Shameful is the first word that comes to mind when describing the antics of the Bombay Parsi community’s leadership, past and present. For the past eight years or so the shenanigans of the once august Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) have not only caused untold hardship and embarrassment to the worldwide community but frittered away vast quantities of the trust’s wealth and credibility. Never have trustees past and present, behaved in such a cavalier fashion as on September 8, verbally and physically brawling on the grounds of the Ballard Pier magistrates’ court (see "The Ballard Pier brawl," page 23).
There have been other instances in the past but none to compare with the brazenness of this. Twenty-two years ago, Rashid Khosravi was hammered at Khareghat Colony following a BPP election. While he may have needled the concerned persons, resorting to violence is not an acceptable response.
In 2010, a group of vigilantes descended on Meher Master-Moos’ Zoroastrian College in Sanjan to assault a Russian Zoroastrian in the process of having his navar ceremony performed. Not only was his sudreh torn but Master-Moos also suffered minor injuries shielding her initiate from the marauders. Photographs were purloined from the premises and subsequently produced in the Bombay High Court to discredit one of the two priests whom the BPP barred from performing religious ceremonies at Doongerwadi and two fire temples controlled by the trust. The pointless litigation to ban the priests resulted in around three crore rupees (US $ 4,47,909) being squandered from the BPP’s coffers.
The community was also aghast when the former BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta allegedly picked up a chair in the BPP boardroom to assault his bête noire and fellow trustee, Yazdi Desai. Here also we are told there was verbal provocation prior to the incident. The Ballard Pier scrap is the outcome of long simmering enmity between the factions.
Many paint the villain of the piece to be universal adult franchise, first introduced in 2008 to elect trustees to the apex Bombay trust. But the Khosravi incident precedes that by over 14 years. The 2008 elections were peaceful. But differences between the two major groups that contested continued into the boardroom. This is endemic to any grouping of people, more so elected representatives. In 2006, prior to adult franchise, four trustees of the BPP had resigned over a dispute primarily over the alleged high-handedness of Mehta. Why a majority on a six or seven-member board were not able to out maneuver the seasoned politician, is not known.
So, differences and violence are not a creation of adult franchise. The involvement of the community due to the expanded franchise results in developments taking place on a larger canvas. Add to that the all pervading presence of social media and you have a toxic mix. Elections are not unique to the BPP and the community. Nearly all Zoroastrian punchayets, anjumans and associations throughout India and the world elect their trustees/leaders through adult franchise. Surat does not but there have been instances of violence there and two chairmen have been dismissed by the body that decides on who should serve as trustees.
At an executive council meet of the Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI) decades ago the then Tata Sons director and president of the Jamshedpur Parsi Anjuman Jamshed Irani observed that the notorious Bihar chief minister Laloo Prasad Yadav was better behaved than the delegates present at the all-India Parsi meet! This was much prior to the introduction of adult franchise in Bombay.
Following the successful hosting of the Third World Zoroastrian Congress in Bombay in 1979, the BPP walked out of the FPZAI because the president of the Delhi Parsi Anjuman Shiavax Nargolwala dared to criticize the BPP indirect election scheme. BPP chairman B. K. Boman-Behram who disliked the liberal and sometimes haughty Delhi chief used the incident to withdraw from the all-India body. Why the then all powerful BPP did not instead expel Delhi remains a question mark. Eruch Desai was the only trustee to oppose the withdrawal and earned Boman-Behram’s undying wrath for doing so.
Bombay finally had to eat humble pie and rejoin the FPZAI as the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi asked the community to speak with one voice on the issue of adoption.
At a public meet in Bombay, tomatoes and eggs were hurled at Framroze Bode, a dastur and doctorate holder to many, and "Mr" Bode to his numerous, orthodox critics.
Some point a finger at Mehta as the instigator of violence. Others blame the electorate for reelecting Yazdi Desai and electing Mehta’s son, Viraf, thus giving continuity to an old enmity. But even in Indian politics, and elsewhere, the same leaders are reelected and their sons and daughters occupy elected positions. Legislation gets held up when parties disagree. If different legislative bodies are controlled by opposing parties, the president or prime minister’s hands are tied. Violence does occur. People do die. So why the fuss when it happens amongst Parsis? Are we any different from the others?
Many think so. Some believe Parsis are superior and therefore non-Parsis should be kept at bay, forbidden entry to our fire temples and religious ceremonies; interfaith married couples are to be ostracized. Others claim that as Parsis are privileged, educated, westernized, charitable and lead moral lives they should set an example to the disadvantaged. Prime Minister Narendra Modi often cites Parsis as an example of an ideal minority that has blended into the mainstream and made outstanding contributions to the country. But the September 8 incident — hopefully an aberration — marred that depiction.
How does one rise from this morass? One must first concede, as Hamelt does in Shakespeare’s play, that the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves. The community has elected their representatives. Now they have to ensure they perform.