Editorial Viewpoint
A silver lining?
Despite the pall of gloom that hangs over community affairs, there is a ray of hope. Seven former trustees and other well-meaning individuals have come forward to propose a code of conduct for the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trusteeship elections (see "BPP election code,” Events and Personalities, page 26). This is the first such initiative in the last seven years to reform the functioning of the august body that is riddled with warring factions and plagued by policy paralysis. Any action, however minor, taken by the current trustees is with the intention of settling scores. Even payments to parties, including some salaries, are being withheld to spite one another. The paramount interests of the community are of the least concern.
When the BPP trustees met the six ex-trustees (the seventh ex-trustee was not present) and others on February 25, 2014 they agreed in principle that a code of conduct be pursued and the Courts be moved to incorporate the recommendation in the election scheme. Shortly after he was elected a trustee of the BPP, Muncherji Cama had also put forth a draft code of conduct but it was brushed aside and never taken up for any meaningful discussion. This time, should for any reason the trustees prove recalcitrant, the ex-trustees can call for a Samast Anjuman meeting and move the courts to incorporate the recommended changes.
The code of conduct does not ensure that the best candidate wins, but it does reflect a growing concern for equitable and acceptable electoral behavior. By limiting the amount a candidate can spend, contestants will not be beholden to wealthy backers. They will primarily require logistical support, people who can galvanize voters to attend meetings and ensure they show up to vote.
The intervention of the former trustees and others could not have come at a more opportune time. Five trusteeship elections are slated for 2015. BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta’s term is to expire July 15 and as he has completed 21 years in office he cannot seek reelection. Property developer Zarir Bhathena is expected to contest the seat.
It was the dispute between Mehta and Bhathena on one side and BPP trustee Jimmy Mistry on the other that led to the fracas at the Rustom Baug polling station in 2011.
In October 2015 the trusteeship seats of Arnavaz Mistry, Jimmy Mistry, Khojeste Mistree and Yazdi Desai will be up for grabs. Rumor has it that Mistree and Desai may not seek reelection and that Desai’s wife Anahita will contest. Last time she had lost to Cama. That election sowed the seeds of discord among the trustees.
Due to the complaint made by four trustees against the BPP chairman, the Charity Commissioner (CC) passed a "status quo” order on December 16, 2013 on all BPP property transactions. The stay has been extended till March 13, 2014, as the four have delayed in filing their rejoinder to the chairman’s statement. They are possibly awaiting the outcome of the police investigation initiated by the magistrate in response to the criminal complaint lodged by them against Mehta. Should an adverse report be filed by the police, their case before the CC to dismiss/suspend Mehta will be strengthened.
Text messages sent by Parsiana to BPP trustees Arnavaz Mistry and Yazdi Desai inquiring "Why the delay in filing a rejoinder before the CC? Thought you all were anxious to allot flats,” received no response from either. Before the CC the four had pleaded that an exception be made on the stay for flats already allotted by the trust. They claimed even a married couple was forced to stay separately as the promised premises were not handed over.
An earlier complaint by the four against Mehta was dismissed by the Economic Offences Wing as "a case is not made out for registration of a first information report.” The complaint alleges cash changed hands for the transfer of premises at Dady House in Bora Bazaar owned by the BPP. The three hapless, non-Parsi tenants who have paid the full transfer fees have been named as the co-accused in the complaint before the magistrate. The three are reportedly contemplating filing a case against the BPP for not honoring its commitment to transfer the rent receipt in their name. (see "Magisterial complaint,” Events and Personalities, page 32)
The stay on property matters means that both the BPP and all those unfortunate souls who made payment to the apex Bombay trust for transfer/ownership of flats are suffering financially. The BPP derives nearly all its income from transfer/alienation of flats. Around 90% of its so-called "corpus” consists of deposits received from licensees.
Aside from administrative costs, the BPP also incurs heavy legal expenditure. The litigation over barring two priests from performing religious ceremonies at Doongerwadi and two agiaries controlled by the trust alone has cost Rs 2.2 crores (US $ 3,49,206) to date. Now with efforts having failed, a minimum of another crore of rupees will be spent litigating in the Supreme Court, assuming the BPP’s petition is admitted.
Even regarding the proposed construction by the BPP of 300 or so flats at B. S. Panthaky Baug in Andheri, mediation efforts are floundering. The group that filed the contempt petition alleges that the BPP is not honoring commitments made in court in end 2009 to construct the buildings within two years’ time. Mehta claims permission is not forthcoming from the Bombay Municipal Corporation.
Kersi Randeria of the Alert Zoroastrians Association has vented his frustration over the trustees’ lack of "serious(ness) about the mediation process” (see "Mediation failures,” Events and Personalities, page 28).
Those not conversant with the background of the past electoral schemes view Universal Adult Franchise as the cause of many of the BPP’s present ills. But they are unaware that under the old Anjuman Committee scheme, the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) had captured the electoral seats. That is why WAPIZ fought in court to oppose adult franchise.
Elections serve not only to elect candidates but also to involve the lay person in the affairs of the community. The contestants have to reach out to the entire community, not merely a handful of party loyalists or the privileged. The process of contemporary electoral reforms started in 1980 with the Committee for Electoral Rights. It has now been taken forward with the proposed code of conduct. Step by step the community is taking the initiative away from the seven trustees. What could augur better for a happy Jamshedi Navroz?
When the BPP trustees met the six ex-trustees (the seventh ex-trustee was not present) and others on February 25, 2014 they agreed in principle that a code of conduct be pursued and the Courts be moved to incorporate the recommendation in the election scheme. Shortly after he was elected a trustee of the BPP, Muncherji Cama had also put forth a draft code of conduct but it was brushed aside and never taken up for any meaningful discussion. This time, should for any reason the trustees prove recalcitrant, the ex-trustees can call for a Samast Anjuman meeting and move the courts to incorporate the recommended changes.
The code of conduct does not ensure that the best candidate wins, but it does reflect a growing concern for equitable and acceptable electoral behavior. By limiting the amount a candidate can spend, contestants will not be beholden to wealthy backers. They will primarily require logistical support, people who can galvanize voters to attend meetings and ensure they show up to vote.
The intervention of the former trustees and others could not have come at a more opportune time. Five trusteeship elections are slated for 2015. BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta’s term is to expire July 15 and as he has completed 21 years in office he cannot seek reelection. Property developer Zarir Bhathena is expected to contest the seat.
It was the dispute between Mehta and Bhathena on one side and BPP trustee Jimmy Mistry on the other that led to the fracas at the Rustom Baug polling station in 2011.
In October 2015 the trusteeship seats of Arnavaz Mistry, Jimmy Mistry, Khojeste Mistree and Yazdi Desai will be up for grabs. Rumor has it that Mistree and Desai may not seek reelection and that Desai’s wife Anahita will contest. Last time she had lost to Cama. That election sowed the seeds of discord among the trustees.
Due to the complaint made by four trustees against the BPP chairman, the Charity Commissioner (CC) passed a "status quo” order on December 16, 2013 on all BPP property transactions. The stay has been extended till March 13, 2014, as the four have delayed in filing their rejoinder to the chairman’s statement. They are possibly awaiting the outcome of the police investigation initiated by the magistrate in response to the criminal complaint lodged by them against Mehta. Should an adverse report be filed by the police, their case before the CC to dismiss/suspend Mehta will be strengthened.
Text messages sent by Parsiana to BPP trustees Arnavaz Mistry and Yazdi Desai inquiring "Why the delay in filing a rejoinder before the CC? Thought you all were anxious to allot flats,” received no response from either. Before the CC the four had pleaded that an exception be made on the stay for flats already allotted by the trust. They claimed even a married couple was forced to stay separately as the promised premises were not handed over.
An earlier complaint by the four against Mehta was dismissed by the Economic Offences Wing as "a case is not made out for registration of a first information report.” The complaint alleges cash changed hands for the transfer of premises at Dady House in Bora Bazaar owned by the BPP. The three hapless, non-Parsi tenants who have paid the full transfer fees have been named as the co-accused in the complaint before the magistrate. The three are reportedly contemplating filing a case against the BPP for not honoring its commitment to transfer the rent receipt in their name. (see "Magisterial complaint,” Events and Personalities, page 32)
The stay on property matters means that both the BPP and all those unfortunate souls who made payment to the apex Bombay trust for transfer/ownership of flats are suffering financially. The BPP derives nearly all its income from transfer/alienation of flats. Around 90% of its so-called "corpus” consists of deposits received from licensees.
Aside from administrative costs, the BPP also incurs heavy legal expenditure. The litigation over barring two priests from performing religious ceremonies at Doongerwadi and two agiaries controlled by the trust alone has cost Rs 2.2 crores (US $ 3,49,206) to date. Now with efforts having failed, a minimum of another crore of rupees will be spent litigating in the Supreme Court, assuming the BPP’s petition is admitted.
Even regarding the proposed construction by the BPP of 300 or so flats at B. S. Panthaky Baug in Andheri, mediation efforts are floundering. The group that filed the contempt petition alleges that the BPP is not honoring commitments made in court in end 2009 to construct the buildings within two years’ time. Mehta claims permission is not forthcoming from the Bombay Municipal Corporation.
Kersi Randeria of the Alert Zoroastrians Association has vented his frustration over the trustees’ lack of "serious(ness) about the mediation process” (see "Mediation failures,” Events and Personalities, page 28).
Those not conversant with the background of the past electoral schemes view Universal Adult Franchise as the cause of many of the BPP’s present ills. But they are unaware that under the old Anjuman Committee scheme, the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) had captured the electoral seats. That is why WAPIZ fought in court to oppose adult franchise.
Elections serve not only to elect candidates but also to involve the lay person in the affairs of the community. The contestants have to reach out to the entire community, not merely a handful of party loyalists or the privileged. The process of contemporary electoral reforms started in 1980 with the Committee for Electoral Rights. It has now been taken forward with the proposed code of conduct. Step by step the community is taking the initiative away from the seven trustees. What could augur better for a happy Jamshedi Navroz?
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive