These gen­tle­men in the photo col­lage are the gov­er­nors of the sa­cred Takht Hazur Sa­heb Nanded through the proxy of ad­min­is­tra­tor Dr Vi­jay Sat­bir Singh. They mock the Sikh com­mu­nity in the face, loud and clear, pro­claim­ing that they will con­tinue to gov­ern and med­dle in the af­fairs of the the Sikh in­sti­tu­tions by hook or by crook. Are you sur­prised? You should not be. The si­lence of Sikhs to ma­jor in­ter­ven­tions by the gov­ern­ment of Ma­ha­rash­tra over the last cen­tury has brought us to this sit­u­a­tion. This week a new lead­er­ship of the Ma­ha­rash­tra gov­ern­ment was elected. The Sikhs of Ma­ha­rash­tra did not vote en bloc and their votes were as scat­tered as they are. Sikhs in Nanded, though con­cen­trated in an area, still do not have the num­bers to make a dent in the re­sults.  Hence no rep­re­sen­ta­tion to the Sikhs seems pos­si­ble. In this open let­ter to the new lead­er­ship of the state, WSN ed­i­tor Jag­mo­han Singh ex­am­ines the sit­u­a­tion and makes a case for so­cial, re­li­gious, hu­man rights and ju­di­cial in­ter­ven­tion in the face of po­lit­i­cal in­ter­fer­ence by the State of Ma­ha­rash­tra.

DEAR CHIEF MIN­IS­TER SHRI DE­VEN­DRA FAD­NAVIS AND DEPUTY CHIEF MIN­IS­TERS EK­NATH SHINDE AND SHRI AJIT PAWAR: The peo­ple of Ma­ha­rash­tra, in­clud­ing the Sikhs of the state, notwith­stand­ing the num­bers, have voted you to power to ad­min­is­ter one of the biggest states of In­dia.

Min­is­ter Fad­navis -this is your third term as Chief Min­is­ter and it is the sec­ond term for the two deputy chief min­is­ters. At the very out­set, I would like to state that through­out the ear­lier two terms as Chief Min­is­ter and the last term as deputy Chief Min­is­ters, you have failed the Sikhs as you have con­tin­ued the un­holy tra­di­tion of open and fla­grant in­ter­ven­tion in the af­fairs of the Takht Hazur Sahib -one of the five holy seats of power of the Sikh re­li­gion by your pre­de­ces­sors.

While we are still reel­ing un­der the processes and steps fol­lowed by Shri Fad­navis in his ear­lier term in ap­point­ing ad­min­is­tra­tors ex­tra­ju­di­cially, it is time to end the in­ter­fer­ence of the State in the re­li­gious and ad­min­is­tra­tive af­fairs of the Takht Hazur Sa­heb.

CM Fad­navis, Dy CM Shinde –you have failed the Sikhs as you have con­tin­ued the un­holy tra­di­tion of open and fla­grant in­ter­ven­tion in the af­fairs of the Takht Hazur Sahib -one of the five holy seats of power of the Sikh re­li­gion by your pre­de­ces­sors.

I fail to un­der­stand that the mis­deed re­gard­ing melt­ing of gold was car­ried out by the Fad­navis-ap­pointee Bhupin­der Singh Man­has, who rat­i­fied the gold melt­ing eight months af­ter the act. Why did the Fad­navis gov­ern­ment not pur­sue ac­tion against him, his Vice-Pres­i­dent and all other mem­bers of the Com­mit­tee?

Sub­se­quently, upon the com­plaint of Dr P. S. Pas­richa re­gard­ing the un­holy and patently il­le­gal acts of Sec­re­tary Ravin­der Singh Bun­gai, why was a pub­lic in­quiry not held? Why is that even af­ter three months, the Bom­bay High Court has not been given de­tails of an in­quiry re­port? What is the gov­ern­ment ap­pointed ad­min­is­tra­tor Vi­jay Sat­bir Singh who rarely at­tends of­fice in per­son upto?

What was the com­pul­sion to make amend­ments to the Takht Sri Abchal­na­gar Hazur Sahib Act, 1956, with­out con­sul­ta­tion with rep­re­sen­ta­tions of the Sikh com­mu­nity?

How per­ni­cious can the in­ter­ven­tion be as Sec­tion 11 was amended in 2015 al­low­ing the Gov­ern­ment of Ma­ha­rash­tra to nom­i­nate the Pres­i­dent of the Takht Board?

How many more years or decades will the gov­ern­ment take to frame an­other Act re­plac­ing the old one? Will it once again at­tempt to ap­pro­pri­ate power by as­sum­ing the au­thor­ity to nom­i­nate 12 out of 17 mem­bers or will it go the ex­tent of con­tin­u­ing with ad­min­is­tra­tors for­ever? I am prompted to ask that why is the gov­ern­ment keen to frame a new Act when it is not ca­pa­ble of do­ing so?

How many more years or decades will the gov­ern­ment take to frame an­other Act re­plac­ing the old one? Will it once again at­tempt to ap­pro­pri­ate power by as­sum­ing the au­thor­ity to nom­i­nate 12 out of 17 mem­bers or will it go the ex­tent of con­tin­u­ing with ad­min­is­tra­tors for­ever? I am prompted to ask that why is the gov­ern­ment keen to frame a new Act when it is not ca­pa­ble of do­ing so? 

Presently, I write to once again draw your at­ten­tion to the deep con­cerns of the Sikh com­mu­nity re­gard­ing the pro­longed de­lays in con­duct­ing elec­tions for the Takht Hazur Sahib Pra­band­hak Com­mit­tee and the through acts of omis­sion and com­mis­sion stop­ping the gov­ern­men­t’s in­ter­ven­tions in its ad­min­is­tra­tion.

Since the en­act­ment of the Nanded Sikh Gur­d­wara Sachk­hand Sri Hazur Abchal­na­gar Sahib Board Act in 1956, elec­tions have con­sis­tently been post­poned, com­pelling the Sikh San­gat to seek ju­di­cial in­ter­ven­tion to up­hold their rights. The most re­cent elec­tions, due since March 2022, have yet to be con­ducted, de­spite  the di­rect in­ter­ven­tion of the Bom­bay High Court.

The gov­ern­men­t’s pat­tern of ap­point­ing ad­min­is­tra­tors, some­times -Sikh and non-Sikh in­di­vid­u­als, to over­see the Takht’s af­fairs has caused sig­nif­i­cant dis­tress within the Sikh com­mu­nity. Such ac­tions are per­ceived as ar­bi­trary and dis­re­gard the com­mu­ni­ty’s sen­ti­ments and tra­di­tions.

Since the en­act­ment of the Sachk­hand Sri Abchal­na­gar Hazur Sahib Act in 1956, in a rather sur­rep­ti­tious man­ner, the gov­ern­ment of Ma­ha­rash­tra, at all lev­els, has de­ceived the Sikhs and re­sorted to loot of land and prop­erty,

Fur­ther­more, at­tempts to amend the 1956 Act to in­crease gov­ern­ment con­trol over the Board’s com­po­si­tion have raised con­cerns about po­ten­tial in­fringe­ments on the com­mu­ni­ty’s au­ton­omy in man­ag­ing their re­li­gious in­sti­tu­tions. In Feb­ru­ary 2024, the Ma­ha­rash­tra gov­ern­men­t’s pro­posal to amend the Act, which would have re­duced the num­ber of SGPC-nom­i­nated mem­bers, and when it met with sig­nif­i­cant op­po­si­tion from Sikh bod­ies, it led to its even­tual tech­ni­cal with­drawal.

Hello Chief Min­is­ters! it does not be­hoove you to hu­mil­i­ate the Sikh com­mu­nity in this  man­ner. While the Sikhs have the tenac­ity, pa­tience and tol­er­ance to with­stand gov­ern­men­tal on­slaught, their re­ac­tion can have se­ri­ous re­li­gious and so­cial reper­cus­sions.

Hello Chief Min­is­ters! it does not be­hoove you to hu­mil­i­ate the Sikh com­mu­nity in this  man­ner. While the Sikhs have the tenac­ity, pa­tience and tol­er­ance to with­stand gov­ern­men­tal on­slaught, their re­ac­tion can have se­ri­ous re­li­gious and so­cial reper­cus­sions. 

If there is any iota of re­spect to Sikhs and to Takht Hazur Sahib, which is of his­tor­i­cal im­por­tance to the Sikhs and to the peo­ple of Ma­ha­rash­tra, the least that you all can do is,

1. Im­me­di­ate Sched­ul­ing of Elec­tions: Con­duct the over­due elec­tions for the Takht Hazur Sahib Pra­band­hak Com­mit­tee with­out fur­ther de­lay, in com­pli­ance with le­gal di­rec­tives and the com­mu­ni­ty’s ex­pec­ta­tions.
2. Re­spect for Sikh Tra­di­tions: En­sure that any ad­min­is­tra­tive ap­point­ments align with Sikh tra­di­tions and sen­ti­ments, avoid­ing the ap­point­ment of non-Sikh in­di­vid­u­als to po­si­tions of au­thor­ity within the Takht’s man­age­ment.
3. Trans­par­ent Leg­isla­tive Process: En­gage in open con­sul­ta­tions with Sikh or­ga­ni­za­tions and com­mu­nity lead­ers be­fore propos­ing any leg­isla­tive changes af­fect­ing the gov­er­nance of Sikh in­sti­tu­tions, en­sur­ing that such amend­ments re­spect the com­mu­ni­ty’s au­ton­omy and tra­di­tions.

We trust that your es­teemed lead­er­ship will ad­dress these con­cerns promptly, ho­n­our­ing the rights and sen­ti­ments of the Sikh com­mu­nity and up­hold­ing the de­mo­c­ra­tic processes es­sen­tial to the man­age­ment of their sa­cred in­sti­tu­tions.

While the Sikh lead­er­ship at Nanded may have com­mit­ted frauds and sins un­be­com­ing of their role and duty, how­ever, it is still a fact, that they are em­bold­ened to do so be­cause of the fla­grant in­ter­ven­tion of the state au­thor­i­ties and the cam­ou­flage that po­lit­i­cal lead­ers pro­vide them.

I will not be wrong to sur­mise that should the state gov­ern­ment con­tinue its un­der­hand tac­tics, a time will soon come in the near fu­ture, when the Sikhs will draw up their own par­al­lel au­thor­ity, un­der the guid­ance of the Sikh San­gat in a Sar­bat Khalsa -Peo­ple’s Com­mon­wealth.

I will not be wrong to sur­mise that should the state gov­ern­ment con­tinue its un­der­hand tac­tics, a time will soon come in the near fu­ture, when the Sikhs will draw up their own par­al­lel au­thor­ity, un­der the guid­ance of the Sikh San­gat in a Sar­bat Khalsa -Peo­ple’s Com­mon­wealth, should the au­thor­ity of the Jathedar Takht Hazur Sa­heb and Jathedar Akal Takht Sa­heb and other Jathedars of the Sikh com­mu­nity not rise to the oc­ca­sion.

His­tory beck­ons your lead­er­ship trio not to mess with the Sikhs and their re­li­gious in­sti­tu­tions. 

The rule of Ma­haraja Ran­jit Singh, in all its splen­dour, the rule of the Misls -Sikh chief­tains and that of Baba Banda Singh Ba­hadur are am­ple proof that Sikhs are ca­pa­ble of throw­ing up their own lead­er­ship and are more than ca­pa­ble of man­ag­ing their re­li­gious, so­cial and po­lit­i­cal in­sti­tu­tions.

The his­toric Sikh seat of au­thor­ity of Takht Hazur Sa­heb should in­spire the re­li­gious and po­lit­i­cal lead­er­ship of the state and not be treated in a ma­li­cious man­ner. His­tory beck­ons your lead­er­ship trio not to mess with the Sikhs and their re­li­gious in­sti­tu­tions.

Jag­mo­han Singh
Ed­i­tor, The World Sikh News