Since the Editorial Viewpoint, "A costly consent” (Parsiana, March 21-April 6, 2021) also appeared in Parsi Times, we the undersigned would like the community to know the truth.
We agree with Parsiana that "the tussle over the postponement of March 14, 2021, Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trusteeship election would qualify as among the most tragic, wasteful and meaningless utilization of scarce community and judicial resources.”
We are of the view that the main culprits for this tragic and meaningless waste were BPP trustees Kersi Randeria, Noshir Dadrawala and trustee-in-waiting since 2011, Anahita Desai. Instead of gracefully accepting the trustees’ decision to postpone the elections by two months due to the Covid surge, Desai and others approached the Bombay High Court. After their petition was rejected by the single judge they went in appeal before a Division Bench which cancelled the March elections and posted fresh elections for May 23, which is more than the two months requested/proposed by the board of trustees.
For starters, the postponement was not because of a last minute call by former BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta. Mehta and the undersigned, along with several others from all baugs and colonies had, in an email dated February 17, spelt out cogent and convincing reasons for postponement.
This was further strengthened by the trustees themselves unanimously telling candidates on February 23 to completely stop campaigning in all baugs and colonies citing a rise in Covid cases.
Events thereafter have proven that our fear of a surge in the virus as early as February was justified. We reliably understand that the majority of trustees were favorably inclined to a delay. Had the ‘minority’ heeded our suggestion there would have been no "tragic, wasteful and meaningless utilization of scarce community and judicial resources.”
It is not "Mehta (being) unable to achieve his goal of controlling a majority on the truncated BPP board” but a genuine concern for the community which was reflected in our email.
Randeria, with the Parsi Press (Parsi Times and Jam-e-Jamshed) in his control, has roped in Desai who is a complete traditional orthodox, while he is a reformist. So much in a hurry is this minority to become a majority.
You further write that Mehta "also unwittingly nullified the candidature of his friend and ally, lawyer Berjis Desai.” Was Mehta really responsible for this or was it the insistence of the two minority trustees who again dictated that since one of them, Dadrawala, was Berjis’s proposer, Berjis had to toe their line? Had Berjis done that, would this have been the inception of another camp?
Berjis, as any prudent candidate would, chose to remain independent. The community has lost out on a good candidate not because of Mehta but because of the dictatorial attitude of Randeria. You too have admitted this fact by stating that Berjis "opted to remain neutral. But his proposer and others saw Berjis’s refusal to cooperate as a betrayal and may withdraw their support.” So it was not "Dinshaw’s ill-conceived subterfuge” as there was no such subterfuge by him.
Also, when you say that "Anahita is probably unbeatable but the other seat as of now is up for grabs” are you not taking voters for granted and/or trying to promote her candidature?
You have named the two, Mehta and Randeria, as arch enemies but conveniently forgotten that these very persons did align in 2011 to defeat the same Anahita’s maiden attempt at trusteeship. Politics certainly makes strange bedfellows! And Parsi politics takes the cake!
You say, "The human and financial costs incurred due to the postponement is enormous,” and further elaborate on the costs. One wonders how much of this is attributable to the majority trustees. We are informed that this litigation will cost the community charity funds not a rupee. Further details are awaited. Your tilt is very obvious and you, being a tenant of BPP/Parsi Lying-in Hospital, like many in the community are made to feel the stress and strain!
The postponement is not "a Pyrrhic victory for the majority trustees who rubber stamp Dinshaw’s diktats.” It is the reality accepted by our judiciary in the overall interest of our community and of society at large. No one in their senses would want the pandemic to cause more damage to life and commerce than it already has.
In the last para, you say, "The only real check on those in positions of power is an alert and active citizenry. But the lay Parsis, like most others, are indifferent or unconcerned or approve of the status quo.” We the undersigned do not wish to see the end of this institution. For this reason alone we will not hesitate to do our best to free our community from the clutches of trustees who though in minority attempt to subjugate all who come in their way. In this, we seek the partnership and support of our community.
PHIROZE CAWASJI AMROLIWALLA
phirozeamroliwalla@gmail.com
ZEREE BURJOR JEHANGIRJI
zereej@gmail.com
This is with reference to the following statement in your editorial "A costly consent” (Parsiana, March 21-April 6, 2021), which was reproduced in the Parsi Times of March 26: "The Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI) kowtowing is more distressing as the anjumans are autonomous bodies and not beholden to any trustee of the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP). They can afford to be independent but choose not to be.”
To put the record straight with regard to your observation "choose not to be” independent, you will recollect that an extraordinary general meeting of the Federation was held in Bombay on May 5, 2019, attended by most of the member anjumans for the very purpose of seeking independence from the BPP. Parsiana was present at this meeting and witnessed the proceedings as they unfolded. These, I recollect, were reported at length in the magazine ("Give peace a chance,” Parsiana, May 21-June 6, 2019). Parsiana was witness to the fervent appeal I made to all the members, in my capacity as an office bearer of the Federation, explaining the need for the Federation to go independent. You will also recollect that a trustee of the BPP subsequently took the floor and tried to contradict all that had been said earlier in favor of the Federation going independent.
Just before this important item on the agenda could be put to vote, the member from the Delhi Parsi Anjuman made an appeal to all present that going independent would be a retrograde step and would not augur well for the Federation. He wrongly believed, unfortunately, that the Federation did not have the expertise or the wherewithal to do so. Soon thereafter, Dastur Khurshed Dastoor, also a revered office bearer of the Federation, made a similar appeal. It was only out of respect for his appeal that the house "chose not to be” independent and agreed to maintain the status quo.
As Parsiana rightly observed, member anjumans of the FPZAI "are autonomous bodies” and have no reason to "kowtow” to any organization.
Cmde MEDIOMA BHADA (retd)
Vice President, South Zone,
The Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India
mrbhada@gmail.com
.JPG)
The editors reply:
Our reference to the kowtowing pertains to "any trustee of the BPP (Bombay Parsi Punchayet),” not the BPP itself. In earlier editorials and reports on the FPZAI (The Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India) meets we have stated the all-India body rubber-stamped the proposals put forward by former FPZAI and BPP chairman Yazdi Desai. His main, if only opposition came from his co-trustees, several of whom he tried to expel from FPZAI and even wanted to bar their entry to the meeting by hiring bouncers (pictured below).
He also wished to deny some of his co-trustees the right to sign cheques and tried to change the address of the Federation from the BPP office to the Framjee Cowasjee Institute which houses the traditional World Alliance of Parsi Irani Zarthoshtis (WAPIZ) of which he is chairman. These resolutions would have been passed by the majority of the delegates/anjumans that are beholden to him and WAPIZ.
Almost since the inception of the FPZAI, around 1970, the BPP has been its main bulwark in terms of personnel and finance.
Under Desai’s tutelage, the FPZAI violated its cardinal principle of not interfering in the internal affairs of an individual anjuman, unless asked to by the anjuman. The executive council of the FPZAI gave its approval to this transgression to buttress its traditionalist stance. Two Calcutta residents had filed an Originating Summons in the Calcutta High Court requesting the Court to opine on who has the right of entry to the local fire temple. The Calcutta anjuman said this was an internal matter and the FPZAI should not interfere. The FPZAI, however, voted to implead itself in the case.