THE SIKH MARRIAGE ACT, 2012

An Act to amend, enact and codify the Law relating to Marriage among the Sikhs.

1. Short Title, Extent and Commencement:-

(i) This Act may be called the Sikh Marriage Act, 2012.

(ii) It extends to the Union of India.

(iii) It shall come into force at once.

 2. Application of the Act:-

This Act applies to any person who is a SIKH by religion.

3. Definitions:-

For the purpose of this Act

(a) The expression “SIKH” means a person who believes in Akalpurakh (One Eternal Being), the ten Gurus from Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh, accepts Guru Granth Sahib as the Eternal Guru and does not subscribe to any other religion.

Explanation:- The following persons are SIKHS:-

(i) Any child legitimate or illegitimate, both of whose parents are Sikhs by religion;

(ii) Any child legitimate or illegitimate who is brought up as a Sikh and one of whose parents is a Sikh.

(b) “Anand Karaj Ceremony” means a marriage ceremony solemnized by at least two Sikhs between the consenting couple in the presence of Guru Granth Sahib. The “Anand Karaj Ceremony” shall be deemed to have been completed when the four “lawan” revealed by the fourth Guru in Rag Suhi are recited and the “Ardas” is performed.

(c) the expression “custom” and “usage” signify any rule which having been continuously and uniformly observed for a long time, has obtained the force of law among Sikhs in any local area, tribe, community, group or family:

Provided that the rule is certain and not unreasonable or opposed to basic tenets of the Sikh faith; and

Provided further that in the case of a rule applicable only to a family, it has not been discontinued by the family;

Explanation:- The burden to prove the custom or usage will be upon the person who alleges the custom or usage.

(d) “District Court” means, court of District Judge and includes Additional District Judge, or any other civil court which may be specified by the Union or State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, as having jurisdiction in respect of matters dealt with in this Act;

(e) “full blood” and “half blood”- two persons are said to be related to each other by full blood when they are descended from a common ancestor by the same wife and by half blood when they are descended from a common ancestor but by different wives;

(f) “uterine blood” – two persons are said to be related to each other by uterine blood when they are descended from a common ancestress but by different husbands.

Explanation.- In Clauses (e) and (f) “ancestor” includes the father and “ancestress” the mother;

(g) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act;

(h) “parties” means “bridegroom and the bride” or the “husband and the wife”, as the case may be.

(i) “degrees of prohibited relationship ” – two persons are said to be within the “degrees of prohibited relationship”-

(i) if one is a lineal ascendant of the other; or

(ii) if one was the wife or husband of a lineal ascendant or descendant of the other; or

(iii) if one was the wife of the father’s or mother’s brother or of the grandfather’s or grandmother’s brother of the other; or

(iv) if the two are brother and sister, uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, or children of brother and sister or of two brothers or of two sisters.

Explanation- for the purposes of clause (i) relationship includes:-

(i) relationship by half or uterine blood as well as by full blood;

(ii) illegitimate blood relationship as well as legitimate;

(iii) relationship by adoption as well as by blood; and all terms of relationship in those clauses shall be construed accordingly.

4. Overriding effect of this Act:- Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act.-

(a) any text, rule or interpretation of law with respect to Sikhs or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act;

(b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act.

Sikh Marriage

5. Conditions for a Sikh Marriage:- A Sikh marriage shall be solemnized by Anand Karaj between a male and a female who are Sikhs if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:

(i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage;

(ii) at the time of the marriage neither party is of unsound mind;

(iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of twenty-one years and the bride the age of eighteen years at the time of the marriage;

(iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;

6. Registration of Sikh Marriages:-

(1) The registration of a Sikh Marriage shall be compulsory.

(2) The Union or State Government shall appoint a Registrar of Sikh Marriages in each revenue district and a Sub-registrar at the tehsil level and also such other officer for this purpose as required.

(3) Parties to the Sikh Marriage shall get the particulars relating to their marriage entered in such manner and subject to such condition as may be prescribed, in a Sikh Marriage Register kept for the purpose, within six months of the solemnisation of the marriage and the failure to do so will be punishable with a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.

(4) The Sikh Marriage Register shall at all reasonable times be open for inspection and shall be admissible as evidence of the statements contained therein and certified extracts there from shall, on application, be given free of cost by the Registrar, the Sub-registrar or any other officer prescribed for this purpose.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the validity of any Sikh marriage, for the purpose of this Act, shall in no way be affected by the omission to register the marriage.

Restitution of Conjugal Rights And Judicial Separation

7. Restitution of conjugal rights:- When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may pass decree of restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.

Explanation- Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.

8. Judicial Separation:-

(1) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may present a petition praying for a decree for judicial separation on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 11, and in the case of a wife also on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (2) thereof, as grounds on which a petition for divorce might have been presented.

(2) Where a decree for judicial separation has been passed, it shall no longer be obligatory for the petitioner to cohabit with the respondent, but the court may, on the application by petition of either party and on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition, rescind the decree if it considers it just and reasonable to do so.

Nullity of Marriage and Divorce

9. Void marriages:- Any Sikh marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto, against the other party be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses (i)and (iv), of Section 5.

Provided, that wherein, the marriage is null and void due to contravention of condition specified in clause (i) of Section 5, the legally wedded husband or wife, either of whom is not a party to the contravention of the above mentioned condition, shall also be entitled to present a petition under this section.

10. Voidable Marriages:-

(1) Any Sikh marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely:-

(a) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotency of the respondent; or

(b) that the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in clause (ii) of Section 5; or

(c) that the consent of the petitioner for marriage was obtained by force or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent; or

(d) that the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other then the petitioner;

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no petition for annulling a marriage on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained if-

(i) the petition is presented more than one year after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered ; or

(ii) the petitioner has, with his or her full consent, lived with the other party to the marriage as husband or wife after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered.

11. Divorce:-

(1) Any Sikh marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party:-

(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage contracted another marriage or has had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or

(ii) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or

(iii) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or

Explanation – In this sub-section the expression “desertion” means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expression shall be construed accordingly.

(iv) has ceased to be a Sikh by conversion to another religion; or

(v) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.

Explanation – In this clause,

(a) the expression “mental disorder” means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia;

(b) the expression “psychopathic disorder” means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub-normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it require or is susceptible to medical treatment; or

(vi) has been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy; or

(vii) has been suffering from AIDS or any venereal disease of a communicable nature; or

(viii) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of it, had that party been alive;

(ix) has been finally convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of seven years or more;

(2) A Sikh marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may also be dissolved on presentation of a petition in this regard by the party in whose favour a decree of restitution of conjugal rights has been passed on the ground:-

(i) that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding to which they were parties; or

(ii) that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upward after the passing of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.

(3) A wife may also present a petition for the dissolution of her marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground-

(i) that the husband has, since the solemnization of the marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality; or

(ii) that in a suit or any proceedings for maintenance, a decree or order, as the case may be, has been passed against the husband awarding maintenance to the wife notwithstanding that she was living apart and that since the passing of such decree or order, cohabitation between the parties has not been resumed for one year or more.

12. Divorce by mutual consent:-

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the District Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

(2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the mean time, the Court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.

13. No petition for divorce to be presented within one year of marriage:-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, it shall not be competent for any Court to entertain any petition under section 11 or 12 of this Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, unless at the date of the presentation of the petition one year has elapsed since the date of the marriage:

Provided that the court may, upon application made to it, allow a petition to be presented before one year has elapsed since the date of the marriage on the ground that the case is one of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent, but, if it appears to the court at the hearing of the petition that petitioner obtained leave to present the petition by any mis-representation or concealment of the nature of the case, the court may, if it pronounces a decree, do so subject to the condition that the decree shall not have effect until after the expiry of one year from the date of the marriage or may dismiss the petition without prejudice to any petition which may be brought after the expiration of the said one year upon the same or substantially the same facts as those alleged in support of the petition so dismissed.

(2) In disposing of any application under this section for leave to present a petition for divorce before the expiration of one year from the date of the marriage, the court shall have regard to the interests of any children of the marriage and to the question whether there is a reasonable probability of a reconciliation between the parties before the expiration of the said one year.

14. Divorced persons when may marry again:-

(1) When a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and the time for filing appeal has expired without an appeal having been presented, it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again after six months has elapsed from the date of decree of dissolution of marriage.

(2) Where an appeal has been presented against dissolution of marriage but has been dismissed, it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage, to marry again after six months has elapsed from the date of dismissal of the appeal.

15. Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages:-

(1) Notwithstanding that a marriage is null and void under Section 8, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such a child is born before or after the commencement of this Act, and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of the marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act.

(2) Where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of a voidable marriage under Section 10, any child begotten or conceived before the decree is made, who would have been the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage if, at the date of the decree it had been dissolved instead of being annulled, shall be deemed to be their legitimate child notwithstanding the decree of nullity.

(3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage which is null and void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity under Section 10, any rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents, in any case where, but for the passing of this Act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents.

16. Punishment for contravention of certain other conditions for a Sikh marriage:-

(1) Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage, is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment which shall not be less than one year and may extend to three years and with a fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees and may extend to one lakh of rupees.

(2) Where the court imposes a fine under sub-section (1) of this section, it shall also order the amount to be paid to aggrieved person out of the fine as payment of compensation, maintenance or costs.

(3) The proceedings under this section shall be undertaken by the court wherein the petition under section 9, 10, or 11 of this Act has been presented and it will be lawful for the court to convict a person under this section while deciding the petition under section 9, 10, or 11 of this Act and no separate complaint or criminal trial is required to be initiated before a court of Criminal jurisdiction.

17. Maintenance Pendent-lite and expenses of proceedings:- Where in any proceeding under this Act, it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the applicant the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly expenses as, having regard to the applicant’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable, during the proceeding.

Provided that the application for the payment to the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly expenses during the proceedings, shall, as far as possible be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.

18. Permanent alimony and maintenance:-

(1) Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purposes by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other property of the applicant, the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case, it may seem to the Court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immoveable property of the respondent.

Explanation: The spouse of marriage which is void due to contravention of condition specified in clause (i) of section 5 of this Act, shall not be entitled to maintenance, permanent alimony or to claim any benefit under this section.

(2) If the Court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.

(3) If the Court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order has been made under this Section has re-married, it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.

19. Custody and maintenance of children:- In any proceeding under this Act, the Court may, from time to time, pass such interim orders and make such provisions in the decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children, consistently with the wishes of children, wherever possible, and may, after the decree, upon application for said purpose, pass from time to time, all such orders and make provisions with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of such children as might have been made by such decree or interim orders in case the proceedings for obtaining such decree were still pending, and the Court may also from time to time revoke, suspend or vary any such orders and provisions previously made.

Provided, that the welfare of the minor children shall be the paramount consideration for the court while proceeding under this section.

Provided that the application with respect to the maintenance and education of the minor children, pending the proceeding for obtaining such decree, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the respondent.

20. Court to which petition shall be presented:-

Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction:

(i) the marriage was solemnized, or

(ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or

(iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, or

(iv) in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition, or

(v) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is at that time residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he was alive.

21. Contents of petitions and service of summons:-

(1) Every petition presented under this Act shall state as distinctly as the nature of the case permits, the facts on which the claims to relief is founded and shall also state that there is no collusion between the petitioner and the other party to the marriage.

(2) Every petition under this Act shall be verified by the petitioner or some other competent person in the manner required by law for the verification of plaints and shall also be supported by a duly sworn affidavit, and it may, at the hearing, be referred to as evidence.

(3) The court, under this Act:

(a) while passing an order for proceeding ex-parte against the respondent, if duly served or if has refused service or is evading service, shall ensure that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure with regard to service of summons have been strictly followed and complied with.

(b) while the summons were returned with a report that the respondent has refused to accept or is evading service, the court shall, before passing order for proceeding ex-parte, order the service to respondent be affected through proclamation and publication in a leading newspaper of the region.

22. Application of Code of Civil Procedure:- Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act and to such rules as framed under this Act, all proceedings under this Act shall be regulated, as far as may be, by the Code of Civil Procedure.

23. Power to transfer petitions in certain cases:-

(1) Where-

(a) a petition under this Act has been presented to a District Court having jurisdiction by a party to marriage praying for a decree of divorce under Section 11; and

(b) another petition under this Act has been presented thereafter by the other party to the marriage praying for a decree of divorce under Section 11 on any ground, whether in the same District Court or in a separate District Court, in the same State or in a separate State, the petitions shall be dealt with as specified in sub-section (2).

(2) In a case where sub-section (1) applies,-

(a) if the petitions are presented to the same District Court, both the petitions shall be tried and heard together by that District Court;

(b) if the petitions are presented to in separate District Courts, the petition presented later shall be transferred to the District Court in which the earlier petition was presented and both the petitions shall be heard and disposed of together by the District Court in which the earlier petition was presented.

(3) In a case where clause (b) of sub-section (2) applies, the Court or the Government, as the case may be, competent under the Code of Civil Procedure, to transfer any suit or proceeding from the District Court in which the later petition has been presented to the District Court in which the earlier petition is pending, shall exercise its powers to transfer such later petition as if it had been empowered so to do under the said Code.

24. Special provision relating to trial and disposal of petitions under the Act:-

Every petition/appeal under this Act shall be tried as expeditiously as possible, and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of service of notice of the petition/appeal on the respondent

25. Documentary and other evidence:-

Notwithstanding anything in any enactment to the contrary, no document shall be inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding at the trial of a petition under this Act on the ground that it is not duly stamped or registered.

26. Proceedings to be in camera and may not be printed or published:-

(1) Every proceeding under this Act shall be conducted in camera and it shall not be lawful for any person to print or publish any matter in relation to any such proceeding except a judgment of the High Court or of the Supreme Court printed or published with the previous permission of the Court.

(2) If any person prints or publishes any matter in contravention of the provisions contained in sub-section (1), he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees.

27. Decree in proceedings.-

(1) In any proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the Court is satisfied that-

(a) any of the grounds for granting relief exists and the petitioner is not any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief, and

(b) where the ground of the petition is the ground specified in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 11, the petitioner has not in any manner been accessory to or connived at or condoned the act or acts complained of, or where the ground of the petition is cruelty the petitioner has not in any manner condoned the cruelty, and

(c) when a divorce is sought on the ground of mutual consent, such consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence, and

(d) the petition is not presented or prosecuted in collusion with the respondent, and

(d) there has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in instituting the proceeding, and

(e) there is no other legal ground why relief should not be granted, then, and in such a case, but not otherwise, the court shall decree such relief accordingly.

(2) Before proceeding to grant any relief under this Act, it shall be the duty of the Court in the first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any proceeding wherein relief is sought on any of the grounds specified in clause (iv), clause (v), clause (vi), clause (vii), clause (viii) or clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of Section 11.

(3) For the purpose of aiding the Court in bringing about such reconciliation, the court may, if the parties so desire or if the Court thinks it just and proper so to do adjourn the proceedings for a reasonable period and refer the matter to any person named by the parties in this behalf or to any person nominated by the Court if the parties fail to name any person, with directions to report to the Court as to whether reconciliation can be and has been effected and the court shall in disposing of the proceeding have due regard for the report.

(4) In every case, the court passing the judgment or decree shall give a copy thereof free of cost to each of the parties. Wherein the respondent was proceeded against ex-parte, the copy of the judgement or the decree shall be sent to him by a registered post.

28. Relief for respondent in divorce and other proceedings.- In any proceedings of restitution of conjugal rights or divorce, the respondent may not only oppose the relief sought on the ground of petitioner’s adultery, cruelty or desertion, but also make a counter-claim for any relief under this Act on that ground; and if the petitioner’s adultery, cruelty or desertion is proved, the Court may give to the respondent any relief under this Act to which he or she would have been entitled if he or she had presented a petition seeking such relief on that ground.

29. Appeals from judgment, decrees and orders:-

(1) All judgments, decrees and orders made by District Court in any proceeding under this Act shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) and (3), be appealable and every such appeal shall lie to the High Court.

(2) There shall be no appeal under this section on subject of costs only.

(3) No appeal shall lie to the High Court from a judgment, decree or order made by District Court with the consent of the parties.

(4) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of the judgment, decree or order.

Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient or reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the time limit.

30. Enforcement of decrees and orders.- All decrees and orders made by the Court in any proceeding under this Act, shall be enforced in the like manner as the decrees and orders of the Court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction for the time being are enforced.

31. Powers to make rules:- The Union or State Government may by notification in the official gazette, make rules not inconsistent with this Act to carry out the provisions of this Act.

32. Savings:-

(1) A marriage solemnized between Sikhs before the commencement of this Act, which is otherwise valid, shall not be deemed to be invalid or ever to have been invalid by reason only of the fact that the parties thereto belonged to the same “pravara” or belonged to different religion.

(2) Nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect any right exercised before the commencement of this Act to obtain the dissolution of a Sikh Marriage recognised by custom or usage.

(3) Nothing contained in this Act shall affect the procedure of any proceeding pending at the commencement of this Act under any law for the time being in force for declaring any marriage to be null and void or for annulling or dissolving any marriage, and any such proceeding may be continued in accordance with the procedure applicable before commencement of this Act.

Source: gurtejsingh.blogspot.com

• Rejection of Anand Marriage Act: The constitutional discrimination against Sikhs continues
• Sikhs need their own marriage act and personal law
• Indian cabinet clears proposal to introduce ammendment bill just to provide for registration of Sikh marraiges u/1909 Act
• ‘Indian leadership united in denying Sikhs of their separate identity and fundamental rights’
• Sikh Marriage Act – “SFJ” Submitted Memorandum to UN Seeking Intervention

Thursday, May 17, 2012

On an earlier occasion, I had written to more than two newspapers of the region protesting against the distortion that has almost become second nature of the Indian Media when it carries news and views pertaining to the Sikhs and the Sikh issues. I am compelled to write again as under to The Tribune, although I am certain that like the two other letters written earlier, this one will also be ignored. The purpose of writing is to hold a mirror to the faces of our great leaders who fondly believe that they are firmly tackling the Sikh problems. If they are not able to speak about the deep-rooted prejudices that lead the state to frequent killing of the Sikhs in cold blood, they ought to evaluate the worth of service that they are rendering. The people must also become aware about their leaders who do not protest against blatant and potent distortions that eventually become the reason for glossing over the past murders and help in paving the way for committing fresh ones. The Sikhs must remind their leaders that the state repression and the Media support for it needs to be exposed if they are really concerned about the people they claim to lead. They must realize that leadership is not just pinching money from the pockets of the led to satisfy their own desire for luxurious living. It is not enough that they simply issue high pitched statements to convince themselves that they are alive and are going about their business seriously. Something concrete is required.

Call needs to be issued to each and every Sikh to wake up. Another determined round of repression (that never really abated since 1982) has begun. Save other to save yourselves!

Engineering Student Jaspal Singh (Gurdaspur), who was shot dead by police at Gurdaspur on March 29, 2012

The reader may contrast the attitude of our leaders with the leaderless response of mere students from the most backward part of the North East of India. Richard Loitham (19) was a student of Architecture at the Acharya NRV College of Architecture at Banglore. He was found dead in his hostel room on April 18, 2012, The police entered this happening in its Unnatural Death Register because the day previous to it he had had a motorcycle accident and it was assumed that he had died of injuries sustained in the accident. There was spontaneous uproar alleging racial profiling, citing prevalent climate of hatred and hinting at murder. This was the spontaneous reaction of the students of that region studying in the various cities of the country. The allegation was that a student with whom he had a quarrel on the day of the accident had so badly beaten him up that he succumbed to injuries while in sleep. The body was exhumed and evidence of skull injuries was literally unearthed. The demonstration of grief had been so powerful that on May 1, 2012 the police was forced to register a case of murder under Section 302 of the IPC.

The recent case of Dana Sangma, another young student from the North East who committed suicide on April 24, 2012 at Gurgaon, after being wrongly accused of copying at an examination is also significant. It provoked a well articulated debate on the national television although the suicide is not in doubt.

Police breaking up doors of Sikh dwelling houses at Gurdaspur on March 29, 2012

Police opened fire on peaceful Sikh protest at Gurdaspur on March 29, 2012

The response of the Sikh people to the Gurdaspur killing was phenomenal. At least ten thousand people turned out at Jaspal’s last rites. His family was made to feel that the whole community was with them in their hour of grief. Sikhs all over the globe felt the pain and registered their sorrow and dismay. Why are our leaders not able to convincingly pursue the case of murder against policemen who killed Jaspal Singh with a gun?

When a youngster of the same age was killed in USA by a security personal, President Obama’s loud lament was, “if I had a son he would have looked like him.” Must not someone ask our leaders why they do not feel the same way about our children? Finally, why is our blood so cheap in India after 1947?

There is yet another serious aspect of the matter which must dawn upon our leaders. An official document of the United States defines terrorism as the “calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature (carried out) through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear.” Going by secular, democratic ideals revered all over the world, liberty and rule of law confers on every human group the right to lead their lives according to the culture they hold dear. Our leaders must ask why the Sikhs in India are being intimidated on the dictates of the permanent cultural majority (pcm) to rescind their allegiance to the Sikh faith, to Guru Granth Sahib and the rahit of amrit prescribed by the Tenth Nanak? The evidence of the existence of this diktat is ample and conspicuous. The constitution of India refuses to recognise the Sikhi as an independent sovereign faith whereas other academic and cultural entities all over the world have no difficulty in doing so. Why does the Indian ‘secular’ state insists on assuming powers under Article 25 of the constitution of India to bring about reforms in the Sikh faith? In the seven decades of decolonised India there are thousands of incidents of setting fire to Guru Granth, the scripture considered by the Sikhs to be their living Guru and why has none ever been punished for causing hurt to the religious sentiments of a section of the people? The same can be said as truthfully and with more emphasis for the destruction of Gurdwaras with administrative support. Can it be seriously denied that the promotion of the human heads of anti-Sikh sects in Sikh garb (Radhaswamis, Nirankaris, Dera Balllan followers, Dera Sirsa, Dera Ashutosh etcetra) aimed at encouraging the Sikhs to repudiate allegiance to Guru Granth Sahib and the rahit of amrit is the pcm’s method of bringing about reform? Since the 1980s why has the police administration made forcibly removing turbans from the heads of Sikhs a mode of administering law and order? Why at the behest of the pcm is the administration going on an amritdhari killing spree? The latest example is the liquidation of Jaspal Singh on the demand of the Hindu Shiv Sena just because Jaspal Singh had protested against the removal of turbans from the heads of the Sikhs by the Shiv Sena on March 28, 2012.

After reading even a list prepared at random above, can our leaders say that there is no attempt at calculated use of violence and a constant threat of violence to attain the goal of eliminating Sikh ideology, Sikh faith and the Sikh people through intimidation, coercion and instilling fear? Except for those enjoying benefits for remaining silent spectators why are others wedded informally to be forever dumb? Instead of preaching Khalistan to us, and rendering the emotional people into cannon fodder, why are they not inspired by Slovakia, Kosovo, East Timor and South Sudan to argue our case in international fora? Why are they bogged down by the subtlety of the operation genocide being carried out in India? Those who presume to lead us why are they refusing to understand that the Sikhs, like any living organism, have the right to live and to live honourably according to their persuasions?

Those committing heinous crimes in the name of curbing terrorism must know that, the only way to curb terrorism is to abandon state terrorism for ever and not merely as an expedient measure but as a matter of conviction. “Nothing rankles more in human heart than a brooding sense of injustice” said Justice Barannan of the US Supreme Court. He is supported by Frantz Fannon at the other end “– injustice makes you want to pull things down.” Adding a spiritual content, a poet chimes in with: Mayoosion ne aur bhi sarkash bana dia; itne hue zalil ke khuddar ban gai. Frustrations made them even more defiant. The humiliation was so complete that they became self-respecting.

***

(Letter to the Editor for publication)

From : Gurtej Singh,
742 Sector 8,
Chandigarh.

To: The Editor, The Tribune,
letters@tribuneindia.com
May 5, 2012

Dear sir,

My last letter (dated April 3, 2012) about your negative reporting regarding the Sikhs which has reached alarming proportions, over the years was not published by you.

Today I bring to your notice another piece of news in which your paper of May 3, 2012, has tried to provide a shield to the policemen who killed Jaspal Singh on March 29, 2012. Reference is to “One death two probes and a lot of confusion” by Ravi Dhaliwal. Though it is datelined Gurdaspur, it is a “table news” essentially dictated by the police. It is not even news and is sheer propaganda aimed at absolving the police of the dastardly murder which should have shamed every Indian and should have earned the disgust of all liberty loving democratic people with conscience.

The picture printed is that of three policemen one of whom is in an advanced state of striking some one not shown in the picture. The caption below it reads, “a file photo of policemen fighting a violent mob in Gurdaspur.” In all probability it depicts the police running after some people who are making a hasty retreat. Clips placed on the YouTube show the police attacking a handful of students and others trying to escape from the sudden, unprovoked and severe attack of the armed constabulary. That is why you could not show who the police is attacking. The ‘crowd’ you hint at was a handful of unarmed local undergraduates protesting against excesses of the previous day. Are you not ashamed that you have published a part of a picture in an attempt to mislead the public opinion? Is that the function of a newspaper of your standing?

The report, if we can call it that, is clearly dictated by the unnamed “senior police officer” whom your reporter quotes profusely. The suggestion of your source that particular suspended policeman is “being made a scape goat” is preposterous as an innocent boy has lost his life in the prime of youth. Your paper exudes empathy for the killer police and has no kind word for the deceased. Does not that appear strange to you? What moral consideration confers this right on you? Sending of the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased Jaspal Singh or that of the injured Ranjit Singh is the normal procedure and hardly needs mention. So also is the gathering of other evidence. There is also nothing abnormal or confusing about some key witnesses who are still to record their statements.

Your suggestion that “local residents” (should we read local Hindus accused of violence) do not consider either of the two inquiries ordered by the government to be valid. It is a strange suggestion. Enquiry into the death of a citizen in police firing is mandatory by law and government is bound to order it. Why should the anonymous “local residents” consider it invalid and on what grounds are they confused about the mandatory procedure? Why is their moronic confusion a public concern? Particularly, when the enquiring DIG Ram Singh is quoted as saying that he is merely trying to establish “the sequence of events.”

Your suggestion that the enquiry is ordered “under pressure from the Sikh clergy” is sinister and seeks to give a communal tinge to the matter just because an innocent Sikh boy (18) was the targeted by the police.

Police firing is done on the orders of a magistrate. The government has rightly ordered an enquiry by a senior magistrate and a senior policeman to bring out the truth.

Please realize that your tirade betrays a prejudiced mind and is calculated to obfuscate the inquiry just because you are overflowing with hatred of the Sikhs and want to encourage those who kill them. How human is that?

The Media has done it once in 1984. Will your paper please consider not being a part of the fresh campaign of hatred launched by it ostensibly to teach another lesson to the Sikhs? Will your paper also consider recalling the fate of Prithvi Raj Chauhan and see a lesson for India’s permanent cultural majority in the face of the current Chinese onslaught, or have you become so fond of slavery that mere sixty years of decolonisation distresses you?

Yours faithfully,
Gurtej Singh

II

Another relevant matter may also be taken up for consideration along with the above.

The all powerful (under Badals of course) Executive Committee of the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee met at Anandpur Sahib on May 03, 2012 and resolved to place the portrait of Santa Singh Nihang in the Sikh Central Museum. Santa Singh was head of the Buddha Dal of Nihangs. It was suspected by many that he had succeeded to headship after the murder of his predecessor Baba Chet Singh. Nihang rituals are calculated to take this Sikh institution progressively farther away from the Sikh fold. The sect is therefore clandestinely patronised by the Congress political party.

After the destruction of the Akal Takhat by the Indian army in June 1984, no Sikh was willing to undertake its reconstruction on the dictates of Indira Gandhi, Baba Santa Singh was persuaded to do the job. In the face of opposition from the entire Sikh people, he came to Amritsar and started the ‘karseva’ of the Takhat building. It was rumoured that the central minister Buta Singh had persuaded him to do so. In actuality, he did precious little; all the work of reconstruction and repair was done by the employees of the National Building Corporation. Santa Singh earned the ire of the entire Sikh people throughout the world and in response to the sentiment was excommunicated by the then Akal Takhat Jathedar Kirpal Singh on July 22, 2012. His patron Buta Singh too was excommunicated from the Sikh panth, primarily for the same reason. Later on he apologised and was forgiven on May 08, 2008 by Joginder Singh Vedanti, who had been appointed to head the Akal Takhat by Parkash Singh Badal.

Despite that he remained one of the most disliked figures among the Sikhs for having betrayed them at a very critical time in their history. Thereafter, he did nothing to endear him to the people. His elevation to a status of the benefactor of the Sikh people has come as a surprise to one and all. Several Sikh organisations protested against honouring him posthumously by adding his portrait to the Sikh Museum. In deference to strong reservations, the portrait placing ceremony held on May 09, 2012, ended without his portrait being placed there.

This episode raises a host of questions. First and foremost, why was he chosen for the honour despite his sordid record? We of course know that he was chosen for the honour by Parkash Singh Badal. It has gone without notice that all those chosen for this and similar honour after 1984 are those who have supported deviation from the Khalsa rahit by word or deed. Our political leadership, controlled by the BJP appears to be determinedly pushing through an agenda of reform in the Sikh religion revolving around revising the Khalsa thesis inclusive of the rahit of amrit prescribed by the 10th King. This could not have happened overnight.

Santa Singh and all other of his ilk could not have become favourites without there being a background to these happenings.

The background takes us back to 1982-83.This is the period when the Akali leadership was finding it difficult to exist in the face of erosion in its ranks by the popularity of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhinderanwale. The Sant was also a thorn in the side of the Congress (I) ruling at the centre. He, following in the footsteps of his predecessor had successfully stemmed the tide of the Sikhs floating towards the Nirankari and other heretical sects. A joint strategy appears to have been chalked out to eliminate the serious threat. Under this strategy Santa Singh was at one time excommunicated and is now being rehabilitated in the Sikh mind.

The unique honour to Hans Raj Hans, the new Vice President of the Shiromani Akali Dal has to be understood in the above context. Sant Bhinderanwale’s main contribution was that he was encouraging people to enrich the moral, ethical and religious content of their lives. The inevitable effect of such preaching has always been in transform brutes and even ghosts into gods, says the Guru: pasu prethu dev kare poore satgur ki wadhiaee. Such men and women of rectitude, courage and moral standing have been found to be difficult to govern. The folk singers have always been the main source of entertainment for our rural society – a rare luxury that they could afford. So at some stage after 1984, great emphasis was laid on promoting nudity, immorality, mock chivalry and downright crassness through them to lead the society to the path of moral degradation and irreligiousness. Agents for dehumanising and de-spiritualising the society, who could popularise the antithesis of moral and ethical behaviour, were suddenly in great demand. New singers were trained to make an impact. The songs that became popular in that period have double meaning words and are replete with concepts bordering on the lecherous. You hear of ‘tootak tootak tootiaan, he Jamalo’ and ‘toon nee boldee nee tere vich tera yaar bolda’. Older ones lead the way with songs like ‘ishke di hoee barsaat saaree raat bhijde rahe,’ and ‘teri bhij gai kurti laal kure,’ to cite some mentionable examples. Our sensitivities were so dulled by the ample flood of human blood all around us that the younger generation took to obscenity and lewdness to escape the gruesome reality. It is only recently that our womenfolk, the main losers in the game, have started taking the vendors of immorality to task. One typical example of this breed is Daler Mehndi, the son of a gurbani singer dropping the Singh name and working on themes like, ‘meri dig payee chreeh de vich ganee, ve chack liaa toon mor banke.’ Such singers in their heyday did as efficient a job of destroying the society as the police and para-military forces did in eliminating the real social heroes. Now the time has come to reward them for the services they rendered at the critical time. Monetary rewards they have already reaped. Hans Raj Hans is just one who is to be honoured; in the near future we will see much of the same. The political outfit that will put up candidates at Gurdwara polls is slowly being infused with hot blood that will go far in handing over the Sikh shrines to the ‘bought slaves’ of the Hindutava forces.

Can the khalsapanth muster an adequate response to this wholly destructive challenge? The question has to be addressed by each individual comprising the panth.

Source: gurtejsingh.blogspot.com

• Sikh Sangat pay tributes to Shaheed Jaspal Singh Gurdaspur; Sikh leadership remains behind the bars
• Gurdaspur curfew continues; Father of deceased Sikh boy name SI as killer
• More Sikhs arrested in Amritsar; Sikh bodies condemned police atrocities and killing of Sikh youth in Gurdaspur
• Bharat in Bhasmasur mode – by Sirdar Gurtej Singh (IAS)

Advocate Navkiran Singh of LFHRI with Gurdaspur police firing victim Ranjit Singh

Ludhiana, Punjab (May 17, 2012): Lawyers for Human Rights International is a Human Rights body. It has recently released a fact-finding report regarding 29 March, 2012 Gurdaspur incident where Punjab police opened fire on Sikhs and a Sikh Youth Jaspal Singh was received fatal bullet injuries while another Ranjeet Singh was badly injured.

Sikh Siyasat has received the copy of this report that is reproduced below in verbatim:

Fact finding report of LFHRI in the incident of police firing which took place in Gurdaspur on 29th March 2012

Dated: 16th May 2012

Brief background of the matter:

That on the event of fixing of the date of execution of death sentence of Balwant Singh Rajoana for 31.3.2012, the people of Punjab decided to show their resentment to the hurriedness being shown by the administration to hang Balwant Singh, and even ignoring the pendency of the matter in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Chief Minister of Punjab had to move to the Central Government for staying the execution of Balwant Singh in such a manner.

That in the city of Gurdaspur certain miscreants belonging to Shiv Sena gave beatings to some of the agitating Sikh youth and took off their turbans and showed disrespect to the same. The police registered FIR No. 62 dated 28.3.2012 under Section 341/323/427/ 295A/148/149 IPC at Police Station City Gurdaspur against the Shiv Sena activists who are named in the FIR.

That on 29.3.2012 the Shiv Sena gave a call for Gurdaspur Bandh, due to registration of criminal case against them. Whereas outside Gurudwara Ramgaria, Tibri Road Gurdaspur around 20/30 young Sikh boys collected and sat down on the road and started doing Simran (saying prayers), demanding arrest of the accused Shiv Sena activists who had taken off the turbans of the Sikhs. While on the other side Shiv Sena activists who were in large numbers, tried to impose the Bandh in the City of Gurdaspur. While these Sikh youths were sitting on the road, without blocking the traffic, as is very much apparent from the video clippings available with the petitioner/organization and is also available in the internet and they demanded that the Shiv Sena activists should be arrested in the case registered against them i.e. FIR No. 62 dated 28.3.2012.

That as will be very much clear from the CD the police force which was being headed by the SSP Gurdaspur Mr Varinder Pal Singh, Naib Tehsildar Mr Salwan, DSP and Inspector and below ranks which were almost 100 in number they all started initially firing in the air, at which those young boys who were sitting in the road started running helter and skelter and thereafter the police started firing directly towards those Sikh youths and resultantly one Sikh youth namely Jaspal Singh died on the spot being hit by a bullet of AK 47 which entered his body from back side and another clean shaven Sikh boy who was not even part of the young boys agitating and who was leaving after closing of the shop where he was working also suffered a bullet injury, as the bullet entered from his back and exited from the front. Jaspal Singh the Sikh youth died in the incident and Ranjit Singh was seriously injured due to police firing.

The police registered FIR No.63 which is under Section 302 on 29.3.2012 at Police Station City Gurdaspur and later on added with the offences of Section 120-B IPC on 30.3.2012. It is pertinent to mention that no FIR has been registered regarding the attempt to murder of Ranjit Singh.

That in the present case the agitators were sitting peacefully on the side of the road and not even creating any hindrance on the double road in front of the Gurudwara and were reciting prayers and Un provoked straightaway firing by the police without resorting to any warning or Lathi charge and straight way firing initially in the air and then directly towards the running away agitators definitely requires a thorough and a deep probe.

Findings of the inquiry held by Lawyers for Human Rights International:

1. That the facts and circumstances show that there has been a serious lapse on the part of the civil administration which inspite of knowing that the situation in Gurdaspur Town being very sensitive and explosive, deputed the lowest of the low ranking civil servant i.e. Naib Tehsildar and the Deputy Commissioner of Gurdaspur inspite of the having knowledge that there were chances of clash between Shiv Sena and the Sikhs, opted to attend the Kissan Mela being held in Gurdaspur on 29.3.2012 and which clearly shows the total failure and mal administration on the civil side.

2. That the video recordings which are available on the U-Tube and the versions collected from the people present on the spot at the time of incident it has come to light that the SSP of Gurdaspur namely Mr. Varinder Pal Singh and the Naib Tehsildar Mr. Salwan totally exceeded in their powers and incited the gun totting police officials to open gun fire, in order to disperse a small crowd of around 30 young men who were peacefully squatting on the road and demanding the arrest of the Shiv Sena people, who had committed serious offence by taking of the turbans of three young boys and inspite of an FIR being registered against them under Section 295-A. The demonstrators were well within their legal rights to demonstrate and the said demonstration was totally peaceful and was not causing any hindrance to the general public and was not worthy of being declared as illegal, what to talk of being fired upon by the police.

3. That the manner in which the police officials fired from their official weapons like pistols, revolver and AK 47 rifles firstly in the air and then directly aiming at the running young boys by following them in the streets, shows the totally lack of respect of human life on the side of Punjab police and clearly shows a failures on the police and district administration to control the situation.

Conclusions:

1. That the enquiry being conducted by Divisional Commissioner Shri S.R.Ladhar should be expedited and the LFHRI alongwith the family at this right moment feels that the enquiry is moving in a free and fair manner and so it is worthy of participation to bring the truth to justice.

2. That the victim family does not feel confident about the bonafide of the enquiry being conducted by the SIT being headed by the DIG Border Range into the incident which led to the death of Jaspal Singh and seriously wounding of Ranjit Singh, because till date the police has not been able to show their bonafide that they are conducting the investigation in a free and fair manner. The doubts in the mind of the victim’s families have reason’s, because the police is still continuing with their stand, that Jaspal Singh did not die due to firing from a official weapon and are also denying that the bullet which went through and through the body of Ranjit Singh was also fired from an official weapon. Their stand that someone from the crowd fired at the victims and the police not being responsible for killing and wounding of the victims, shows that the investigation being conducted by the police is far from free and fair.

3. That at least what the police was expected was to come clean by identifying the weapon with which Jaspal Singh was fired upon, as the police was having the bullet extracted from the body of deceased Jaspal Singh and it was not a difficult task for the Punjab police to identify and trace out the assailants and concerned weapon. The possibilities of the bullet even being replaced with another bullet cannot be ruled out. The victim families feel that the police is all out to go out of the way to help the police officials who are guilty of the crime.

4. That it has also come to light that the police has manufactured a statement of Gurcharanjit Singh, who is father of deceased Jaspal Singh, showing Gurcharanjit Singh as an eyewitness to the incident of killing of his son. Gurcharanjit Singh when confronted with his statement was surprised that such a statement has been recorded by the police and recollects signing on blank papers at the time of the post mortem examination and release of dead body of his son at the hospital and it seems that the said statement has been manufactured by the police to weaken the case. It is also surprising that the police has recorded a DDR on the basis of the statement of Gurcharanjit Singh, whereas the police always records 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses, after registration of FIR, which are unsigned documents. Why the police recorded a DDR on the basis of signed statement of Gurcharanjit Singh, a witness also shows that the police since the very beginning has been trying to manipulate evidence in order to exonerate themselves.

5. That in the present case the truth would be only revealed through CBI, as police officials right from the rank of SSP to constables are party to the crime and it is not expected from the police to prosecute their own police officials, as the earlier experiences in such cases show. Only an independent agency like CBI would be able to bring out the truth and prosecute the police officials responsible for act of killing Jaspal Singh and grievously injuring Ranjit Singh.

6. The victim families have no confidence in the SIT, as nothing has been done by the Special Investigation Team and the police is leaving no stone un-turned to threaten / win over the witnesses. So producing the witnesses before SIT, which is moving in a biased manner would be putting the witnesses at risk of bodily harm. The victim families at this stage only show faith in CBI, for which a petition has been already filed in the Hon’ble High Court by LFHRI.

7. It is also a serious matter that the Shiv Sainiks who by taking off the turbans of the Sikh youth inspite of them being named in the FIR registered against them since 28th March 2012, no effort has been made to arrest them. Though the state of Punjab has enhanced the sentence of section 295-A ( hurting the religious sentiments of another community ) to be punishable for 10 years and has also made amendment in the code making Pre-Arrest bail not maintainable in these offences, but the police of Gurdaspur has shown no interest in arresting the Shiv Sainiks. This shows that the Punjab Govt is feeling weakness in able to rein the communal element operating as Shiv Sainiks in Punjab.

Navkiran Singh Advocate
General Secretary
Lawyers for Human Rights International

• No Related Post

Party spokesperson Kanwar Pal Singh in a statement said its fact that that amendments being made in the Anand Marriage Act-1909 was unsatisfactory and insufficient. Since long, the Sikhs have been struggling to get constitutional recognition as a separate religion and quam. But ironically the successive Union governments including the SAD’s alliance partner BJP, has always ridiculed this very fundamental right of the community.

However he reminded that the Sikhs have a historical tendency to act first and think later and the present day Sikh leaders were its classic example.

Commenting on the proceedings of seminar organized by the Chief Khalsa Deewan in which the speakers rejected the amendment bill, he wondered why Akali MP’s and Jathedars’ remained silent for long while the Union Cabinet was discussing the amendments.

Why Jathedar Akal Takht and SGPC president Avtar Singh welcomed the amendments without knowing the original text and why they termed it as a “victory” of Panth? Will the Akal Takht now pull up MP Tarlochan Singh for introducing the flawed and improper bill in the Rajya Sabha?

Jathedar Gaini Gubachan Singh has made the situation more confusing and complicated by asking the Sikh Panth to discuss the Sikh Marriage Act-2012 threadbare on one hand, while he has not directed Tarlochan Singh to withdraw the bill favouring amendments to Act-1909 from the Rajya Sabha. He urged the Jathedar Akal Takht to first clear the mess and put the (Sikh) house in order.

“Though Sikh Rehat Maryada is silent on divorce as the practice is in contrast to Sikh philosophy but harsh reality is that like other communities, this social problem has crept up into the lives of Sikhs too. Sikhs can’t afford to leave this social problem unaddressed”, he pointed out.

• Sehajdhari Issue – (1) HC issued notice to Centre, Punjab, SGPC and Gurudwara EC; next hearing on 8 Feb. (2) Why situation is so confusing?
• ‘Indian leadership united in denying Sikhs of their separate identity and fundamental rights’
• Sikh bodies serve 10 day ultimatum to SGPC on the issue of memorial
• Public Campaign for June 1984 Memorial launched
• Install portrait of Bhai Dilawar Singh at Sikh Central Museum, Dal Khalsa urges Akal Takht, SGPC

Front Title of June 1984 Memorial Report

Ludhaina, Punjab (May 17, 2012): A committee formed by various Sikh organizations and Panthic bodies submitted it’s final report to Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee (SGPC) few days back. The Ghallughara Memorial Committee, formed by Akali Dal Panch Pardhani, Dal Kahsla, Khalsa Action Committee and Panthic Sewa Lehar was intended to analyse various aspects related to Memorial for June 1984 Ghallughara, known as third major holocaust of Sikh history.

Sikh Siyasat has received a copy of report that is hereby shared with readers/visitors. This report is in .PDF format and is written in Punjabi language using the Gurmukhi Script.

Download a copy of report NOW.

• SGPC’s committee submits report for construction of memorial for Ghallughara June 1984
• UK Sikh body responds to SGPC’s call regarding 1984 memorial
• Sikh bodies constitute 1984 memorial panel
• Shiromani Committee agrees to setup martyrs’ memorial
• Sikh bodies serve 10 day ultimatum to SGPC on the issue of memorial

Report posted on website of The Telegraph by By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor on May 14, 2012 adds that “the Sikh leaders accused the corporation’s Asian Network of displaying “irresponsible and misleading” attitude and suggesting that their religion was simply a “hotchpotch” of other faiths”.

It followed a phone-in broadcast in March in which the presenter DJ Nihal Arthanayake – best known as a Radio 1 DJ – touched on the relationship between Sikhism, which was founded in Punjab in the 15th Century, and the other two predominant religions in India at the time.

A text message from a listener was read out complaining about the “incredibly offensive” way the presenters had suggested that Sikhism was “made up from other religions ie Islam and Hinduism”.

The DJ, known simply as Nihal on air, replied: “I’m sorry with all due respect, it is, absolutely it is.”

He added: “It came around in the 15th and 16th Centuries in India, how could it not be influenced?”

He went on: “A Muslim laid the stone to the holiest places, with all due respect I know more about your religion than you do.”

The comment was a reference to the tradition that a Muslim divine was asked to lay the foundation of the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the centre of Sikh worship.

But the Network of Sikh Organisations, headed by Lord Singh – who is himself a regular on the BBC, as a contributor to Radio 4’s Thought For the Day – complained, accusing the programme of a “skewed” approach.

They asked: “Is the BBC similarly willing to take the view that Islam is a religion made up of Christianity and Judaism?”

The corporation initially responded that they would “bear in mind he complaint” in future but did not apologise.

Following a second complaint, the channel’s head of news, Kevin Silverton, wrote to the Network admitting that the discussion had been “less than satisfactory”.

“The Nihal phone-in deals with difficult subjects on a daily basis and very occasionally we don’t get the tone exactly right.

“In this case at the end of an hour of challenging debate, the presenter was unusually forthright about a point of view that some listeners have contacted us about concerning the influence other religions had on Sikhism … We’ve stressed to him and the team the importance to retain an impartial tone on these kind of matters and to back up assertions with solid research where at all possible (considering the live and unpredictable nature of such a show).

“We will monitor both these points closely.”

Lord Singh said: “They initially handled it very arrogantly, they didn’t accept anything.

“Then they thought about it and said that they should have been more sensitive – but then it goes on say we do so much with all communities and we have great balance.

“It’s not a very good ‘sorry’.”

He said that the programme had displayed “ignorance” in mistaking comparisons with Islam and Hinduism for influence.

“We are pretty sensitive at the moment, first of all we suffered a lot from the turban being confused with the Muslim turban worn by Bin laden, we’ve suffered a lot from name-calling, I’ve suffered from that myself.”

A spokeswoman for BBC Asian Network said: “We have reviewed the transmission from the Nihal phone-in on March 13 and agree that this short excerpt was less than satisfactory. “The debate show deals with difficult subjects on a daily basis and very occasionally we don’t get the tone exactly right. “We have spoken to the team about this matter and continue to strive to be as balanced as possible and sensitive to people’s religious beliefs, always wanting to avoid any offence.”

• Pakistan PM discusses establishment University named after Guru Nanak
• US President Obama send greetings to Sikhs on Guru Nanak’s Gurpurb
• Canadian Sikhs outraged over unwarranted Kirpan concern
• Event report: Fourth Annual Global Sikh Civil and Human Rights Conference 2012 organized by United Sikhs
• United Sikhs want UK Govt to call India to abolish death penalty

In a statement, party spokesperson Kanwar Pal Singh said none was in doubt about the tainted and controversial past of Saini. “Saini never operated within the ambit of law whether he deals with militants or common men”. The cases of his violating law of the land were never a matter of secrecy but only Badals didn’t like to see it, he alleged.

Quoting the reported findings of high-powered committee set-up by the state government, he said not only the illegally occupied properties of these people should be vacated but also they should be prosecuted for making a ‘fun of the law’. He said such people have no right to remain in high offices in the interest of law of the land to take its own course, said he.

He further said fair and proper action would not be possible so long these people continue to be in the commanding action.

The members of the Dal Khalsa were deeply shocked at the judgment of CBI court on May 10, 2012 acquitting seven police personnel in a 23-year-old alleged fake encounter case, said the release.

The verdict had not only shattered the family members of the deceased Kulvinder Singh alias ‘kid’ but had also shaken those who are fighting to uphold the respect for human and civil rights.

Notably, Kid was abducted and later eliminated in a fake encounter near Sohana in 1989.

• Akali jathedars’ to get marginalized as top cops and babus trying to transgress their political space
• Sikhs across the globe condemn Badal Govt’s action of desecrating Dastar (Sikh Turban)
• Voices for Freedom seek Saini’s removal as Punjab DGP 
• Large scale arrests of Sikh activists expected in Punjab tonight
• More Sikhs arrested in Amritsar; Sikh bodies condemned police atrocities and killing of Sikh youth in Gurdaspur

Additional sessions judge acquitted 11 west Delhi residents after the prosecution was unable to prove they had gathered to kill Sikhs in the aftermath of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination.

“It would be extremely hazardous to place implicit reliance upon such testimonies of (prosecution witnesses) suffering from material contradiction, severe infirmities and inherent improbabilities going to the root of the matter to check and shake basic version and core of the prosecution case,” the court said, acquitting all accused on the ‘benefit of doubt’.

• Sikh Genocide 1984: SJF want CBI to charge Sajjan Kumar seperately for murder in wake of fresh evidence
• 1984 Case: CBI recalls Nirpreet Kaur’s statement identifying Sajjan Kumar
• 1984 Massacres: Delhi HC Reserved Verdict on Sajjan Kumar’s Petition
• Co-accused attempts to shield Sajjan Kumar in November 1984 related case; denies charges
• Sikh Genocide 1984: Sikh Rights Group demand a “UN Special Commission” to investigate the killing Of Sikhs

Sikh for Justice, a US based Human Rights Advocacy Group, Pursuing Case of Sikh Genocide.

Ludhiana, Punjab (Mary 10, 2012): As per information provided by Sikhs for Justice, on May 09, 2012 in a first ever lawsuit alleging human rights violations by Congress (I), the ruling political party of India, US Federal Court heard the oral arguments on the issues of Service, Jurisdiction and Congress (I)’s failure to timely respond to the summons before calendaring the case for trial.

Judge Robert Sweet opening the hearing commented that Congress (I) has not filed any defense on the merits of the allegations of conspiring, aiding, abetting, organizing and carrying out attacks on Sikh population of India during November 1984 while Congress (I) only challenged the US Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case of 1984 Sikh Genocide.

Attorneys from law firm of “Jones Day” argued that service of summons on the Congress (I) is flawed because Plaintiff’s attempt to serve the Congress (I) in India through Hague Convention is not complete as Party’s headquarter in New Delhi did not receive the summons and complaint; and March 04, 2011 service of summons on Dr. Surinder Malhotra, President of Indian National Overseas Congress (INOC) in New York is inappropriate because Congress (I) has no relationship with INOC and Dr. Malhotra is not authorized to act on behalf of the Congress (I).

Plaintiff’s attorney submitted evidence to the US Court showing that on March 28, 2011, summons and complaint was delivered to the Central Authority in Delhi established by Government of India for receiving and serving judicial documents from foreign court as Hague Service Convention of 1965. Under Article 15 of the Hague Convention on Service Abroad, which has been signed by India and United States, service is considered complete once copy of Summons and Complaint is delivered to the Central Authority, pointed the Plaintiff’s attorney. In another case, Judge Sweet had ruled that holding that delivery of summons to Central Authority suffices the service on a defendant.

Defense counsel argued that Congress (I) cannot be sued as per the recent appellate court decision (Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum), which states that a “Corporation” cannot be sued under Alien Tort Claims Act for human rights violations by its members. While defending the filing of complaint against Congress (I) by the victims of November 1984 Sikh Genocide, the Plaintiffs attorney argued that there is difference between the status of a “Corporation” and “Political organization”. Unlike “Royal Dutch Petroleum”, Congress-I is a political party with a mass following and political network across India, which was used to organize attacks on Sikh population of the India during November 1984, so case filed against Congress (I) under Alien Tort Claims Act for human rights violations by its members is within the jurisdiction of the US Federal Court argued Plaintiff’s attorney.

Plaintiff’s attorney presented evidence showing that after receipt and acknowledgement of summons in March 2011, Congress (I) took series of legal actions to defend against the claims of human rights violations. Plaintiff’s attorney presented “Clerk’s Certificate” of October 06, 2011 issued by Ruby J. Krajick noting Congress (I)’s default, argued that defendant’s default is willful and intentional and thus warrants entry of default judgment by the court.

According to attorney Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, legal advisor to SFJ, Congress (I)’s complicity in November 1984 Sikh Genocide and its lack of defense to the allegations became obvious when it defended itself only on procedural issues related the case during oral arguments before the US Court. Congress (I) has no defense to the charges of organizing systematic killing of Sikhs during the first week of November 1984, added Pannun.

Since before US Court, the Congress (I) is taking the defense that a political party cannot be sued under Alien Tort Claims Act, the victims will amend the complaint to include the names of Sonia Gandhi and national leadership of the Congress (I) in their capacities as President and office bearers of the Congress (I)

In March 2011, “Sikhs for Justice” (SFJ) a human rights group along with victims of November 1984 Sikh Genocide filed a complaint under Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) against Congress (I) for conspiring, aiding, abetting, organizing and carrying out attacks on Sikh population of India during November 1984.

• Sikh Genocide 1984: Sikh Rights Group demand a “UN Special Commission” to investigate the killing Of Sikhs
• Sikh Genocide 1984: Sikh Rights Group Protests Sonia Gandhi’s Presence in the United States
• Sikh Genocide 1984: SJF want CBI to charge Sajjan Kumar seperately for murder in wake of fresh evidence
• Sikh genocide 1984: US Court reserves decision regarding plea to re-instate case against Indian minister Kamal Nath
• Sikh Genocide 1984: Congress (I) takes defenses of “burden on American Tax Payers” and “immunity” in US court

Notably, Baba Santa Singh courted controversy when he at the instance of Indira Gandhi government undertook “kar sewa” of Akal Takht building in 1984 after the top temporal seat was brought to rubble during army attack. Subsequently, he was ‘excommunicated’ by Jathedar Kirpal Singh and four others from the Sikh Panth on 22-7-1984 for undermining the dignity of Akal Takht.

However, his ‘excommunication’ was revoked by Jathedar Joginder Singh Vedanti in 2001 only after he admitted his “sin” and accepted the punishment for violating the “Sikh Maryada”. He later died on May 8, 2008.

In a hard hitting letter addressed to SGPC president Avtar Singh Makkar, the organization has asked him to explain on what basis the SGPC has decided to install the photo of a person, who challenged the supremacy of Akal Takht and violated Sikh Reyat Maryada.

Party head Harchranjit Singh Dhami in a communiqué has asked the Makkar to list one single achievement of Santa Singh towards the Sikh Panth for which he was being honoured.

The copy of the letter was also handed over to Gaini Gurbachan Singh at Akal Takht secretariat apart from Manjit Singh, secretary to SGPC head.

“Despite his returned to Sikh fold after remaining excommunicated for 17 years, Santa Singh in his personal capacity is disliked by the Sikh community at large, he pointed out and wondered how his photo could be part of the same museum where portraits of most revered and distinguished personalities have been installed”.

“It’s ironic that the portrait of a person who ridicule Akal Takht will be placed along aside where portraits of those who sacrificed their lives for the sanctity of Akal Takht were installed”, he rued.

“The SGPC executive meet at Anandpur Sahib on May 3 has given the Sikhs immense happiness as well as pain. We felt happiness because SGPC gave a final consent to implement its 10 years old own resolution to build memorial for 1984 martyrs. At the same time, we felt pain because it took decision to install the portrait of Santa Singh at Sikh Museum”, reads the letter.

• Sikhs need their own marriage act and personal law
• Dal Khalsa sticks to original version of Nanakshahi calendar, observes Gurpurab
• Sehajdhari Issue – (1) HC issued notice to Centre, Punjab, SGPC and Gurudwara EC; next hearing on 8 Feb. (2) Why situation is so confusing?
• Sikh bodies criticized SGPC
• Sikh bodies serve 10 day ultimatum to SGPC on the issue of memorial