Is the proposed Nishan-e-Khalsa a unanimous choice?

Resentment is also brewing among a section of the Sikh leadership over the choice of Satnam Singh. Earlier, the government had engaged Moshe Shafdie, an Israeli architect of international repute, for the purpose. Following rejection of his models, the choice fell on Satnam Singh. However, D.S. Jaspal, a bureaucrat associated with the Foundation, said: "Moshe’s models were not in accordance with the Sikh ethos".

Some even pointed out that Satnam Singh had designed the architecture of Dashmesh Academy in Anandpur Sahib and since the management trust of the Academy is headed by Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal, his abrupt choice would send the wrong signals. "Why was Moshe involved in the first place if the government had Satnam Singh in mind?" questioned a former office-bearer of the All India Sikh Students’ Federation and senior Akali leader from Amritsar, soon after Moshe’s models were rejected. The authorities should have floated tenders to invite applications from other architects based in Delhi, he added.

Though the Foundation members are tightlipped about the expenditure on Moshe’s visits, the officials engaged in these activities say Moshe is still in the picture as he has prepared the design of the Heritage Museum, which is also a part of the scheme.

The issue of the shape and design of the monument was earlier raked up by Guru Gobind Singh Foundation chairman Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia, who had asserted that the Nishan-e-Khalsa which represents a "khanda" or a double-edged sword did not actually reflect the function of the weapon. Tradition has it that the "khanda" is stirred inside the nectar bowl at the time of baptism, whereas Satnam Singh’s model depicts it otherwise. Ahluwalia had pointed out that the handle of the weapon should have been on the top, while it is downwards in the model.

Though Punjab Finance Minister Capt Kanwaljit Singh, who is also the executive member of the Foundation, claims that the chapter is closed as the model has been formally approved, there is talk in political circles that the government is allowing construction of the monument within the seismic zone of the city. "This isn’t any ordinary building. The longevity of the monument has to be ensured at all costs," says an intellectual. Then there are fears that the devotees might accept the monument as a deity in coming years. Simranjit Singh Mann of Akali Dal (Amritsar) had once criticised the move, saying, "Idol worshipping has no place in Sikhism".

However, Takht Kesgarh Sahib Jathedar Prof Manjit Singh differs: "The monument cannot be linked with a gurdwara any way." Referring to the controversy over the height of the monument, he says that "nishan sahibs" (sacred flags) are always bigger that gurdwaras elsewhere too.

Amidst charges and counter-charges, Satnam Singh prefers to keep a low profile. Speaking at his Sector 8 office in Chandigarh, Singh told ENS: "I do not want to be drawn into this controversy. The issue is being politicised by some." He made it clear that the design proposed by him was based on Sikh tenets and he would not charge anything for the same. "It is purely an emotional gesture, though I would charge money for the engineering input." The monument, he added, was only 180 feet high and not 300 feet as was being made out. "I have prepared a model of my liking. If they are so keen to change its design, they can approach some other architect," he quipped.

Adding that the fear of seismic topography was unfounded, Satnam Singh said: "Japan, too, falls in the seismic zone but there is no curb on raising high-rise buildings there".

Denying charges of favoritism, he said: "The selection of my model was not an abrupt move as the government had also invited designs from other architects".