by the BPP. Of the 50 fire temples in Bombay, representatives of more than half showed up for the first meet held on March 22, 2013. At that historic gathering a decision was taken to form an association (Atashbehrams, Agiaries and Religious Institutions Welfare Society), appoint a working committee and prepare a writ challenging the imposition and/or computation of the levy in the Bombay High Court.
The fire temple trustees responded both out of a sense of fiscal responsibility and enlightened self-interest. They knew the threat was real and unless they banded together their future existence was in jeopardy. From where would the H. B. Wadia Atash Behram, for example, obtain the funds to pay a proposed future annual levy of 64 lakh rupees as versus less than Rs 15,000 today?
Here of course the ham-handed action of the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) or Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation as it is now named, is to blame. According to their "Manual,” "Under section 143 (1) (a) of the Act, exemption from general tax is admissible to the buildings and lands or portions thereof exclusively occupied for public worship or for charitable purposes.”
But there is a rider that "no rent is derived from the property whether such rent is or is not applied exclusively to religious or charitable purposes.”
Many fire temple trusts have residential and commercial property adjacent or elsewhere. The income from these properties allows for the upkeep of the fire temple, salaries, kathi and so on. Without this revenue most fire temples would find it hard to meet costs. It has been reasoned that only the portions rented out should be taxed, not the fire temple structure and the land occupied by it.
The courts may offer some relief. They will in all probability ask the BMC to be more transparent and forthcoming in their assessment and future projected computations. Their lordships’ sympathies and those of the BMC may not be with the BPP when they are told Cusrow Baug flats change hands for four to six crore rupees (of which 30 percent goes to the BPP by way of a refundable deposit and 20 percent as a donation). Still an argument can be made that this money subsidizes the cost of repairing and maintaining the colonies.
The BPP contributes 50 percent of the cost of repairs while trusts such as the Garib Zarthostiona Rehethan Fund contribute 100 percent. Very few other landlords in Bombay contribute to repairs and upkeep of tenanted buildings.
The judges, however, are unlikely to strike down the change to capital value for assessing property tax. A quick look at some websites shows both London and New York City assess property tax on capital value with restrictions, conditions, exemptions, etc. Paris though still follows the rateable value (amount earned if premises were rented) to determine the property tax.
Aside from resorting to legal remedies the BPP trustees and influential community members should also interact with political parties who proposed and passed such legislation. They should be made aware of the hardships caused by the new system. The Minorities’ Commission should highlight the injustice being done to the citizenry, religious institutions and community welfare trusts where even widows’ chawls are to face the increased levy.
The government no doubt always looks for ways to fill their depleting coffers. That a lot of the money is siphoned off by politicians and their cohorts cannot obliterate the fact that costs are rising and an expanding metropolis needs additional services. The government also has to be made more accountable. So also the BPP. But in the interim, filling the fiscal gap cannot be totally at the expense of the common person.