Archive

Email from Yazdi Desai to Dinshaw Mehta dated July 31, 2013
Dear Mr Mehta
At the meeting of the anjumans of West Zone B held at Ahmedabad last Sunday (July 28, 2013), Mr Areez Khambatta mentioned that the FPZAI EC meeting of September 2013 was unilaterally restricted to only one day — September 8 — instead of the customary two days. You interrupted Mr Areez and told him to get his facts right and you insisted that the EC meetings are always held only on one single day and are held on two days only if the EC meeting is combined with the Annual General Meeting.
Below are the facts (for EC meets):                                 
December 18 and 19, 2004 in Ahmedabad;
March 24 and 25, 2006 in Thana;
March 12 and 13, 2011 in Valsad.
(Note: This meeting was held during your own tenure as president of FPZAI)
 Besides this, the BPP board minutes of April 11, 2012 item No 6, record the following: "The administration informed the board that we have received a letter from Jabalpur Parsi Anjuman, that the next FPZAI EC meeting can only be held by them on November 24 and 25, 2012. Chairman, Mr Dinshaw R. Mehta informed the board that it would be too late.” (EC meetings are to be held within a span of six months of each other according to the FPZAI rules and regulations — a formality more often than not observed in the breach over the last five years or more — editors).
 Further, the BPP board minutes of June 26, 2012, item No 3, record the following: "A proposal by joint honorary secretary, Khojeste Mistree, calling for FPZAI office bearers’ meeting on Saturday, July 7, 2012 before the EC meeting of FPZAI to be held in New Delhi on September 1 and 2, 2012, was placed before the board. Chairman Dinshaw Mehta informed the board that Delhi has shown its reluctance to hold any meeting of the Federation and, thus, we will have to search a new venue for holding the EC meeting of the FPZAI.”
 Further to this, the BPP board minutes of July 10, 2012 record the following: "Chairman, Mr Dinshaw R. Mehta, informed the board that the EC meeting of FPZAI has been agreed by Poona Parsee Punchayat, to be held in Poona, on September 1 and 2, 2012 which the board noted.”
All the above conclusively proves that Mr Khambatta was absolutely right and the EC meetings are always held over two days.
In all fairness you owe Mr Khambatta an apology, especially since you interrupted him in his speech and told him publicly to get his facts right.
Best
Yazdi

Email from Areez Khambatta to Khojeste Mistree and Yazdi Desai dated August 9, 2013
Dear Khojeste and Yazdi
You very well know Dinshaw Mehta’s high-handedness and he gets what he wants by misrepresenting or goes to the extent of even telling downright lies so there is no question of receiving an apology from Dinshaw Mehta as requested by Yazdi...
Secondly, how can Mr Mehta decide matters related to FPZAI unilaterally in the BPP board meetings along with some of his chamcha (sycophant) trustees without consulting any of the FPZAI board members and vice presidents?… The trustees of the BPP have absolutely no right to unilaterally decide FPZAI matters as they are two separate entities and there is a legally constituted EC mandated to take decisions regarding FPZAI… Therefore I request you to immediately call a meeting of the sub- committee for Safeguarding Parsi Irani Properties, which was earlier scheduled for May 6 but unilaterally cancelled by Mehta …
His kaka no dikro (uncle’s son) Pervez Mehta of Bardoli distributes the Poverty Amelioration money in such a way that the recipients think it to be coming from Bardoli as cheques are issued from Bardoli Anjuman account. It is the same Pervez Mehta who after becoming honorary secretary thanks to me has not published even one Fed Newsletter even though he had agreed to do it, as he too is busy with his kaava daavas (undignified way)…
What has FPZAI done for the betterment of its anjumans or its humdins? "Nothing” as most of the time was wasted in the meetings for four to five years to change Rule 6 as well as reduce the voting rights of the smaller anjumans from one to 0.1-0.3 and debates to join a world body which would have had converts as members. That is why to push through their agenda of reducing the votes of the smaller anjumans, in the EC meeting at Thana for the first time, all the anjumans were not invited. That is why most of our smaller anjumans were unable to participate in the EC meeting so I had to single-handedly fight the Federation leaders and saw to it that this was not carried out otherwise all the smaller anjumans combined would hardly have 20 percent voting rights whilst a tiny group of big anjumans would have about 80 percent of the votes, whereby they would automatically control the Federation. Here it is pertinent to note that the same Dinshaw Mehta who was the honorary secretary at that time had objected for not calling all the members which was subsequently done for all future EC meetings. Now again Dinshaw Mehta wants only the EC members to be present to push through his agenda to change the rules (the general body will have to assent to the change before they can be incorporated in the FPZAI rules — editors).
Areez Khambatta

Email from Khojeste Mistree to Dinshaw Mehta dated August 13, 2013
Dear Dinshaw
I received an email from (the BPP chief executive officer) Mehli Colah on August 7, 2013 with a draft copy of the minutes required for our forthcoming Federation meeting in Ahmedabad. I have made my corrections according to my recollection and the tapes and I am sending the same to you by way of an attachment. I have also put together an agenda as hereunder:
Agenda [14 items are listed including a talk by guest speaker Justice Jamshed Pardiwalla of the Gujarat High Court, status report(s) of the subcommittees for constitutional amendments and for safeguarding community property, and a draft compiled by Mr Bomi Heerjee, head of the Indore anjuman on the lines of the WAKF Board.]
I would strongly recommend that we invite all the anjumans to the EC meeting as we have always done, except once in the past, in Thana in 2006. Otherwise the records show that we have always tried to be inclusive in terms of our invitations in order to carry all the Federation members with us. I do not foresee the problem that you possibly envisage, if we take this courageous step.
So as to allow enough time for a meaningful discussion of all the above important issues, it is my suggestion that the meeting should be held over two days…
Peace and light,
Khojeste

Email from Tehmton Anklesaria, vice president, North Zone to Dinshaw Mehta dated August 15, 2013
Dear Shri Dinshawji
Looking to (the) lengthy agenda of the meeting and discussions on amendments in bye-laws and constitution, it is better if we keep (the) meeting for two days instead (of) one…
Religiously yours,
Tehmton S. Anklesaria

Email from Khambatta to Ahmedabad Parsi Panchayat (APP) president Brig (Retd) Jahangir Anklesaria dated August 16, 2013
Dear Jahangirji
As per our existing practice since last 15 to 20 years proves that we have always invited all our FPZAI members i.e. the general body to the EC meetings and which was mentioned in my email of  August 13 as well as Khojeste’s email of August 13... You should also invite Tannaz Parakh and also permit her to speak as assured by you during the last meeting as well as others also. Even Dinshaw’s own statement that "Guest invitees at FPZAI meet there are no hard and fast rules laid down, but normally done by the office bearers of the Federation as well as it is also left to the host of the meet to invite the guests”…
You also very well know that out of our 35 members of FPZAI hardly seven members can attend if the meeting is for the EC members only.
Areez Khambatta

Email from Brig Jahangir Anklesaria to Dinshaw Mehta dated August 17, 2013
My dear Dinshawji Saheb
I am in receipt of the mail of Yazdibhai Desai…
I am voicing my personal opinion with a suggestion that if so far all these years the EC meeting has been held/conducted over a period of two days the same privilege should be extended to Ahmedabad also.
a. I am convinced on the count that the issues being deliberated upon are far too serious to be done away in a slipshod manner. Specially issues concerning amendment to the existing "Rules of the Federation.”
b. Issues pertaining to permitting of only the EC members to attend the meeting and speak: In my personal opinion I see no reason why a humdin from a smaller anjuman duly authorized in writing (by the trustees) should not be permitted to voice his/her opinion as long as he/she makes the point peacefully and (is) not repeatedly making a nuisance of himself/herself.
c. Defunct and dwindling anjumans are also a cause of concern and we definitely need to give (them) due attention.
I am sure there would be many more such issues which need thorough deliberation and voices/suggestions of all need to be heard...
Brig (Retd) Jahangir P. Anklesaria, VSM

Email from Pervez Mehta, joint honorary secretary to Tehmton Anklesaria dated August 17, 2013
Dear Mr Anklesaria
This is with reference to your email sent to the president FPZAI and copied to me. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the subcommittees formed for the "amendments to the rules and regulations of the FPZAI” and "for safeguarding the Parsi/Irani properties” have so far not submitted (their) report(s). Unless we have something concrete to discuss, it will be futile to take up these matters… I also agree with you that these reports should be circulated amongst the members so as to enable them to think over them, discuss them in their anjumans/punchayets and come prepared. Only then fruitful discussions will follow. As far as my information goes, Mr Bomi Heerjee has not yet submitted his report on the lines of the WAKF Board.
If these three items are removed from the agenda there is nothing that will warrant the meeting spilling over to one more day. You had witnessed that at the last meeting of West Zone B anjumans in spite of its lengthy agenda the meeting got over by lunch time. In view of all these it would be better if we stick to what was finalized at the last meeting at Bombay i.e. to hold the EC meeting for only one day at Ahmedabad and that too only for the EC members. You will agree that we should not arbitarily change what was decided and approved at the last meeting at Bombay. Even Brig Anklesaria had agreed to this in the meeting and his only suggestion was that everyone, whether a proxy or a trustee, should be allowed to speak.        
Pervez B. Mehta

Letter from Mancher Mubarakai, vice president, West Zone A to Pervez Mehta dated August 19, 2013
Dear Pervez
On going through your mail, I would like to draw your attention to the following points.
1. In the meeting of the West Zone B Anjumans, nothing was discussed as it was always maintained that this was not a Federation meeting and the anjumans had only to forward their limited views. I was present at the meeting and had many queries and questions which I restrained myself from asking as this was not a Federation meeting. (The zonal meets are part and parcel of the FPZAI. What Mubarakai probably means is that it was not an EC or AGM meeting — editors).
2. I would also like you to realize that if a committee is formed for drafting new rules of the Federation, it is pointless if a whole set of rules are put before the committee (Mubarakai probably means the EC — editors) to be passed. I would want each point to be discussed, every anjuman representative be given a chance to voice his opinion, and  also be given a chance to go back to his anjuman to take their views, before voting for a new set of rules. Otherwise it will be like the custodianship agreement, which anjumans are not willing to accept.
3. Regarding the committee for the properties of various anjumans, I am one of the members representing West Zone A. To date, no meeting has been called. I have been trying to get a meeting organized, but to no avail.
In order to discuss the above points all the anjumans need to be called,  for which a meeting of two days i.e. from Saturday afternoon to Sunday evening as suggested by the secretary Khojeste Mistree should be held. As the honorary secretary, you should support the secretary and take an active interest in holding meetings and not shy away from them. (Mistree is also a joint honorary secretary. He and Mehta are of equal status as office bearers — editors).
Mancher Mubarakai

Email from Pervez Mehta to Mancher Mubarakai dated August 19, 2013
Dear Mancher
On going through your mail I feel you have not read my mail correctly.
I have stated exactly what you have written. Please read my mail once again...
Since we have not received any report so far what are we going to discuss? Let the reports come — circulate them amongst the EC members before (they are) discussed at the EC meeting. Once the EC discusses (these) report(s) and suggests whatever additions or omissions — then (they) should be sent to all the members and discussed at the AGM before approving (them).
If these three items are removed from Mr Khojeste Mistree’s agenda (as these reports have not been circulated — as per my and your suggestions) then do you think the remaining items on the agenda require two days for discussions? People will think that this meeting is being called for two days just for khaani-peeni and mauj masti (food, drinks, fun and games).
Pervez B. Mehta

Email from Dinshaw Mehta to Brig Anklesaria dated August 21, 2013
My dear Brig Jahangirji
I would like to point out that in spite of the obnoxious, defamatory and insulting ravings and rantings of the president of WAPIZ, Mr Areez Khambatta vide his several emails to all and sundry, I have refused to demean myself by replying to any of them. His behavior of demanding two trustees of the West Zone B Anjumans, who had accompanied Mr (Sorab) Katpitia from Surat, to get up from the lunch table at his recently sponsored West Zone B Zonal Meeting was to say the least, unstatesman like. (Khambatta reportedly asked the representatives to change their seating midway through the meal not realizing they were anjuman representatives. He was said to be making place for other delegates — editors). His attempts to bulldoze a two-day meeting by calling all the anjuman members as according to him only seven West Zone B anjumans out of his 35 anjumans would be eligible for attending the EC meeting was pathetic.
Coming now to your mail Jahangirji, I would like to stress that at the last AGM in January 2013 at Bombay, it had been decided that the next meeting would be held in Ahmedabad only for EC members and only for one day. Since the FPZAI members had (themselves) fixed the next meeting to be of only the EC members and therefore for one day, it would be improper to arbitrarily change the agenda fixed at the FPZAI meeting. As per the constitution of the FPZAI it is the EC which frames policies and thereafter places it before the AGM for approval. If the EC meeting is to be opened to all and sundry anjuman members then the very purpose of the EC as a special policy making body is lost and we might as well scrap the EC. But the constitution mandates an EC comprising of permanent members of certain anjumans as well as elected/nominated members of the various zones to frame policies and guidelines and then bring before the general body such issues which the EC feels vital and necessary.
At today’s BPP board meeting, honorary secretary Khojeste Mistree espoused the cause of a two-day meeting, even if only of the EC members, as there were important decisions to be taken regarding the report expected by the two subcommittees especially on the point of custodian agreements which was agreed to by me. However it was pointed out that both the subcommittees had so far not given their report or their recommendations. Khojeste felt that the reports would be ready by the time of the EC meeting of September 8 where they could be studied especially as both the conveners would be walking us through their recommendations.
However Yazdi Desai and I pointed out that to start reading the reports and the recommendations of the two subcommittees at the meeting would be inappropriate and ideally we should send the same to all the EC members at least a week in advance so that the members of each anjuman of the EC can study the recommendations, apply their minds and be ready with their suggestions and changes if any at the EC meeting and thereafter place (them) before the general body. I therefore suggested that since the reports have not yet been received and it was mandatory under the constitution to send the minutes of the last AGM along with the recommendations of both the sub-committees at least 15 days before the date of the EC meeting, it would be prudent to postpone the said EC meeting to a suitable date after receipt of the report and recommendations. Farokh Rustomji has informed me today that they have fixed a meeting with solicitor Burjor Antia on August 28 to discuss custodian agreement and defunct anjuman solutions and hence their report can be expected only thereafter. Giving 15 days’ time for the recommendations to reach every EC member, the earliest we can reschedule the meeting would be October 2013. In view of the foregoing, the trustees unanimously decided to postpone the proposed EC meeting of September 8 to a suitable date depending on when the report of both the subcommittees is made available to all the EC members. After the EC has decided on the final recommendations of both the sub-committees, (they) will then be placed before all the anjuman members at the next AGM to be held in Bombay in 2014. I sincerely apologise for the inconvenience that no doubt has been caused to you and your organization in view of the above decision, but having a meeting whether of one day or two days would be meaningless in (the) absence of the report of the two subcommittees.
With warm regards
Dinshaw Rusi Mehta

Email from Pervez Mehta to Areez Khambata dated August 22, 2013
Mr Khambatta
This is with reference to your email sent to Yazdi Desai and Khojeste Mistree (dated August 9, 2013) and copied to various recipients… I wish to draw your attention to the fact that after taking up the duties of the joint honorary secretary of the FPZAI, I have always performed my duties diligently and honestly. All the minutes of the meetings except one have been written by me, it is a different matter that I did not sign them, as I believe in doing my duty and working selflessly for the benefit of the FPZAI. I have also been visiting the remotest villages to verify and cross-check the applicants of the Poverty Amelioration Scheme. Please note that I do not believe in taking up any post for its prestige and stay glued to it just to gain name or fame. When I take up a post I ensure that I will be able to do full justice to it and work honestly in that capacity.
May I draw your attention to the fact that all the recipients of the Poverty Amelioration Scheme are aware about the source from where the money comes as they have to sign the receipts for the amount and the cheques are not issued from the Bardoli Anjuman account as incorrectly mentioned by you! On the contrary I distribute these amounts as one of my duties as the joint honorary secretary — at the cost of my own time and money. You are aware how difficult it is to travel to the interior villages of Gujarat and that too by public transport…
With reference to your allegation regarding the Fed Newsletter I wish to draw your attention to the fact that neither you nor anybody connected with you had ever asked me to do it and hence, the question of taking up the assignment does not arise! The president of the FPZAI — Mr Dinshaw Mehta had written an email in this matter and I had replied to it (in 2010 Pervez Mehta had expressed his inability to do so — editors)… Also, I am not the only honorary secretary and the onus also lies with the other joint honorary secretary (Khojeste Mistree)! Please note that the members and anjumans of the FPZAI are all aware of your arm-twisting tactics and how you demand your pound of flesh if ever, God forbid, you help anyone! (which is only if it is to your benefit). There is no Parsipanu in you and your obnoxious attitude speaks volumes. Everyone is fed up with your lies and pompous "holier than thou” attitude. The ones who are presently supporting you Mr Khambatta, are tolerating you only for their personal gains, which please note. I do not expect any appreciation for the hundreds of hours of toil and money that I spend for the FPZAI, but Mr Khambatta, I do not give you the right to malign my name. This is my first and last reply to you on this subject and the matter rests. 
Pervez Bomansha Mehta