|
How the sequence unfolded
WSN Network
| |
The WSN has conclusive evidence that such clever maneuvering and
drafting has not happened by any chance or mistake or legal goof up,
and was the result of a sustained effort to corrupt the definition
of the Sehajdhari Sikh. |
|
 Consider the
sequence of events:
1. The issue
came up when an SGPC run college refused admission to a girl saying
she cut her hair and therefore cannot be considered a Sikh. Once
someone took the plea of being a Sehajdhari and claimed that unshorn
hair are not essential in Sikhism, and once the neo-Sehajdhari lobby
also intervened, the High Court, vide its order dated 29.9.2008,
directed the filing of an affidavit "based on a resolution passed by
the S.G.P.C" asking whether or not a person who cuts his hair and/or
shaves his beard is a 'Sehajdhari Sikh' if he performs ceremonies
according to Sikh rites, does not use tobacco or Kuttha in any form,
and can recite the 'mool mantra', with reference to Section 2(10-A)
of the Sikh Gurdwara Act 1925.
2. The SGPC
general house empowered the president to set up an expert panel and
respond to the High Court directive on the basis of the expert
panel's view.
3. SGPC
President Avtar Singh Makkar set up the expert panel of seven
members, headed by SGPC general secretary Sukhdev Singh Bhaur. These
members were to formulate the definition of Sehajdhari Sikh and
recommend it to the executive committee.
The members
included, apart from Bhaur, Anurag Singh, Kiranjot Kaur,
Gurcharanjit Singh Lamba, Jasbir Singh Sabar, Principal Suba Singh
and SGPC secretary Dalmegh Singh.
|
WHO SAID
WHAT |
|
|
Kiranjot Kaur: What the SGPC has stated in the High
Court is not what the experts’ panel has agreed to. It was
verbally agreed that the 1938 formulation would be drafted and
shown to the panel before it is sent to the SGPC executive
committee for approval. The draft was not shown to them, nor was
it signed. |
|
|
G S Lamba: The affidavit does not reflect the view of
the panel; in fact, it is an instance of religious, academic,
legal and intellectual corruption. Those who allowed such an
affidavit to be submitted should be held guilty of perjury and
should be made accountable to the community |
|
|
Sukhdev Singh Bhaur: The affidavit is problematic. I
did not submit the affidavit in the court, it was someone else. |
|
|
J S Sabar: I find no contradiction in the experts’
view and the affidavit. |
|
|
Anurag
Singh: What do these experts know? They know nothing…As for
December 4 meeting, it was only called so that the experts can
understand things, but obviously they have not understood
anything. |
|
4. The seven
member panel met on November 26 at the Kalgidhar Niwas in
Chandigarh.
Before the discussion started, one of the members, Anurag Singh,
circulated an unsigned two para note, in the form of a resolution
which was of course ignored at that point but one of the sentences
in the note should have been a dead giveaway of the intentions of at
least this one member.
Even before the
discussion could start, Anurag Singh had written that the note was a
result of "a detailed discussion on the issue amongst members and
other intellectuals present" and that "there is no statutory
requirement as per the aforementioned definition in 2(10-A) for a
Sehajdhari Sikh to keep unshorn hair."
5. Anyway, the
November 26 meeting, which barely lasted ten minutes, decided to
stick to the 1938 formulation of Sehajdhari as per which the day and
the moment a non-Sikh decides to become a Sehajdhari, it shows an
intention to embrace Sikhism and signifies that he has started on
his way towards becoming a complete Sikh. From that day and that
moment on, he cannot cut his hair and should start observing all
Sikh rites and continue on his Sehaj path to become a Sikh.
6. There is thus
no time gap between someone becoming a Sehajdhari Sikh and then
becoming a Keshadhari Sikh.
7. Anurag Singh
blatantly, and Punjab Advocate General H S Mattewal behind the
scenes, were pushing for the line that a Sehajdhari Sikh does not
necessarily have to be Keshadhari Sikh. Anurag Singh's stance was
that a Sehajdhari Sikh can take an indefinite time before becoming a
Keshadhari Sikh, and only when he once becomes a Keshadhari Sikh, he
should not cut his hair.
8.
Interestingly, there was no written resolution passed by the
November 26 meeting, it was verbally agreed that the 1938
formulation would be drafted by Dalmegh Singh as unanimously agreed,
and would be sent to the SGPC executive committee which was to meet
on December 3.
9. The drama
happened when the SGPC executive committee was presented a strange
formulation in complete denial of the unanimously agreed position
and created confusion. It was drafted by Anurag Singh. It said
Sehajdhari Sikh, once he becomes Keshadhari Sikh, cannot cut his
hair. This implied that a Sehajdhari may decide not to become a
Keshadhari all his life and thus can keep on cutting his hair and be
counted as a Sehajdhari Sikh.
10. When the
media reported this on December 4 morning, many members of the seven
member panel were furious and Makkar buckled under this pressure and
convened an emergency meeting of the panel on December 4 itself at
Amritsar
in Guru Nanak Niwas at 2 pm. It was here that the real face of the
entire conspiracy was unveiled. Members like Bibi Kiranjot Kaur,
Prof Suba Singh, principal of
Shaheed
Sikh Missionary College, Dr Jasbir Singh Sabar, G.S.Lamba and even
SGPC general secretary Sukhdev Singh Bhaur were themselves angry
about how the recommendation of the expert panel was subverted.
11. After many
verbal duels, a formulation was drafted. This was signed by all the
members of the expert panel except Anurag Singh who refused to sign
it because it made sure that a Sehajdhari Sikh can in no case be
permitted to cut his hair on the grounds that he has so far not
become a Keshadhari Sikh. With this, the cat had come out of the
bag. The WSN is in possession of a copy of this December 4
resolution signed by all expert committee members except Anurag
Singh.
12. It is not
known why the expert committee members did not expose or take upon
Anurag Singh and why they did not make him state his reasons for not
signing the resolution despite being present? Also, why he was not
asked his reasons for not signing particularly because the December
4 resolution of the expert committee was in consonance of the
November 26 meeting's outcome of the same committee and he had
participated in both?
13. On December
10, on the day of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the SGPC counsel went ahead and submitted an
affidavit that violated the rights of an entire community to even
keep an eye on its gates. Filed by SGPC Secretary Harbeant Singh in
response to the HC's directive in C.W.P. No. 13282 of 2008-12-10,
the affidavit said that a Sahajdhari is prohibited from cutting his
hair only after he becomes a Keshadhari Sikh. It also added that any
Sikh born into a Sikh family cannot claim to be a Sehajdhari if he
cuts his hair and he is to be considered an apostate (patit). While
the SGPC affidavit indeed defines a 'patit' correctly, the HC had
not asked for any such explanation. On the single point which the HC
had raised, the SGPC had messed up badly.
14. Further, the
SGPC affidavit in the HC claimed that the SGPC Executive Committee
considered the expert committee report in its meeting on December 3
and the affidavit was being filed after such a consideration.
15. The fact
remains that the Executive Committee simply could not have
considered any report of the expert committee on December 3 for the
simple reason that no report of the expert committee was drafted or
signed by any member. Also, the affidavit does not even talk about
the December 4 meeting of the expert committee where the issue was
discussed again, and where the written report was drafted and signed
by every member except Anurag Singh.
16. Even more
interestingly, this signed document was presented as the Resolution
of the Executive Committee meeting of December 3. So, technically,
it is this document that can be called the Resolution of the
executive committee since it is signed by SGPC general secretary
Bhaur and secretary Dalmegh Singh besides all other members of the
expert panel except Anurag Singh. The affidavit submitted to the HC
is clearly different from this formulation.
17 December
2008
|
Read Also
