Building trust

With the curtains coming down on what must surely be the most disastrous trusteeship term of any Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) board in recent history (if not ever), this may be a good time to reflect on what went wrong and how such a turn of events could be averted in future. The previous trustees used the boardroom as a battlefield, both figuratively and literally. They were prepared to sabotage any program if by doing so they could discredit the opposing party.

So deep-rooted was the bitterness that according to a message on social media issued by eight "friends who know (BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta) best," at Mehta’s final board meeting, "the majority trustees boycotted the meeting leaving no quorum for a meeting to be held."

In a printed, eight-page leaflet to voters titled "Thank you and goodbye…" Mehta affirmed, "I strove to focus on what’s right for the community…I have had the distinct pleasure of watching our community rise to new heights in growth and influence and also fall to deep despair." In a section titled "Regret…" Mehta writes of his inability to prevent the "insensitive infighting over petty issues...I am aware I will sadly go down in history as being unsuccessful." He then urged voters not to re-elect his bête noire and sitting trustee, Yazdi Desai.

The pamphlet lists Mehta’s accomplishments over the 21 years on the BPP board and the faults of his detractors. In the conclusion titled "My last advice…" he suggests egos be curtailed, trust be built and matters be solved "within the community."

Will the new board heed the advice? There have been acrimonious exchanges between some of the candidates. While dissension is always a cause for concern, differences can be resolved. Political parties historically compete with one another, yet electoral alliances are forged, coalitions are formed and governments created. Politicians don’t want the headache, heartache and expense of another election, until one is due. They also know the public is keeping an eye on them in parliament or an assembly or a corporation. The Press monitors their activities. If they step too far out of line, the public will make their opposition known. Look at the spate of writers, artists and others returning either their Sahitya Akademi awards or even a Padma Shri, to publicize their opposition to the atrocities being committed in the name of Hindutva with the connivance of the government and the silence of literary organizations.

The functioning of the BPP in contrast is secluded and sheltered. Once the trustees are elected, they function like a closed shop. It is only at the Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India meetings that the Press gets an opportunity to observe the trustees at a community forum. But these meetings may be few and far between, depending entirely on the whims and fancies of the BPP trustees. Much resentment is voiced by the other anjumans at this capricious and high-handed attitude. Representatives contend they are treated like poor relations or, worse still, beggars.

The last board believed they were a law unto themselves. They were cocooned in their boardroom, oblivious to the rising public wrath against their misdemeanors. Only two samast anjuman meetings were called in seven years to give an account of their doings. A third meeting was called to discuss the increased taxation by the Bombay Municipal Corporation on trust property.

Once the ill-fated The BPP Review ceased publishing, even the sporadically published annual accounts were not accessible to the lay person. And for good reason: the accounts have either not been finalized or not been audited for the last two years, a point emphasized at election meets by chartered accountant and BPP trusteeship candidate Zarir Bhathena.

So Byzantine is the functioning of the once apex Bombay trust that obtaining any official information is next to impossible. Whatever is made public is through secondhand sources, or by leaks by one or the other of the warring factions. Different trustees give differing versions. Even the amount spent on the ill-conceived priests ban case is officially unstated; two trustees confirmed the figure of three crore rupees plus.

Yet in a Parsiana questionnaire to the 25 candidates for trusteeship (two subsequently withdrew) inquiring if they believed the money was well spent or wasted on the case, the four defence forces veterans panel refused to answer the questions, doubted the authenticity of the figure and termed our motives "malicious to serve ‘vested interests.’"

Well-meaning individuals, including former trustees, intervened and broker peace between the warring board factions. Their efforts have borne some fruit. The voluntary code of conduct introduced at their behest had certainly set a more civilized tone for the present elections. Dinner boxes and similar incentives had disappeared from the electoral meets. Only bottled water and, at one meet, tea and biscuits were served.

The candidates mostly refrained from attacking one another by name, though there are glaring exceptions. Most contestants adhered to the spending limit, but regrettably a few did not.

In an email sent to the election president Mahiyar Dastoor, nine prominent community members, including five former trustees and a high priest, pointed out "some candidates have flagrantly flouted" the expenditure limit of Rs 3,00,000 (US$ 4,613). "We realize that the code of conduct is voluntary and not enforceable legally, but if one were to go beyond legalities, we cannot expect such candidates to discharge their duties with ethics and morals," they observed.

Dastoor had called a meeting of all the 23 candidates on October 2 at the Khareghat Colony Hall to explain the methodology and manner of holding the election. The discussion went on for two hours and 45 minutes with heated allegations by some of the participants about a level playing field not being available to all. They also voiced apprehensions about the efficacy of the electronic voting machines and inquired about the checks and balances to prevent fraudulent voting. But at the end of the session all the candidates present stated they believed the electoral process would be conducted fairly and honestly.

It is the exterior influences that proved to be the civilizing factor, the intervention that permitted the election process to function smoothly. The new board of trustees may or may not be more effective than the past one. What can make them more responsive to the community’s expectations is periodic public interaction and involvement with the trust.

People’s participation is one of the great strengths of universal adult franchise. Those voted to power are accountable to all, not just a handful of power brokers. The BPP will, by its inherent nature, try to function behind closed doors. It is for the community to prise open these gates.