AMRITSAR, Punjab, India: In a dramatic move, the “Panthic Committee” revealed the identity of its five members and reiterated its right to “appoint and sack” the head priests by convening “Sarbat Khalsa”.
The Committee reasserted its authority to give advice to the head priests and the Sikhs on “political, religious, social and economic” issues. This was stated in a three page handwritten statement read out to newsmen by a “Panthic Committee” spokesman in the Golden Temple Complex.
He said the identity of the Committee Members was being disclosed in view of the greater support of Sikhs to the struggle for “Khalistan”. This step had also been taken to tell people like Prof. Darshan Singh, acting Jathedar of the Akal Takht and the Akali leaders as to had been entrusted with the responsibility to serve the Panth.
Another reason for revealing the identity of head priests was to give the Government the real identity of the Committee Members. Who were Mr. Gurbachan Singh Manochail, Mr. Gurdev Singh Asmanwala, Mr. Wassan Singh Jaffarwala, Mr. Dalwinder Singh, (so far identified as Shebeg Singh) and Mr. Dalbir Singh (so far known as Udhey Singh).
The spokesman said Mr. Gurbachan Singh’s three brothers were in jail and their father was in police custody. He hailed from Amritsar and had been associated with the Panthic issues since the days of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale. He carried a reward of Rs. 2 lakh on his head.
The spokesman added Mr. Gurdev Singh hailed from Ferozepur district and was the only son of his parents. He had lost his father some time back, while his mother was in police custody. He had been serving the Panth since the time of Sant Kartar Singh Bhindranwale, father of the late Bhai Amrik Singh, who was AISSF President until Operation Bluestar in 1984. He carried a reward of Rs. 1 lakh on his head. His family members had been separated from each other due to police action.
Mr. Wassan Singh hailed from Jaffarwal village and had a reward of Rs. 1 lakh on his head, the
spokesman said and cases had been registered against him in two dozen police stations. His father and one brother were in police custody.
The spokesman said’ Shebeg Singh’s real name was Dalwinder Singh. He has deserted the Punjab Armed Police in the wake of action against the Sikhs. He was also implicated in the attempt on the life of Mr. Ribeiro at PAP Lines, Jullundur, last year. His father was also in jail. Besides a case of deserting the police, there were dozen other cases against him, he added.
Dalbir Singh was the real name of Udhey Singh, who also carried Rs. 1 lakh reward on his head. He was well known as an aide of the late Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. At present the CRPF was camping at his residence.
The spokesman cautioned the Sikhs against the Centre’s move to foist its agent on them through the SGPC, which was holding a general house session to elect its President and Executive this month.
The spokesman apprehended that the new incumbents of the SGPC would be subservient to the Centre. The committee warned that no one who played a second fiddle to, the Centre would be tolerated.
He reminded the Sikhs about the fate of the late Mr. Harbans Singh Manchanda who was shot dead by a Sikh youth. “His cloak”, the spokesman said was now being worn by Mr. Harcharan Singh who had allegedly hatched a plot to kill the head priest of Akal Takht, Mr. Kashmir Singh.
Regarding the principles of the Committee, the spokesman said members of the “Panthic Committee” could only be elected or selected by a “Sarbat Khalsa”. In case a member was caught or killed, the militant organizations, about 17 in number, after due consultation « could choose a person to fill the post who had a “sacrificing spent ‘All such ad hoc appointments would have to be endorsed by “Sarbat Khalsa”.
The members ought to be “Amritdhari” and “true Sikhs” (fundamentalists) prepared for utmost sacrifice for the Panth, and also support the concept of “Khalistan”. It was for the committee to propagate the religion on the lines of Damdami Taksal. Any head priest could be sacked if he failed to meet the expectations of the committee. The committee had the right to advise the head priests on al] matters.
The spokesman added that the committee considered the institution of head priests as “supreme”.
Article extracted from this publication >> October 9, 1987
