Guest Column| Time for reforms in Sikh institutional governance

The recent summary removal of jathedars of Sri Akal Takht Sahib and Takht Sri Kesgarh Sahib by the executive committee of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) has sparked a significant controversy within Panthic circles. What makes this decision particularly contentious is that the criticism is not limited to the usual detractors of the Shiromani Akali Dal.

Key Sikh institutions, such as the Damdami Taksal and the Budha Dal, have strongly opposed not just the removal but also the manner in which the new jathedar, Giani Kuldeep Singh Gargaj, was anointed in the early hours of March 10. The breach of maryada (religious protocol) has further compounded the controversy, raising fundamental questions about the legitimacy of the process.

Historical context: Akal Takht and SGPC’s role

The ongoing tussle between the SGPC and the head priest of Akal Takht is not new. The Akal Takht, as the supreme temporal authority of the Sikhs, was established in 1606 by the sixth Sikh Guru, Guru Hargobind Sahib. The institution predates the SGPC by more than three centuries. Historically, the role of the jathedar was subservient to that of the Sikh Gurus, who were the supreme spiritual and temporal authorities of the Sikh faith.

The SGPC, a statutory body formed under colonial rule, has assumed the authority to appoint and remove jathedars over the years. However, the 1925 Sikh Gurdwaras Act does not explicitly mention the term jathedar. Instead, it refers to a “head minister”, a term now increasingly interpreted as referring to the head granthi rather than the jathedar of Akal Takht.

Executive committee’s unchecked authority

The SGPC’s executive committee, elected annually from the general House, has taken upon itself the power to appoint and remove jathedars without any fixed criteria or requirement for justification. This has effectively given the dominant political faction within the SGPC, currently aligned with the SAD, unfettered control over these crucial appointments.

The potential for political manipulation has been evident in past incidents, such as the controversial granting of pardon to Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, which was later retracted due to a backlash. These instances highlight how the institution of the jathedar can be used as a political tool, often at the expense of broader Panthic interests.

In response to the growing dissent, the Damdami Taksal has convened a Panthic Sammelan on March 14 at Anandpur Sahib, coinciding with Hola Mohalla. This gathering aims to bring together Sikh organisations to discuss the crisis and explore a way forward. However, given the political entanglements of the SGPC and the SAD, it is unlikely that representatives from these bodies will participate. If successful, this could lay the groundwork for much-needed reforms in Sikh institutional governance.

Need for SGPC elections, structural reforms

One of the most pressing issues in this crisis is the overdue elections for the SGPC’s general House. The last SGPC elections were held in 2011, meaning an entire generation of Sikh men and women who have reached voting age (21 years) since then have been denied participation. The process of updating voter rolls is nearly complete and the stage is set for fresh polls.

A critical reform needed is the de-politicisation of the SGPC elections. Given that these elections are conducted under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act and not the Representation of the People Act, no political party registered with the Election Commission of India should be allowed to contest using their official symbols. Holding fair and transparent SGPC elections would help restore credibility and ensure that the new executive committee represents the true will of the Sikh sangat.

Question of disenfranchisement

Another contentious issue is the disenfranchisement of nearly 70 lakh Sehajdhari Sikhs, who were historically allowed to vote in SGPC elections until a controversial amendment was pushed through by the Akali government led by Parkash Singh Badal. The constitutional validity of this amendment, by the Sehajdhari Sikh Party, is now under challenge, and its decision could have a significant impact on the composition of the SGPC electorate.

Democratic appointment process

A long-term solution to the controversy over jathedar appointments would be to shift the decision-making power from the SGPC’s executive committee to the general House of the SGPC. This would ensure broader representation and reduce the likelihood of politically motivated removals.

Additionally, clear eligibility criteria and fixed tenures should be established for jathedars. The SGPC is not the sole representative body for all Sikhs in India. Haryana, Delhi, and other states have their own statutory gurdwara management committees, and gurdwaras in Hyderabad, Odisha, and Jammu and Kashmir operate under separate legal frameworks. Any reform in the appointment of jathedars should take into account this diversity within Sikh religious governance.

Call for unity and reform

The intersection of SGPC politics and jathedar appointments has long been a source of friction within the Sikh community. The latest controversy has only deepened existing divisions and raised concerns about the erosion of maryada and institutional integrity.

The real change will require concrete steps — holding SGPC elections, restoring voting rights to disenfranchised Sikhs, and instituting a transparent process for the appointment of jathedars. The ball is now in the court of the Sikh leadership. Whether they choose to engage in constructive dialogue or allow these divisions to fester will determine the future of Sikh institutions and their ability to uphold the dignity of Akal Takht and the Panthic leadership.

The writer is a retired Punjab IAS officer. Views expressed are personal. He can be reached at kbs.sidhu@gmail.com