Rayomand Coins
 

Succeeding democratically?

The clamor to register for the 18th North American Zoroastrian Congress held in Houston in December 2024 reflects the enthusiasm of our overseas brethren to interact, share their thoughts and be knowledgeable about their customs, traditions and religion. Within three hours, 725 seats were booked. With more than 250 hopefuls on the waiting list, soon that too closed. In a similar occurrence for the 8th World Zoroastrian Youth Congress in London in July 2023, all 455 available seats were booked within seven hours of registration opening, with 500 left on the waiting list. And unlike in India where local or international Congresses are held less than once in 25 years, in North America they are held regularly.
Of course, in the larger Indian cities the community has opportunities to meet at weddings, navjotes, jashans and gahanbars so the yearning to mingle with fellow Zoroastrians may not be so acute. But what about smaller pockets? The nonfunctioning of The Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI) means that those residing away from the community concentrations are cut off from the mainstream. They have no voice or say in community matters. Of the seven members on the current Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) board, three have never participated in an FPZAI meet. When a small community such as Udvada attempts to draw visitors to the holy pilgrimage center with an utsav, traditionalists’ hackles are raised (see "The Utsav’s utility,” pg 19). As it is, with a declining and aging population, the number of devotees making the four-hour arduous and expensive journey from Bombay is shrinking. 
Why is there a difference in approach to hosting community meets in North America and India? Is a culture of intolerance or anti-intellectualism prevalent in India? No more so than in the USA. If America can elect a felon and sexual predator as its president twice, and India can elect self-proclaimed non-biological (godly) proponents of Hindutva to office, the voters in both democracies share similar fascist leanings. So why then does the Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America (FEZANA) thrive while the FPZAI shrivels? 
FPZAI once served as a vibrant platform for not only Indian Zoroastrians but also for those from overseas. Several members of overseas associations would attend the meets. The Indian anjumans vied with each other to host these prestigious gatherings. Delegates from all over India would gather at small and remote  Zoroastrian enclaves such as Ukai and Devka (in south Gujarat), as well as Ratlam,  Calicut and larger centers like Delhi, Calcutta and Madras, to mention a few. FPZAI was a precursor to FEZANA.
The downfall of FPZAI was its inbuilt, structural dependence on the BPP.  In the late 1960s and early 70s the BPP was leary of the formation of an all-India body. They feared their hegemony would be threatened. What was the need for an all India body when the BPP was capable of representing the community in India and globally? they pompously reasoned. Eventually they relented after sufficient safeguards had been incorporated into the rules and regulations to ensure the BPP’s control of the body. But the trustees faced pushback from outstation satraps like Shiavax Nargolwala of Delhi, Maneck Gheyara of Surat, Behram Sidhwa of Bangalore and others who wanted a more democratic framework for the body. Gheyara had first invited the Parsi Press to an FPZAI meet in Surat in the mid-1970s. Two years prior, when Nargolwala had permitted Parsiana’s Sanober Chinoy (later Marker) to attend an FPZAI meet in Delhi, then BPP chairman Nadirshah Mulla objected to her presence stating the Press was not authorized to attend. She was asked to exit the venue.
While the BPP provided much needed infrastructure for the fledgling body, the Federation eventually became a victim of the subsequent internecine wrangling among BPP trustees. These conflicts proved detrimental not only to the once powerful BPP but also to the active, all-India body. The majority of BPP trustees periodically amended the rules and regulations of the FPZAI to appropriate even more power to themselves. Outstation delegates were reduced to being pawns of the BPP power blocs. By manipulating the election process, anjumans that differed or opposed the predominance of some power centers were voted out as FPZAI office bearers. Several anjumans stopped attending, others suspended membership. 
At an FPZAI meet in Ahmedabad in 2004, a group of rowdies, especially invited by one group to oppose the formation of a world body, disrupted the proceedings, shouting slogans, hurling abuses and preventing any work being conducted for over half an hour. It was one of the darkest chapters in the FPZAI’s history, the other being when a majority of BPP trustees tried to take control of the FPZAI, changing its mailing address to the residence of one trustee and hiring bouncers to prevent opposing BPP trustees from entering the meeting hall. The FPZAI had hit rock bottom, while the BPP matched its past record in the mid-1970s of calling the police to a trustees’ meeting to forestall any hooliganism.
How and why did the once respected BPP become such a calamitous institution? The mechanism for its destruction was inbuilt: a flawed, indirect election system, votes for sale, unlimited trusteeship terms of 10 years each with no public accountability mandated.
In contrast, the North American Zoroastrian leadership has opted for universal adult franchise (UAF) and in some cases limited terms in office from the 1970s and even earlier when associations began sprouting. 
In Bombay, the BPP introduced UAF and three terms of seven years each only in 2008 and that too after a protracted court battle. In 2022 the BPP trustees were back in court when the majority tried to indefinitely postpone trusteeship elections so as to remain in power. The minority trustees moved the Bombay High Court and with the intervention of well-wishers and an astute and perceptive judge, saw trustees’ terms restricted to five years with a maximum of two terms. The new set of seven elected to office that year kept their differences to a minimum and for the first time in decades the BPP functioned without much overt rancor. They may not achieve much but expectations are so low that just getting along with one another is an accomplishment. How much the seven can build on that bonhomie is yet to be seen. Several of the trustees still hold past allegiances, more to their mentor than to the trust itself. 
But at least the framework for a democratic body has been set. Democracy may not be the ideal form to ensure a peaceful transition of leadership but it is the best we have for the present. Now it is for other community trusts to also introduce reforms. Some anjumans/trusts still permit unlimited terms in office and bar women from either voting or standing for office. From the backwaters of civilization the community can now pull itself into the 21st century, drawing inspiration not only from abroad but also within. 



Post Comment

View Comment (1)

Kudos on this very eloquent and timely editorial. Looking in from far outside, it would be hard for me to imagine an India without a wisely led and vibrant Zarthosti community, especially in its heartland of Bombay.
- Porus Cooper
- 24-Jan-2025

 

Villoo Poonawalla