The Gurdwara Bill at that time had been promoted by a section of the Institute of Sikh Studies (IOSS) lead by Dr. Kharak Singh, Dr. Kirpal Singh and Bhai Ashok Singh. The group which opposed them was eliminated from the IOSS in due course. It consisted of Dr. Sukhdeep Kaur Gill, Dr. Gurdarshan Singh, Sardarni Surinderpal Kaur and Gurtej Singh. None of them is now a member of the IOSS although they were the founder-members. The IOSS received more than 20 lakhs of rupees from those in power. Whether this was a part of the deal, is anybody’s guess. The opposing group including also Sardar Santokh Singh objected to receiving donation form the government and the SGPC because the constitution of the IOSS forbids receiving donations. Their objections were brushed aside and money was received contrary to constitutional provisions.
The two main actors who were operating the entire scene were Harbans Singh and Kharak Singh. Of them, Harbans Singh is no more. They had very cleverly duped everybody and were trying to get acceptance for the Bill without laying bare all the facts. It was being pushed at the back of the panth.
It is presumed that it is the same Bill that is being promoted again now. An attempt will again be made to push it through without public scrutiny.
I had written a sort of history of the Bill at that time, I present it again for the benefit of those who may want to understand what is happening.
I had written an article “A horse to carry.” It meant to convey that the horse being promised to us was not for riding and that we would have to carry it on our shoulders. It is also being presented to those interested in knowing a point of view held by most of the enlightened people at that time. It is placed at part II. At part III is the paper I had written for the seminar held by the IOSS, when it was not being controlled by the Kharak Singh group for a short while. Part IV is the official version contained in the Bill.
The reader may form his own views after going through most of the material, I had put together in 1999.
Sardar Amarjit Singh from Canada and Sardar Nirmal Singh have asked me to inform them of the facts regarding the Bill. I had initially thought of sending them both a copy of Part II. That was delayed because of a snag in my computer. But soon I deemed it better to share most of the information I have with all the friends who would be expected to read it. Some time was needed for preparing a presentable copy and hence the delay of about three days. –Author.]
Part I
2. In a special meeting of the IOSS held on September 4, 1999, at Kanthala, the above fact was pointed out. Dr. Kharak Singh observed that the subjects were appreciated by many and a draft of the All India Gurdwara Act and proposal for amendments to the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) had already been sent to the Central Government.
3. On September 8, 9 and 10, 1999, appeared references to and a controversy in the daily papers, regarding the draft bill sent by the Central Government to the SGPC to give their comments within a week. The contents of the draft bill were bitterly criticised by a member of the SGPC executive and the President. On September 10, Gurtej Singh sent a fax to the President of the IOSS to hold a special meeting of the IOSS to consider the implications of the draft bill. (Copy attached). The same day he went to the Office of the Gurdwara Election Commission and read over the relevant papers through his own sources, because they were not available officially. Then he met the presiding officer Justice Harbans Singh and requested for a copy of the relevant communications. Harbans Singh refused to provide the copies because he had already sent the copies to the IOSS `for internal use’ and opined that these should be available to the members. He sent for his assistant and asked him whether he had delivered the copies to Dr. Kharak Singh when he had asked for them to be delivered. The assistant said he had delivered them around the 2nd of September, personally.
3.1. On receiving a request for an emergency meeting, Dr. Kirpal Singh President wrote to Gurtej Singh on 10-9-1999, to say, “We have decided to call general meeting and invite Justice Harbans Singh to explain provisions of the bill. The Members would be free to ask questions. In the light of that we would form our policy”. (Photocopy of the letter is attached).
4. In another special meeting of the IOSS, Gurtej Singh asked for copies of the papers and requested the office bearers of the IOSS to enlighten the members about the role of the IOSS in the preparation of the drafts etc. He was told that the papers had not been received and that the IOSS had no role in preparing the draft. He revealed that he had found out from Harbans Singh and that the papers had been delivered at the residence of Kharak Singh around the 2nd of September, 1999. On this Kharak Singh reluctantly admitted that the papers had been `received only recently’. This was clearly wrong because on the meeting of the 4th he had confirmed that the draft had been sent to the Central Government and was obviously in the know of everything that was going on. It was finally decided to send the first six pages of both sets of papers to all the members of the IOSS and complete sets to at least four or five members.
4.1. All present denied that the IOSS had anything to do with the draft Bill and Kharak Singh even asserted that he had been asking Harbans Singh, how he had sent the draft to the government without even consulting the IOSS. He also said that none in the IOSS had been consulted at any stage. Gurtej Singh who had read the papers, told the gathering that the Committee on the authority of which the draft had been sent was appointed by the IOSS. Kharak Singh again relented and said that although that was true, Harbans Singh had never consulted the Committee and none of the office bearers were its members. At this Gurtej Singh (G.S) reminded them that according to the minutes of the meetings maintained by Harbans Singh, Kirpal Singh, Kharak Singh (K.S) and Bhai Ashok Singh were the members of the Committee and all six or seven others were their nominees. He also said that the Committee had first met on 28th November 1997, and all of them had attended the meeting. K.S once again relented and said that they had attended the first meeting only. G. S. again asserted that all of them had attended several meeting including the last one held on 16-4-1999. To this there was no reply. (Later – on September 26, 1999, Kirpal Singh admitted at the house of Joginder Singh of Spokesman that all three of them had attended the last meeting on 16-4-1999).
4.2. At this meeting a resolution disapproving the draft, particularly the definition of a Sikh it proposed, was adopted unanimously. K.S was to send this to the Press in accordance with the prevalent practice. This was never done. On September 26, 1999, Kirpal Singh asserted that the resolution had been sent and had been published. He promised to supply the printed copy with the proper reference, though he did not remember where it had been published. Of the seven other members of the IOSS present there, and others besides them, none had seen it in the Press.
5. During the next few days the matter erupted into a big controversy. Sikhs all over the country and abroad were concerned about what was happening. The promised papers were not supplied to the members for study and for forming an opinion, neither was a meeting of the IOSS or the promised general meeting of the same body ever held. G. S. approached the President, the Vice-President and the Patron for supply of relevant documents. These were not supplied until the evening of September 26, 1999. At the afore mentioned meeting, Dr. Kuldeep Singh stated that some six pages of the documents at random had been sent to all the members. Bibi Baljit Kaur and I. S. Jaijee besides G. S confirmed that they had not received the papers.
5.1. At the same meeting on September 26, Justice Kuldeep Singh affirmed that on the previous day a meeting of a certain body calling itself the `Core Group’ had taken place at the residence of Kharak Singh and at that meeting all the papers were shown to those present. He said he had also seen them. He also said that in the opinion of K. S. expressed at that meeting, there was nothing wrong with the draft and that he had also suggested commending Harbans Singh for doing such a fine job. All the members considered this to be strange since this was not the stand of the IOSS. Bibi Baljit Kaur especially asked Justice Kuldeep Singh whether K. S had said all that. He affirmed that he had. Kirpal Singh intervened to say that these were K. S’s personal views although his official views were the same as those of the IOSS. The next day, the `private/personal views’ of K. S were all over the Press. (Press clippings from two papers are attached).
6. The consensus at the meeting of the 26th was that the present move, to get the act amended and the All India Gurdwara Act enacted was, in the words of Justice Kuldeep Singh, `sinister’. It would result in `government control over all the Takhats and the Gurdwaras all over India. Everyone present concurred that it needs to be resisted. (Those present included: Justice Kuldeep Singh, Dr. Kuldeep Singh Patron of IOSS, Dr. Sukhjeet Kaur, Sardarni Harpal Singh, Bibi Baljit Kaur, Prof. Prabhjot Kaur, Sardarni Jagjit Kaur, Dr. Harnam Singh Shan, Kirpal Singh President of the IOSS, Dr. Gurdarshan Singh, S. Joginder Singh, S. Harinder Singh, I. S. Jaijee and Gurtej Singh).
7. The whole story of the presentation of the relevant bill to the government can now be recapitulated. It begins in 1978, when a Committee under J. Harbans Singh was appointed by the newly formed Akali government in the Punjab to finalise the All India Gurdwara Act. The purpose was only to fool the Sikh masses into believing that the Akalis were doing something for them. Differences of approach soon developed in the Committee. Harbans Singh wanted to use the proposed legislation for handing over the Gurdwaras in the Punjab to a Boards formed by those living outside. Other members aimed at subordinating the Gurdwara Boards of other states to that of the Punjab. Harbans Singh pretended to agree with all other members and prepared a common draft giving effect to majority views. Privately he prepared another draft strictly according to his own views. The common draft was finalised with due ceremony. The next day Harbans Singh recalled the copies in the custody of all other members on the pretext of getting them bound. He threw them all into the dustbin and instead had copies of his own version bound. One copy was sent to the government. There was a lot of hew and cry when the mean trick was discovered. This then killed the move to get the All India Act enacted.
8. However, the Government of India had prepared a draft of the Sikh Gurdwaras Bill 1986 and was keen to see it through. It required an opportunity to revive it. It appears that the IOSS was approached and certain unscrupulous elements in the IOSS decided to collaborate with the collaborator Harbans Singh. This is the reason for which the afore mentioned subjects were chosen for the annual seminar of the IOSS. Harbans Singh was chosen by the IOSS collaborators to deliver the key note address at the seminar and thereafter was provided with a committee of eight members to execute the job. It is significant that Harbans Singh never talked to anyone in the committee and worked in tandem with the main collaborator Kharak Singh only. According to the previously conceived plan, a copy of the draft Bill of 1986 was sent to Harbans Singh in December 1997. Meanwhile the chief collaborators kept satisfying the base cravings of each other in an effort to remain thick as thieves. Harbans Singh had floated a public trust which had some few lakhs of rupees. They augmented its finances by pressurising the SGPC to donate another fifteen lakhs. A clear prospect of cornering another fifty lakhs or so by public donation also existed. Kharak Singh was made its Greneral Secretary. That was his Khalistan. Harbans Singh wanted flattery and public attention, he was asked to present the address at the annual seminar of the IOSS and to inaugurate a library in the premises of a Gurdwara where IOSS had certain amount of influence. The Gurdwara administration was not even formally consulted and in addition he was made the prime mover in a venture of significance. This was Khalistan for Harbans Singh. Both had achieved the ambitions of their lives.
9. The rest was easy. `Jack could eat no fat and his wife could eat no lean. So bet’wext the both of them they licked the platter clean’. Both collaborators used all their resources and finalised the recommendation which would gladden the hearts of any government with imperialistic design. They arranged a series of meetings with some Sikhs and Sikh organisations and got some opinions from several Toms, Dicks and Harrys. As is clear also from the letter of September 16, 1999, the keenly watching government kept on patting them on their backs and continued egging them on. The end result is there for all to see. A perfect draft for handing over the complete control of all the Gurdwaras and their Maryada to representatives of the Central Government has been hammered out by the two collaborators. Attempts are now being made to thrust it down the throats of the Sikhs.
Part II
The Sikh Gurdwaras Bill1999: a Horse to Carry.
I
I want to start by recognising the established fact that throughout, history Politically Conscious Hindu Combine (PCHC) has treated Sikhism to be an antagonistic faith since it seeks to create and sustain a social order outside the Brahmanical caste system and because it rejects the authority of Vedas. For these reasons, it has always treated it as a religion which has to be eliminated root and branch or to be retained in `a subsumed animation,’ that is as an appendage to Hinduism, securely tied to its apron strings. This tendency has been particularly pronounced in the modern times beginning with 1849 CE. On the other hand, basic Sikh perception has been that Sikhism exists as witness to the greater glory of God and for stressing the basic truth that there is no Hindu, Christian, Muslim or Jew god but One God the common Father and Mother of all beings. Operating on this plane it has tried to live in peace with all other faiths, without any aggressive `evangelism’. Its dual maxim has always been, (sabh ko meet ham apna keena ham sabhna ke sajan) and (hun hukam hoa meharban da pai koe na kise ranjanda. sabhe sukhali vuthiyan hun hoa halemi raj jio). In its dealings with other faiths, Sikh have always tried to translate these maxims into practise. It would also be true to assert that historically and culturally, Sikhism has always felt intimate affinity with the Hinduism. This is the authentic Sikh approach and has been emphasised by two of the three most distinguished and most influential Sikh historians, namely the incomparable Bhai Santokh Singh and the incredibly sound ideologue Rattan Singh Bhangu. This however has failed to alter the Hindu perception about Sikhs and Sikhism.
History is full of attempts made by Politically Conscious Hindu Combine (PCHC) to eliminate Sikhs and Sikhism. I will refer to only some of the crucial ones. Some of these were successful and have had a significant adverse effect on Sikh destinies. Others have failed and that is why we are alive and kicking. Amongst the first category falls the attempt made by the PCHC on the life of Guru Nanak at Batala. The dilapidated wall at Batala is mute witness to the attempt. This was reprehensible many times over as it was made by the kin of the Guru’s wife who, according to every norm of culture, tradition and decency, were sworn to defend the Guru’s life at all costs. This violated every law of hospitality prevalent in our society from times immemorial that a guest is to be defended with your life. (Shivaji, the great Maratha leader violated this rule and killed Afzal Khan, his invited guest. No serious historian has ever been able to justify the stabbing of the Khan while he stretched his arms to take Shivaji in a customary friendly embrace on meeting). It was the Guru’s wedding day when the attempt was made. The details are brought out to emphasise the heinousness of the attempt. Those perpetrating it did it for no other cause than to defend the faith the PCH Combine stood for.
There are several references in Sikh history and the Sikh scripture that very determined attempts were made by the PCHC to enlist the Mughal rulers as supporters in a bid to stifle Sikhism during the life-time of the Gurus and even later. It is significant that the Tenth Guru had to fight more battles against the Hindu Hill Rajas representing the PCHC than he ever fought against the Mughals led by Aurangzeb contemptuously known to Sikh history as Bedin Auranga Turkara. The first-ever general massacre of Sikhs was ordered by Lakhpat Rai (Lakhu Khattri), a satrap of the Mughal governor of the Punjab. It was done with a specific purpose of destroying the Sikhs. This attempt had a lasting effect on Sikh destiny as most of the known books of Sikh history, theology and literature were destroyed deliberately by him as a part of the campaign. His attempted elimination of the Sikh scripture, Guru Granth Sahib however, did not succeed. The attempt has been repeated quite often in modern India under the influence of the Ruling Caste-Hindu Establishment (RCHE), the latest avtar of the PCHC. The Holy Guru Granth has been set on fire practically in every city of the cow-belt in India since de-colonisation. Most of the Gurdwaras have been desecrated, notably when Rajiv Gandhi, the successor of Lakhpat Rai ordered the general massacre of Sikh all over India in some what similar circumstances. You will all remember, and no Sikh will ever forget what happened to the Sikh Reference Library containing hundreds of priceless manuscripts of Guru Granth Sahib preserving the signatures of the Sikh Gurus, and much besides. It was set on fire by the Indian army on the seventh of June 1984 under the influence of RCHE inspired by the spirit of Lakhu.
The Hill Rajas, contemporaries of Guru Gobind Singh, initiated opposition to the taking of amrit by the Sikhs. They represented the PCHC. Echo of this was heard in the assessment of D. Petrie, head of the British CID. It was heard loud and clear at the `prayer meetings’ of M. K. Gandhi after 1947. It found expression in the Journal of the Indian Army, Baatcheet, of June 1984, was enforced by almost every police station of the Punjab and continues to be the guiding principle of the RCHE till today.
II.
After having drawn attention to some relevant facts of history somewhat at random, it is perhaps time to take note of recent and near contemporary happenings. In the very beginning, I want to emphasise the rather not very popular, but nevertheless the only possible construction that can be placed on the Gurdwara Reform Movement. In fighting for Reforms in Sikh Gurdwaras, we were waging a war directly against the PCHC and only indirectly against the British government. The British at best had indirect, non-vital interest in controlling the Sikh holy places, PCHC was in possession of them through the mahants and wanted to remain in possession. For the Combine it was key to controlling the Sikh religious and thereby political, destinies forever. It is the same strategy at work now in the matter of this Bill. PCHC is striving to control the Sikh shrines.
All accounts of the Gurdwara Sudhar Lehar unequivocally record that the PCHC was totally against the Sikhs. It did not want the usurping Hindu mahants to be disturbed in their administrative control and physical possession of Sikh Gurdwaras and actively aided them in retaining it. The Akali volunteers of the times would go in batches and try to convince the hereditary corrupt mahants to hand over control of the Gurdwaras. If they did so, and this happened more often than not, the mahant concerned would be pensioned off honourably and Gurdwara would be taken over. Wherever the hereditary occupier resisted, he was sure of getting the support of the Hindus for the venture. Much Sikh blood was shed to get the resistance vacated. A detailed account of how the taking over was done would be prepared and sent to the Akal Takhat. From this account, some of which was later published by Sardar Narain Singh, I am quoting for the information of this distinguished gathering.
Of the many available, I will give only four prominent examples to support my contention. First relates to the occupation of Gurdwara Panja Sahib. Mahant Sant Singh agreed to amicably abdicate control of the Gurdwara in favour of the Sikhs but was persuaded to renege the agreement at the behest of Hindus of the town lead by one Lala Ram Chand. Next morning, three to four thousand Hindus, armed with sticks came and surrounded the Gurdwara in support of the mahant and against the 25 Akali Sikhs assembled there. One of the tactics used in this strange war against the Sikhs was to send some two hundred and fifty Hindu women from the town who came and occupied the Gurdwara along with mahant’s mother as a counter measure. It was meant to frustrate the design of Akali volunteers in claiming it for the Panth. These women were incited by and actively supported by Kishan Chand editor of the Shanti Akhbar of Rawalpindi.
The same was the approach of even the so-called secular leaders of the PCHC. Lajpat Rai, the fake martyr, undertook to defend Naraindass of Nankana Sahib who was accused of abetting and conspiring to murder more than 100 unarmed Sikhs in the premises of the Gurdwara Janamsthan. He accepted three thousand rupees from Naraindas for his paper Vande Matram and also formed a trust of Hindu leaders to control Nankana Sahib. The aim of this trust was to maintain the Gurdwara in the hands of the mahant. The Punjab Governor called a meeting of Sikh leaders on March 8, 1921, at Lahore. At this meeting the Sikh leaders requested for a legal arrangement to take control of the Gurdwaras. Lala Harkishan Lal, who represented the government, bluntly told the Sikhs that the Gurdwaras were in the possession of the Nirmalas and the Udasis, and the government will not disturb their lawful possession. Thus was the formation of the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee sought to be aborted at conception. Mian Fazal Hussain, a Minister, who participated in the proceedings, appears to have deliberately kept quiet.
M. K. Gandhi tried to stop the Gurdwara Reforms movement by telling the Sikh leaders to postpone it until India becomes free. To beguile the Sikhs he set a timetable of less than a year for the freedom of India in 1920. He sent Amar Singh Jhabal to persuade the Sikh Jatha from marching to Panja Sahib. Amar Singh met the leaders of Jatha at Lahore and gave them M. K. Gandhi’s message that India was going to be free by December 31, 1920, and that they should postpone their attempt to take over Panja Sahib until then. The reply, his emissary received from the Sikh leaders of the day is recorded and is revealing in more ways than one. All aspects of it are relevant to discussion of today. It was, `tell Gandhi that first of all we are not convinced that the freedom of India is so near as he believes it to be. Secondly, should it be true, we are convinced, it is going to be a Hindu Raj and our Gurdwaras will be in greater danger than ever before. We have no religious rivalry with the ruling British, whereas that factor will come into play once Hindus are in control of India’s political destiny. The British do not object to our occupying the Gurdwaras, in the coming Hindu Raj no one will let us even come near them. Go and tell him that the Jatha will march according to plan’.
M. K. Gandhi took it as an affront and sabotaged the reform movement by politicising it with his ridiculous theory of the whole of India being a Gurdwara. This politicisation was responsible for the needless confrontation of Guru-ka-Bagh and eventually led to the complete political deprivation of the Sikhs at the time of British de-colonisation and became the potent instrument of their being re-colonised by the RCHE after 1947. It has thus affected the political destinies of the Sikhs for a long, long time to come. Even our dream, that it is not for ever, seems a chimera at the moment.
We must also ponder over the origins of the Durgiana Temple at Amritsar in this connection. The PCHC insisted that the Sikh Gurus belonged to them also and that entitled them to place images for worship in the holiest of Sikh shrines. The circumambulatory path of Sri Darbar Sahib was studded with images of Hindu gods and goddesses of stone metal and various other materials. This description of the prevailing situation before the removal of images and when the Gurdwaras were managed by the Hindus, is taken from the Khalsa Akhbar of October 14, 1898. It is also the picture of the future should we be so naive as to accept The Sikh Gurdwaras Bill, 1999. `Unspeakable desecration takes place in the circumambulatory path of Sri Darbar Sahib. Card games and chess are freely played. Sucked sugarcane waste and meat remains are thrown into the path. Many Hindus freely use the circumambulatory path for sleeping and getting massaged at night. They observe no decorum and do not stand up for either ardas or the chawki sahib. They claim to be mere tourists and say that those who are believers should stand up. They wash their metal images called thakurs and their loin-clothes long and short, in the holy Sarovar. When asked to behave more decorously in the holy precincts, they pick up quarrels. Sadhus smoke charas in the adjacent Guru ka Bagh in such abundance that it becomes difficult to see in the smoke emitted by them. Devout Sikhs are terribly distressed on seeing such sacrileges taking place at the holiest of Sikh shrines.’
After these images were removed by the Sikh reformers, Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya, caused the present Durgiana temple to be built on the model and plan of Sri Darbar Sahib. This has been raised as a rival shrine of sorts and all visitors to Sri Amritsar are expected to visit it. Compliance with this diktat of RCHE is now willingly made by the President of the Akali Dal and Sikh Cabinet Ministers. A lot of dust over the visit of the Queen of England to Amritsar was raised when she refused to visit the Durgiana Temple. The subtle and the not so subtle implications of the rivalry will have by now become plain to the distinguished gathering here. It is clear that in Hindu consciousness, the eventual destination of the images at the Durgiana is Sri Darbar Sahib.
It should now come as no surprise that when various versions of The Sikh Gurdwaras Act 1925, were introduced in the Punjab Legislative Council, the Hindu members opposed it tooth and nail. Raja Narendra Nath and Dr. Gokal Chand objected to the definition of a Sikh which included the words, `should have no other religion.’ They recorded their dissent in the select committee meeting when the words were not deleted. The new Bill under consideration today has obliged the two communal leaders and deleted the offending words from the definition proposed therein. Hindu leaders then demanded representation for Hindus, Muslims and different Sikh sects on the Gurdwara Tribunal. Sikh members of the Punjab Legislative Council were constrained to record their shock at the attitude of Hindus who should normally not be concerned with a matter pertaining only to the Sikhs.
Our leaders of the times never understood that our fight was essentially against the PCHC.
If you analyse the record of elections to the SGPC before and after 1947, you will be shocked to know that though the elections were meticulously held on due dates before 1947, these were erratically held after that year. Some times delay exceeded four to five times the life of the house. Was it the RCHE strategy to destroy the SGPC with the Brahmastra of delay and the corruption it inevitably breeds?
A part of the resolution adopted by the All India Akali Conference at Ludhiana in its annual session held on the 10th and the 11th. of December 1966, may be quoted to sum up the prevailing situation, “this communal and narrow-minded government will never treat us as equals. We should understand clearly that there is no place for justice and equality for us in this country. Hence our lives, honour, property and even our religion are in danger. We shall have to firmly decide whether we have to live in Punjab as rulers or as slaves.” In these circumstances, can we be advised to entrust our Gurdwaras to people with such propensities?
I believe, I have related enough to conclude that the RCHE, as it is constituted at present, is imbued with the mental attitudes detrimental to the interests of Sikhs and Sikhism. Since this entity has now to prepare an All India Gurdwara Act, it will surely churn up something to stifle the Sikh faith and to destroy the Gurdwaras as springs of Sikhism. Actual reading of the draft under consideration supports my contention.
III.
I want you to consider all the above in the context of attempted Hindu revival in recent times and its impact on the minorities in general and the Sikhs in particular. Re-conversion to Hinduism is assigned as the eventual destiny of them all. Conversions to Islam and Christianity have been all but officially banned. Sikhs and Sikhism are being treated on the age-old principles of subsuming the Gurus as minor incarnations of Hindu gods. Principles on which the Sikhs are planned to be suffocated in embrace as none others but Hindus, is obvious to all. This principle has been accepted by those of our leaders, political, cultural as well as intellectual who are quick to recognise the buttered side of the bread. A plan for controlling the religious destinies of the Sikhs has been set afoot long, long ago. This is apparent from the sustained support to heretic sects such as the Radhaswamis, Nirankaris and others. Mushroom growth of obliging `Sants’ prepared to encourage the dilution of Sikh identity with a view to eventual dismemberment of the caste-less, tolerant society proposed by Sikhism and protected by the incomparable Order of the Khalsa, is an indication of the same malady. They have voluntarily assumed the role of mid-way houses as, for instance, Sultanis had assumed during the Mughal rule.
In recent times, some intellectuals have also been hired to cause confusion about the Sikh identity. They have lost sight of the woods while concentrating on the trees and find the `religious boundaries to be blurred and unclear.’ In spite of all the confusion that is supposed to have prevailed about the undefined religious boundaries in India, Mughals did not make a single mistake of identity when they executed hundreds of thousands of Sikhs in the medieval times. The same thing happened during the 1984 massacre and the bloody decade, which followed it. “Unidentified terrorists” were often killed during the period but there was not a single case of a Hindu being killed instead of a Sikh as a result of confusion of identity. This is all the more remarkable when it is considered that more than two hundred and twenty-five thousand people perished during the period. One of the disguised propaganda pamphlets authored by Dr. Hew McLeod and seeking to popularise confusing ideas, came bearing the same silhouette as decorated the actual official propaganda pamphlet produced by the government of India. I wrote about the fact. Thereafter Dr. Hew McLeod’s disguised propaganda pamphlet was sold with the cover page bearing the silhouette, torn off.
I will conclude this portion with the remark that I had written almost a decade ago, while reviewing Dr. Hew McLeod’s Who is a Sikh. I had written that the whole purpose of writing the book was to hand over the Sikh shrines to the Hindus under the pseudonym of Hindu-Sikhs. The exact words are: “The plan is to so redefine a Sikh that Hindu take-over of Sikh shrines is rendered possible by pseudo democratic process. Punjabi Hindus, who have denied their mother tongue in successive census operations since 1947, are considered capable of posing as Sikhs on the day of polling. – His discovery of a new constituent of the Sikh panth, namely, the Hindu-Sikh, is amazing to say the least. The species is not known to history. – The main purpose of propounding the strange thesis becomes clear towards the end. It is simply to challenge the authority of the SGPC and to pave the way for handing over the Gurdwara management to Hindus with the help of a spurious definition of a Sikh”. This is the intellectual equivalent and true prototype of the neo-Sant movement thriving with RCHE support. It is significant that the definition of a Sikh adopted by the Bill under consideration is conducive to such use.
IV.
Now I want to make the matters even more plain, if that be possible. For doing this, I will have to step on the hooves of one or two of our very holy cows and possibly on those of a holy calf. I hope to be forgiven for the deed but I see no other way of honestly concluding my views on the matter. In my opinion the present All India Gurdwara Bill 1999, which we are considering today, is the result of despicable collaboration of the ruling Akalis and some members of the Institute of Sikh Studies with the RCHE. It has been served to the Sikh people through the agency of the blind folded Justice Harbans Singh.
I start with the holy calf, which is my own organisation, the Institute of Sikh Studies (IOSS). It was proposed in the meeting of the IOSS that the subject of the annual seminar should be All India Gurdwara Legislation. Some members, notably Dr. Sukhjit Kaur, Sardar Santokh Singh and I felt that this subject was redundant. Amongst other things we argued that the attempt had been made in 1978 and a draft bill on the subject already existed. Incredible as it may seem, we were overruled. Seminar on the subject was held in the spring of 1997. Justice Harbans Singh was invited to deliver the keynote address and Jathedar Gurcharan Singh Tohra, the then President of the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee presided over the session. After the event was over, presumably to their satisfaction, Tohra and other Akalis sent some fifteen lakhs of rupees as token of gratitude to the IOSS. The same people as had earlier protested against the subject of the seminar and the invitation to certain Akalis to preside over different sessions, also protested against receiving the amount. We pointed out that the IOSS was constitutionally bound not to accept such donations. We were again overruled. I move to the other part of the story.
Retired Justice Harbans Singh was reading his keynote address and suddenly, when he was nearing the meaningful contents of his address, the electricity went off. There was no battery and when it was off loaded from a car and brought to the venue, the address had finished. Now you must have a close look at the statement of “objects and reasons” attached to the proposed All India Gurdwara Bill. It lays stress the keynote address “inter alia pointing out the various aspects requiring consideration in the draft of All India Gurdwara Bill”. At this seminar a sub-committee under the chairmanship of J. Harbans Singh was constituted to pursue the matter. Barely a month after the first meeting of the sub-committee held on October 28, 1997, “a copy of the 1986 draft Bill prepared by the Govt. of India” miraculously landed on the table of the sub-committee in December 1997. Of course it was not planned that way. Strokes bring babies in nappies to this world and many such miracles are common place! Sceptics like us may be excused for not believing in miracles. To such people it is now clear why the seminar was held in spite of opposition and all that followed it. The team of IOSS in this Sub-Committee included the Secretary Dr. Kharak Singh, the president Dr. Kirpal Singh and Bhai Ashok Singh. Dr. Kashmir Singh, who is one of our speakers today, was also a member. Later on, all four of them denied having participated in any meeting of the Committee and having any knowledge of the contents of the Bill. Dr. Kharak Singh also refused having received a copy sent after presentation to the government of India. In fact he stated that the entire thing had been done at the back of the Committee. Those of the aforementioned who believe in miracles can believe in this statement also. At the same meeting, a resolution was adopted by the IOSS decrying the recommendations made by Harbans Singh.
The perfect picture of the innocence of the holy cow and the calf received a jolt when it became known that at least Dr. Kharak Singh and Dr. Kirpal Singh had attended the meeting of the Committee held on April 16, 1999. They were forced to admit it when it was revealed that they had been marked present in the minutes of the meeting. Similarly, even after the vehement denial, Kharak Singh was forced to admit that he had received a copy of the proposed Bill when it became known that Harbans Singh had been sent to Dr. Kharak Singh two weeks earlier by courier. The plot thickened when Dr. Kharak Singh did not circulate the condemnatory resolution of the IOSS to the Press. It definitely became even murkier when it was further known that he held a meeting of the so called Core Group at his own residence and had conveyed to the Press a glowing tribute to Harbans Singh for the excellent work done by him in this regard. One of the names he used for praising the work of Harbans Singh was none other than that of Justice Kuldeep Singh who was forced to issue a public denial. It was also significant that the meeting was held at Dr. Kharak Singh’s residence. Later on, Parkash Singh Badal and Bibi Jagir Kaur the new SGPC President denied having touched the Bill even with a pair of tongs. Though proceedings of the Committee under J. Harbans Singh show that both were very much in the know of happenings and participated in the proceedings through their representatives.
The matter is now focussed on the holy cow, the holy calf and the divine Akali leaders. The fact that Jathedar Gurcharan Singh Tohra was kicked out of the office of the President of the SGPC and was equally unceremoniously removed from the Akali Dal has its own significance in the context. That Mr. Badal perceived him to be angling for the Chief Minister’s office is very meaningful. So also the fact that the things are being cooked under tight cover.
I went to J. Harbans Singh on September 10, 1999 and requested him for a copy of the bill he had proposed. He refused to give it and instead referred me to the sacred calf who did the same unto me. The fate of Justice Kuldeep Singh, president of the World Sikh Council, was much worse for his faith in Justice Harbans Singh and Dr. Kharak Singh was greater. He was refused a copy and not even referred to the IOSS. On September 11, it was decided by the general body meeting of the IOSS to circulate all the papers received from J. Harbans Singh amongst the members of the IOSS. In spite of that, the `statement of the objectives of the bill’ has not been circulated to the members even up to today. In recent months many intellectuals gathered at several places to discuss the bill. They would invariably find that none had seen the bill at all. This happened at a meeting at the office of the Spokesman. Of the sixteen people gathered there, none had seen the Bill. This included seven members of the IOSS. According to the newspaper reports, the same was discovered at a gathering of well-known Sikh scholars from all the Universities of the Punjab, arranged by the Punjabi University, Patiala. Those who attended such a conclave at Ludhiana also assert the same.
To many of you it will come as a surprise that probably all the copies in circulation today have a common source. I have circulated most of them. I, in turn have no hesitation in admitting that I had to get this public document, which should have been given wide publicity as a matter of public policy, smuggled out of the august offices of all four sacred cows. It is thus that you are able to look at the relevant papers.
Conclusion.
It is clear that the RCHE has decided to take over the Gurdwaras for the purposes of undermining the Sikh faith and with the intention of reducing them to the position of midway houses between Sikhism and Hinduism. Preparations for the coup have been going on for a long time. In that, several Western scholars including Dr. Hew McLeod, Harjot Oberoi and Paushora Singh have had a part to play. I am making less than a wild guess when I say that the presently ruling Akalis were allowed to come into power only after they had committed to handing over the Gurdwaras to the RCHE. They conspired to fulfil their commitment through the agency of the sacred cow and the sacred calf. In a hush, hush manner the noose of the Bill was to be placed around the neck of the Sikh people. The beans were spilled when Jathedar Tohra allegedly tried to draw his own Chief Ministership out of it. The thieves fell out over the spoils. They were not able to sell the Gurdwaras to the highest bidder this time but they will keep on trying. We all must be very vigilant and not let the dreams of collaborators come true.
The proposed All India Gurdwara Act is not a horse for you to ride but it is one that you have to carry. It is calculated to be a millstone around your necks. That is what you can expect from the RCHE today tomorrow and ever afterwards unless a drastic change of heart takes place. We shall know of the change of heart once the RCHE decides to frankly and freely accept Sikhism as an independent sovereign dispensation. Then logically will follow the decision to treat the Sikh people as a coherent entity entitled to have a say in shaping their own destiny in truly free and actually secular, democratic India. Institutions will be contrived to make the Sikh voice heard in the corridors of power and the RCHE will then be able to turn its wholesome ear and not the deaf one, to the voice of the Sikh people. Saints, temple servants and ordinary pilgrims, women and children will not have to face battle tanks and chemical weapons and the Akal Takhat will not be anymore an eyesore. We must wait until then to sympathetically consider what the RCHE now wants to offer us through the agency of bought slaves and collaborators.
The only course open to the Sikh people is to refuse the present All India Act with thanks and to manage their own holy places. I recommend that most of our time, after this first session, be devoted to finding out how we can do that most efficiently. In my opinion this can be easily done and is the only course under the circumstances.
Those of you who dread the violence of eighties and nineties and would want to avoid its repetition, may be interested in appreciating that the best way to do it is to throw this Bill into the waste paper basket here and now.
Bibliography.
1). Gurmit Singh, History Of Sikh Struggle, Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, 1991.
2). Kashmir Singh, Law of Religious Institutions _ Sikh Gurdwaras, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, 1989.
3). Ganda Singh, Some Confidential Papers of The Akali Movement, Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar,1965.
4). Narain Singh, Jathedar Kartar Singh Jhabbar, (Punjabi), Singh Brothers, Amritsar, 1988.
5). R. Coupland, Indian Politics 1936-1942, Oxford University Press, Madras, 1944.
Appendix-1.
Guru Gobind Singh, the son of Guru Tegh Bahadur who laid down his life for the freedom of faith in defiance to the dictates of Aurangzeb who was imposing Islam forcibly on Hindu India, had to struggle most of his active years against the Hindu Hill Rajas. It is significant that for the preservation of his religion, he was more often at war with Hindu Rajas than with the Mughals whose authority he challenged. From 1688 to 1701 CE Hindu Rajas were the only source of his troubles and aggressively attacked the Guru. In 1688, a combine of sixteen Hill Rajas marched to Paonta Sahib to destroy Guru Gobind Singh. Chiefs like Balia Chand and Alam Chand laid an ambush and tried to kill the Guru while he was out hunting. On several occasions, the Guru helped the Rajas in battles against Mughal expeditions sent to chastise them. In return the Hill Rajas on more than two occasions invited Aurangzeb to make war on the Guru. Bhim Chand of Kahlur and Fateh Shah of Srinagar attacked Anandpur Sahib.
I find the same thing being repeated in 1966 RCHE attack on Gurdwara Sis Ganj at Delhi.
Appendix-2.
Elections to the SGPC fell due 6 times from 1926 to 1947 and were held on schedule in 1926, 1930, 1933, 1936, 1939 and 1944.
After 1947 they fell due in 1950, 1955, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, but were held only in 1955, 1960, 1965, 1979 1and 1996. The elections fell due ten times in the fifty years after 1947 and have been held only five times.
Appendix-3.
Dr W.H. McLeod’s penchant for creating controversies where none exists must constitute a record of sorts. His latest book, Who is a Sikh, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 140, reveals him best at his trade. Of late, particularly since the ongoing political crisis in the Punjab, his writings have become conspicuous for their political content as well as disregard for established facts of history. Those who look for these distortions in the present work shall be amply rewarded.
All unbiased analysts of Hindu culture and behaviour from Alberuni to Max Weber and Nirad C. Chaudhri are aware, that it represents an uni-central, geo-centred, exclusive and opinionated society. Pluralism, the soul of co-existence, is totally alien to it. These traits have put it in direct social and political confrontation with other societies. Proper resolution of conflict involves recognition of autonomous status of about thirty other nations constituting the Indian sub-continent. Instead, Hindu India has consciously chosen to keep them in permanent subjugation as a prelude to final assimilation. But since the step has to be justified to the liberty loving West, the argument that comes in handy is that, `Sikhism is just a sect of Hinduism and quest for separate identity is promoted by separatist organisations and Sikh Temples under the influence of the Khalsa’. It may be recalled that the argument seriously advanced by M.K. Gandhi was that the Muslims being descendants of converts from Hinduism were a part of the Hindu nation. In varying degrees the same is used against disadvantaged minorities in independent India. Like their predecessors Mughals, Afghans and British’s, the present rulers, have come to believe that the Sikh temples must be brought under State control in order to contain the quest for separate identity. This is the true context of Dr McLeod’s book, a large part of which cannot otherwise be comprehended. One progressively realises that he is projecting the post 1947 predicament (“debate has followed these lines throughout the present century”) coloured by imperialistic design to disintegrate the order of the Khalsa. The plan is to so re-define a Sikh that Hindu take-over of Sikh shrines is rendered possible by a pseudo democratic process. Punjabi Hindus, who have denied their mother tongue in successive Census operations since 1947, are considered capable of posing as Sikhs on the day of polling. Immediate context is also relevant. It is based on two deliberate distortions. First one is a clever trick by which definition of a Sikh for the sole purpose of management of Gurdwaras is represented as defining all those who claim to belong to the and faith is then derided as `definition by legislation’. The mention, that of the more than ten thousand Gurdwaras in the Punjab alone, only one hundred and thirty are managed by the SGPC, is omitted: So is the fact that participation of the Sahijdharis is provided for in the Act. The second one, that the SGPC has usurped the exclusive right to define a Sikh, is a total inversion of facts. The SGPC drew up an authentic version of the Sikh code of conduct by consent of all the constituents of the Panth. It appointed a committee of known scholars on October 1, 1932. The committee invited and processed suggestions received from various shades of opinion from within and outside the country; the suggestions and the draft proposal were widely publicised. Almost every known opinion maker was involved in the exercise, which finally concluded on January 7, 1945. Definition of a Sikh in Sikh Rahit Maryada is thus arrived at after due consideration. What sort of a scholar is he who can presume that the one proposed by him must prevail in contradistinction? That is only the beginning. His definition of Sahijdhari is supported by no authority and is clearly inadequate as attainment of Sahij or spiritual equipoise is equally mandatory for all Sikhs including the Khalsa. The insinuation that a well defined distinct group of Sahijdharis ever existed in confrontation with free consent of all the constituents, Order of the Khalsa has assumed leadership of the Sikh panth and has always borne responsibility to protect it’s interests. Sahijdharis may have felt themselves in no position to abide by the Khalsa rahit but have at no stage opposed it. They have held no ideals not equally dear to the Khalsa. Their opposition would be meaningless as Khalsa is a voluntary association and its rahit or the ground rules of the Order are voluntarily accepted. McLeod cannot pursue his thesis of differing identities so lightly. In addition he will have to establish that he articulates a desire for preservation of threatened Sahijdhari identity and is not advancing the specious argument of a renegade or an agent of the Brahmanic cultural imperialism. In the absence of all that we must hold that the entire emphasis of this book is totally misplaced. Doctrinally there is no possibility of conflict between Sahijdharis and the Khalsa; historically they have always (up to 1947) replenished the Khalsa ranks. The “persistent problem” of those who “observe multiple identities” agitates McLeod more than it has ever agitated the wearer of such apparel. His discovery of a new constituent of the Sikh panth, namely, the Hindu-Sikh, is amazing to say that least. The species is not known to history. The Mughals for instance did not know it. It would be more tenable to suggest the existence of Jew-Muslims, Jew Christians and Muslim Christians as they at least have common scriptures and as Islam recognises earlier Prophets. Sikh Gurus deny the scriptural value of Vedas, decry possibility of God ever incarnating and squarely denounce the caste system. These are the basic doctrines of any shade of Hinduism. How can a Hindu remain a Hindu if he heeds to the Guru? A Hindu who honestly claims to be a Sikh would be a living absurdity. Before we go into the methodology of defining adopted by Reverend McLeod, we must note that he uses the epithet Tat Khalsa to designate leaders of the Singh Sabha without explaining himself. Can the authority of “the liberal, the lax and the ambivalent” that constitute a majority in every dispensation, suffice to define who is a Christian or a Hindu? Could those who hold fast to the original doctrines of the faith be dubbed as “fundamentalists”? He does both of these unto Sikhs and Sikhism. He does not pause to consider that term used has American Protestant connotations and is not even relevant to the Sikh situation. His understanding of the essential nature of the Hindu caste system is wholly inadequate. When the Sikh Gurus deny its divine origin, its racial connotation, its pollution potential and its relevance to salvation, they are throwing it out log stock and barrel. These are the assumptions on which the system rests. Absence of marital relations between say white and black American does not mean that society is practising the caste system. The variety of Namsimran he upholds has no place in Sikhism. Mere repetition of the Name is specifically condemned by the Gurus as of no avail; they emphatically abandon the ago old Hindu concept of the spiritual potency and compulsively compelling power of Mantras. Suffice it to say that no Sikh theologian from Bhai Gurdas to Sirdar Kapur Singh and Sardar Daljit Singh agrees with McLeod. It will be remembered that Guru Nanak exhorted the Siddhas to stop muttering Mantras and to join the struggle in the real world in order to qualify for salvation. Being conditioned by the false concept he is obliged to observe “attributes of royalty” were added later to the status of Guru. In fact that status is derived from the profound concept that God is the only True Sovereign. That concept is available in Sikhism from the day one. Erudite Bhatts whose Coronation Odes’, composed on the occasion of the installation of second to fifth Gurus, form a part of the Guru Granth Sahib compiled in 1607 AD belie McLeod conclusively. He draws various distinctions between Guru’s message, which he admits is cogent, clear and sophisticated, and that of the Sants whom he labels as “ordinary people”. And yet he continues to maintain that Sikhism is a part of the Sant tradition. He ignores that Guru Nanak claimed prophethood, took proper care to preserve and preach his doctrine, appointed a successor to continue his work and that his panth is making history even today. Of no Sant and of no other panth can this much be said. He discussion of taboos of religion does not take into account that they never need yield to rational justification or interpretation. In the banning of tobacco, halal or sexual relations with Muslims, he sees anti-Muslim bias at work. He forgets that only Gurus distinct orders could have made them an article of faith and not the ephemeral ground of historical antagonism with rulers paying lip sympathy to another great culture. If rationalisation is to be sought, it has to be in terms of the Sikh doctrine contained in the Guru Granth Sahib. It upholds sanctity of the institution of marriage and bans extra-marital relations; Khalsa rahit stresses it only partly. Anti-halal taboo is in the context of the Guru resenting its imposition as a symbol of political power’s claim of sole access to spiritual truths. Tobacco can be considered Muslim by no stretch of imagination. His attempt at projecting such taboos as anti-Muslim is untenable. The conclusion that he somehow desires to undo Guru’s reconciliatory work and use taboos as a wedge between two great cultures similar in so many fundamental ways, in inescapable. One prominent feature of the book is the many loose ends the author leaves untied. Bandai’s dispute with the Tat Khalsa is acceptance of the Khalsa rahit by them is conveniently forgotten. Presumably because such an event taking place amongst the contemporaries of the Tenth Guru would knock the bottom out of the theory being propounded in this book. Incidentally, Ranjit Singh was never proclaimed a Maharaja in 1801 as is clear from friendship treaty concluded in 1806 between him and the British. Not the least interesting part of the book is where (p. 74 para 1 and 2) he articulates Hindu perceptions without quoting a single source. He deems it highly relevant although it is external criticism in behalf of unnamed representatives of a rival culture. This selective use of history makes his book a piece of motivated propaganda. The book fails to work out the theological implications of Guru Nanak describing God as having unshorn hair. Had it been analyzed in the context of Sikh concept of naam-simran, i.e., the progressive realisation of the virtues prophetically revealed to be attributes of God, McLeod would not have ascribed the practice of wearing the hair long to jat cultural traits. Even otherwise the tradition of wearing the hair long can be traced to the hoary past of Indians in general. It appears to have continued into late medieval times. The last Great Mughal, who ordered the first general massacre of Sikhs after the execution of Baba Banda, also issued an edict requiring all state employees to shave off. The idea was to detect Sikhs who managed to survive under the cloak of State patronage. It is recorded that much Hindu committed suicide by jumping into wells to avoid suffering the indignity. The episode draws attention to two vital aspects. Contemporary Mughal administration was aware that the Khalsa wears the hair long because of deep rooted faith and the Hindus regarded the practice to be the hall mark of dignity. The selective use of historical evidence is rampant in this small volume. A wrong date and an unexpected style of writing are deemed conclusive arguments to dismiss two rahitnamas asspurious. Inspite of “other features indicating an early date” of a document, the author arbitrarily assigns a convenient date with remarkable precision (eighteenth or early nineteenth century”) just before voicing a full-throated lament at the absence of earlier documents. His preference for Chhibber becomes comprehensible when he affirms, “portions of its prolific content can be offensive to modern Khalsa taste” and that it emphasises “menace posed by polluting Muslims”. That a Brahmin is articulating the grievances of his parent community never occurs to him. The use of B 40 too falls into this category. What is one to make of his inference that throughout history general run of Sikhs have always considered themselves as Hindus, particularly if one knows that he is basing that inference on a single entry in one of the Janamsakhis written by an unknown writer? The book is also full to the brim of convenient or self-serving arguments, which are casually dropped for the first time and are later exploited as established facts. Guru Amar Das quite forgetting that Guru Nanak had himself set up at Kartarpur or that the existence of Guru Angad’s langar, under the personal supervision of Mata Khivi is mentioned in the Guru Granth Sahib introduces institution of langar as an innovation. The author also employs logical absurdities to buttress false arguments. His jat theory has been exposed as one big conjecture of a biased scholar yet he continues to cling to it by the fingernails. He is prepared to assume anything and everything to support the untenable thesis but fails to see militancy writ large in Guru Nanak’s message. Riddles such as although the Muslims were freely employed in positions of authority during the Sikh rule, the Sikhs still held on to anti-Muslim bias, are hard to understand. One that must surely take the cake is found on pp. 73-74. He is arguing that the separate Sikh identity is contested by “many Punjabi Hindus who have no claim to formal affiliation with the panth”. Would it be worth mentioning if Jew of Christians objected to the separate identity of Muslims? McLeod is like the proverbial bull in a china shop and is working hard in this volume to ensure that reputation.
For building up his curious thesis Dr McLeod has had to turn a Nelson’s eye to several universally acknowledged doctrines of Sikh theology and it speaks volumes for his disdain for facts that he has done it with perfect equanimity. Guru Granth Sahib the duly appointed Guru is the only Sikh canon. He would put the Dasam Granth on the same pedestal notwithstanding the fact that it was not in existence until well after the demise of Guru Gobind Singh. It was compiled aroun d the middle of the eighteenth century and the decision on its authorship, final form and status was consciously deferred by a collective will of the panth. That is where the matter rests even today. It is; however, very clear that had Guru Gobind Singh intended that his bani should have canonistic value he would have added it to Guru Granth Sahib just as he entered the bani of his immediate predecessor. That is what Guru Arjun had done. No action of an individual or a group in history or the pleadings of a pseudo historian can ever change that established fact.
Doctrinally the Sikh prophets have demanded absolute allegiance to what they preached since it was the Will of God that they revealed. As illustrated by the oft used simile in Sikh theology, the Sikh must consider himself a dead body and must completely surrender to the doctrine as the body completely and finally accepts the grave – Guru being likened to the grave. In these conditions and in the face of the well settled doctrine that all Gurus are the same Nanak, how is it possible for anyone to claim allegiance only to one or a few of the Ten Masters? How can difference in preaching be at all assumed?
The main purpose of propounding the strange thesis becomes clear towards the end. It is simply to challenge the authority of the SGPC and to pave the way for handing over the Gurdwara management to Hindus with the help of a spurious definition of a Sikh. He imagines that his generally lax Sikh friends will provide the necessary handle; in that he is certainly mistaken. But Reverend McLeod has perhaps discovered a devious method of ushering in an era of communal harmony, which has eluded India for thousands of years. This can be achieved merely by employing the same methodology to define Indian Christians and Indian Muslims. If it is provided that whosoever desires to be taken for a Sikh, Christian or a Muslim should be regarded as such, the currently explosive Babri Masjid issue can be solved by the ballot, strife in the Christian Northeast and Muslim Jammu and Kashmir can come to an end. Sentiments of those who revere Muslim saints like Nigahia, Kabir, Nizamuddin Aulia, Sakhi Sarvar and Sai Baba of Sirdi, to name only a few can be pressed into service. Suitable stratagem can be evolved to hand over the Churches to Hindu Christian management after all the theory that Jesus Christ spent the last years of his life preaching in India and finally rests in Kashmir, has already received much publicity. It cannot be beyond McLeod to work out something plausible with a suitably academic veneer. This can ensure him a permanent place as a great benefactor of the sub-continent and may be that of an original genius. Such a status may be worth seeking for he is never likely to pass off as an objective historian, though his books may cause a momentary flutter in the circles which knows next to nothing about Sikhism so far. The day is not distant when he will be discovered.
Appendix –4.
Sacrileges in Sri Darbar Sahib and affront offered to the Khalsa.
1. Because of the book `Ham Hindu Nahin,’ the Hindus have started harassing the Sikhs. For quite some time, Singhs are ridiculed and subjected to catcalls. If a Singh talks of Sikh religion or is seen reading a religious book, the derisive sobriquet of wicked man is slapped on to him. It is stated that barbers, tailors and potters have become Singhs and now proudly proclaim to our faces that they are not Hindus. Their Gurus, who were from upper castes, always called themselves Hindus. These upstarts even state that they have nothing to do with the Hindu Mandirs. They accept allegiance to Akal Bunga. They should also accept that that they have nothing to do with Darbar Sahib for it has been built with Hindu money and not with the money of these wicked ones.
2. Such sacrileges as cannot be described take place in the circumambulatory path of Sri Darbar Sahib. Card games and chess is played there. Sucked sugarcane is strewn around and meat is eaten there. Several times meat remains have been removed from there. Many Hindus get themselves massaged and sleep in the circumambulatory path. If objected to, they react by quarrelling. They do not stand up on the arrival of Chawki Sahib or for ardas and state that they are mere tourists, those who are believers alone need to stand up. They perpetrate many other unspeakable sacrileges. Brass images, which Brahmins designate as Thakurs are rubbed with mud and washed in the tank of nectar. Dhotis, long and short are immersed in the nectar.
3. The Sadhus who congregate in the Guru Ka Bagh are more consumed by anger and greed than even the householders. This is obvious from observation of their behaviour after 11 PM. Early in the morning, it is difficult to go to Guru Ka Bagh for the atmosphere is so filled with smoke that it is difficult to open your eyes or to talk. Charas is endlessly smoked. Nobody prohibits them. Inconceivably charas is smoked in abundance in Guru Ka Bagh. What can be more disgusting than this?
Khalsa Akhbar, October 14, 1898.
Part III
An Examination of the Projected Rationale for All India Gurdwara Legislation.
Today, I plan to examine the rationale for the all India legislation by probing the validity of the projected advantages, which are supposed to attend its adoption. It is presumed that the measure “is necessary” for establishing “uniform maryada” and for placing “all the Gurdwaras under effective control of the Panth”1. It is understood that this will result in augmentation of the income of the Gurdwara management and better financial management resulting in undertaking more and more effective steps for spread of education and the Sikh religion. The other view is supposedly based on probing the deep-rooted desire in “the Sikh mind. It is hoped that the institutionalised consolidation of the religious power and polity would be instrumental in realising the universal values of Sikh religion and also in enabling the Sikh community to play, in its corporate capacity, its due role in world civilisation”2. A very tall claim indeed! It is asserted that “All India Gurdwara Act has been a unanimous demand of the Sikhs for the last 50 years”(3). The emphasis is on the words, `unanimity’, `demand’ and the length of time. He feels that the need to articulate it therefore exists.
The rationale based on the theory of consistency is a serious matter and must be thoroughly analysed. First of all we may try and understand the “Sikh” nature of the “demand”. The idea of all India Gurdwara legislation is a product of certain historical circumstances. The Sikhs had waged a heroic struggle for freeing the Sikh shrines from the clutches of the Hinduised Mahants or corrupt hereditary custodians. This non-violent struggle was adopted by the popular Indian mind as a great struggle against the British colonial power. As a result of it the British had promised steps for legalising the new panthic control of shrines by adopting a suitable law. When it found the Sikhs insistent and intransigent, they started dragging their feet and contemplated undermining the influence of the protagonists of reform(4). This was looked upon as disastrous by the anti-colonial forces. It was then that some Muslim leaders followed by Hindu leaders decided to give a helping hand to the Sikhs. The proposal to move an all India shrines bill in the Indian Legislative Assembly was mooted separately by M. A. Jinnah and Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya around 1925. This had the desired effect and the new Governor, Sir Malcolm Hailey moved the Punjab Gurdwara legislation in the Punjab Legislative Council. The Governor, at one time tried to trivialise and ridicule the proposal by pretending to be inclined to “Gurdwaras all over the world being affiliated under the SGPC”(5).
There is enough evidence suggesting that the Sikhs discouraged the idea of all India law, at its very conception. They rather settled for help in getting the Punjab law enacted. The protagonist of reforms also discouraged Mangal Singh and Sardul Singh Kaveeshar who advocated larger scope for the coming legislation. Final proof of this attitude is that we never hear of the idea or any proposal based on this until 1956, when it finds mere mention in connection with the Regional Formula. This position continues for another decade until 1966(6).
It will be noticed that in twenty of the fifty years for which the all India law is said to have been demanded, we find absolutely no serious mention of it in history at all. The period is categorised by three abortive and one successful attempts in behalf of the Ruling Caste-Hindu Combine (RC-HC) to take over control of the Gurdwaras. First one was at very inception of the SGPC when it sought to first infiltrate Hindus masquerading as Sikhs in the definition of a Sikh. When this attempt was foiled Raja Narinder Nath and Sir Gokal Chand Narang walked out of the meeting of the sub-committee to record their dissent(7). Secondly they wanted the Gurdwara Judicial Commission to become a controlling body for the SGPC and wanted it to have a Hindu, Hindu-Sikh, Sahijdhari, representative of the Mahants and a government nominee as four of the five members of the Commission. The Muslim members of the Punjab Legislative Council demanded much less than a pound of Sikh flesh on the occasion(8). They were prepared to help in return for the records of the Judicial Commission being maintained in Urdu. The RC-HC felt itself outmanoeuvred and gave up.
The period up to 1966 was not wasted but was utilised in trying to sell the idea to the Sikh masses. Around 1956, one Amar Singh Sehgal, a Congress member of the Parliament form Madhya Pradesh moved a private member’s bill seeking all India law for the Gurdwaras. An advocate from Amritsar and an associate of Master Tara Singh, Joginder Singh Rekhi drafted a bill on the subject. He perhaps had hoped to sell the idea to the Master. Nothing came out of it. In retrospect it appears that the three exercises were intended merely to inoculate the Sikh people with the idea. This was eminently done.
During this period were launched most of the agitations (Akali Morchas) for the formation of the Punjabi Suba. Besides strengthening the separate entity of the Sikhs in new India, this approach of registering protest embarrassed the pseudo-secular government no end. It was to obviate such happenings in future that strengthened the concept of controlling the Gurdwaras in the mind of the RC-HE.
The period is also known for two very determined attempts by the RC-HE to assume control of the Gurdwaras directly. Pandit J. L. Nehru was able to persuade Master Tara Singh, during a difficult political period to agree to control of the SGPC with a four member Judicial Commission, two each of whom would be nominated by the SGPC and the government. If they could not agree to a measure, Governor of the Punjab would act as sole arbitrator in the matter. This squarely placed the Gurdwaras in the lap of the Government. Fortunately, wide-awake General House of the SGPC foiled this attempt by denouncing the agreement(9). The net result was gain for the Sikhs as the much desirable Nehru-Tara Singh Pact of April12, 1959 came into being without this offending provision. It exposed and (theoretically) almost did away with government interference in Gurdwara affairs.
Partap Singh Kairon was the Chief Minister and he was determined to go to any length to please his masters in Delhi. In 1960 elections to the SGPC, he made a direct attempt to intervene and establish firm control the Gurdwaras. Forgetting the `secular’ character of his Congress Party, he floated a formidable alliance of Sadh Sangat Board to confront the Akalis. Giani Kartar Singh was made to resign from the Punjab Cabinet in order to help boost the prospects of the Board. Wide-awake Sikh public opinion defeated the attempt by electing 136 Akalis out of a total of 140 seats.
Success at last came after this. Pandit Nehru, Mohan Lal Sukhadia Chief Minister of Rajasthan and Partap Singh Kairon succeeded in foisting the `Sant Brothers’ Fateh Singh and Channan Singh on the Sikh people as leaders of the Akali Dal. They replaced Master Tara Singh. The Sant Brothers completely turned the Akali politics upside down. They `secularised’ the Dal, the process completed by Gurcharan Singh Tohra and Parkash Singh Badal at Moga in 1996. It appears that they also decided to hand over eventual control of the Gurdwaras to the government in return for personal political projection, which included the formation of `polio-stricken’ Punjabi Suba. This sub-state was advertised by the Sant as `a beautiful male baby’ born to his bachelor household.
In the fitness of things, therefore, from 1966 to 1977, the sold out leadership of the SGPC adopted seven different resolutions demanding all India legislation. But significantly did nothing more on the subject. Perhaps it was perceived on both sides that the time was not ripe for such a handing over or taking over. On both sides the attitude appears to have been, to save the idea for better times and in the meanwhile to so manage matters that the Sikh people can be shown to be longing for the all India legislation; even begging for it. So naturally you hear no emphasis on the issue up to 1977.
In 1977 Chaudhri Charan Singh, India’s Home Minister, first raked it up. On the celebration of 400 years of founding of Amritsar, he announced the intention of his Janata government to adopt all India law on Gurdwaras. Of Charan Singh we know two important facts in this context. He was an ambitious man and aspired to be the Prime Minister of India. The Akalis had a solid block of crucial 10 seats in the Lok Sabha. He eventually got their support for a song and did succeed in his venture. The second thing we know about him that he was a die hard Aryasmajist leader with venomous anti-Sikh tendencies(10). He considered the Sikhs to be a part of the Hindus and it is not difficult to imagine the sort of all India law he contemplated for the Gurdwaras.
In pursuance of this chimera, the SGPC appointed a committee under the chairmanship of retired Chief Justice Harbans Singh to draft the required Bill on May 4, 1977. This committee did not do anything and so the SGPC authorised its Executive Committee to do the job. This also got nowhere. On November 4, 1977, the Punjab government adopted the Chairman appointed by the SGPC and gave him a committee consisting of four (later five) members(11). A draft bill was prepared and presented to the Punjab and eventually to the central government(12). The story of its presentation is interesting and may be retold. All the five members were based in Chandigarh and everybody knew most of them. Throughout the period of drafting, Chandigarh was rife with rumours of wide differences between the approach of the chairman and that of the members. Suddenly we heard that he had been brought around. The exercise was completed under that deception. The chairman turned the tables on the eve of presenting the draft to the government. At the World Sikh Council seminar in Delhi on December 5, 1999, one of these four members related how it had been done. The members were asked to send their copies of the drafts to the chairman for binding. When it came out of his bindery it was no more the draft they had known it to be. This led to delay in onward transmission to the Central government, which fell in the meanwhile, and the whole exercise came to nought.
In depth analysis of this bungling shows that the chairman had at some stage, become a willing or unwilling pawn of interests other than that of the Sikhs. Several meaningful provisions of the draft rejected even by most of the members of the drafting committee, therefore found mention in the draft bill. For all intents and purposes, it was a private, secret draft, having no bearing on `wide consultations’ ostensibly held. It is therefore, that I had objected to entrusting the matter to him for the second time in 1997. This was the total extent of the `popularity and unanimity’ of the demand for the All India Bill up to 1979.
We may skip over the political context, which is very important and meaningful but will require much space and is a subject matter of an independent paper. Then we come to the next resurrection of the idea of all India law in the document of forty-five Sikh grievances prepared by the World Sikh Convention (actually a conclave of one group of the Akalis) at Amritsar under the guidance of the Longowal Akali Dal(13). This charter became the Bible of the Dharamyudh Morcha launched thereafter. Indira Gandhi, at one time during the Morcha, announced a mock acceptance of the religious demands, which included the all India law for shrines.
Then this question surfaces in the July 24, 1985, Longowal-Rajiv Accord as item 5(1). It will be readily remembered that the government had suppressed Dharam Yudh Morcha of the Akalis by simulating violence. In this sordid affair, the Akali leaders eventually, squarely came to play the ignoble role of collaborators. The joint strategy adopted by both parties to collaboration, was to lay the blame for violence at the door of Sant Baba Jarnail Singh Shahid who was forced to camp at Sri Darbar Sahib. It eminently suited the RC-HE, which hoped to use the opportunity to extend its tentacles over the Gurdwaras and to crush the Sikh spirit forever. The Akali leaders were promised some crumbs of political power in return for facilitating it. Both remained busy in popularising the Gurdwaras as resorts for criminals although no criminal was either ever apprehended from there or spotted there(14). Such propaganda was convenient and the self-censored Media carried it out with vehemence. So it came as no surprise when All India Gurdwara Legislation, was made a part of the Longowal-Rajiv Accord. The Accord, with ample reason, has been popularly dubbed as formalisation of `complete surrender of the interests of the Sikhs and of the Punjab’. The Gurdwara legislation was contemplated in harmony with the general theme of the document.
A fresh attempt was made to re-draft the legislation. The very fact that a fresh one was needed is in itself significant. A `review committee’ was formed by the then Chief Minister Surjit Singh Barnala under one of the Ministers in his Cabinet on July 5, 1986. The `review committee’ went ahead to appoint a `redrafting sub- committee’. If that is too mind-boggling, it can be digested with reference to the macabre fate of Sikhs under the RC-HE dispensation. The `re-drafting sub-committee’ went about its job, a hatchet in hand. It held eight meetings in one month, keeping the working draft a closely guarded secret. When criticism became loud, it held a `seminar’ in the Guru Nanak Dev University in October 1986. The seminar was managed by Pirthipal Singh Kapur, Pro-Vice Chancellor, who was one of the persons responsible for sponsoring the Accord and was also its beneficiary. The salient feature of the seminar was that none of the scholars present was even shown the proposed bill and they were all expected to sing its praises. This they did in a melodious chorus. Important Sikh organisations at that time opposed the Bill on the basis of whatever little was known about it as being detrimental to Sikh interests. That the peoples’ fears were not groundless became clear when the `re-drafting sub-committee’ went on record to affirm that, `the bill has been drafted in consonance with the national secular policy and has been kept free of religious orthodoxy’ (15))(whatever it may mean in the context!).
Atma Singh, former Revenue Minister Punjab called the exercise an `alarm bell’ and wrote in the daily Ajit of October 28, 1986, that `the government intends to destroy the political power of the Sikh Panth by handing over possession of the Gurdwaras to its own henchmen’. Mercifully, the fall of Barnala’s government saved the Sikhs from the dangers inherent in the 1986 Bill.
The story indicates that the bill was neither `unanimous’ demand at this juncture, nor was it considered conducive to Sikh interests by majority of the organisations representing Sikh people, even at this time. It was at best the brainchild of the pro-accord group amongst the badly fractured Akali Dal(16).
For the next one-decade up 1997, we hear nothing of significance about the draft bill though the idea is sometimes marginally discussed.
The last attempt is this, which extends from 1996 to this day. It started as an idea for the annual routine seminar to be held by the IOSS. It was opposed there and then(17). After the seminar of October 18, 1997, an eight-member committee was appointed with the same veteran Harbans Singh to re-draft the much-drafted bill. The proceedings were in camera though a show of consultation was made. There are at least half a dozen pieces of evidence which go on to affirm that neither `wide consultations’ were made nor was the result of consultations incorporated in the draft bill(18). Throughout its preparation, the bill was kept a secret from the IOSS, which had commissioned it. It was never returned to the IOSS for final consideration. It was submitted to the government at its back. Even after submission, no copies were supplied to the members of the IOSS except one. Others had to wage a war for getting their copies. Eventually all that they got were incomplete ones.
A word or two about the merits of the draft bill will be relevant. It has been discussed at several places by several organisations, independent intellectuals and concerned individuals over the last four months since it exploded on the Sikh scene (19). It has been found from wanting to be dangerous and positively detrimental to Sikh interests. It is apparent to me that it does not deserve support and neither does the underlying idea of alien and motivated origin. If accepted, it will be framed in secrecy under the close supervision of the RC-HE and will surely become an instrument of spiritual enslavement of the Sikh people. Before, I recommend it to the scholars for rejecting all the infamous drafts along with the very idea of all India legislation, lock stock and barrel, it may be useful to examine other views propagating its utility for the Sikh people.
Adoption of the All India Bill will not bring about uniformity in maryada, is easy to perceive. The maryada is still different in shrines controlled by the SGPC for the last eighty years. There is, for instance, different maryada followed at the Akal Takhat than at Sri Darbar Sahib. President of the SGPC has been also the president of the Nanded Sikh Gurdwara Sach Khand Sri Hazur Abchal Nagar Sahib Committee, and yet vastly different ceremonies and rituals continued to be followed there. Further, different maryada is flourishing in every dera of the Punjab under the very nose of the SGPC. It is fairly certain that it is another catchy slogan to beguile the masses into yielding control of the Gurdwaras to the government. One is also left wondering, as to why this aspect is not mentioned in the statement of `objects and reasons’ attached to the present bill.
The age of first rate economic management dawning with the promulgation of All India Act to manage Gurdwaras is again, likewise a chimera. No such miracle has come about in the Gurdwaras managed by the present SGPC though that was thought possible before its coming into existence. Financial mismanagement is the result of public apathy. It is so great that the income of Bir Baba Buddha, jumped from nil to two crores of rupees merely by the change of a receiver. The insignificant work done by the SGPC is no pointer to better utilisation of funds. It is possible to show that the SGPC has spent much less on education and welfare measures in eight decades than a single Lingayat Math of a district of Karnataka, has spent in three decades. With an income less than one Gurdwara, namely, Nadha Sahib, managed by the SGPC, it has achieved more in terms of both numbers of institutions and also in terms of quality and the varied nature of education imparted(20). False promises of new era are held out in vain. It appears, such arguments are advanced by devil’s advocates. These will continue to be presented until the deed is done and then it will be candidly admitted that the things did not turn out as expected. We may then not even hear the words, `I am sorry’ from the most vociferous protagonists of such ideas.
Another argument, which is not so-vociferously advanced but is universally assumed by those who support the bill on the above grounds, is just as amorphous. On the analogy of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act 1925, it is presumed that the present legislation will afford to the Sikhs an opportunity to emerge as a nation of sorts and to take control of their destinies. The impact of the 1925 Act on the destiny of the Sikh people, is pointed out as an indication of possibilities in this respect. It is however forgotten, while making such assessments, that the situation has changed much since 1925. The Ruling Caste-Hindu Establishment now controls the reins of power in India. The neo-colonialism that has emerged in consequence, has chosen to function under a democratic secular veil. This makes the situation very complex. British colonialism had no legitimacy and was at least partly neutral between the contending powers in the country. This was its position at least to begin with. It did not seriously mind the advantages, which could accrue to the Sikhs as a result of such legislation. The present hegemonic empire of the RC-HE rests on a veneer of false legitimacy. It is working under the overwhelming communal desire to maintain the integrity of the oppressive set up under all circumstances. There is no diabolical crime it has not committed in defence of neo-colonialism. Genocide, according to well considered judicial pronouncements is one of them. The number of Sikhs killed violently by the State under the new half-century old dispensation has been many times more, according to an estimate, than killed under the Mughal, Afghan, Iranian and the British Empires, which, put together, ruled over the region for three hundred years.
This has to be coupled with the well-known position taken by the Ruling Caste-Hindu Combine even at the time on the issue of the Gurdwara legislation in 1925. It must not be forgotten that the RC-HE has all along denied the independent sovereign character of the Sikh dispensation and has resented even the slightest Sikh propensity in that regard (21). It is perhaps both naïve and foolish to believe that placed, as the Sikhs are today, they will be able to get such far-reaching benefits from the present political set-up. To imagine that it will propel them on way to becoming a full-fledged nation would be sheer madness.
Conclusion:
It may surprise you to know that this is the second seminar on issue of the whether the all India law on Sikh shrines is desirable. The first one was held on December 5 & 6, 1999 in Delhi. Apart from these two occasions, the Sikh people have never debated the subject ever.
The All India Gurdwara Bill 1999 is an offshoot of the old agreement between those who would be complete masters and those who want to sell their people into absolute and comprehensive slavery without an escape in sight. The idea inspiring it is vitiated, the whole is bad and the parts are bad. It is a curate’s egg. Do I need to strongly urge the scholars present here to reject it? I plead for rejecting the various drafts, the definitions and provisions that they contain as also the very idea of all India Gurdwara legislation. I would prefer to look to the Sikhs themselves and to their organisations including the World Sikh Council to devise ways and means of achieving all that is sought to be achieved through the agency of this legislation. I consider them eminently suited to come up to our expectations.
Notes:
1). See Singh Kharak, “To Our Readers,” Abstracts Of Sikh Studies, January –March 2000, p. 143.
2). Ahluwalia, Jasbir Singh, “The 1999 Sikh Gurdwaras Bill”, The Tribune, October 7, 1999.
3). Singh, Kharak, “To Our Readers”, op. cit.
4). The then Governor started organising village level `Sikh Sudhar and Zail Committees’ composed of loyalist, to undermine the Akali influence. See, Singh, Ganda, Some Confidential Papers Of The Akali Movement, Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, 1965, pp. xxii and xxvii.
5). Singh, Ganda, Ibid., p.158. Sir Malcolm Hailey is responsible for another tongue-in-cheek statement of the kind suggesting that the government did not handing over all Gurdwaras the world over to the SGPC.
6). During this period the only significant exception, appears to be the unsupported and abortive move of one Amar Singh Sehgal, a Congressman from Madhya Pradesh, who moved a private member’s bill on the All India Gurdwara Law. This can be interpreted as a government move to sell the idea to the Sikhs. Joginder Singh Rekhi an advocate of Amritsar was a person who knew Master Tara Singh well. His drafting of some sort of all India legislation can be seen to be an attempt to influence Master Tara Singh. At that we must leave the speculation. Another development was that the control of Gurdwaras was handed over to the Sant Brothers after `the great soul sale’, significantly on October 2, 1962, M. K. Gandhi’s birthday.
7). For attitude of the Hindu members of the Punjab Legislative Council see Punjab Legislative Council Debates, Volumes VIII, IX, XVI and XXII.
8). Gurdwara Judicial Commission, in one scheme of the Bill, was conceived to be a controlling body for the Gurdwara Board. Ostensibly toeing the line of Hardit Singh Bedi, Hindu members of the Punjab Legislative Council led by Ganpat Rai who was also a legal adviser to Mahant Narain Das, moved a resolution suggesting composition of the Commission. It read, “Provided that, — five members would represent Tat Khalsa, Sahajdharis, Sanatan Dharam Sikhs, the sect represented by Sadhus, Udasis, Nirmalas and the Mahants.” He also added, that he would not mind if, “one orthodox Muslim and one orthodox Hindu were also taken on the commission.” See Gandhi, Surjit Singh, Perspectives on Sikh Gurudwaras Legislation, Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, 1993, p. 55. Muslim members only suggested that the records of the commission be maintained in Urdu.
9). The SGPC under the president Prem Singh Lalpura, turned down a dangerous clause paving way for the wholesome Tara Singh-Nehru Pact.
10). Charan Singh had the same coloured views on status of Sikhs and Sikhism as any of the most `communal Hindu organisations’. In 1984, this is how he expressed himself:
a. Psychologically it was a great mistake to divide Punjab into two parts in 1966.
b. Gurmukhi and Hindi are not different languages. They only differ in script. Punjabi is only a variant of Hindi, that is all.
c. It (Gurmukhi) was invented by Guru Ramdas.
d. It (Sikhism) is only a sect of Hinduism. The fundamentals of Sikhism and Hinduism are the same. The fundamentals are about the belief in reincarnation and rebirth according to your deeds in the earlier life (sic). This is the only fundamental tenet of Hindu Religion.
e. Because if you don’t include their sect as a part of Hinduism then they will get separated more and more from the Hindus.
In the same interview, he answered a question: “ well it is not necessary to be a Hindu to be a part of India. You can be a good Sikh and also be a good Indian?”, his answer was, “let us talk about Islam” (laughs).
See, Sunday, 2-8 December 1984, page 27.
As early as 1982,he was pouring venom on Sikhs and the Khalsa Panth. The following is taken from The Indian Express, of October 20, 1982. He said the country was faced with the demand for Khalistan with the same meaning as Pakistan and the demand had come from those “whom our Gurus had recruited as their disciples for the protection of the Hindu Panth”. He said in 1966 when Punjab was reorganised he had written a letter to the government that division of Punjab on basis of Punjabi and Haryanvi would be detrimental to the interests of the country.
11) Members of the Committee were Ajit Singh Sarhaddi, Jai Singh Sakhon, Gurnam Singh Tir, Manjit Singh Khaira and later on, Sardar Bhan Singh was added.
12) It was presented to the Punjab Government on 2nd December 1979 and to the Central Govt in February 1980.
13) World Sikh Convention held in July 1981. A list of 45 grievances drawn up on the occasion was presented to the Prime Minister on September 21, 1981. Grewal, J. S., Akalian de 75 Saal, (Pbi.), Punjab Studies Publications, Chandigarh, pp. 155-156.
14) On SGPC’s insistence, the Home Minister supplied a list of those supposedly taking shelter in shrines. On scrutiny, it was found to contain none present and several who were already in custody. Khushwant Singh brought this fact to the notice of Rajya Sabha.
15) Labh Singh’s statement quoted by Gurcharanjit Singh in Spokesman (Punjabi) of November 1999, p. 47.
16) List of those who had opposed, includes: Shiromani Akali Dal (Baba Joginder Singh), All India Sikh Students Federation (one of the most powerful Sikh organisations of the time), Badal Akali Dal, the so-called five `High Priests’ (who were equally visible on the socio-political horizon at that time), the all important Damdami Taksal and so on. Sarbat Khalsa held at that time also adopted a resolution against the All India Law.
17) Subject of seminar was opposed. There is evidence to suggest that papers of those who took the contrary view were carefully weeded out. Colonel Bhagat Singh’s paper was one such, which was later published as in another form in the Abstacts. Unanimity theory wasn’t built in a day. At least a third of the papers presented at the seminar also did not support the proposition of the All India Law. Several did not even mention the Law. See Kharak Singh (Ed.), On Gurdwara Legislation, Institute of Sikh Studies, 1998.
18) Myth of `wide consultations’, so assiduously erected, needs little effort to be demolished. Documents, especially the record of proceedings of consultations with the Cabinet Sub-Committee, the Sub-Committee of the SGPC and the Members of Parliament are enclosed with the letter dated September 16, 1999, written by Harbans Singh to the President of SGPC. These are included elsewhere in this volume. These show that their opinion, for instance on reservation, was solicited and equally promptly, completely disregarded. The list of those consulted, provided in the Bill is very small and includes several insignificant individuals and organisations.
19) The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, sent information about the Bill, contained in the draft notification to the Secretary, SGPC. The letter is dated August 25, 1999. Early in September 1999, it broke through to the Press.
20) Singh, Gurtej, “Key-note Address”, Current Thoughts on Sikhism, Kharak Singh (Ed.), Institute of Sikh Studies, Chandigarh, 1996, pp. 25-26.
21). Tandon on calendar. Recently intervening in a controversy regarding the rationalization and modernization of the Sikh calendar by the Sikhs, a member of the Punjab Cabinet and an important member of the RC-HE observed that any such reform will jeopardize Hindu-Sikh relations and lead to the rise of extremism all over India. He demanded that the Sikhs continue to use the Hindu calendar and celebrating Hindu festivals. “The latest twist has been given by the BJP leader and Punjab Minister for Local Bodies, Balramji Das Tandon who has warned that its adoption will lead to serious repercussions in terms of jeopardizing the Hindu-Sikh brotherhood, giving setback to the unity and integrity of the country. – This would undermine the common bonds between the two communities”, “BJP gives new twist to calendar row”, The Tribune, January 12, 2000 p. 1and the Punjabi Tribune of the same date.
Appendix-I.
In the general body meeting of the IOSS held on September 11, 1999, Dr. Kharak Singh denied that he was a member of the committee appointed by the IOSS (that is, by himself) to aid Harbans Singh in drafting the All India Bill. It was brought to his notice that his memory was failing him and that the statement of `objects and reasons’ attached to the bill mentions his name as well as that of Dr. Kirpal Singh as members. Dr. Kipal Singh admitted on that date he was a member and had attended one meeting of the committee. In a meeting held in the office of the Spokesman on September 26, 1999, he admitted having attending attended two meetings of the committee.
In the Abstracts Of Sikh Studies, of January-March 2000 (brought out by him although he was not the editor for the period), it has been insinuated by Kharak Singh (page143) that both he and Dr. Kirpal Singh were never the members of the concerned committee.
Let us try to arrive at the truth!
A). “Brief note on draft of the Sikh Gurdwaras Bill, 1999 and objects and reasons of its clauses” attached to the Bill sent by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to the SGPC may be read. It states in paragraph 2 that the Committee had eight members besides the chairman and not six as given in the Abstracts. The names of both the learned Doctors Kharak Singh and Kirpal Singh are included amongst the members.
B). Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, in a communication dated New Delhi, the 25 August 1999 to the Secretary SGPC also confirms the above. This communication includes “ Brief note on the proposed amendments in the Sikh Gurdwaras Act 1925” and is a photocopy of the document in the Ministry’s file. In the opening paragraph the names of both the Doctors as members of the committee are again mentioned at serial numbers 5 and 6. Total number of members of the committee remains eight as above.
C). In his DOL No. 4062/99/GEC dated the 16th Sept., 1999, addressed to the President of the SGPC, “Justice” Harbans Singh has mentioned the names of members of the committee in question, in paragraph 3(a). The list includes the names of both the denying doctors and the total number of committee members is again eight.
Dr. Kharak Singh’s assertion suggests that such defense had been contemplated right from the beginning and perhaps some documents have also been prepared in advance to meet its requirements.
The question now is what is making them assert such terminological in-exactitudes? Why was defence material prepared in advance? Why was the magazine, pertaining to the period when he would no more be its editor, brought out by Dr. Kharak Singh? The matter is perhaps more serious than we initially thought it was and the involvement of the learned doctors is much deeper and multi-dimensional.
If they have abjectly betrayed the Sikh people and their trusting colleagues in the IOSS, then the correct manner of making amends is to repent profusely and to make a clean breast of the whole affair.
Appendix-II.
What all is wrong with the The Sikh Gurdwaras Bill 1999:
1. A conclave of intellectuals held at the Punjabi University, Patiala, according to the report appearing in The Tribune of September 16, 1999, questioned the “authority, competence and jurisdiction” of Harbans Singh the Chief Commissioner Gurdwara Elections to propose the All India Gurdwara Legislation. The question remains valid. Surely this is not the function of such a functionary. It is also relevant to ask that after having burnt his fingers twice already, why is he taking up the same matter again? Why is he doing it on the instructions of the government whose employee he is? Why is he manoeuvring the mandate to make the recommendation while keeping the draft Bill a secret? He has done this twice before and cannot be unaware of the pitfalls involved and the apprehensions of the enlightened part of the Sikh people at large.
2. The Bill and amendments are suggested in direct violation of the Nehru-Tara Singh Pact of April 12, 1959, providing for a reference to be made for change in the Sikh Gurdwaras Bill 1925 only if it is recommended by two-thirds majority of the general house of the SGPC. The Pact itself is sought to be thrown overboard. Harbans Singh refers to this obliquely in his letter to the President of the SGPC. He says in paragraph 2 of his letter dated 16th September 1999, “in fact the draft prepared by me originally contained the provision that no amendments be made – except on the recommendation of the SGPC. I, however, later modified to say that no change will be made except in consultation with the SGPC”. So eager are they to get over with the job that the reference is made even when the SGPC is seized of the matter. An amendment by notification to give effect to the worse under Section 72(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act 1966 is suggested knowing very well that it will tantamount to cheating the Constitution by unfair use of an illegal enabling law. For whose benefit is it all being done, one may ask?
3. Equally disturbing is the secret manner in which it is being pushed through. Draft Bill, which should be circulated widely as a matter of public policy, is not given to people for academic use. Harbans Singh refused to give a copy of it the President of the World Sikh Council and to me. Two attempts to push it through secretly have already failed. Are the Sikhs not entitled to debate knowingly what is being dished out to them?
4. Power assigned to the Central Government to make rules, are absolute. Section 152(1) provides for the rules to be made by the “Central Government in consultation with the Central Board.” This is undesirable as the Central Government is absolutely immune to Sikh influence and has often twisted the law, manipulated the Supreme Court and various statutory commissions and has even violated the Constitution to the detriment of Sikh interests.
5. Proposal for compulsory registration for the Gurdwaras and imprisonment in lieu of default is unduly harsh and detrimental to Sikh interests.
6. Definition of a Sikh given in the Bill does not include the words “and shall have no other religion”. These words are a part of the standard definition of a Sikh adopted by the Sikh people through well-worked out consensus and is codified in the Rahit Maryada. It is suspected that the non-Sikhs will use the definition. Particularly the Ruling Caste-Hindu Establishment (RC-HE) will utilise this provision to outnumber the Sikhs at Gurdwara polls. Sponsored pseudo academic books making that viable under the concept of `multiplicity of religious identities’ proposed by Dr. Hew McLeod and his cohorts such as Harjot Oberoi and Pashaura Singh can be quoted in this regard as perfect justification. The fear becomes real in the historical context. Politically Conscious Hindu Combine (PCHC) has ever asserted that Sikhism is a part of the Hindu religion and has exploited every opportunity to render that concept into fact. At every moment in history when the PCHC or the RC-HC has perceived the Sikhs to have become weak, it has tried to obliterate the Sikh identity in reiteration of its pre-conceived notions aforementioned. At the time of adoption of the present SGPC Act the inclusion of these very words was objected to by the Hindu Members of the Punjab Legislative Council and two of them, Gokal Chand Narang and Narendra Nath even recorded their dissent.
The second major discrepancy described as `minor alteration’ by Harbans Singh is that the integral part of the definition in the Delhi Gurdwara Act which he claims to have adopted makes the definition further sinister since the omission is wilful and premeditated. The left out words describe the Sikh as one who has faith in the teachings of the Gurus and `practises them.’ By omitting words pertaining to practise, the floodgates to inundation by motivated outsiders to the detriment of the Sikh panth.
7. All the Takhats are to be directly administered by the Central Board. The subordination of Takhats to any authority, susceptible to government control, is reprehensible.
8. The entire scheme of the bill revolves around undermining the authority of the SGPC, controlling the Takhats and around destroying the character of Gurdwaras as being the common property of all the Sikhs. It is conceivable that in due course, the Takhats and Gurdwaras, particularly in other states, will degenerate to the status of property controlled by rival faiths antagonistic to Sikhs and Sikhism.
Part IV
Subject:- Brief note on draft of the Sikh Gurdwaras Bill, 1999 and objects and reasons of its clauses.
1. An Advisory Committee was formed by the Punjab Government in the 1979 under the chairmanship of Justice Harbans Singh, Chief Justice (Retd.) to prepare a draft of the All India Sikh Gurdwaras Bill. A draft Bill was prepared on the basis of general consensus arrived at, by the Chairman and some members of the Committee, visiting all the important States having substantial population of Sikhs and was sent by the Punjab Government to the Government of India for introducing it in the Parliament. For one reason or the other, the Bill could not be introduced in Parliament. On the basis of the Draft Bill of 1979 sent by the Punjab Government, the Government of India in the Ministry of Legal and Legislative Affairs prepared a draft of the Sikh Gurdwaras Bill 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 1986 draft Bill).
2. In a Seminar organised by the Institute of Sikh Studies, on the subject of “Sikh Gurdawaras Legislation”, on 18th October, 1997, the key-note address was delivered by the Chief Commissioner Gurdwara Elections, inter-alia, pointing out the various aspects requiring consideration in the draft of the Sikh Gurdwaras Bill. At this Seminar, a Sub-Committee under the Chaimanship of Justice Harbans Singh was constituted with the following as members:-
a. Dr. Gurmeet Singh, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali).
b. Dr. Kashmir Singh, Department of Laws, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar.
c. Mrs. Kiranjot Kaur, Amritsar.
d. Bhai Ashok Singh Bagrian, Chandigarh.
e. Dr. Kirpal Singh, President of the Institute of Sikh Studies, Mohali.
f. Dr. Kharak Singh, Institute of Sikh Studies, Mohali.
g. S. Labh Singh, Institute of Damdama Sahib, Talwandi Sabo.
h. Prof. Jagmohan Singh, Ludhiana.
The first meeting of the Sub Committee was held in the office of this Commission on 28.10.97. General consensus at this meeting was that:-
(i) the definition of the “Sikh” should be the same as in the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971 and right of vote at the election should be given only to “Sikhs” so defined; and right to vote given to “Sehajdharis” for the first time in 1959, on the Pepsu Gurdwaras being brought under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act of 1925, be omitted.
(ii) all 120 constituencies should be made single member constituencies. There was difference of opinion whether out of these constituencies some may be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the women.
3. A copy of the 1986 draft Bill prepared by the Govt. of India, inter-alia, taking into consideration the draft Bill of 1979, sent by the Punjab Government, was received in December, 1997.
4. Immediately on receipt of aforesaid copy of the 1986 draft Bill, from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Mr. Tohra, President of the SGPC was requested to constitute a sub-committee of the Executive Committee to consider the proposed amendments in the Act of 1925 and also to consider the provisions of the 1986 draft Bill. A sub-committee was constituted under the chairmanship of Mr. Sukhdev Singh Bhaur, the then acting President of the SGPC. A meeting of this sub-committee was held in the office of this Commission, on 14th of September, 1998. All the matters were thoroughly discussed and the meeting lasted for nearly three hours i.e. from 11.30 A.M. to 2.30 P.M. However, Mr. Bhaur suggested that the sub-committee would like to have more time to go through the provisions of the draft Bill prepared by the Commission and that another meeting be held after about three weeks or so. However, no such meeting took place because a tussle had started between two factions of the SGPC and ultimately Shri Gurcharan Singh Tohra and his Executive Committee were replaced by another Executive Committee with Bibi Jagir Kaur as the new President. Due to the changed circumstances, it was felt absolutely necessary to have the views of the new set up. Three meetings were held with Bibi Jagir kaur, the new President. On 22.3.99 Chief Commissioner and his Secretary met her in SGPC office in Sector 5, Chandigarh, wherein a meeting of the new Executive Committee was being held. The outlines of the draft Bill were explained to her generally and a copy of the tentative draft prepared by the Commission and a note mentioning the prominent matters dealt therein, were left with the President for going through the same. Next two meetings were held at the residence of the President, SGPC at Chandigarh. The third and final meeting at her residence lasted for over an hour, after which, while expressing her general agreement with the draft Bill prepared by this Commission, desired to consult the present Executive Committee of the SGPC. On getting information that a meeting of the Executive Committee would take place on 12th of July, 1999, all relevant papers, including final draft Bill, were sent to Bibi Jagir Kaur through my Secretary on 5th July, 1999. The President SGPC was also informed that if exact time of the Executive Committee meeting and its venue are conveyed to this commission, its Secretary would be available to the members of the Executive Committee to give such clarification as may be needed by them. However, no such communication was received. This Commission came to know that the members of the Executive Committee desired that copies of the draft Bill sent by this Commission to the President, may also be supplied to them to enable them to study the same and that they will then like to meet at an early date. The Secretary SGPC informed the Commission that relevant papers were supplied to the members of the Executive Committee. However, inspite of repeated reminders and requests to the President SGPC to expedite the comments of the Executive Committee, no information, even about the holding of the meeting of the Executive Committee has been received so far. Apparently she is busy in connection with other more urgent affairs including that of the forthcoming Parliament elections.
5. Chief Minister, Punjab, was also requested to form a Sub-Committee of the Ministers to consider 1986 draft Bill and let us have its comments, but no action was taken by the Chief Minister, apparently because of his other more pressing engagements. The provisions of the draft Bill were, however, discussed with some senior Ministers of Punjab, namely:-
1. S. Manjit Singh Calcutta, then Minister for Higher Education. (who worked for a number of years as Secretary of SGPC).
2. Dr. Upinderjit Kaur, Minister for Technical Education; and
3. S. Inderjit Singh Zira, then Minister for Jails and Health and Family Welfare.
6. Views and reactions of some important Organisations and intellectuals in Punjab and other States in India, including the World Sikh Council and Kendri Singh Sabha of Madhya 
radesh were sought, so that the final draft Bill may reflect the general consensus. A Press Note was also published in some newspapers for seeking views of the Sikh Organisations and important Sikh personalities from whom views were sought are at Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively and the list of Sikh Organisations and important Sikh personalities who sent replies is at Annexure ‘C’. These suggestions, were duly considered while the final draft, which is primarily based on 1986 draft Bill prepared by the Legislative Department of Government of India, and the amendments, incorporated are based, on the general consensus, which emerged as a result of our discussions and views received, as stated above.
7. Through the good offices of S. Surjit Singh Barnala, Hon’ble Minister for Fertilizers and Chemicals, Government of India, a meeting of all the Sikh M.Ps was convened on 18.3.99 at Punjab Bhawan, New Delhi, presided over by the Hon’ble Minister. Nine M.Ps including Dr. Manmohan Singh, attended this meeting and the Chief Commissioner, Gurdwara Elections, gave outlines of various important provisions of the draft Bill. Discussion took place for nearly one and a half hour. By and large, there was general consensus on the various provisions of the draft Bill but the M.Ps desired that another meeting may be held on a date after 14th of April, 1999, by which date main functions relating to the tercentenary celebrations at Anandpur Sahib would be over, and that during the interval, members would go through the draft Bill and the note prepared by this Commission circulated with the copies of the draft Bill by S. Surjit Singh Barnala. However, the next meeting did not materialise due to the dissolution of the Parliament.
8. Draft finally prepared by this Commission, was again considered on 16.4.99 by the Sub Committee constituted in the Seminar held in 1997 referred to in para 2 above. The Sub Committee, however, stressed that, as regards Punjab and Delhi, the present system of election by adult franchise, has given rise to corruption and other ills, which are associated with the Assembly and Parliament elections based on adult franchise and should be replaced by election by “Electoral College” method, wherein the choice of a member from each constituency may be made by the representatives of the notified or registered Gurdwaras. Large number of Sikh organisations and individuals have also expressed the same view. However, on the other hand, the method of election by adult franchise has been there since 1925 and is thus, well entrenched in the minds of the public. The Executive Committee of the SGPC, was specifically asked whether it preferred the “Electoral College” system of election in preference to the existing method of election, has not sent any reply. Thus, there is no complete consensus on this point. The Commission, has not, therefore, incorporated this change in the case of Punjab and Delhi Boards, leaving the existing method untouched, to avoid any controversy. In all other States, the State/Regional Boards, would be elected by “electoral college” system. Option has, however been given, in the draft, for the “electoral college” method being adopted by the Punjab and Delhi Boards also, if by experience, this method appeals to the members of these Boards, in preference to the existing method of election by adult franchise.
