Akal Takht Jathedar: ‘Any anti-sacrilege law must have strict safeguards to prevent its weaponisation’

* Why do you think the law will be misused?

We have numerous examples of laws being misused. In Punjab, we have witnessed the widespread misuse of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act as well as laws concerning sedition.

We have every reason to believe that laws, especially those concerning sensitive issues like sacrilege, can be misused. Hence, any law concerning sacrilege must have strict safeguarding clauses to prevent its weaponisation.

* Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann has alleged that the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) is opposing the law as senior Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) were involved in incidents of sacrilege. Do you think the new law could be misused against Badals?

I do not think that this argument holds water as the government can misuse any of the existing laws against someone.

Also, the SGPC did not oppose the law. The SGPC president (Harjinder Singh Dhami) even welcomed it as everyone believed it was being introduced sincerely to prevent incidents of sacrilege.

However, very little information regarding the specific text of the law was available when it was passed. When I got details about the text, I found clauses that could be grossly misused against Sikhs. That is why I objected to certain provisions and some portions of the text.

* An Akal Takht directive holds priests and gurdwara committee members responsible for any sacrilege occurring on their premises. Why is there objection to similar clauses in the law?

Yes, there is an existing directive but let us stress on the word negligence. There are cases where an incident occurs due to the sheer negligence of individuals like a priest or committee members. In such cases, the individuals are summoned before the Akal Takht and directed to seek atonement by performing sewa or reciting the Gurbani.

This is the religious way to hold someone accountable for negligence but under the new law, the same person can be jailed. It is too harsh a punishment for someone who had no intention to let sacrilege happen.

We must have a clear distinction between someone intentionally trying to commit sacrilege and someone accused of administrative negligence. The new law is far too punitive for cases of simple negligence.

* Any legislation may have some loopholes…

Yes, but in this specific law what I found most problematic was that it focuses entirely on the technical aspect of the crime. It only targets the immediate accused and fails to look at the broader phenomenon.

Certain groups have nurtured hatred against Sikhs since the time of Guru Nanak. We saw them active during the 2015 sacrilege of the Guru Granth Sahib at Bargari.

The primary focus of the law should be on the organisations, sects and leaders who influence their followers to commit these acts. For instance, the 2015 sacrilege attempt in Moga saw followers of Dera Sirsa being punished but their chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim was not convicted.

We have suggested an amendment. If the accused is linked to a sect or Dera that nurtures hatred towards Sikhs, we want the head and management of the sect or Dera to be booked in the same FIR. The law will fall short of bringing the real culprits to justice if it lacks this provision.

* Do you think the government will act on your suggestion?

I do not think the government should have any objection. If the government truly wants to put an end to incidents of sacrilege, they must include the clause that holds the conspirators and masterminds legally responsible, else the law will be toothless.

* Why do you say so?

The meaning of sacrilege for Sikhs is deeply profound and not limited to the physical desecration of the Guru Granth Sahib. Even if someone intends to create a disturbance in the physical presence of the Guru Granth Sahib, it constitutes sacrilege. However, the new law does not recognise such actions as sacrilege.

The police would be better equipped to book the immediate perpetrator as well as the mastermind had it included the amendment I suggested.

* Some quarters have termed the Akal Takht’s move to summon Sikh MLAs over the new law as ‘unconstitutional’. What is your response?

This debate is the product of narrow ideological mindedness. Such comparisons arise only in the minds of those who do not respect diversity, history or human behaviour.

How can the Akal Takht and Constitution be compared? The Akal Takht is timeless and Sikhs have pledged their loyalty to it. The Constitution is a written document outlining how India must be run. Lawmakers can amend the Constitution, for better or worse. There are rumours that it may be amended again in the coming months and no one should have a problem with that process.

If the Akal Takht summons a Sikh living anywhere in the world, why should that offend anyone outside the religion? Those who take offence at this are the reason behind most problems the country faces.