Panth Sewak Bhai Daljit Singh has issued a written statement on Jathedars decision of tankhah to Badal Dal leaders. Full statement reads, in verbatim, as follows:
On 17 Maghar, 556 Nanakshahi (December 2, 2024 CE), Giani Raghbir Singh and Giani Harpreet Singh led Panj Singh Sahiban from the rampart of Sri Akaal Takhat Sahib to impose thankhah (punishment/penance) on the leaders of both factions of the Badal Dal. This entire process fell significantly short of Panthic traditions and standards. Instead, it feels as though they were simply actors in a pre-scripted drama. This entire process was no where close to being able to provide sedh (guidance/direction) or effectively reorganize the Khalsa Panth.
These are the gunaah(crimes) that the Badal Dal leadership admitted to before Sri Akaal Takhat Sahib:
- The Badal Dal leaders admitted that they cooperated with, and even supported, the Guru dokhi Sirsa cultist and oppressive police officers who are responsible for both sookham (subtle/unseen) and physical attacks directly on Sri Guru Granth Sahib and the Guru Khalsa Panth. The attacks on Sri Guru Granth Sahib range from impersonating Guru Patshah and undermining Shabad Guru, all the way to the intolerable physical beadbi of Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee.
- Undermining the supremacy of Sri Akaal Takhat Singh by engineering the false pardon for the Sirsa cultist (Gurmeet Ram Rahim).
- Undermining and damaging the dharmik(spiritual) authority of SGPC by misusing its resources for political gain.
- Neglecting Panthic issues entirely and turning the Akali Dal into a Punjabi party.
Despite these admissions, there are a number of problems and shortcomings in the entire thankhah process.
Failure to identify the reasons for the crimes committed by the Badal Dal
The GurSangat has already delivered its political punishmentto the Badals by inflicting crushing defeats on the Badal Dal in the past four elections, but the Jathedars failed to comprehensively assess the nature of their political crimes. A meaningful decision-making process needed to consider whether these were individual mistakes, strategic faults, or inherent structural problems with electoral politics in India. It is not possible to treat an illness without first diagnosing the disease in the first place. By failing to actually consider these factors, whatever accountability we have seen is simply a superficial performance that has failed to provide any genuine direction for our path forward.
The entire process fixated solely on the two factions of the Badal Dal
The entire process has been presented and celebrated as if it was meant to rejuvenate and guide the entire Khalsa Panth but the reality is much more bleak. The entire process appears to have simply been a coordinated exercise to reunite both Badal Dal factions and revive this Punjabi party in further alignment with the BJP.
Ambiguity on Reviving Akali Dal
Since 1947, two modes of the Akali Dal have been dominant within Indian electoral politics. The first revolved around Panthic issues rooted in the distinct and sovereign identity of the Guru Khalsa Panth. The second came into being as a Punjabi political party after the 1996 Moga Conference, rather than a panthic party.
Although an adesh(command) has been issued to renew the Akali Dals membership, there is no clarity or direction regarding what mode of politics the Jathedars actually seek to revive.
Problems within the decision-making process
The crimes admitted by the entire leadership of the Badal Dal, including Sukhbir Singh Badal, represent the most deplorable mode of politics based on betraying Guru Granth-Guru Panth. The thankhah imposed in response however, is the same that is imposed on an individual Sikh for personally violating their rehat (code/discipline)–not for someone who committed treachery out of sheer arrogance and hunger for political power.
Second, the Jathedars actually graced individuals like Sukhbir Singh and Sukhdev Singh by dressing them in blue bana (Sikh attire/uniform) and appointing them to the revered seva (service) of being guards to the darbar (court) of Satguru Nanak Sache Patshah. This not only violates the panthic tradition of thankhah, but it actually disrespects the blue bana of Dasam Patshah and exemplifies the jathedars utter ignorance of gurmat.
Their failure to impose a punishment that actually reflects the collective will of the sangat demonstrates the limitations of the SGPC-appointed Singh Sahibans own abilities and that of the SGPC-administered system altogether.
Contradictions in the Adesh
Through Adesh(order) No. A/206, the jathedars themselves concede that these leaders have lost the moral right to provide any political leadership to the sangat due to the nature of their crimes. In the next breath however, the adesh goes on to appoint a new committee to revive the Akali Dal. Rather than appointing independent panth dardi to spearhead this revival in line with Panthic tradition, the jathedars simply appointed other leaders of the very same Badal Dal in clear contradiction to their own decision.
Decision-making process
The Khalsa Panths tradition of gurmatta-based decision-making is based on transparency, collective participation, and panch pradhani-leadership. This is why these decisions require the full participation of different dharmik and political jathay (units), as well as other sampardas, organizations, and administrative bodies. Instead, it appears the jathedars acted under political pressure from different factions and ultimately, failed to uphold the basic tenets of Panthic decision-making.
Conflicts of interest and commitment to the Panth
The SGPC-appointed jathedars are not appointed after taking the entire Panth into confidence. Instead, they are the beneficiaries of the decrepit political system created by the Badals. The crimes admitted to by the Badal Dal revolve around the Sikh jujharoo lehar (armed struggle), the movement against the Sirsa cultist, and those pursuing justice for the incidents of beadbi of Guru Granth Sahib jee. By excluding all of those who performed extraordinary acts of seva throughout all three of these movements and who still live with Dasmesh Pita jees grace, the jathedars again demonstrated their exclusive commitment to the Badal Dal rather than the entire Khalsa Panth.
One of these jathedars was subject to public criticism for receiving a security detail from Babur kian (heirs of Babur ie. tyrants/oppressors) commandos, only because he had direct connections with a sitting Minister of the Delhi takhat (throne).
As a result, the independence and commitment of the SGPC-appointed jathedars is clearly in question.
What should have been done
Rather than revolving around a political party that is subordinated to the Indian electoral system, Sri Akaal Takhat Sahibs response should have been centred around the comprehensive revival of the Panths own organizational jugat (method/process) and structure.
Reviving this jugats hould have included: establishing an autonomous Panthic system of seva sambhal to reestablish the supremacy of the Takhat Sahiban; establishing an autonomous system of gurdwara prabandh (administration); reorganizing the ongoing struggle to establish a sovereign political structure in line with the Khalsa Panth spatshahi dava; and coordinating all factions participating in electoral politics subordinated to any worldly authority, including the Indian state.
This entire exercise should have been a stepping stone to begin revitalizing our panthic decision-making process of gurmatta, by including all jathay and organizations of the Guru Khalsa Panth and GurSangat that are active in different areas.