Still the “status quo”?
The new trustees of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) are learning fast that you can’t take anything for granted. An application on November 4 to the Joint Charity Commissioner (JCC) to withdraw the "status quo" order on all properties met with stiff opposition from former BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta, BPP trustees Armaity Tirandaz and Muncherji Cama.
Over two years ago, four of the former BPP trustees who were at loggerheads with Mehta had filed an application to remove him from office, alleging financial impropriety. Until the matter was decided the then Charity Commissioner had ordered a stay on all BPP properties. With Mehta no longer holding office as his 21 years and three terms in office were over, the case was infructuous. So when the JCC inquired of Mehta, "Do you have any objection?" Mehta responded, "Yes, very strong objections. Let them give an apology for the mistakes done." They had maligned his name, he alleged, caused undue hardship to those awaiting BPP housing and deprived the trust of its main source of income from transfer of property. At Mehta’s request the matter was adjourned to December 1. Aside from Mehta and Tirandaz no other trustees, former or present, were at the hearing. They probably assumed the withdrawal was a given.
The second embarrassment was when four of the present trustees (BPP chairman Yazdi Desai, Noshir Dadrawala, Kersi Randeria and Zarir Bhathena) invited Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of the Legislative Assembly Raj Purohit, BJP South Bombay president Vishwas Mambhrey and former MLA Atul Shah to the BPP boardroom on November 3 at 4 p.m., an hour before the weekly Tuesday meeting of the trustees. Tirandaz and BPP trustee Viraf Mehta had not been informed of the visit but Tirandaz came to know as she had arrived early to sign some papers!
On November 24 the Assistant Charity Commissioner is scheduled to hear the application made by Mehta challenging the validity of the change report filed by the earlier trustees regarding the resignation of Cama. Mehta contends the resignation was technically incorrect and that Cama therefore withdrew the letter. But four co-trustees who were warring with Mehta, Tirandaz and Cama passed a resolution accepting the earlier resignation, even though Mehta states he had officially ended the meeting prior to the passing of the resolution.
The underlying rivalry in the new board is bound to surface in the scheduled March/April election next year when Tirandaz completes her seven-year term. She is not expected to seek reelection. Should former BPP trustee Arnavaz Mistry stand, the factions will be deeply divided. Dinshaw is bound to put up a strong candidate against her. By switching loyalties from the Mehta camp to the World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) led group in the previous board, she had tilted the balance in their favor. Other possible candidates for trusteeship are publisher Maneck Davar, chartered accountant Xerxes Dastur and the recent BPP trusteeship election president Mahiyar Dastoor. Davar had ranked sixth in the October elections and Dastur, seventh.
The new board will have to prepare the groundwork for the forthcoming election, building up on the positive aspects of the October 18 experience and ironing out the creases.
What needs to be done electorally is listed in a "Final report and results" prepared by Dastoor, chief technology officer Yazdi Tantra and chief polling officer Cawas Panthaki. The 28-page summary and analysis was presented to the trustees on October 23, the day the new board took over from the old. (Parsiana had written to Desai requesting a copy to which we received no reply. A copy was handed to us by another source.)
In the section "Observations and recommendations" the report calls for a code of conduct to be put before the Bombay High Court "at the earliest... We faced a huge task in enforcing the voluntary code of conduct (as) some of the candidates…were brazenly defiant…When each of the candidates had signed the voluntary code of conduct, it would have been better if each of them had ethically followed the same," the trio note.
The officials called for an increase in the deposits to be provided by candidates from Rs 5,000 to Rs 50,000. "A serious candidate, even if impoverished…will surely be supported with funds." For a parliamentary seat the deposit is Rs 25,000, for a state assembly Rs 10,000. For scheduled tribes and castes the amount is half. In the United Kingdom the deposit for a parliamentary seat is £ 500 (Rs 50,045). Thus the figure recommended by the three appears very high.
The "biggest hurdle" encountered by the election officials "was the voters list…Wrongly written certificate numbers, duplicate certificates, marking of those who are not dead as dead, similar names not being identified and marked," etc.
To "immediately ensure cleansing of the voters list" may not be practical. Panthaki had explained to the gathering of candidates at Khareghat Colony on October 2, that as outstation community members are registered as voters on the BPP rolls, there is no way for the trust to know if and when they expire. Family members may not convey news of their death. Also the BPP strikes off names of the deceased whose bodies are consigned in Bombay dakhmas but they do not have a record of those being cremated.
"In fact the best would be a wholly new certification system and issue of identity cards," the report notes and "recommends the use of smart cards which have bar codes or magnetic strips… We strongly recommend e-voting be tried out."
But any major reforms may not be practical for the March/April election in light of the legal formalities involved. No one wants elections to be delayed while the revised scheme pends in the legal system.
The recommendations that can and should be implemented are, "providing shade, fans and bottled water…proper seating arrangements and ventilation," using school or college premises "where basic toilet facilities" are available and "three to four more voting centers." The rate of voting was approximately "1,100 to 1,200 votes per hour," notes the report. Two or more people at each center calling out the names would quicken the process. Only one person per center reading out the numbers and names resulted in a bottleneck.
Also the role of polling agents needs to be defined. Several agents were agitated that they were seated at a distance, were not permitted to be present at the time of the sealing/closing of the electronic voting machines (EVMs) or the collation of data. These processes were instead overseen by the auditors from the prestigious firm of Deloitte Haskins & Sells.
The measures — EVMs, voting at five centers on one day, independent auditors overseeing the process — were all introduced for the first time in the BPP elections. The credit for all this should surely go to the previous board and more importantly the three election officials, the BPP staff and the 500 or so people roped in to oversee the operation.
With some fine tuning and innovations, the BPP may once again serve as a benchmark on how to conduct free and fair elections in community institutions.