The Supremacy of the Akaal Takht: A Continuing Debate

By Gurnam Singh | Opinion |

The recent appointments and removals of Jathedars at the Akaal Takht have reignited longstanding debates regarding its role, legitimacy, and authority within the Sikh Panth. From contested dismissals to calls for institutional reform, the question of how the Akaal Takht is governed, the post of Jathedar, and whether it holds, or should hold, supreme religious authority, has never been more pressing.

Currently, appointments and dismissals of Jathedars are managed by a small subcommittee within the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) based in Amritsar, which is widely seen as being under the political influence of the Badal-led Akali Dal faction. The recent dismissals of Giani Raghbir Singh and Giani Harpreet Singh have provoked criticism from across the global Sikh disapora, with various ‘Panthic’ groups demanding the creation of a formal constitution to define the powers, procedures, and protections of the Akaal Takht.

The Argument for Supremacy

Proponents of the supremacy of the Akaal Takht often draw upon scriptural and historical sources, particularly the Gurbilās Patshāhī Chhevīn, an 18th-century text traditionally attributed to Bhai Mani Singh. The work chronicles the life and teachings of the sixth Guru, Guru Hargobind Sahib, who it is argued established the Akaal Takht in 1606 as a sovereign religious and temporal throne (Takht) located directly opposite the Harmandir/Darbar Sahib in Amritsar.

According to Gurbilās Patshāhī Chhevīn, Guru Hargobind introduced the concept of Miri-Piri, the integration of spiritual and temporal authority, asserting that the Guru should not only be a spiritual guide but also a political sovereign. The Akaal Takht is thus portrayed as the embodiment of this dual sovereignty. It is written that, adoring the two swords symbolising political and spiritual power, Guru Hargobind held court the Akaal Takht, adjudicated disputes, and issued hukamnamas or edicts, a tradition continued to this very day.

SEE ALSO: Struggle for Authority: The Fight for the Akaal Takht

SEE ALSO: Scripted Dramas, Rehabilitating the Badals, Weaponizing the Akal Takhat and Opening a Can of Worms

Supporters argue that the Akaal Takht should be regarded as the highest moral and religious authority within the Sikh Panth, with its hukamnamas (edicts) carrying binding force. They view the Jathedar as the custodian of Panthic principles, accountable only to the collective Sikh nation (Sarbat Khalsa), and not to political parties or state authorities.

Accordingly, the Jathedar should not be unduly influenced by any political faction or committee. Rather, they should exercise autonomy in making decisions that benefit and affect the entire Sikh Panth. In essence, Sikh political decision-making must remain independent of external political interference and firmly rooted in Sikh principles and the teachings of the Gurus.

The Argument Against Supremacy

Critics argue that investing unchecked authority in an individual holding the post of Akaal Takht Jathedar would, in effect, elevate the position to one akin to that of the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church. They contend that Sikh tradition has historically emphasised collective decision-making and consensus over centralised authority in one figure head. While the Jathedar may be symbolically recognised as the head of the Sikh community, much like a ceremonial head of state, the exercise of sovereign power, they argue, must be subject to wider consultation and democratic oversight, perhaps through an advisory panel of theological and legal experts.

The key role of the Jathedar hence, in the spirit of the notion of ‘Sarbat Khalsa’, would be to ensure that the whole Panth is consulted before any major decisions are made. In this regard, power and supremacy will always lie with the sangat, though this begs the question, how best, in a truly democratic set-up, can the sangats voice and the diversity of views be considered? The truth is that democracies across the world have sought to grapple with this simple but extremely complex challenge.

A more fundamental challenge to the supremacy of the Akaal Takht and Sarbat Khalsa would be to ensure that the whole Panth is consulted before making major decisions. In this regard, power and supremacy will always lie with the sangat, though this begs the question, how best, in a truly democratic set-up, can the sangats voice and the diversity of views be considered? The truth is that democracies across the world have sought to grapple with this simple but extremely complex challenge.

Amongst the anti-group there are scholars such as Harjinder Singh Dilgeer and Karminder Singh Dhillon , who challenge not only the supremacy of the Akaal Takht but also aspects of its very origin and present-day function.

Harjinder Singh Dilgeer, in his historical writings, argues that the notion of the Akaal Takht as an infallible, supreme institution is a later construct. He suggests that what is today known as the Akaal Takht was originally called Akaal Bunga—one among several bungas (residences or rest houses) that surrounded the Harmandir Sahib. He attributes its current elevated status to developments that occurred after the time of the Gurus, particularly during the reign of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and the rise of the Nihang Dals.

Karminder Singh Dhillon takes a theological and textual approach, emphasising that the Guru Granth Sahib is the sole and eternal Guru of the Sikhs. From this standpoint, no institutional authority—whether the Akaal Takht or the SGPC—can override or reinterpret the Guru’s word. He questions the legitimacy of the Takht issuing universally binding decrees, particularly when such edicts may be subject to political influence rather than Gurmat (the Guru’s wisdom). He also raises concerns about the opaque and often politically driven process by which Jathedars are appointed and dismissed.

He attributes its current elevated status to developments that occurred after the time of the Gurus, particularly during the reign of Maharaja Ranjit Singh in the early part of the 19th Century and the rise of the Nihang Dals, specifically, the influence of Akali Phula Singh an Akali Nihang Sikh leader of the Khalsa Shaheedan Misl and head of the Budhait Singh in the early part of the 19th Century and the rise of the Nihang Dals, specifically, the influence of Akali Phula Singh leader of the Khalsa Shaheedan Misl and head of the Budha Dal.

From this standpoint, no institutional authority, whether the Akaal Takht or the SGPC, can override or reinterpret the Guru’s word. He questions the legitimacy of the Takht issuing universally binding decrees, particularly when such edicts may be subject to political influence rather than Gurmat (the Guru’s wisdom). He also raises concerns about the opaque and often politically driven process by which Jathedars can influence rather than Gurmat (the Guru’s wisdom). He also raises concerns about the opaque and often politically driven process by which Jathedars are appointed and dismissed.

The Way Forward

The historians will continue to debate the origin and authenticity of the Akaal Takht, but more importantly is the desperate need for the global Sikhs community to have effective governance and representation of is Panthic bodies that requires immediate attention. In truth the Akaal Takht is widely accepted as the supreme institution of the Sikhs and rather than seeking to delegitimise this, as some scholars argue, there is a need to modernise and strengthen the institution sp can be a truly powerful and representative voice for all SIkhs.

The growing demand for a written constitution for the Akaal Takht is an important first step though much more work needs to be done. Against the backdrop of the embarrassing factionalism engulfing the Akali Dal, SGPC and Akaal Takht Jathedars, there is a deep-seated desire within the Sikh community to reclaim and clarify its institutional identity. Such a document would need to transparently outline the processes for the appointment and removal of Jathedars, define the Takht’s jurisdiction, and ensure its independence from political manipulation.

Whether one believes the Akaal Takht is the rightful supreme authority of the Sikh Panth or regards its current form as historically and theologically problematic, this debate is far from academic. It strikes at the heart of Sikh governance, identity, and the ongoing struggle to maintain autonomy and integrity in an increasingly politicised religious landscape. In this context, the Akaal Takht stands not merely as a physical monument or historical relic but as a living symbol of the evolving aspirations and internal tensions of the Sikh Panth. Whether it will be reformed or remain contested depends on how the Panth engages with this debate, with honesty, courage, and a spirit rooted in Gurmat-inspired wisdom.

Gurnam Singh is an academic activist dedicated to human rights, liberty, equality, social and environmental justice. He is an Associate Professor of Sociology at University of Warwick, UK. He can be contacted at Gurnam.singh.1@warwick.ac.uk

* This is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Asia Samachar.

RELATED STORY:

The Demise of the Akali Dal and the Badal Dynasty: What Next for the Panth? (Asia Samachar, 5 Aug 2024)



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