Last fortnight’s events at Amritsar may have baffled most observers in the west. The Akal Takhat Jathedar Prof. Manjit Singh along with other Takhat Jathedars called all Akali groups at Amritsar and asked them to engage them- selves in religious services to show they are free from vanity and other evils. At least half a dozen Sikh group leaders announced at the end of the religious services. lasting about a week that they had decided to dissolve their groups and to merge into a single, new organization to be: known as Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar). They also drafted a common program which essentially rests on a promise the first Indian prime minister Jawahar Lal Nehru had made, namely that he found nothing wrong if a region was carved in north-India for the brave Sikhs so that they, too, experienced “glow of freedom.” The Akali leaders further resolved that they would demand an independent Sikh state in the event of the Indian government refusing them the region Nehru had once promised to Sikhs.

Prakash Singh Badal who heads an influential Akali group refused to join the religious services and dissolve his group. Instead, he resigned as leader of the group and entrusted leadership to a combination of five Sikhs who promptly announced suspension of all political activity. The Akal Takhat Jathedar called Badal to Amritsar “as a humble Sikh” to explain why he was not willing to join hands with other groups in response to the frequent pleas by ordinary Sikhs in favor of unity of Sikh groups. Instead of going alone to meet the Takhat Jathedars, Badal trooped along with about 25000 of his supporters.

A host of questions arise: not long ago, Badal was not permitted by the Indian state to hold protest sit-ins with four or more persons in front of offices of deputy commissioners at Jalandhar and Ludhiana and elsewhere. Why was he now free to mobilize more than 25000 of his supporters to reach Amritsar? Moreover, all these persons were permit- ted to enter the Golden Temple complex where ordinarily not a single Sikh is allowed in without a thorough search of his person? The answers to these questions are obvious. Earlier, the Badal organized “sit-ins” were not a part of Indian state’s political strategy but now his mobilization is not against the Indian state but it is against the Jathedars of Akal Takhat and other religious seats of power. As such, this mobilization has to be encouraged by the Indian state and its media.

The Jathedars heard Badal for about five hours on why he did not want to join others to form a single Sikh party to seek a region for Sikhs. He said he had differences with them, and that he could not go along with them. The Jathedars felt disgusted but were restrained in the use of language. They asked Badal to do what he wished and warned him that the Sikh masses would not tolerate his attitude. Badal interpreted these remarks to claim that the Jathedar had permitted him to retain his separate Akali group. But when Jathedar Manjit Singh publicly tried to deny any such permission, the Indian media ignored his remarks.

The Akal Takhat had subsequently issued a clarification about Badal’s self serving and false claims. Now it remains to be seen whether common Sikhs in rural Punjab will tolerate Badal despite his defiance of Akal Takhat. It is believed that Sikhs would not put up with this attitude of Badal even as they may support his candidates in the Ajnala and Nakodar Assembly, by-elections scheduled for this month. The reason is that in the rush of events no viable Sikh candidate has put in his nomination papers in these constituencies.

Notwithstanding this, it is difficult to believe that the common Sikhs will go whole-hog for those who have. formed S.A.D. (Amritsar). Some of these leaders-Barnala, Talwandi and Amarinder Singh back credibility. Until now they were moving in union with the Indian state and some of them were signatories to the Rajiv Longowal accord. This accord was found to be an act of treachery by Longowal and company against the Sikhs. The Jathedars should not have given any importance to these self-appointed Sikh leaders. Only those who are committed to ensure achievement of the setup of freedom for Sikhs should be called for leadership responsibilities and not the failed leaders mentioned above.

Opposition to Badal should have been on the basis of his political stand in support of Delhi rather than on his mere refusal to join hands with men like Talwandi, Barnala and Amarinder Singh. Instead of asking Sikhs to identify leaders who refused to toe Akal Takhat’s line of Sikh unity, Prof Manjit Singh should be bold enough to himself identify such leaders and should have given solid reasons why Sikhs should marginalize these leaders. Vague and abstract statements are liable to be misused by selfish leaders like Badal.

Article extracted from this publication >> May 13, 1994