“Pointed” but pertinent questions

With the intention of providing a free public forum to express their views on community issues, Parsiana prepared and emailed a questionnaire to all the 25 candidates contesting the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) elections. The questionnaire comprised an objective portion with 21 questions to which the contestants could reply with a yes, no, or can’t say and a 200-word essay for the hopefuls to air their views on issues of their choosing.
Parsiana sent the questionnaires to the email addresses registered by the candidates with the BPP office. The last date for filing nominations was September 18 and the last date for withdrawal, September 30, 2015. Two candidates withdrew by then. As one of them, Phiroze Amroliwalla had answered the questionnaire, we have published his replies but not carried extracts from his bio data or manifesto. A few candidates responded promptly, others had to be reminded and a handful said they did not receive both the emails or had overlooked them. One woman said she was not computer savvy and hence regretted her inability to respond.
Twenty candidates responded fully or partially. Some skipped the objective section and wrote the essay, some replied to the objective section but not the essay. Some answered the questionnaire in part, leaving blanks for certain questions. Parsiana presents the answers provided to both sections in the following pages. As there was considerable data to compose and present, the entries for the objective section have all been tabulated and arduously double checked by two members of the editorial staff. The essays, manifesto summaries and bio data have been similarly checked. We regret in advance for any inadvertent error that may have crept in.
Several parties responded tardily but as we were keen to include their answers in this issue, we accommodated them despite the late hour. The only sitting trustee to contest, Yazdi Desai did not respond to the two emails sent and when a text message was sent to his wife, Anahita, inquiring as to his silence, we were requested to resend the questionnaire which we did on September 28. Yazdi replied less than an hour later regretting his inability to respond, noting, "Your questionnaire requires us to answer in a ‘yes’ ‘no’ format. Many of the responses require explanations and I am unable to respond to your questions simply by a ‘yes’ or ‘no.’”
Of course several of the candidates have qualified their answers, and their explanations are printed. (see "Clarifications by candidates,” pg 38). But the late hour did not permit further correspondence.
The four veterans from the Defence Services panel declined to answer the objective section of the questionnaire, alleging "all the pointed and loaded questions are based on talk doing the rounds. Some could be based on half-truths and even malicious to serve ‘vested interests.’” They claimed the sum of three crore rupees spent on the priests ban litigation is sourced "at best from reliable sources.” They did not specify which questions these were or in what manner they constituted half-truths or malicious intent.
Parsiana thanked them on September 26 for their response but noted, "It is unfortunate the community will be in the dark concerning your views on crucial issues. We believe transparency is essential, hence we drafted a hard-hitting questionnaire.”
The veterans responded on September 26 referring to our disappointment and stated, "After much deliberation it was a conscience call and not a tactful maneuver to keep the ‘community in the dark,’ as made out by you. While we do NOT put ourselves on a pedestal of virtue, we have it ingrained in us to do what we commit to doing. In all honesty, questions on housing and religion are so complex and heavily loaded, that no sane person can have simplistic answers of yes or no to them. If it were so straightforward, solutions would not have eluded us, or led to legal recourse at the expense of the coffers of the BPP and there would be no case for debate within the community.
"Elucidating further, the questions of attending anjuman meetings outside Mumbai or abroad; if the circumstances permit, as do finances and it is in the larger good of the community, we would. But how can a carte blanche be given at this point?
"We do take umbrage to your implied lack of ‘transparency’ by us. While you believe it is essential, this is in fact the cornerstone of our work ethos. This is precisely why we will not allow ourselves to be led into a situation where we are held hostage to even casual utterances, let alone commitments. To many these may not matter, but to us IT DOES. We are sure you appreciate the distinction.
"If a change is sought to be brought about in the working of the BPP, we need open minds and not predetermined views, nor surrogate trustees of vested interests. Certainly not self-opinionated individuals who have let their egos or expectation of personal gains rule their heads on matters of the community good. Have we not had enough of that?”

Answers
The objective answers are quite revealing. We list below a sample of the answers to the questions the veterans presumably considered "pointed,” "loaded” or "malicious”: Seven favored flats being given on tenancy, two wanted both tenancy and leave and license, two said leave and license, three said can’t say and one gave no reply. The topic is a ticklish one. One voter at Viraf Mehta’s talk at Rustom Baug on September 26 noted that he paid a market value for his flat but in the unforeseen event of his young grandchild ever marrying a non-Parsi and continuing to reside with him, he would face eviction under the leave and license terms. BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta who was present at the meet told the man that the community had to choose between tenancy whereby "a flood of non-Parsis” would reside in Parsi colonies or leave and license which would maintain the Parsi-only covenant. One can’t have both, he stressed. Where tenancy was involved, the BPP had lost the cases pertaining to induction of non-Parsis or would do so when the hearings were over. In cases concerning leave and license, the trust had been successful. He believed it was for the community to take a decision.
Eight candidates said they would convert leave and license agreements into tenancy, two said no, two said can’t say while three did not reply. Nine were against charging market value deposits when transferring flats to new occupants, four replied can’t say, one said yes/no and one stated yes.
All but two believed the Parsi population is declining with 13 answering it was. Only one candidate opposed constructing more housing, all the rest were in favor. Everyone favored holding annual meetings with voters with one preferring them half yearly. Twelve favored shorter terms for trustees than the prevailing seven, with most favoring a five-year term and others four.
Only one out of 15 felt the three crore rupees spent on the priests ban case was "well spent;” 14 stated it was "wasted.” Eight favored reversing the priests ban, four were against reinstating them while three responded can’t say. Eleven said Parsis should have a choice of how their bodies are disposed, only one said no and three replied can’t say. Only three were in favor of funerary prayers after the geh sarna being recited in agiaries for those opting for alternate means of disposal to dakhmenashini, four replied no, five said can’t say and three did not reply. Nine were opposed to non-Parsis being present in the bunglis when the funerary ceremonies were being performed, two said yes, three said can’t say and one did not reply. Nine favored the new Prayer Hall at Worli where those opting for cremation, burial or the dakhmas can have their prayers said, two said no, four replied can’t say. Four said yes to ordaining women mobedyars, four said no, six replied can’t say and one did not reply.
The candidates’ names are listed in alphabetical order both for the questionnaire and the public campaign meetings. Due to constraints of time the last meetings we could cover were on September 27, 2015.
Parsis can now hopefully cast their votes with greater insight.