With Takhts in turmoil, SGPC faces scrutiny

This isn’t just another chapter in a long-running story. It marks a significant shift in the dynamics of panthic politics. A fresh conflict between the Akal Takht in Amritsar and Takht Sri Patna Sahib in Bihar has revealed a deeper crisis, an institutional erosion, with the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) — already mired in controversies over the appointment and removal of Jathedars — at the centre of the latest conflict.

The current controversy erupted with the removal of Jathedar Giani Ranjit Singh Gauhar of Takht Sri Patna Sahib over allegations of financial misconduct. Gauhar, known for his proximity to the Badal family, was reinstated shortly thereafter by the Jathedars of the three Punjab-based Takhts — Akal Takht, Takht Sri Kesgarh Sahib and Damdama Sahib — an action widely seen as influenced by the Badal family.

This reinstatement, however, violates a 2008 agreement between the five Takhts, reached after an earlier dispute between Patna Sahib and the Akal Takht. That pact allowed autonomy to each Takht over local affairs but mandated joint decision-making — or deference to the Akal Takht — on major panthic matters. The current breach of that understanding hints at deeper fissures and a power struggle within the Sikh religious leadership.

The reversal of their decision did not sit well with Takht Sri Patna Sahib. In what appeared to be a retaliatory move, the Panj Pyare (council of five Sikh devouts who strictly observe the Sikh code of conduct) responsibile for making decisions, convened and declared the acting Jathedar of Akal Takht, Giani Kuldeep Singh Gargaj and Tek Singh Dhulana of Takht Damdama Sahib tankhaiya (guilty of religious misconduct), along with the Shiromani Akali Dal leader Sukhbir Singh Badal.

In quick response, the religious heads of the three Punjab Takhts declared that those who had issued the Patna Sahib order were tankhaiya. Patna Sahib dismissed this move, arguing that those already branded tankhaiya had no authority to pass judgement on others.

One has to wait and watch whether this conflict will escalate or whether, as in the past, it will be resolved through mediation. What it has exposed is deepening cracks within Sikh religious politics — rifts that have been widening since the beginning of this year.

In March, the SGPC abruptly removed Akal Takht Jathedar Giani Raghubir Singh and appointed Gargaj as acting Jathedar. This decision was met with sharp criticism from various quarters, including the Nihang factions, who openly vowed to oppose the appointment. In a move seemingly aimed at avoiding confrontation, Gargaj was quietly installed at 2.50 am.

The entire sequence of events poses a threat to credibility for the SGPC, which is responsible for appointing Jathedars and managing all gurdwaras in Punjab, along with several historic shrines across the country. Till recently, it also oversaw gurdwaras in Haryana, but that responsibility now rests with a separate state-level committee.

Traditionally, the SGPC has been heavily influenced and aligned with the Akali Dal. However, as the Badal family gradually took full control of the party, the SGPC too came under their influence. This became starkly evident in 1999 when, after a rift, Parkash Singh Badal replaced Gurcharan Singh Tohra with Bibi Jagir Kaur as SGPC president. Tohra was only able to return after reconciling with Badal.

With the Akali Dal’s political fortunes on the decline, tensions have intensified within the SGPC as well. But it’s not just the Akali Dal that is struggling. The SGPC itself is in the midst of a severe credibility crisis.

Once hailed as one of the most democratic religious institutions, it has been nearly one-and-a-half decades since it last conducted elections. Among the reasons for this prolonged delay is the removal of voting rights from Sahajdhari Sikhs, a matter currently under judicial review.

Additionally, voter rolls are yet to be updated. After Haryana formed its own gurdwara committee, constituencies needed be redrawn, but this process too remains incomplete. Above all, there seems to be a complete lack of urgency or political will to resolve these issues and hold fresh elections.

The escalating conflict among the Takhts, coupled with the SGPC’s deepening crisis of legitimacy, underscores a larger malaise within the Sikh leadership. What was once a unified, robust and democratic religious structure now appears mired in factionalism, political interference and inertia. Sukhdev Singh Bahur, former general secretary of the SGPC, captures the mood when he says, “When the Shiromani committee itself has deviated from its duty, then who all should be blamed?”

Whether this crisis will culminate in further division or lead to meaningful reform remains to be seen.