There is some deep trouble going on in Punjab. And this is not just a slanderous speech on the life of Akali leader Sukhbir Singh Badal. The manner in which the Akal Takht intervened to resolve the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) crisis raises deep political and legal-constitutional issues that should not be glossed over. While we face no shortage from the dissolution of a secular republic, we cannot be casual or selective on such issues.
The facts of the case are straightforward. The SAD is facing an existential crisis after a series of electoral defeats since the younger Badal inherited his father’s political legacy and faced serious allegations of misrule, corruption and political ineptitude. This led to a complete rebellion within the party that threatened to disintegrate it. This is when the supreme religious authority of the Sikhs was ushered in by the Akal Takht. It summoned Sukhvir Badal, publicly questioned him on allegations against his government and his party leadership. He was sentenced to token service at the Golden Temple and a committee was formed to restructure the party. An attempt to kill Sukhbir Badal, thankfully averted by an alert policeman, while he was serving his sentence.
Now, some of this is completely understandable. A strong political expression of regional concerns is the glue that binds many border states to the Indian Union. Hence the effective marginalization and possible extinction of regional political power like SAD in a sensitive state like Punjab should be a matter of concern.
Its absence from the political spectrum will hurt India and Punjab. Such a vacuum can breed extremist voices outside of democratic politics. Besides, a significant section of Sikhs inside and outside Punjab is still nursing the wounds of 1984, especially since nothing has been done against the culprits. The SAD’s presence in state and national politics, with all its flaws and failures, is a comforting sign for the community. Also, there is no doubt that Badal Jr. has not inherited his father’s political intelligence, maneuverability and popularity. He has been pushing the party upwards. Someone needed to intervene to stop this free fall.
It makes a lot of sense. But the real issues are: Who can or should intervene in this matter? Was Akal Takht right to intervene and mediate? And, was it appropriate for the SAD to surrender to the supreme command of the Akal Takht? It is not an internal matter of a party or a community or between a party and some religious leaders. There are at least three red lines that seem to be crossed here.
First, there is the reversion of the SAD from a regional party to a religious community party. The SAD originated as a sectarian organization with its roots in the religious reform movement. But after the SAD’s successful return to power in the post-terrorist days, the Akali Dal made a major shift from a “sectarian” party to a Punjabi party, a religio-regional one, at its Moga convention in 1996. A purely regional body. While the SAD continued to represent primarily Sikh interests, over the years it offered membership and leadership positions to many Hindus. The message of the latest developments is loud and clear: it is the party of the sect of Punjab’s majority Sikh community and is accountable to its religious establishment. If we accept this, how can we criticize those who want to run this country according to the wishes of the majority Hindu community?
The second issue is constitutional justification. How can a registered and recognized political party, which is required to take a pledge of secularism, submit itself to the supreme command of a religious authority? Apparently, the SAD’s constitution, mandatory for all parties under the law, does not refer to the Akal Takht as an arbitrator of its internal disputes. Now any political party should be free to seek its ideological guidance and advice from outside the party. No one can do anything if the party leadership takes informal advice from religious leaders. In fact, there are parties that are tied to ethnic or religious organizations and take their direction. But here we are talking about a formal trial conducted in full public view and binding judgment. How does that sit with the role of political parties competing for constitutional positions? So, how can anyone question the role of the RSS in the affairs of the BJP and its governments?
Finally, there are serious concerns about the propriety of the Akal Takht’s intervention in political affairs. The Akal Takht is not only a spiritual institution of a religious community independent of law and the state, which exercises moral authority. The Jathadars of the Akal Takht are appointed and removed by the Shiromani Gurdwara Pradhanka Samiti (SGPC) established by the law of the land. Needless to say, the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 does not empower the SGPC or anyone appointed by it to interfere in politics. Akal Takht is there to provide guidance to the community in faith-related matters. And if both parties agree, it can judge or arbitrate social disputes. There are questions about its authority to “excommunicate” members of the community. Former Union Home Minister Buta Singh was ostracized after Operation Blue Star for his involvement in the reconstruction of Harmandir Sahib without involving the community. Surjit Singh Barnala, the then Chief Minister of Punjab, was sentenced by the Akal Takht for ordering the police to enter the Gurdwara. These were controversial but borderline affairs, going back to the past and related to religious matters.
The current case is qualitatively different, and crosses the red line. Sukhvir Badal’s public hearing was political. This is only one of the many questions formally addressed to him by the Akal Takht related to a religious issue, namely the “be-adabi” (profane) mishandling of the Holy Book. Everything else had to do with his role in the government and as the leader of the party affecting the “creed”. Of course, the Akali Dal and its leaders have no problem with this. They must have sought this intervention. Yet it does not answer how this purely religious organization acquired the right to order the reorganization of political parties. If this is acceptable, what is wrong with Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh of Dera Sacha Sauda instructing his followers to vote for BJP?
Worse, won’t this act reduce the Akal Takht to the level of any political body, subject to the public scrutiny and mud-slinging that any political body exposes itself to? Will the Akal Takht now return to the “Piri-Miri” doctrine which argues for the inseparability of religious and political rights for the Sikh community? If it is for the Sikhs, how can the BJP not invoke it to save the toxic infiltration of Babas, Yogis and Swamis that it has unleashed in the body politic?
The author is a member of Swaraj Bharat and National Coordinator of Bharat Jodo Abhiyan. Views are personal