Management of Gurdwaras Election must give way to consensus

Dr. Amrik Singh*

* Former Pro Vice Chancellor, Delhi University, and distinguished educator.

Perhaps not many people will agree with the statement that the outcome of the Gurdwara Reform Movement (1920-25) had done more disservice to the Sikh community than is generally realized. While getting rid of the mahants was a positive development, the consequential arrangements introduced a destructive element into the situation.

The traditional Indian method is selection. What the British did was to introduce the system of election to which they had been accustomed in their own country as far as political representation was concerned. The introduction of adult franchise in India in 1925 for the first time was a notable achievement no doubt. But was it such an unmixed blessing as it was made out to be? The psyche of the two people is fundamentally different, and so are their perceptions. The system of elections introduced in respect of gurdwaras has, in my judgement, done incalculable harm to the Sikh community.

Manipulation: Today, the election to any Gurdwara body is no different from the election to an assembly or Parliament. The same kind of partisan atmosphere is generated and the same tactics of bribery, corruption, manipulation, etc are used. The outcome too is, therefore, about the same. Those who get elected are keen to feather their own nests rather than render any service. And yet when it comes to the management of gurdwaras, nothing could be more injurious to their survival as an institution than the election of these people to positions of power and patronage.

What is to be done in this situation? Most people, even while they agree with the diagnosis of the problem, do not find it feasible to propose an alternative system. For my part, I would like to propose something which will take the sting out of what happens today.

The problem did not arise so much in 1925 as it did after 1947. In the original Gurdwara Act of 1925, the SGPC was the top body without question. But that was only in a national sense. Real power lay with the local gurdwaras. All historic gurdwaras, including Nakana Sahib, Panja Sahib and Darbar Sahib, belonged to this category. The SGPC was so dependent upon the 10 percent contribution received from these gurdwaras that sometimes the SGPC could not even pay its monthly salary bill till the amount has actually been received.

All this, however, underwent a total change in 1949 when the Gurdwara Act was amended and power was taken away from the local committees, and concentrated in the SGPC. This model of governance has continued without any change since then, and even further strengthened. In 1985, for instance, the Barnala government, through an Ordinance, transferred 140 gurdwaras directly to the control of the SGPC. With the growth of inflation, the income of these gurdwaras had gone up beyond the limits laid down in the Act. Therefore, transferring them to the SGPC control was more or less unavoidable.

Decentralisation: While the Shiromani Akali Dal grumbles against overcentralisation by the Central government and wants power to be delegated to the states, in its dealing with the local gurdwaras, it does precisely what it objects to otherwise. Is that in consonance with its overall approach to things?

This change in the role and authority of the SGPC was made in 1949 in pursuit of the ambition to exercise political power. In the political field, power was not within the reach of the Akalis. They, therefore, decided to push in this direction; or almost so. The Congress party, which was in power, found this proposition acceptable because at that time the SGPC was controlled by Jathedar Nagoke who was with the Congress, and not with the Akali Dal. Everyone played a shortsighted game, if one may put it that way. In the bargain, a kind of a “state within a state” was set up, and this led to the undeniable degeneration of gurdwara management.

With budget about Rs 200 crore and other statutory provisions, the SGPC has come to exercise so much power that every political party, including the Congress and the Left parties, has been wanting to capture it. They tried to do so on more than one occasion. That they did not succeed in this game is another thing and need not be dilated upon here.

Different groups of Akalis have controlled the SGPC for over three quarters of a century. Out of this period, Jathedar Tohra managed to run the show for a whole quarter century. The over-centralised system, as it has got evolved over the years, is a political plum that can always be captured and misused. What is required is to decentralize the system on the principle of checks and balances which the British had adopted in 1925. What was done in 1949, and even subsequently, was a planned act of perversion of the original intention.

It can be argued that this shift will transfer the problem from one point to another. To a substantial extent, this is precisely what will happen. In order to deal with the problem squarely, therefore, we have to re-examine the electoral system as it is in force at present. According to the current system, voters have to be enrolled, constituencies demarcated, and elections conducted. Above all, it is for the government when, if at all, to hold the elections. Over the years it has become abundantly clear that the existing system, if it continues to be followed, will completely destroy the inner ethos of Sikhism.

Sikh Ethos: If the Sikh have to survive as a community, perhaps the most important thing that they have to do is to evolve a different system of the management of gurdwaras which is in consonance with their tradition and their ethos of service and self-reliance. Let it be recalled here that the Tenth Guru disbanded the system of masands. If, instead of hereditary masands, we have the elected category now, that cannot invalidate the categorical disapproval expressed by him who, when faced with corruption and mismanagement, acted in a decisive and progressive manner.

Participatory Sangat: Once the management of gurdwaras becomes the responsibility of the local gurdwara people, step by step, the situation will start changing. Selection, rather than election, should be made the main mechanism and prop of the management of gurdwaras. This would ensure that the people present at a particular meeting (convened for the purpose) will agree on a particular person and a consensus evolved in his favour. Such a person will be elected through voice vote and not by the casting of votes. He need not have a specified term. As long as he performs, he is retained. Once he becomes unacceptable, he goes. The whole idea is to project and prefer those who are service-minded and not power-hungry.

It will be argued that this is too Utopian a scheme. Utopian it certainly is. But let it be emphasised that over a stretch of time, it is precisely this approach to things which will bring about a change in the thinking and outlook of the community. The community has got so used to the current mode of elective functioning that as reported, some of the Sikhs who migrated to Canada suggested a similar provision to be introduced by the Canadian government. It should not be necessary to say that the matter was laughed out of court by the Canadians!

What has been done during the past half a century, or so, is not in line with the Sikh tradition which is democratic as well as participatory. The historic precedent of Sarbat Khalsa exemplifies what has been stated above. By resorting to election and all that goes with it, we have turned our back upon the Sikh tradition. How to restore that tradition is the question now.

What is suggested here is not the final answer but a move in that direction. Today, whatever, discussion takes place on this subject is in terms of the existing Gurdwara Act. State control over electoral process of gurdwara bodies is pure poison and is destroying the Sikh ethos. Without a total break with the existing system, it will not be possible to bring about a change in our thinking. This system of governmental regulation has to be abandoned. It would be perfectly in order for the new SGPC to set up a kind of unofficial body which may go into any dispute that might arise. Not only that, rules and procedures regarding appointments to jobs, priorities of expenditure, the control of the funds and several other things may be laid down by the SGPC. But they will not have the force of law. If disputes arise, as perhaps will happen, it would be a comment on the new method of selection adopted and, by implication, a hangover of the earlier system which, though discarded, will continue to influence our thinking for quite some time.

As long as people are elected for the most part, the wrong kind of persons are likely to get entry. It is only when people are selected for their capability, actual or potential, and commitment to serve the cause of gurdwara management that the atmosphere will begin to change. That this will take time is obvious and does not have to be laboured.

Politics: Once the new system is introduced those people who are keen to exercise political power will be discouraged from opting for gurdwara management. This is precisely what should happen. Such people, it need not be added, have no role in gurdwara affairs. In plain words, once the system of election is given up the character of gurdwara management will undergo a change within a few years. Whether the system of election can be abolished or not will, however, depends upon a couple of factors. First of all, the government must agree to give up its held over the gurdwaras and scrap the different Gurdwara Acts now in force. If necessary, some kind of financial control may be exercised by the government, as it happens in the case of temples like Tirupati, etc. Secondly, those who manage the gurdwaras at present must agree to lay off and seek other channels of self-promotion rather than continue to play a role in the gurdwaras. In any case, if they do not withdraw voluntarily, they will have to be driven out.

All such issues need to be discussed at various levels, and a kind of consensus evolved. There would be nothing wrong, for instance, in electing a firm of chartered accountants to audit the accounts and lay down a system of financial control, etc. It should not be necessary to have a President, a secretary, and a whole battery of elected officials. Only one or two individuals who enjoy wide acceptance may be elected. All these matters can be gone into all the local level. If, for instance, it is found that it is difficult to manage large numbers, there is nothing to prevent the management from having local sangats meeting in small units and nomination someone to represent them in the bigger body. But all these things must be done not through the instrumentality of the government, but through the public initiative and on a voluntary basis. The source of all mismanagement and corruption in the gurdwaras is that the concept of public responsibility has been rejected and government control preferred. It is this distortion in Sikh affairs which needs to be corrected.

q