Dear Editor
You reported (February 4) that former Home Minister of India Buta Singh appeared at the Akal Takht for forgiveness of his sins against the Sikhs particularly his role in the government sponsored attempts to rebuild the Akal Takht which was damaged by the Indian Army in 1984.
Your editorial is on the mark that a pardon for Buta Singh does not serve justice. I submit that the whole process of his appearance at this seat of authority in Sikhism makes a mockery of Sikh tradition and history. His appearance is a charade and the Jathedars are a party to it.
To require Buta Singh to say a few prayers is meaningless atonement. A Sikh would do that anyway and he would also be pleased 10 serve the community in the Langar or in other ways this is not punishment but merely going back to the basics of being a Sikh
How are Sikhs different from the Brahmins or from the early Popes against whom Martin Luther railed if forgiveness can be brought (Rs 1100.00 for parshad) and camed by listening to or paying for a few mandated prayers? This is how the Church sold indulgences and these are the kinds of practices a Brahmin lives on; this is certainly not Sikhism.
Such punishments merely make the Akal Takht appear ridiculous and Brahminical How can any thinking person respect the edicts of an institution which tars Professor Piar Singh and Buta Singh with the same brush cannot distinguish between their transgressions and metes out similar meaningless punishments to both.
To castigate Buta Singh for denying his beard at the same time that his other sins are being heard is like saying to an accused Yes you have murdered innocents but you have also made an illegal left turn. We are willing to overlook the former but you must pay for the latter
There is no question that forgiveness is an important part of Sikhism and every man including Buta Singh deserves a second chance. But there are two elements to repentance: an honest confession which recognizes the magnitude of one’s error and atonement or correction of the wrong done.
In the case of Buta Singh neither condition has been satisfied. He has neither repudiated the policies of his Congress (I) colleagues nor lifted a finger to help the thousands of Sikh men women and children who were the victims of his policies. Appearances at the Akal Takht for forgiveness also require the participation of sangat. Which sangat took part in these secret deliberations on such serious matters? When the Jathedars parleyed with Buta Singh or his emissaries did they remember the thousands of Sikh women and children whose blood was shed by the policies that Buta Singh represented and executed? Sikhs worldwide should register their voices against this taunting of the institution of Akal Takht by both Buta Singh and the Jathedars. Perhaps the World Sikh News could set aside space to solicit signatures and opinions which it could then forward to Amritsar
L J. Singh New York
Article extracted from this publication >> February 25, 1994
