When I was in India Sh. Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia wrote a very damaging article, perhaps to please his masters, about Akal Takhat Authority, it’s domain, it’s modus operandi and the position of the present Jathedar and published it In “The Tribune,” Chandigarh dated April 29, 1994. I wrote a rejoinder to it to be published in that paper. But, as it might not suit to the policy of that paper (Indian) media generally prefer and publish Anti-Sikh Articles) it was not published nor was returned to me. It is now learned from a report published in the Hamdard Weekly of Toronto that Mr. Jasbir Singh Auhluwalia has published all the Anti-Akal Takhat Articles, along with his own article, in a book which has been released by S. Jagdev Singh Jassowal, other day, at Chandigarh. Since our worthy Jathedar is on a visit to this great continent and is very much in news I would like to publish my article in Panthic papers. It may help in providing historical and doctrinal answer to Mr. Ahluwalia’s prejudicial and devoid-of-Historical-Facts Article.
He says that Guru Gobind Singh, “Bestowed upon the Adi Granth the spiritual aspect of the divine Sovereignty and vested the temporal aspect in the Panth, the Adi Granth became Guru Granth and the Panth became the Guru Panth, Khalsa Panth. The temporal authority stands vested in the collectivity to the Panth, the Sikh community and not in any single institution. The Akal Takhat is a Symbol and not a seat of the temporal aspect of the divine sovereignty vested in the Khalsa. Guru Hargobind had erected Akal Takhat close to but separate from Harmander Sahib, the spiritual center dingo no m If Akal Takhat is a mere “Symbol” and not a Seat than from where the temporal authority of the Khalsa Panth is to be exercised, will Mr. Ahluwalia tell? Flistorically speaking, when Guru Arjun Dev Ji, an Apostle of peace and tranquility, who had compiled the Adi Granth. (The Guru Granth) whom Mr. Ahluwalia admits as the spiritual aspect of divine sovereignty,” was tortured to inhuman death by forcing him set on the burning furnace, pouring burning sand on his naked body and mercilessly throwing the body in the water of the river Ravi under the orders of the then Mughal Emperor Jahangir, it was strongly felt that message of Bhagt (spiritual aspect) could not be delivered without the provision of Shaktee (temporal power).
So. Guru Hargobind Sahib, sixth Guru, laid down the foundation of Akal Banga by placing brick with his own hand on first Sunday of the month of Jeth 1665 Bikrami (1606 AD and), with his own hand affected the construction and raised the Chabutra (Tharha Sahib) while Bhai Gurdas. (the renowned. scholar and scriber of Shri Guru 3 Granth Sahib) handed over the bricks while Baba Budha (the old saint since the days of Guru Nanak) handed over mortar in it’s construction.
After completion of Tharha Sahib, Hukmnmas were circulated to the Masandas (seats of preaching of Sikhism). That in future Sangat should offer weapons and horses in place of money and provisions at that seat and, as such first offering would take place on Sunday, the 26 of Asarh 1665 Bikermi (1606 AD). A Chhatter wold be hoisted and Nishan (Flag) would be fixed, both as symbols of 1 Chivalry: that on that day Bhai Duila and Bhai Natha of village Sursingh Wala would recite Wars of Martyrs at that congregation. On the appointed day, after paying homage to Shri Guru Granth Sahib in Harmandar Sahib, the Guru came back to the Tharha Sahib, sat on it in Bir Asan while. Baba Budha sat on right and Bhai Gurdas on the left of him. A large number of the Sangat offered weapons. Baba Budha offered two swords. Guru wore one of them on the right, and the other on the left shoulder declaring meant that the aim of wearing two swords was that the one represented Peeri (power of meditation i.e. spiritual aspect) while the other represented Meeri (power of Chivalry of warriors. i.e. temporal) aspect). Bhai Bhagat Singh, author of Gur Balaas, who was student and con- temporary of Bhai Mani Singh (scriber of Guru Granth Sahib at the time of Guru Gobind Singh Ji) wrote, out of respect and faith, that himself put two swords around the neck of Sat Guru Hargobind-one of Meeri and other of Peeri.
Aim of writing all this is to show that Akal Takhat is not a mere symbol but a scat constructed him- self by Guru Hargobind. It represents not only temporal aspect but both Meeri and Peeri (spiritual aspect as well as temporal aspect)-as an extension 10 spiritual aspect. Since the days of Guru Hargobind Sahib the Concept of Meer&Peeri has become an ingredient part of the Sikh faith. Nobody can separate them. He who has no faith in the doctrine of Meeri and Peeri cannot be considered member of Sikh Panth. Secondly, hoisting of Chhattar and Flag provides it an identity of a Takht. Flag, however can be termed as a symbol of Sikh nation like the flags of other nations. Again it was on this seat that in the 18th century the Khalsa Panth used to assemble to take decisions on contentious disputes during the struggle for establishing Sikh Raj by the Sikh Missles. The decision taken used to be called “Gurmatta” which was binding on all sections. It was on this seat that even Ma- haraja Ranjeet Singh bowed to the orders of the Akal Takhat Jathedar Akali Phula Singh and was bound to the pillar and provided “Tankha.” The notion of Mr. Ahluwalia that ‘Akal Takhat is a symbol and not a scat’ is absolutely wrong and devoid of historical facts.
Again Mr. Ahluwalia has very wrongly interpreted that “Guru Gobind Singh in Bachittar Natak clearly differentiates the two seats of Institutions (Harminder Sahib) as spiritual aspect and Akal Takhat as Temporal aspect) by symbolically referring to them as the house of Baba (Nanak) and the house of Babar (worldly polity).”
It is again wrong. “Babarka” does not mean “wordly polity” but it meant “Mughal tyranny” which has been condemned vigorously by Guru Nanak in Guru Granth Sahib. Shri Guru Gobind Singh too, in chapter 13th of Bachittar Natak, mentioned Babarke and Babeke in quite opposite context Allow me to produce the original version.
While telling the plight of those who left the Guru when armies of Aurangzeb surrounded Anandpur Sahib and hid themselves in the mountains-Guru Gobind Singh writes:
meant “some people left the company and took shelter in mountains. Cowards, out of fear, could not understand where lies the real shelter. Houses of those who had left were razed to the ground. He who betrays the Guru looses his abode here in this world as well as in the next world. In fact such people blacken their faces here and there (next world). God has created both Babeke and Babarke. Recognize Ye Babeke as religious Emperor and Babarke as world Emperor. Those who do not place their offerings to Babeke are deprived of them by Babarke. Babarke first punishes them heavily and then robs them of their houses.” So in the words of Guru Gobind Singh, Babarke (Mughal rulers) were “Tyrannical Robbers.” To equate temporal aspect of Akal Takhat with “Babarke” by a scholar of Ahluwalia status, is not only mischievous but it is surely Blasphemous. The Jathedar Akal Takhat should take note of it. Again, describing the decision of Akal Takhat Jathedar, to call all Akali factions to form unity at Akal Takht, he has gone to ridicule Akal Takhat as “Akali Takhat,” I would like to draw Mr. Ahluwalia’s
attention towards the Gurdwara Reform Movement of this Century. Remaining nonviolent those who were bumt alive at Nankana Sahib, crushed and killed under railway engine at Punjab Sahib, beaten by lathies and killed in Guru Ka Bagh, bore shots of guns at their breasts not at their backs while marching to Gansar Jaits. Those who had maximum lives even to attain independence. of India from the British were mostly those Sikhs. Again, those were Akalis who threw their lot to remain with India even when offered a separate sovereign state by the British cabinet mission at the time of partition of India (though it looks a mistake now). And after independence those had been Akalis who made all sacrifices to own their mother tongue and fought for Punjabi Suba. They love Akal Takhat and obey Akal Takhat. And people like Ahluwalia, just to please the present Babarke of Delhi Takhat. or perhaps for few morsals and a little personal gain ridicules Akal Takhat by saying “It is Akali Takhat, not Akal Takhat.” Does it expose him as ahonest interpreter?
His remarks about the Akal Takhat Jathedar are not worthy of a Sikh scholar. If the Jathedar was requested by the fighting factions of the Panth to help them to form unity, it is no crime. It is rather his duty. Jathedar has clearly ex- pressed that he has no business to lay down any political goal for Akalis. Nor he pressed Mr. Badal to follow any particular political goal and in his case left it to the Sangat to decide who was right. Since the Akalis form a major part of the Panth, he simply wants them to unite as Guru has laid down. There’s no doubt that he is a paid number of the S.G.P.C. S.G.P.C. is a democratic statutory body of the Sikhs and represents the Sikh Will. If under the present democratic set up of the country. Jathedar is appointed by the S.G.P.C. and is paid member where lies the harm. If the Chief Election Commissioner of India as well as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court are appointed by the parliament and they sometimes take the government to task why the Jathedar cannot take the fighting factions to task. If in the opinion of Ahluwalia, as quoted by him-“As rightly observed by S. Kapoor Singh in a newspaper article on January 13, 1980, There cannot be Takhat Jathedar as long as the Khalsa is not sovereign”- is correct, then Mr. Ahluwalia should come forward to Advocate the sovereignty of the Panth. Mud- slinging on Sikhs and Sikh institution is not worthy of a person of his caliber.
Gurnam Singh Binjal (Principal)
Diamond Bar, CA
Article extracted from this publication >> September 9, 1994
