Politics and Policy
“A storm in a teacup”
Much hyped proposed changes to the Delhi Parsi Anjuman rules have been currently shelved
Despite all the hype and public outcry over the proposed changes to the Delhi Parsi Anjuman (DPA) rules, the changes do not appear as radical as they have been made out to be. Delhi has always been the most liberal anjuman in India and the proposed changes in its constitution were in keeping with that line of thinking.
What apparently upset many Delhiites was the insufficient time permitted to study and debate the changes. Also the courier company entrusted with the distribution of the AGM (annual general meeting) notices, "let us down,” stated one trustee. All this fueled the opposition and an anonymous email/App alleging the proposed changes had been "silently circulated to a small group of persons, hoping to get the changes carried out silently without any discussion.” Also the use of the word "pass” the changes instead of "consider and if found suitable…” riled several of the 100 or so members who attended the September 21, 2014 AGM. The opponents had also come armed with proxies. A total of 30 proxies were presented.
A week prior the trustees had a meeting with Delhi resident Cyrus Engineer who spearheaded the opposition and intended to contest for trusteeship. No vacancy was available but trustee Rohinton Sidhwa stepped down citing an increase in professional commitments for doing so. Engineer was taken in his place and it was decided to refer the proposed changes in the rules to a committee for consideration.
The reforms proposed included expanding the definition of a Parsi from "one born of a Parsi father” to "one born of a Parsi parent.” The reason cited for the change was "to meet our growing mixed marriage numbers.” Clause 2c proposes to recognize as member a navjoted "person born of or adopted or taken as a ward in accordance with law by parents at least one of whom is/was a Parsi Zoroastrian.” Further clause 2c states that "a Parsi Zoroastrian married to a non-Zoroastrian shall be deemed to have continued to practice the Zoroastrian religion unless otherwise declared by such an individual by swearing an affidavit before the oath commissioner that he/she has renounced the Zoroastrian religion. The term member shall also include any individual who is a Zoroastrian but not born of a Parsi parent.” The reason cited was "to take care of a situation similar to one arising out of the Goolrookh Gupta case. To implement the recent Supreme Court judgement validating adoption.” (The judgement does not include the Parsi community in its scope, according to noted jurist Fali Nariman.)
Under clause 2d it was sought to extend to Associate member "all benefits of membership including burial/burial of ashes in the aramgah except that such spouse member shall not be entitled to the use of the Anjuman’s fire temple or to be elected as a trustee.” The DPA has been allotted an additional plot which reportedly will be sufficient to accommodate additional graves. Clause 3b states that the DPA properties are to be managed "for the benefit of the members of the DPA in particular and of sister communities and Parsi Zoroastrians in general.” Subsequent clauses provide for financial assistance to be rendered to sister communities. The changes provide that any person who may be removed from membership by the board of trustees "shall have the right to appeal to the general body against the termination.”
Most of the other changes are matters of procedure or convenience.
In a reply to a member who raised queries on the proposed changes DPA president Yezad Kapadia explained that the idea of adding sister communities "was basically with a view to protect the Anjuman funds as far as tax and other Government policy is concerned. It was felt that by doing so we could escape being classified as a single religion organization for tax and other levy purposes.”
Since emotions were heightened opponents of the reforms were given an opportunity to vent their ire at the AGM. One report received by Parsiana from the main group opposing the changes (they wished to remain anonymous) stated, "Members were unforgiving and demanded explanations from the trustees... The rules if passed would allow for an inflow of non-Parsis and sister communities with voting rights, thus making the Parsis a minority in the DPA...
"A show of hands to throw out the amendments were carried out by a section of the members. An overwhelming 80 to 90% wanted the rules to be discarded, but the president ruled that since it was already announced that it was not to be taken up at the start of the meeting, the vote could not be considered as valid.
"A few non-Parsis spoke and expressed surprise at the controversy. They remarked that none of them ever wanted membership or agiary and burial rights and failed to understand why they were unnecessarily being brought into the issue...
"For the first time in Delhi the anger spilled out with Parsis demanding that the trustees step down after having sat in that position for several years and also to fix a maximum tenure and an age limit.
"There is a distinct divide and trust deficit between the trustees and the Parsi community. Whichever way it goes, the issue has woken up the Parsis of Delhi and the sleeping majority now has a voice of its own.”
One of the trustees referred to the controversy as "a storm in a teacup.” In an email to a member of the Anjuman the trustee noted, "We have always been a close family in the Delhi Parsi Anjuman and prided ourselves on our openness, fairness and inclusiveness. So much of that seemed to be missing last Sunday.” Another member of the DPA wrote in an email: "At this meeting we should have been sensitive towards the feelings and sensibilities of the non-Parsi spouses who too are members of the Anjuman, some of them did feel unwelcome… It was painful that allegations were leveled against the integrity, functioning and working of the trustees who have put in their valuable time for the service of the community.”
What apparently upset many Delhiites was the insufficient time permitted to study and debate the changes. Also the courier company entrusted with the distribution of the AGM (annual general meeting) notices, "let us down,” stated one trustee. All this fueled the opposition and an anonymous email/App alleging the proposed changes had been "silently circulated to a small group of persons, hoping to get the changes carried out silently without any discussion.” Also the use of the word "pass” the changes instead of "consider and if found suitable…” riled several of the 100 or so members who attended the September 21, 2014 AGM. The opponents had also come armed with proxies. A total of 30 proxies were presented.
A week prior the trustees had a meeting with Delhi resident Cyrus Engineer who spearheaded the opposition and intended to contest for trusteeship. No vacancy was available but trustee Rohinton Sidhwa stepped down citing an increase in professional commitments for doing so. Engineer was taken in his place and it was decided to refer the proposed changes in the rules to a committee for consideration.
The reforms proposed included expanding the definition of a Parsi from "one born of a Parsi father” to "one born of a Parsi parent.” The reason cited for the change was "to meet our growing mixed marriage numbers.” Clause 2c proposes to recognize as member a navjoted "person born of or adopted or taken as a ward in accordance with law by parents at least one of whom is/was a Parsi Zoroastrian.” Further clause 2c states that "a Parsi Zoroastrian married to a non-Zoroastrian shall be deemed to have continued to practice the Zoroastrian religion unless otherwise declared by such an individual by swearing an affidavit before the oath commissioner that he/she has renounced the Zoroastrian religion. The term member shall also include any individual who is a Zoroastrian but not born of a Parsi parent.” The reason cited was "to take care of a situation similar to one arising out of the Goolrookh Gupta case. To implement the recent Supreme Court judgement validating adoption.” (The judgement does not include the Parsi community in its scope, according to noted jurist Fali Nariman.)
Under clause 2d it was sought to extend to Associate member "all benefits of membership including burial/burial of ashes in the aramgah except that such spouse member shall not be entitled to the use of the Anjuman’s fire temple or to be elected as a trustee.” The DPA has been allotted an additional plot which reportedly will be sufficient to accommodate additional graves. Clause 3b states that the DPA properties are to be managed "for the benefit of the members of the DPA in particular and of sister communities and Parsi Zoroastrians in general.” Subsequent clauses provide for financial assistance to be rendered to sister communities. The changes provide that any person who may be removed from membership by the board of trustees "shall have the right to appeal to the general body against the termination.”
Most of the other changes are matters of procedure or convenience.
In a reply to a member who raised queries on the proposed changes DPA president Yezad Kapadia explained that the idea of adding sister communities "was basically with a view to protect the Anjuman funds as far as tax and other Government policy is concerned. It was felt that by doing so we could escape being classified as a single religion organization for tax and other levy purposes.”
Since emotions were heightened opponents of the reforms were given an opportunity to vent their ire at the AGM. One report received by Parsiana from the main group opposing the changes (they wished to remain anonymous) stated, "Members were unforgiving and demanded explanations from the trustees... The rules if passed would allow for an inflow of non-Parsis and sister communities with voting rights, thus making the Parsis a minority in the DPA...
"A show of hands to throw out the amendments were carried out by a section of the members. An overwhelming 80 to 90% wanted the rules to be discarded, but the president ruled that since it was already announced that it was not to be taken up at the start of the meeting, the vote could not be considered as valid.
"A few non-Parsis spoke and expressed surprise at the controversy. They remarked that none of them ever wanted membership or agiary and burial rights and failed to understand why they were unnecessarily being brought into the issue...
"For the first time in Delhi the anger spilled out with Parsis demanding that the trustees step down after having sat in that position for several years and also to fix a maximum tenure and an age limit.
"There is a distinct divide and trust deficit between the trustees and the Parsi community. Whichever way it goes, the issue has woken up the Parsis of Delhi and the sleeping majority now has a voice of its own.”
One of the trustees referred to the controversy as "a storm in a teacup.” In an email to a member of the Anjuman the trustee noted, "We have always been a close family in the Delhi Parsi Anjuman and prided ourselves on our openness, fairness and inclusiveness. So much of that seemed to be missing last Sunday.” Another member of the DPA wrote in an email: "At this meeting we should have been sensitive towards the feelings and sensibilities of the non-Parsi spouses who too are members of the Anjuman, some of them did feel unwelcome… It was painful that allegations were leveled against the integrity, functioning and working of the trustees who have put in their valuable time for the service of the community.”
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive