By Karminder Singh Dhillon | The Sikh Bulletin |
On 27th June, 2025, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) President Harjinder Singh Dhammi announced the setting up of a 34-member advisory committee that was constituted for the purposes of framing service rules for the Jathedar of Akal Takht Sahib (AT).
Dhami said the SGPC’s initiative was aimed at establishing a clear and transparent framework regarding the qualifications, responsibilities, appointment process and tenure for Jathedars.
Dhami proceeded to give an assurance that the principles of Sikh Rehat Maryada (SRM), Gurmat-based traditions and the concept of one person holding only one position would guide the process.
It is shocking that the SGPC, which is in charge of the tasks of identifying, hiring, paying and then firing the Jathedar of AT, has carried out these tasks for the past 100 years, without any “clear and transparent framework regarding the qualifications, responsibilities, appointment process and tenure” for the position. So lackadaisical is the level of professionalism within the SGPC that its charter does not even have the words “Jathedar” or “Akal Takhat” to denote the position and institution – which are denoted by the word “Granthi” and “Gurdwara” instead, respectively.
This state of affairs explains the myriad shenanigans that have plagued the AT and its Jathedars for the past century, the most serious of which is the weaponization of AT by the political powers of Punjab and the almost complete monopoly on the position of Jathedar by those with dera, taksali and sampardayi backgrounds.
All of which have led to a severe decline in the AT’s standing, credibility and trust in the eyes of the Sikh world.
It is equally shocking to note that these “Jathedars” who have sat on their positions without a “clear and transparent framework regarding the qualifications, responsibilities, appointment process, and tenure” for the position have issued all sorts of problematic and divisive “hukumnamas” such as the ban on having langar on benches; issuing forgiveness orders to political influencers even if they did not request any; operating from the premises of political leaders; not to mention ex-communicating a wide range of Sikh intellectuals, each other, and in one case at least – the president of SGPC itself. All of these without any “clear and transparent framework regarding the qualifications, responsibilities, appointment process and tenure” for the position.”
The Punjabi idiom ਸਵੇਰ ਦਾ ਭੁੱਲਿਆ ਸ਼ਾਮੀ ਘਰ ਆ ਜਾਵੇ, ਤਾਂ ਉਸਨੂੰ ਭੁੱਲਿਆ ਨਹੀਂ ਆਖਦੇ may offer some solace. It is never too late to do the right thing even after one century.
SEE ALSO: Struggle for Authority: The Fight for the Akaal Takht
But what exposes the sham of the 34-member committee are two things. (1) the now proven fake assurance that the principles of Sikh Rehat Maryada (SRM) will guide the work of this committee and (2) the questionable composition of the committee.
Of the 34 members, 16 are known to have tossed out the SRM from their outfits, opposed it openly, acted against its tenets or otherwise undermined its tenets. The deras, taksals, sampardas, tthatts and cults that are members of this committee fall in this category. This anti SRM group is a solid 47 percent, and it represents the single biggest block in the committee.
10 of the members of the committee are such that their position on SRM is either unknown or unstated. Given the assurance by Dhami that the “Sikh Rehat Maryada (SRM) will guide the work of this committee” one would expect a selection of those who position of support of the SRM was known; publicly stated and supportive.
Those who have either shied away from ever disclosing their support of the SRM or lack the courage to do so have no business in a committee that will be “guided by the principles of the SRM” as stated by Dhami.
That leaves us with just 5 members who have indicated adherence to SRM in their public stands. This makes the SRM supporting block the smallest and hence most insignificant.
What adds to the sham of this 34-member committee pertains to the inclusion of individuals and outfits that have publicly displayed anti-Sikhi and anti-Gurmat behaviors. Why is an individual who attended the Maha Khumb Mela at Priyagraj UP and took part in the full ritual of dipping into the Tribeni and then attempted to spin the lie that our Gurus did similar things – appointed a member of this committee?
Why are members of the two cults that have their roots in anti-Guru and anti-Sikhi traditions included in the Committee? The Udasi group has its roots in the rebel and outcasted son of Guru Nanak, Sri Chand; who never accepted Bhai Lehnna’s ascension to Gurgaddi, and rejected Ghrist – the basic and foundational principle of Guru Nanak’s Sikhi. Why is the Nirmla group, which has its roots in all attempts in Benares based activities to fully Snatanize and Hinduize Sikhi since 1757 part of this committee?
Had the SGPC run out of credible Sikh organizations to be included in this committee? The SGPC runs 31 Sikh Missionary Colleges whose curriculum is entirely SRM based. Why is Gyani Baljit Singh of Sahibjada Jujhar Singh Sikh Missionary College the lone representative of these 31 colleges?
Also interesting is the exclusion of Bhai Ranjit Singh Dhadreanwalla who was recently “brought back into the fold” by newly appointed AT Jathedar Gargajj for his “large followership and ability to stem the tide of mass conversions of Sikhs out of Sikhi.” It is strange that Dhadreanwalla is considered qualified to stem the tide of apostasy in Punjab, but seemingly unfit to sit on this committee.
The almost complete silence within the Sikh world on this sham of a committee is deafening indeed. While organizations such as the Sri Guru Singh Sabha and the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee did openly criticize Dhami, their opposition is self-serving at best; in that it was over the fact that they were excluded from the committee. One suspects that criticism of these two groups of the committee’s composition would turn into support if and when they would be invited to sit on it.
The Global Sikh Council (GSC) stands as the only Sikh organization thus far, to have voiced its criticism on the right grounds. The GSC wrote to Dhami, strongly objecting to the composition of the current committee – stating that many of its members are reportedly not adhering to the SRM and are promoting and associated with practices contrary to core Sikh beliefs. GSC President Lady Singh Dr Kanwaljit Kaur pointed out that appointing individuals who do not follow the SRM or promote un-Sikh practices at their Deras, Bungas and Thaaths, could raise serious questions about the sanctity and credibility of the entire exercise.
The GSC also expressed disappointment that distinguished scholars and representatives from the global Sikh diaspora have been completely excluded from this committee. The Council has emphasized that this exclusion not only alienates a significant section of the Panth but also undermines the spirit of collective Panthic consultation.
In its open letter, the GSC has demanded that the committee be reconstituted to exclude members who are not strictly abiding by the prescribed SRM. It has also suggested that all members of the committee should be asked to sign an undertaking affirming their full adherence to the teachings of Sri Guru Granth Sahib and their compliance with the SRM.
The possibility of SGPC rectifying the composition of the committee in a serious manner is remote. Dhammi may add a few more members to appease his critics, but it will most likely not alter the dynamics of the committee; its inherent anti-SRM biases; and its very obvious dera, taksal and cult slant. In fact, the very composition of the committee is a clear indicator as to which individuals and groups are the ones actually pulling the strings of it all.
The truth of the matter is that this whole episode started when a non-dera and non-taksali individual was appointed Jathedar of AT. One particular taksali leader openly criticized the appointment, followed up with an attempt to forcefully disrupt the installation of the new Jathedar who happened to have a missionary college background. A second attempt was made by that same taksal to forcefully cause disorder in the ceremony by the Jathedar to award siropas to families of martyrs of the June 1984 attack on Darbar Sahib. This same taksali leader then suggested that the new Jathedar be replaced by an individual who has been languishing in jail for some years.
No one should thus be faulted for surmising that this same very taksal and its leader is the prime mover of this 34-committee sham. Why and how so? All AT Jathedars, Jathedars of the remaining Takhats, all Granthis of Darbar Sahib and the 4 Takhats, have – with rare exceptions – come from this taksal and its supporter groups.
Now, they are upset that a non-Taksali has been appointed Jathedar of AT. This SGPC shenanigan of 34-member committee thus appears to be engineered by this taksal. Why should a kingmaker want to take a back seat now, especially after wielding such immense power and influence on the AT and related Sikh institutions? Having stacked up the committee in a way that Dhami has, one should not be surprised that “clear and transparent framework” will be one that is clearly in favor of the kingmaker’s agenda.
It is when this relationship between the puppeteers and puppets is put together that one gets a proper understanding of the assertion that the 34-member committee is a sham and its announcement is yet another shenanigan aimed at keeping the status quo with matters concerning the AT and its Jathedar, rather than striving to bring about real and meaningful reform.
The Sikh Bulletin is of the view that this 34-member committee – composed as it is – stands as a most questionable act that SGPC has ever done. The basis of this assertion is that byc constituting the committee in the way it has, the SGPC has accorded un-deserving recognition to anti-Sikh, anti SRM, pro Bachitar Natak groups, cults and other agenda-driven individuals on the platform of SGPC.
Sikh thinker, writer and parcharak Karminder Singh Dhillon, PhD (Boston), is a retired Malaysian civil servant. He is the joint-editor of The Sikh Bulletin and author of The Hijacking of Sikhi. This article appeared in The Sikh Bulletin – Vol 27, No 3 (July – September 2025). Click here to retrieve archived copies of the bulletin. The author can be contacted at dhillon99@gmail.com.
RELATED STORY:
Rethinking Sikh governance: SGPC failings and call for global reform (Asia Samachar, 14 July 2025)
ASIA SAMACHAR is an online newspaper for Sikhs / Punjabis in Southeast Asia and beyond. You can leave your comments at our website, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. We will delete comments we deem offensive or potentially libelous. You can reach us via WhatsApp +6017-335-1399 or email: asia.samachar@gmail.com. For obituary announcements, click here
