E-Paper
‘Panth not consulted on anti-sacrilege law’: Akal Takht summons Punjab speaker on May 8
Stating that law has been enacted without taking the highest Sikh temporal seat and the Panth into confidence, the Akal Takht acting jathedar summoned assembly speaker Kultar Singh Sandhwan on May 8 to present his side
Taking a different stance from the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), which hailed the recently enacted Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, Akal Takht acting jathedar Giani Kuldeep Singh Gargaj on Sunday disapproved of the law.
Stating that law has been enacted without taking the highest Sikh temporal seat and the Panth into confidence, Gargaj summoned assembly speaker Kultar Singh Sandhwan on May 8 to present his side.
Accompanied by Takht Damdama Sahib jathedar Giani Tek Singh Dhanuala, the Akal Takht jathedar made this announcement while addressing a gathering of representatives of Sikh organisations, seminaries, sects, scholars and lawyers at Bhai Gurdas Hall in the vicinity of Golden Temple here.
He convened the gathering to discuss the Act and withdrawal of the mercy petition for Balwant Singh Rajoana, a death row convict in the CM Beant Singh assassination case.
The jathedar said, “The Punjab government is well aware of the place of Akal Takht Sahib in the Sikh faith. But while enacting the law concerning the community, it did not send a draft of the Bill to Akal Takht for the consultation.”
Notably, the Act mandated the SGPC to maintain a central register of saroops, allotting each a unique identification number, along with the details of printing, storage, distribution and supply. The register is to be available on SGPC website, states the Act.
Defining the duties and responsibilities of “custodian” of a saroop, the Act requires them to ensure its safe custody, protection from damage, misuse, or loss in any manner and to observe the Sikh Rehat Maryada.
The jathedar and other speakers raised objection over the Act’s provisions related to SGPC, custody and maryada.
They observed that the Act constituted direct interference in Sikh religious affairs. They stated that instead of focusing on punishing those responsible for sacrilege and delivering justice to Sikhs, the law placed additional responsibilities on Sikh institutions, gurdwara managements, congregations, granthis and devotees.
Such measures, they warned, could create obstacles in Sikh religious propagation and weaken the connection of the Sikh community with Guru Grant Sahib.
“A government or law cannot order the SGPC is to maintain record of the saroops and upload it online. It is an internal matter of the Panth. Secondly, the word custody or custodian is highly objectionable as per Sikh ethos. No one can be custodian of Guru Granth Sahib. Guru Granth Sahib is the custodian and honour of all Sikhs,” the jathedar said, adding that the government or any law cannot define or fix the Sikh Rehat Maryada.
He further said any amendments made by the government cannot be accepted until they received the consent of the Khalsa Panth.
However, he clarified that the Khalsa Panth did not oppose strict laws to punish those guilty of sacrilege. The objection arises when Sikh religious sentiments and affairs related to Guru Granth Sahib were brought under the ambit of state legislation.
Meanwhile, speaker Sandhwan said, “Akal Takht Sahib is great, supreme and highly respectful for us. We have taken guidance of Akal Takht by paying obeisance there. If I receive any notice officially, I am bound to appear before it with humility and respect and present my side before the Panth. Order of Akal Takht Sahib is divine for us.”
Pertinently, SGPC president Harjinder Singh Dhami had previously hailed the Act, terming passage of the amendment bill a “positive development” . Following the enactment of the Act, on his directions, the SGPC, on April 30, suspended the service of providing Guru Granth Sahib’s saroops to gurdwaras and congregation till May 20.
But at the Sunday gathering, amid questions from some speakers, Dhami apologised for welcoming the law. However, he did not comment on the process initiated by the SGPC for the Act’s implementation.
