Editorial Viewpoint
A deficit of trust
At the July 28, 2013 West Zone B meet of the Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI) in Ahmedabad, the North Zone vice president Tehmton Anklesaria noted the duty of the all India body was to see to the welfare of the small anjumans, not the large ones that dominate the proceedings. He, therefore, urged those present to focus on the issue of the defunct or soon to be defunct anjumans. Some of the other delegates took up the same plea as well (see "Solve these problems,” Parsiana, August 7, 2013).
Over 20 years ago the FPZAI had devised a custodianship scheme whereby if an anjuman’s membership should fall below 15 members, the FPZAI would take over complete charge of the affairs and properties of that anjuman. Prior to that dismal population figure being reached, the FPZAI would not interfere in the day-to-day working of the anjuman. Those opting for the scheme would dispatch all minutes of the meetings, annual reports, accounts, number of anjuman members, etc to the FPZAI. One member of the Federation would be nominated on the anjuman’s managing committee who would attend the meetings and vote.
In the event of a decision being taken to sell or liquidate any capital asset, the FPZAI would have a veto over such a proposal. But in the event three-fourths of the anjuman members at a specially convened meeting voted for the proposal, it would go through. The resident and non-resident members of the anjuman would get first preference from any benefits derived from sale of assets.
Around December 1995 the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman Mhow (PZAM) became the first body to sign the custodian agreement with the FPZAI. The agreement was signed by the late Homai Illava, president of PZAM, the late Dr Behram Masani, honorary secretary, the then FPZAI president and Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) chairman, the late Jamshed Guzder and then FPZAI joint honorary secretary Keki Gandhi.
Besides Mhow only Neemuch has opted for the scheme. At Neemuch, the FPZAI was involved in a controversy with the Anjuman over the sale of property. The Anjuman president Noshir Jal and his wife Niloufer voiced their displeasure at the January 26, 2013 FPZAI executive council meeting held in Bombay. They alleged their name was besmirched by advertisements in the local papers issued by Sorab Katpitia who is assigned the defunct anjumans portfolio. The Jals said they regretted their decision to sign the custodianship agreement.
Thus, despite repeated efforts to persuade more anjumans to avail of the offer, there are few takers. Anklesaria, who represents Ratlam with a population of around 15, laments that his own anjuman has not yet agreed to FPZAI custodianship. The FPZAI and the BPP are so caught up in their own day-to-day routine that people believe they will not be in a position to devote time to the concerned anjuman; only if the anjuman’s assets are substantial would there be involvement by the FPZAI.
But would trustees sitting hundreds of miles away be conversant with the local situation? Would they have the patience and motivation to tackle indigenous problems? Could they take timely action if required? Would the custodians deal with matters honestly, impartially and with transparency? How trustworthy do anjumans believe the FPZAI to be?
Realizing the danger of numerous anjumans already defunct or on the verge of becoming defunct having their funds and properties frittered away, the FPZAI circulated a copy of a revised custodian scheme to the delegates present at the Ahmedabad meet. Though the copies were said to have been couriered to the anjumans earlier, nearly all chorused they had not received them. The revised scheme permits two representatives of the FPZAI to serve on the anjuman’s managing body. This is to ensure that no one person could do what they want and there would be checks and balances.
At the Mhow anjuman meetings it is not always possible for the FPZAI nominee to be present and some local office bearer of the anjuman is nominated. There are reportedly 42 resident members and 91 non-resident members of PZAM.
For all these reasons the Ahmedabad Parsi Panchayat president Brig (retd) Jahangir Anklesaria suggested that instead of custodianship being granted to the FPZAI, people should have the choice of opting for a neighboring anjuman that would be better acquainted with the local happenings. His suggestion was brushed aside at the meet.
Pervin Jehangir, the feisty representative of the Illav anjuman who is originally from Mhow and is the late Masani’s daughter, has challenged the PZAM and FPZAI move to sell some property and also to amend the PZAM trust scheme to benefit the local residents versus the non-resident ones amongst other changes. She was termed a trouble maker, a spoilt sport and a person out to prejudice the delegates against the custodianship scheme. Undaunted, the social activist in turn asked the FPZAI representatives to "learn” from the Mhow experience.
She visited the Parsiana office on August 9, 2013 after the Ahmedabad meet with a slew of papers and over three hours pointed out the misgivings she had about the FPZAI and PZAM’s functioning. A trained social worker, the daughter of a noted lawyer and a person in the know of things, she makes for a formidable foe. In the FPZAI Zonal meet, unbowed and unyielding, she gave as good as she got.
If the FPZAI and the anjumans want to make a go of the custodianship concept they will have to tackle and win over the sceptics. It’s an enormous task but unless they allay the fears of the doubters, the custodianship scheme, like all other ambitious projects, will gather dust on some forgotten shelf of community history.
Over 20 years ago the FPZAI had devised a custodianship scheme whereby if an anjuman’s membership should fall below 15 members, the FPZAI would take over complete charge of the affairs and properties of that anjuman. Prior to that dismal population figure being reached, the FPZAI would not interfere in the day-to-day working of the anjuman. Those opting for the scheme would dispatch all minutes of the meetings, annual reports, accounts, number of anjuman members, etc to the FPZAI. One member of the Federation would be nominated on the anjuman’s managing committee who would attend the meetings and vote.
In the event of a decision being taken to sell or liquidate any capital asset, the FPZAI would have a veto over such a proposal. But in the event three-fourths of the anjuman members at a specially convened meeting voted for the proposal, it would go through. The resident and non-resident members of the anjuman would get first preference from any benefits derived from sale of assets.
Around December 1995 the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman Mhow (PZAM) became the first body to sign the custodian agreement with the FPZAI. The agreement was signed by the late Homai Illava, president of PZAM, the late Dr Behram Masani, honorary secretary, the then FPZAI president and Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) chairman, the late Jamshed Guzder and then FPZAI joint honorary secretary Keki Gandhi.
Besides Mhow only Neemuch has opted for the scheme. At Neemuch, the FPZAI was involved in a controversy with the Anjuman over the sale of property. The Anjuman president Noshir Jal and his wife Niloufer voiced their displeasure at the January 26, 2013 FPZAI executive council meeting held in Bombay. They alleged their name was besmirched by advertisements in the local papers issued by Sorab Katpitia who is assigned the defunct anjumans portfolio. The Jals said they regretted their decision to sign the custodianship agreement.
Thus, despite repeated efforts to persuade more anjumans to avail of the offer, there are few takers. Anklesaria, who represents Ratlam with a population of around 15, laments that his own anjuman has not yet agreed to FPZAI custodianship. The FPZAI and the BPP are so caught up in their own day-to-day routine that people believe they will not be in a position to devote time to the concerned anjuman; only if the anjuman’s assets are substantial would there be involvement by the FPZAI.
But would trustees sitting hundreds of miles away be conversant with the local situation? Would they have the patience and motivation to tackle indigenous problems? Could they take timely action if required? Would the custodians deal with matters honestly, impartially and with transparency? How trustworthy do anjumans believe the FPZAI to be?
Realizing the danger of numerous anjumans already defunct or on the verge of becoming defunct having their funds and properties frittered away, the FPZAI circulated a copy of a revised custodian scheme to the delegates present at the Ahmedabad meet. Though the copies were said to have been couriered to the anjumans earlier, nearly all chorused they had not received them. The revised scheme permits two representatives of the FPZAI to serve on the anjuman’s managing body. This is to ensure that no one person could do what they want and there would be checks and balances.
At the Mhow anjuman meetings it is not always possible for the FPZAI nominee to be present and some local office bearer of the anjuman is nominated. There are reportedly 42 resident members and 91 non-resident members of PZAM.
For all these reasons the Ahmedabad Parsi Panchayat president Brig (retd) Jahangir Anklesaria suggested that instead of custodianship being granted to the FPZAI, people should have the choice of opting for a neighboring anjuman that would be better acquainted with the local happenings. His suggestion was brushed aside at the meet.
Pervin Jehangir, the feisty representative of the Illav anjuman who is originally from Mhow and is the late Masani’s daughter, has challenged the PZAM and FPZAI move to sell some property and also to amend the PZAM trust scheme to benefit the local residents versus the non-resident ones amongst other changes. She was termed a trouble maker, a spoilt sport and a person out to prejudice the delegates against the custodianship scheme. Undaunted, the social activist in turn asked the FPZAI representatives to "learn” from the Mhow experience.
She visited the Parsiana office on August 9, 2013 after the Ahmedabad meet with a slew of papers and over three hours pointed out the misgivings she had about the FPZAI and PZAM’s functioning. A trained social worker, the daughter of a noted lawyer and a person in the know of things, she makes for a formidable foe. In the FPZAI Zonal meet, unbowed and unyielding, she gave as good as she got.
If the FPZAI and the anjumans want to make a go of the custodianship concept they will have to tackle and win over the sceptics. It’s an enormous task but unless they allay the fears of the doubters, the custodianship scheme, like all other ambitious projects, will gather dust on some forgotten shelf of community history.
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive