The Akal Takht on Monday shot off a letter to Punjab Speaker Kultar Singh Sandhwan, citing objections to the recently enacted anti-sacrilege law, including clauses that legally mandate the SGPC to maintain a digital registry of all saroops (copy), placing Guru Granth Sahib, Sikh institutions, granthis, pathis, gurdwara committees and sewadars within a legal framework which amounts to direct government interference in Sikh affairs.
The letter comes days after Sandhwan appeared before Akal Takht acting Jathedar Giani Kuldeep Singh Gargaj and Takht Damdama Sahib Jathedar Giani Tek Singh Dhanaula to clarify the government’s position regarding the Act, which provides for stringent punishments, including life imprisonment and fines up to ₹25 lakh, for acts of sacrilege against the Guru Granth Sahib.
On May 8, the Takht, the highest temporal seat of the Sikhs, had also given a 15-day ultimatum to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government to remove objectionable clauses which “hurt Sikh sentiments and interfere in Panthic affairs”. With voices of roll back getting shriller, chief minister Bhagwant Mann had categorically refused to withdraw the Act, saying there is no question of taking back the legislation which has overwhelming support from the sangat (Sikh community) across the world.
The anti-sacrilege bill, which proposed amendments to the original 2008 Act, was passed unanimously by the Punjab Vidhan Sabha during a special one-day session on April 13. Punjab governor Gulab Chand Kataria accorded assent to the bill on April 17, and it was notified by the Punjab government on April 20.
{{/usCountry}}The anti-sacrilege bill, which proposed amendments to the original 2008 Act, was passed unanimously by the Punjab Vidhan Sabha during a special one-day session on April 13. Punjab governor Gulab Chand Kataria accorded assent to the bill on April 17, and it was notified by the Punjab government on April 20.
{{/usCountry}}The letter also asks Sandhwan to apprise the Takht after taking the necessary steps.
Apart from the objections, the Akal Takht has also asked the government to remove words like “store”, “storage”, and “supply” regarding the holy book from the Act and asked it to replace them with ‘more respectful terminology, such as ‘Sewa Sambhal’.
It has also asked the government to clearly state that in case of any sacrilege, the holy scriptures, including Guru Granth Sahib, pothis, sanchis, or Gutka Sahibs, will not be taken to police stations or courts and instead will be handed over with respect and procedure to SGPC for their last rites at Gurdwara Sri Baoli Sahib.
The letter also categorically asserted that only Akal Takht has the authority to determine any rules or maryada concerning Guru Granth Sahib, Khalsa Panth, and the Sikh community, and no state legislature or government has the authority to frame such religious regulations.
Key objections
Use of non-traditional terminology
The Akal Takht took exception to the language used in the legislation, rejecting the use of non-traditional terminology.
Takht objected to the use of saroop to identify the holy book in the Act and said the word ‘Bir’ has been traditionally used in Sikh customs and rehat maryada since ancient times.
“Although the word saroop is also respectful, Sikh terminology related to Guru Granth Sahib is determined by the panth and not by the government. Therefore, under Clause 2 of the amendment, the words “Bir” and “Birs” that have been removed should be included,” the letter said.
Fear over custodian liability
The letter further said the definition of “custodian” under the Act is an attempt to hold any Sikh or groups possessing the holy book responsible for any violation, which has created fear among the community.
The responsibility for sacrilege has conspiratorially been fixed upon those who possess a Bir. Determining to whom the sacred Birs should be given, and whether those possessing them are following Sikh rehat maryada, is entirely an internal matter of the community and will be dealt by the Takht.
Digital surveillance of saroops
The amendment proposes that the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) maintain a central register recording the printing, custody, distribution, and supply of saroops, including a unique identification number (UIN).
Akal Takht objected that assigning a UIN to a sacred Bir amounts to tampering with its original sanctified form, something the panth will never tolerate.
“The government has no authority to make such decisions. Only the Shiromani Jatha and the elected representative body of the panth have the authority to decide matters concerning the status and originality of Guru Granth Sahib. The Punjab assembly or the government is not such a representative body; therefore, they have no right to take such a decision.”
Uploading records on website
Takht has also voiced strong opposition to digital surveillance of saroops. The Act mandates the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) to maintain a digital portal tracking the location and custodians of every saroop (copy) of the Guru Granth Sahib.
Takht said making the information regarding where and with whom sacred saroops are located public could be misused by anti-Sikh forces and mischievous elements. It said saroops are not limited to Punjab but are present globally.
“Oversight of their proper care and adherence to Sikh maryada is the responsibility of Akal Takht, not the Punjab government. The SGPC has also authorised Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee to publish saroops, how this law will be implemented in Delhi and other states?” the letter added.
Objection to punishment provisions
The letter also objected to Section 5 of the Act that proposes punishment of up to five years’ jail and a fine of up to ₹10 lakh for violation of the upkeep of the saroop.
Takht said that this provision targets Sikh sewadar groups, gurdwara committees, granthis, pathis, preachers, and the Sikh community. “Except for sacrilege offences, all other matters concerning violations of rehat maryada and internal administrative systems of gurdwaras are under Akal Takht’s jurisdiction,’ the letter said, adding that this clause could be misused for personal vendettas and false cases.
Power to make rules
Takht also objected to the government’s power to make rules without consulting representatives of Sikh institutions. It said no rules under the Act should be finalised without consultation with Sikh bodies.