Courting compromise

After six years of fighting with all and sundry, the trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) managed to avert one legal dispute while voting to continue another long-standing and exceedingly costly one. No doubt the seven trustees wish to undo some of the damage caused to the image and purse of the apex Bombay trust.
This April, at the trustees’ initiative the parties involved in the so-called "renegade” priests case and the Parsi Lying-In Hospital (PLIH) imbroglio met to try and resolve their differences. By a five (Arnavaz Mistry, Jimmy Mistry, Khojeste Mistree, Yazdi Desai and Armaity Tirandaz) to one (BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta) vote with one abstention (Muncherji Cama who had earlier served on the managing committee of the PLIH and hence abstained) the trustees agreed to the PLIH’s redevelopment proposal.
There appears to be a realization that litigating for the sake of litigation serves no purpose and causes immense harm. As it is the internecine quarrels among the trustees has resulted in the Charity Commissioner (CC) ordering a "status quo” on all BPP properties, rendering the trust inactive and deprived of its major, if not the only notable source of income. In the article, "Majority report,” (see pg 22) there is reference to the November 20, 2013 board meeting listing over 60 items pertaining to property matters. The BPP is first and foremost a landlord, probably the largest non-government, property owner in the city.
The CC stay has been in force for five months as the four trustees who filed the case to suspend/remove Mehta submitted their rejoinder to Mehta’s written statement only on April 9, 2014. The next date of hearing is May 7, 2014. That means until then no flats can change hands, not even to those who have paid monies. If the dispute is not resolved among the trustees themselves prior to that date, the stay could continue till the CC hears all the parties and gives his final order. This would then in all probability be challenged in the higher courts by the losing party.
The alliance of four trustees has also filed a complaint against Mehta before a magistrate. The results of a police investigation are awaited.
There is a contempt petition filed in the Bombay High Court regarding the BPP’s delay in constructing around 300 promised flats at B. S. Panthaki Baug in the western suburb of Andheri. Litigation saps the energies of the trustees and the coffers of the trust. Important issues are neglected. The Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India has not met since January 2013. They are supposed to meet every six months.
Elections for five BPP seats are due in 2015, one in July (Mehta) and four in October (Arnavaz, Jimmy, Mistree and Desai). They have little over a year to clean up the mess they have created over the past six. This would at least permit the new trustees elected/reelected to start their seven-year term on a clean slate. Or the first year or two may just be spent on settling past disputes, not to mention tackling any new ones that may arise.
With the elections looming, the community should insist that the candidates seeking office commit to resolving disputes amicably. They must set up a dispute resolving body/tribunal of former trustees and other people who have the community’s interests at heart. By drawing on the collective wisdom and foresight of others, solutions can be found. Outsiders are in a position to view contentious issues more dispassionately. Sometimes all that is required is a cooling down period. The court should be the last resort, not the first.
In the so-called "renegade” priests case, by a vote of five (Arnavaz, Jimmy, Mistree, Desai and Tirandaz) to two (Mehta and Cama) the BPP turned down a compromise solution hammered out with petitioners Jamsheed Kanga and Homi Khusrokhan.
Years back Ervad Khushroo Madon, one of the priests banned from praying at Doongerwadi and two agiaries controlled by the BPP, pleaded with the trustees to resolve the imposed ban on him "over a cup of tea” and let him pray a few times in a year at Doongerwadi. Former Glaxo Burroughs Welcome managing director Khusrokhan also wrote to the trustees asking them to reconsider their ill-conceived move. Unfortunately the trustees were on a high with their electoral win a few months earlier, so they saw no need to heed the pleas.
That misjudgment has cost the BPP over Rs 2.40 crores in legal fees to date. At least another crore of rupees will be spent on litigating before the Supreme Court. The stubbornness has also earned the trustees the ire of Parsis who do not oppose prayers for those opting for cremation. (The Parsiana survey conducted in late 2013 by the reputed Hansa Research Group shows 80% of the 500 Bombay respondents approve of the use of Doongerwadi bunglis for the funerary prayers of those choosing to be cremated.) Though the BPP has two bunglis lying locked up and unused over the past six years or more, the trustees deny the use of any Doongerwadi prayer halls to those opting for alternate means of disposal to dakhmenashini.
The bona fides of the trustees are not so much in question as their outlook. In all these years no evidence has been established of fiduciary dishonesty, despite the plethora of rants, rumors and allegations circulating. What can be faulted is the trustees’ approach and attitude to community issues. Much of the differences evolve around matters which are viewed as religious. But no one can be certain if a dispute is religious, social or legal. Most likely the point of contention is a combination of three.
When vultures cease to devour corpses, the disposal of the dead metamorphoses from being a religious issue to that of hygiene, safety, practicality and convenience. When solar panels are rendered ineffective during the monsoons and decomposing bodies emit a stench, religious tracts do not offer a viable answer. In cities, whatever is inconvenient or hazardous to public health is shifted. Abattoirs, industries are made to move out of the heart of the city, not urban dwellers.
The trustees must objectively weigh the pros and cons of issues and not be blinded by their beliefs or pride. They must seek solutions to problems rather than nurture disagreements. They must serve the community, not vice versa.