The answer to the vexatious issue of to sell or not to sell trust property could be found in the successful sale of a dilapidated building and surrounding land belonging to The Bandra Parsi Convalescent Home (BPCH) founded 121 years ago by Shirinbai Cama (see "Land and largesse,” pg 98). The trust has since emerged among the largest financial benefactors of the community’s disadvantaged. While traditionally well-endowed trusts like the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) are struggling to even pay contracted monthly salaries, the BPCH disbursed Rs 13.25 crores (USD 1.58 million) to 1,572 individuals and 22 institutions last year.
Sadly, most trusts keep their finances and assets private. The BPCH trustees, on the other hand, reached out to Parsiana. Though they were understandably apprehensive over potential ramifications, they have to be congratulated for wanting to communicate. Perhaps their willingness to engage with the community, and the desire to capitalize on their unused assets coupled with legal and financial acumen, made the sale of their property a reality. By following due procedures and adhering to required norms, they succeeded in a relatively short period of time where so many others have failed.
The first allegation made against all trustees who set out to develop/lease/sell trust property is that they are surreptitiously enriching themselves and/or disposing of the asset at less than the market value. Or that non Parsis may benefit from the property once meant only for community members.
Despite a donor providing funds, The B. D. Petit Parsee General Hospital (PGH) trustees were stymied in their efforts to construct a cosmopolitan hospital to subsidize the Parsi-only PGH and provide access to state of the art medical diagnostic facilities at concessional rates to community members. Probably no one imagine anyone would oppose such a meritorious and worthy proposal. But a handful of dissidents did object.
We have seen in the case of the Defunct Anjumans Committee of The Federation of the Parsi Zoroastrian Anjumans of India (FPZAI) that, due to bickering and dithering, not a single property was sold in 40 years or so; we are unaware if any sale has taken place in the past few years. Under the stewardship of the BPP over the last five years the FPZAI has met only once and the Defunct Anjumans Committee has itself become almost defunct.
When the Federation attempted some years ago to create an inventory of Parsi properties belonging to its 70 or so member anjumans there was a hue and cry raised amidst allegations that the all-India body was aspiring to usurp the assets of its members. A consequence of this was that many properties remained unaccounted for.
But we do know that during the past half century innumerable properties have been forgotten, encroached upon and lost to the community forever. The existence and location of some community properties are unknown. Cinematographer Hemant Chaturvedi managed to locate the aramgah in Gadag only after resorting to Google maps, an old photograph, a great deal of ingenuity and persistence (see "Gadag’s lost graveyard,” Events and Personalities, Parsiana, June 7-20, 2024). While Zoroastrians in North America strive and struggle to acquire new community centers, here we neglect, forsake and let our land and structures be squatted on.
BPP chairman Viraf Mehta has been talking of developing six BPP properties over the past several years but what developments, if any, have taken place, what plans have been drawn up, permissions applied for and granted, is unknown. Over the years the courts and public awareness have made the bidding and sale/lease procedures for trust property more transparent. If appropriate permissions to sell these are not taken, public notices are not published and bids not invited, the sale may not proceed or, if it does, it can/will be nullified.
When the BPP first started auctioning charity flats to fill their depleted coffers, the allegation was made that the system was not transparent. Only select people were informed of the date and venue of the auction. Subsequently, advertisements were published in the community Press giving particulars of the premises, the time and date of the bidding. The criticism then abated. But the troubling question remained: Can or should a trust dispose of accommodation meant for the disadvantaged for a profit? The BPP has been resorting to this ploy because, firstly, they don’t have the stomach to increase outgoings on their 2,200 plus flats; secondly, they don’t have the persistence, unity or the managerial expertise to optimize the use of their existing properties; and thirdly, donations have dried up as donors opt to expend their largesse elsewhere.
Even the Tatas, who once created institutions like the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, the Tata Memorial Hospital for cancer treatment and the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, have now allocated Rs 750 crore (USD 89.6 million) from their Corporate Social Responsibility budget to build a museum of mandirs in Ayodhya. This city in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh was the scene of carnage when a mosque was razed and the blood of thousands spilt to fulfill a political party’s ambitions of erecting a Ram Mandir at the site. No doubt prudent industrial houses choose at some point of time to bow to the dictates of the government in power. But it’s a stark reminder that distribution of charitable funds is not always based on merit.
During the muktads, when community members remember the departed, we should revere and honor the likes of Shirinbai Cama and others who labored to selflessly serve their less endowed brethren.