|
Cooperation
needed from society
The
Mumbai Suburban District Co-operative Housing Federation has unanimously
opposed recent amendments to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Act, 1960 which : deny new members the right to vote on society
affairs, mandate that managing committee members sign a bond making
them severally and jointly responsible for decisions taken by the
committee and absolves those members of responsibility for decisions
taken at meetings where they have not been present and the proceedings
of which they have not confirmed.
The
proposed amendments betray a serious disregard for the way many
societies actually operate and I am relieved to read news reports
that they may not come into effect after all.
The
furore they have caused however do focus on a subject that tends
to receive little or not attention in general which is the role
of the co-operative society in our lives. Unlike in other cities,
Chennai, Bangalore, Delhi and so on where mixed housing is the norm,
a large number of people in Mumbai live cheek by jowl in housing
societies the running of which is expected to be a joint endeavour.
Owners
of flats are actually owners of shares in a society and as such,
the running and maintenance of the whole society not just their
individual homes is their responsibility.
Unfortunately
in most cases this is not how it works.
In
my experience a large number of members consider any activity for
the society be it even attending a meeting, an imposition, unless,
of course, they perceive some wrong doing or a benefit that affects
them personally.
This
creates a situation where the management of the society falls into
the hands of either the more conscientious of members or the more
unscrupulous who hope to gain something from their position. If
it is the former then the proposed amendments - if they were to
come into effect - would end up penalizing the ones who voluntarily
take up responsibility. And even otherwise what the proposed changes
really do is encourage the notion that the least involvement is
the best option.
Hopefully
these changes will not go through. There is however a serious need
to address the issue of members’ involvement in a co-operative
society. Policing by a state or civic authority is of course, not
a happy option. Apart from the anti-democratic overtones and the
familiar invitation to corruption there would be a serious problem
of manpower. And why, in any case, should urban, educated citizens
in the world’s largest democracy shy away from governing themselves
in a matter that concerns them so closely : the place where they
live?
Laziness? Indifference? Selfishness? Whatever. To change perceptions,
to make people understand that democracy is not just a matter of
voting for a government every few years might perhaps be a difficult
and long process. In the meanwhile perhaps some measures could be
considered. One : that every member while entering a society purchases
and reads the bye-laws by which it is governed. Two : attendance
at meetings is made compulsory and that members can be penalised
for non-attendance unless valid reasons and notice is provided.
Three: Office bearers and Managing Committee members are not elected
but elevated by rotation. In this way every single member serves
a term of responsibility thereby gaining not only an understanding
of procedures and so on but also the difficulties inherent in performing
the role.
Societies
are not run by remote control. Nor should they be. These days I
meet several people, many of whom have recently married and bought
apartments, who claim proudly that they don’t know a thing
about what goes in their societies.
This
should be a matter of dismay, not joy. The other growing trend that
will be detrimental to the democratic running of societies is the
increase in sub letting of flats and sales to banks and other institutions
that frequently change the occupants according to their needs. The
trend cannot be arrested but some thought needs to be given as to
how to involve the absent owner in the governance of the society.
|
