I am not only bewildered but also disappointed at the way Parsiana has handled our objections to the recent swap of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) chairperson ("An unethical swap?” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, March 21-April 6, 2024).
Instead of letting us have the final say, you asked Armaity Tirandaz and Viraf Mehta for their responses, though their version of the story was already covered in not one but two earlier issues. Predictably, Mehta completely ignored the objections raised by Noshir Dadrawala, Arzan Ghadially, Dr Viraf Kapadia and myself — and in his response veered the narrative to a completely unrelated direction.
In the issue of May 7-20, 2024 Zoru Bhathena wrote that his grievance is with Tirandaz stepping down as chairwoman even though the other trustees had no objection and elected Mehta. Does he realize that this in itself is the main objection by us four? There was no need for the swap when Tirandaz was disabled only for a few weeks and Zoom meetings could have easily enabled her to manage matters without having to physically attend office. Bhathena has also overlooked the ambiguity arising from the interpretation of a key sentence of Rule 15.1: "A trustee who is elected chairman will continue as chairman till the expiry of his term, or if he vacates earlier.” The morality and ethics of the swap, apart from its legality, was mentioned by us four objectors.
Former Bombay High Court judge Shahrukh Kathawalla’s views on Zoom meetings (Parsiana, May 7-20, 2024) regarding its permissible use in this day and age clearly vindicates our stance. If a meeting can be held via Zoom, the trustees could have done so till Tirandaz was fit enough to resume duty.
I once again reiterate that the chairperson swap was clearly unnecessary.
T. B. ADENWALLA
tba2004@gmail.com
The editors note:
As a magazine policy allegations concerning a particular party or parties are forwarded to them for their response, if any.