Exposing the verbal terrorism and ‘terminological inexactitudes’ of a veteran propagandist for hindutava

[Mr. Kuldip Nayar often described as a veteran journalist, recently wrote a highly misleading article in The Tribune, It was used by the opposition in the Punjab Legislative Assembly to articulate the point of view of the permanent cultural majority. The article that follows is in response to it. Immediately reproduced below it in italics, is the original article written by Kuldip Nayar.

It will give the reader an idea of the lies being spread even now 28 years after the event when all aspects of the infamous attack are well known]

Kuldip Nayyar’s recent article is as disappointing as all his earlier articles are. It oozes hatred for the Sikhs –as always. A person from Bhatinda told me that he cut it out from The Tribune of the 18^th instant, placed it in a sieve and left it over an empty bucket. The next morning he found the bucket full of pure and unadulterated mixture of contempt and hatred for the Sikhs and the Punjab. Nobody holds a brief for the soul selling Akalis but Nayar is not targeting them and is not concerned with the stated reasons for writing: he is exercising power without responsibility. That is what Harold Mcmillan (quoting Stanley Baldwin) would have called the ‘prerogative of harlots.’

From the very opening part of the article we gather that it is written in behalf of “we the people” of India and under the influence of the hindutava fatwa that the Sikhs are excluded from that fraternity which is high on verbosity but miserably deficient in truth, social responsibility, fair-play or human sympathy. Under that delusion of high moral grandeur, he presumes to possess the inherent power to admonish the elected chief minister of the Punjab and his deputy. It leads him to tom tom the official propaganda on the army attack in 1984. By now everyone knows that the army, in reality was sent to forty Sikh shrines to garner votes for Indira Gandhi and to secure her dynasty by polluting the shrines of a rival faith. It went to the Guru’s Darbar with an intention to kill the defenders exercising the legitimate right of self defence.

Those, like Goebbels who make propaganda their goal, meticulously avoid defining their terms. The self-respecting Sikhs in the Guru’s Darbar in June 1984 have rightly earned the epithet of martyrs by the general consensus amongst the some 28 million Sikhs all over the world. They had no political agenda separate from that of the Akali Dal and had no political party to support it. They instilled no fear among the Hindus for the simple reason that the Hindus were fed to surfeiting with hatred of the Sikhs, pumped into their bellies by the then prime minister ably aided by the media. There was no space left for fear. Sant Jarnail Singh is a martyr for the faith and by common consent the greatest Sikh of the 20^th century precisely because he defied the might of a modern state to defend the Guru’s Darbar. He stands on the same pedestal as Baba Gurbax Singh who defied the hordes of the Afghan emperor Ahmed Shah Abdali in 1762. He today stands taller than all tyrants who have looked upon the Guru’s Darbar with an evil eye.

Sukhbir has offended Kuldip by not meticulously following his game plan. Consequently his advice to the government of India is to send a few dozen tanks and a couple of commando divisions to the Darbar again to destroy the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee that he believes, is the ‘root of the problem.’ He deems he is closer to realizing the dream of Hindu take over of the Sikh shrines than ever before. The Akalis, under that threat are asked to follow the ‘safe’ path prescribed by Kuldip. Will they oblige?

Every Sikh worth his salt knows that Manmohan Singh, Bikram Singh et al are entitled to their belief if they believe they are Sikhs. The world knows General Tiloka (the commander of forces that attacked Somnath) and Raja Man Singh as a proud Rajput and yet they were but slaves of Mahmud Ghazni and Aurengzeb. The Sikhs have no illusions. A prime minister who cannot apply the universally acknowledged riparian law enshrined in the constitution to the Punjab, has no word over the turban issue with France and shamelessly tells the world fora that the Sikhs in India are equal citizens despite being periodically massacred in thousands by the rulers, is much, much beyond such common emotions as embarrassment. A memorial to the ‘gallant defendants of the faith’ is a befitting tribute and the place for it is in the Darbar complex where also stands a memorial to Baba Gurbax Singh, Baba Deep Singh and Bhais Mehtab Singh-Sukha Singh.

General run of Sikhs regard Kuldip S. Brar no more than a shorn slave of hindutava forces. His only distinction is that he served a dynasty as slavishly as Tiloka and Man Singh had done. Whatever he says is just balderdash to Sikh ears. How the ‘chief minister and his deputy’ choose to deal with the wild threats delivered by Kuldip Nayar and Kuldip Brar is up to them, but the bogey of militancy and separatism has turned out to be a pan of wood and will not cook hatred again.

‘Non-political persons and Sikh organizations too cannot heed the rants of this author for the people being honoured are deliverers who put a stop to tyranny of the state by killing the pretender Beant Singh who had stolen the mandate to rule by employing a diabolical strategem. He ruled to the benefit of a hegemonic power and against the interest of the 6% who had voted for him. He had assumed the mantle of decimating the Punjab all over again after 1984. His victims were toddlers and women among others. The illegitimate desire of the 16% caste Hindus of Punjab (and Kuldip Nayar) to rule the Punjab by proxy may be correct as political strategy, but it is the root cause of most virulent violence that the Punjab has seen since the decolonization of 1947. It is the most virulent species of violence.

Surprisingly, ignoring the fact that the Bhartiya Janata Party is composed of even more hard boiled fascists of the kind Kuldip Nayar is, he still seeks absolute adherence to his views by even that party. It is a classic example of a snake biting a snake. His incitement to them to quit the ministerial posts is however welcome. The realization that both the Akalis and his brothers in the BJP are bowing to the will of the electorate, comes to him but he draws no conclusions from it. So much for his sagacity, under the cover of which, he presumes to issue advisories to all and sundry.]

The Badals are quite capable of dealing with his invectives, his threats and his curses. They have swallowed too many camels to squirm at this gnat. He ought to realize also that those who attacked the Guru’s Darbar, also killed temple servants, children (the youngest one being five weeks old), raped pilgrims, murdered young boys in cold blood, pierced the scriptures with bullets, looted the Guru’s treasury and the quarters of sewadars. Such defenders of India’s integrity their stooges, eulogists or apologists have no locus standi to invoke the concept of integrity. They held humanity to ransom when they burnt the Sikh Reference Library in the fashion of the barbarians of bygone ages.

The ghosts of ‘radicals and insurgents’ are refusing to rise again. The witch’s cauldron out of which they came last time is not as yet on the boil. Many bats wings, cows’ tongues and crows’ throats need to be added to it. Instead of raising such nonexistent threats, why doesn’t the Intelligence Bureau advice action on the Maoist and the Chinese front? Much more than the failure of the constitution, the very existence of the country is at stake. Why is there no one to take on the real threats in flesh and blood? ‘If you are such a clever person’ Nayar, ‘don’t pen black and ignoble’ incitements, says the Sikh scripture (Farida je tu akal latif kaale likh naa lekh)

The Damdami Taksal was a religious seminary, it is now a conglomeration of time servers. The position of Dal Khalsa is too transparent and according to law to invite sanction. No Hindu chauvinist can challenge that with any slight degree of credibility. If Nayar thinks, the credentials of the Punjab government are not above board he may not give them a dime (as he pretends to control the purse strings of the central government). Do it and face the music if you can. Better still it is to dismiss the government involved in the gross criminal act of dispensing siropas in the holy precincts. Criminality of the act stands fully ‘proved.’ You are right Nayar, this government no matter how hard it strives, cannot guarantee peace of the graveyard. Get rid of it instantly. The business of governing for you has nothing to do with the expression of popular will, it must carry out Kuldip Nayyar’s diktat, that is the new doctrine of neo-fascists.

Kuldip Nayar has sown the wind many times before and his country has had to reap the whirlwind. He feels that this process must continue until the Sikhs accept abject total defeat. He will of course want to do that for the feigned purpose of bettering the lot of Sikhs and maintaining the goodwill of people (read Hindus). He will ignore that the ‘incarnation’ Sri Ram could not earn goodwill of these people and had to attack Sri Lanka with an army of monkeys and bears. The Sikhs may fight the country’s battles for centuries, may feed its teeming millions for better part of a century and may have saved the country many bankruptcies, despite being two per cent of the population of India yet they can never earn goodwill for the sentiment is alien to an eternally ungrateful people. It is natural for them to instinctively believe that the Bhakti saints and not the Sikhs visibly confronted the Mughal and Afghan empires while unknown devotees of Shiva who performed the sarpmedhyajna actually got rid of both dispensations. The belief is extended to imagining that the Sikhs fought the British in vain while the mritanjayyajna performed by M. K. Gandhi with his spinning wheel actually forced the decolonisation. The Sikhs cannot be even allowed to live in peace, because the faith of country’s permanent cultural majority in pluralistic society is barely skin deep. It can never allow full application of the written constitution to the Punjab or the Sikhs.

Secularism for it is also a fig leaf. If repeated decimation of Sikhs, Dalits, Muslims, Christians and tribals does not bear it out then nothing else can, except the dominant perception of all the above mentioned people. The permanent cultural majority that is nurturing dreams of becoming a world power wishes to achieve political domination by imposing its cultural will upon the hapless people with the help of the armed might of a modern state. The process is summed up by a single word- hindutava. Those who are still not convinced may refer to the demolition of the 500 year old Gurdwara Gian Godri in Haridwar, an equally ancient Babari masjid, complete control of many Buddhist stupas, the destruction of several churches and the killing of several missionaries. As a modern equivalent of the fate dished out to Buddhits a millennium ago, it hopes to wipe out Sikhi, Islam and Christianity from India with the help of state power. This is the burden of the words ‘secularism’ and ‘pluralism’ in the dictionary of the likes of Kuldip Nayar.

[Playing with fire in Punjab
Akalis owe an explanation to the nation
by Kuldip Nayar

WHEN the Akalis are out of power, they indulge either in a dharam morcha or some act which would evoke religious passions among the Sikhs. But when they adopt the same tactics while in authority, it means that they want to divert attention from problems like unemployment, drug trafficking and farmers’ lessening incomes.

To the horror of the country, Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal filed the other day a mercy petition on behalf of Balwant Singh Rajoana, the killer of former chief minister Beant Singh. Now Badal’s son, Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh, is among those who have honoured the insurgents and a few others involved in resisting the Army which was deployed to flush them out from the Golden Temple at Amritsar. Both Badals are in charge of law and order. In a way, they are the custodians of the state. They have not realised even yet that they cannot carry out their duty if they side with militants.

I have been told they had to bow before “pressure”. If the rulers have to act under the direction of insurgents, the state is in for uncertain times. Punjab has been through the phase from the mid-’70s to mid-’80s when the extremists had the upper hand and instilled fear among the Hindus that they were not safe in the state. A hiatus between the two communities began to be visible from that time. The insurgents have now founded a memorial for Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale who, once sponsored by the Congress, challenged the state from within the precincts of the Golden Temple.

Sukhbir’s explanation that the memorial was laid by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) is not credible. The Akali Dal itself controls the SGPC. In fact, the Government of India should get at the root of the problem and scrap the Gurdwara Act. Let the entire Sikh community, not those who are on restrictive electoral rolls, run the gurdwaras.

The problem with the Akali Dal is that it does not differentiate religion from politics. Bhindranwale committed the same mistake and Punjab paid the price. I do not know what the Akalis have in mind because they are traversing the same dangerous path.

How embarrassed must have been Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a Sikh and the new Chief of Army Staff, Gen Bikram Singh, also a Sikh, over what the ruling Akali Dal did to glorify the insurgents who polluted the Golden Temple, the Sikhs’ Vatican? The government had to employ the Army to destroy the barricades and the bunkers that Bhindranwale’s men had built to fight against the Army. How can a memorial be built to perpetuate those who wanted to disintegrate the country and give a bad name to the Sikhs who are proud citizens of India?

Lt-Gen K.S. Brar, who led the force during Operation Bluestar, has spoken in pain about the operation. In an interview to a daily, he has said: “The Akalis are allowing a move to revive terrorism. Siropas are being offered to the kin of terrorists. Militants and their families are being garlanded. Are the Akalis attempting to get the sympathy of militants by allowing such activities?” Brar’s question should better be addressed to both the Chief Minister and his deputy who have not yet understood that they have to crush the divisive forces which believe in separatism.

I do not know why no Sikh organisation or a non-political person of consequence from the community has condemned the honouring of a killer and the laying of the foundation. The Akalis are creating a Frankenstein which will one day devour the peaceful citizens of Punjab.

The silence of the Bharatiya Janata Party surprises me. It is a partner in the state government. The BJP is either giving its tacit support to the radical fringe or sticking to ministerial postings for their personal gain. Both ways, they do not serve the interest of the party or the country. If they are really “unhappy”, as some reports say, they should quit the government. But then they too, like the Akalis, have electoral considerations in view. And the victory at municipal polls must have strengthened their decision to stay with the Akalis.

Whether the Akalis realise it or not, there is a wave of indignation against what they have done at the Golden Temple. But the main anger is directed against the Badals who have gone along with those who had held the integrity of India to ransom. Both the Akali Dal and the Chief Minister owe an explanation to the nation.

It would be, however, pertinent to know whether the Intelligence Bureau warned Punjab about what the radicals and insurgents were up to. Although Home Minister P. Chidambaram is pre-occupied, he should have pointed out in writing to the Punjab Chief Minister about the ramifications of what was contemplated at the Golden Temple. It amounts to the failure of the Constitution, and the state government should have been taken to task.

The Punjabis are oblivious of why the Akalis are supporting groups like the Damdami Taksal and the Dal Khalsa, both known to be extremist organisations. On the one hand, the party is talking of development and requesting the centre for a special package and, on the other, it is endangering peace without which no development is possible. The Akalis should not forget the second innings the people have given them in the recent polls. The reason why they preferred it to the Congress was the promise of development which the Deputy Chief Minister made at every election meeting. People are so puzzled over the presence of the same person in the ceremony at the Golden Temple. His projection as the future CEO of the state is being doubted. How can he guarantee social harmony and development when he himself presented siropas?

The Akalis are playing with fire which may push them to a point where they may feel the heat. The party has too much at stake. It cannot afford to fritter away the goodwill it created in its earlier innings. Faith in a pluralistic society is a commitment which cannot be diluted for placating the radicals.

Secularism is not a fig leaf to be used by the Akalis for their wrong belief that religion and politics are two sides of the same coin. Even otherwise, the ideology of theology is archaic and outdated. Not long ago, it looked as if the Akalis were changing their outlook to imbibe progressive ideas and modern thoughts. The loss is that of the Akali Dal if it wants to cling on to gurdwara politics. The Punjabis will assess them and vote accordingly at the general election in 2014.n

(The Tribune 18 June, 2012)]

ਸਿੱਖ ਸੰਘਰਸ਼ ਦਾ ਸਦੰਰਭ ਸਿਰਜਣ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ

6 ਜੂਨ 1984 ਦਾ ਦਿਨ ਸਿੱਖ ਇਤਿਹਾਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਹੋਰ ਗੌਰਵਸ਼ਾਲੀ ਘਟਨਾ ਨੂੰ ਜੋੜ ਗਿਆ ਜਿਸ ਉੱਤੇ ਸੁੱਖਾ ਸਿੰਘ-ਮਹਿਤਾਬ ਸਿੰਘ, ਬਾਬਾ ਗੁਰਬਖਸ਼ ਸਿੰਘ ਅਤੇ ਬਾਬਾ ਦੀਪ ਸਿੰਘ ਦੇ ਕਾਰਨਾਮਿਆਂ ਵਾਂਗ ਮਨੁੱਖਤਾ ਸਦੀਆਂ ਤੱਕ ਮਾਣ ਕਰਦੀ ਰਹੇਗੀ।

ਇਹ ਦਿਨ ਚਮਕੌਰ ਦੀ ਜੰਗ ਵਾਂਗ ਸਿੱਖੀ ਦੀ ਸਦੀਵੀ ਜਿੱਤ, ਅਕਾਲ ਫ਼ਤਹਿ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਕ ਬਣ ਗਿਆ। ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਇਸ ਦਿਨ ਮੁੱਠੀ ਭਰ ਆਮ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਨੇ ਇੱਕ ਦੇਸ਼ ਦੀ ਆਧੁਨਿਕ ਹਥਿਆਰਾਂ, ਟੈਂਕਾਂ, ਤੋਪਾਂ, ਜ਼ਹਿਰੀਲੀਆਂ ਰਸਾਇਣਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਲੈਸ ਫ਼ੌਜ ਦਾ ਡਟ ਕੇ ਮੁਕਾਬਲਾ ਕੀਤਾ ਅਤੇ ਹਮਲਾਵਰ ਕਮਾਂਡਰ ਸੁੰਦਰਜੀ ਦੇ ਕਹਿਣ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਫ਼ੌਜ ਦੇ ਪੰਜਵੇਂ ਹਿੱਸੇ ਨੂੰ ਰਣਖੇਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਰੱਖਿਆ।

ਦਰਬਾਰ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਵਿੱਚ ਇਕੱਠੇ ਹੋਏ ਸਿੰਘ ਆਪਣੇ ਧਰਮ ਅਸਥਾਨ ਉੱਤੇ, ਹਮਲੇ ਦੀਆਂ ਧਮਕੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਸੰਦਰਭ ਵਿੱਚ, ਆਪਣੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਸੁਰੱਖਿਆ ਲਈ ਬੈਠੇ ਸਨ। ਇਹਨਾਂ ਸੂਰਮਿਆਂ ਨੇ ਬਾਬਾ ਅਜੀਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਬਾਬਾ ਜੁਝਾਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਦੀ ਤਰਜ਼ ਉੱਤੇ ਹਮਲਾਵਰਾਂ ਦੇ ਦੰਦ ਖੱਟੇ ਕੀਤੇ, ਗੁਰੂ ਦੀ ਰੱਖਿਆ ਤੋਂ ਮੂੰਹ ਨਹੀਂ ਮੋੜਿਆ ਇਸ ਲਈ ਇਹ ਸਾਰੇ ਸਾਹਿਬਜ਼ਾਦਿਆਂ ਵਾਂਗ ਹੀ ਧੰਨਤਾ ਯੋਗ ਹਨ।

ਇਹਨਾਂ ਬੇ-ਕਸੂਰਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਮਾਰਨ ਲਈ ਫ਼ੌਜ ਹਮਲਾਵਰ ਹੋਈ ਸੀ। ਸਭਿਅਕ ਦੁਨੀਆ ਦੇ ਹਰ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸ੍ਵੈ-ਰੱਖਿਆ ਦਾ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਸੀ। ਇਸਦੀ ਪ੍ਰੋਢਤਾ ਭਾਰਤ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਦਾ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਮੰਤਰੀ ਵੀ ਕਰ ਚੁੱਕਿਆ ਹੈ। ਸਾਨੂੰ ਮਾਣ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਓਹਨਾਂ ਹਮਲਾਵਰ ਫ਼ੌਜ ਨੂੰ ਓਹੀ ਜੁਆਬ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਜੋ ਅਣਖੀ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੇ ਨੁਮਾਇੰਦਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਦੇਣਾਂ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਸੀ।

ਅਫ਼ਸੋਸ ਸਿਰਫ਼ ਇਸ ਗੱਲ ਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਵਾਰਸਾਂ ਨੇ ਜਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਤੇ ਮੈਂ ਆਉਂਦੇ ਹਾਂ, ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਹੀਦੀ ਦਾ ਅਸਲ ਸੰਦਰਭ ਨਹੀਂ ਸਿਰਜਿਆ ਅਤੇ ਨਾ ਹੀ ਸ਼ਹੀਦੀਆਂ ਦਾ ਲੇਖਾ-ਜੋਖਾ ਜਾਂ ਗਿਣਤੀ ਕੀਤੀ ਹੈ।

ਇਸ ਘਟਨਾ ਤੋਂ ਪ੍ਰੇਰਨਾ ਲੈ ਕੇ ਲੱਖ ਤੋਂ ਵੱਧ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਨੇ ਸ਼ਹੀਦੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਕੇ ਧਰਮ ਦੇ ਸੱਚ ਦੀ ਪ੍ਰੋੜ੍ਹਤਾ ਕੀਤੀ। ਇਹ ਆਪਣੇ ਆਪ ਵਿੱਚ ਸੰਸਾਰ ਦੇ ਤਖ਼ਤੇ ਉੱਤੇ ਵਾਪਰੀ ਇੱਕ ਲਾਸਾਨੀ ਘਟਨਾ ਹੈ ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਜਦੋਂ ਦਾ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਦੋ ਪੈਰਾਂ ਉੱਤੇ ਤੁਰਨ ਲੱਗਿਆ ਹੈ, ਨਿਰਸ੍ਵਾਰਥ, ਪਰਉਪਕਾਰੀ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੇ ਕਦੇ ਏਨੀ ਵੱਡੀ ਤਾਦਾਦ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਿਰਫ ਧਰਮ ਦੇ ਸੱਚ ਨੂੰ ਉਜਾਗਰ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਸ਼ਹੀਦੀਆਂ ਨਹੀਂ ਦਿੱਤੀਆਂ।

ਅੱਜ ਨਿਸੰਗ ਹੋ ਕੇ ਆਖਣ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਹਿੰਦੋਸਤਾਨ ਦੀ ਸਥਾਈ ਸਭਿਆਚਾਰਕ ਬਹੁ-ਗਿਣਤੀ ਆਦਿ ਕਾਲ ਤੋਂ ਸਿੱਖੀ ਨੂੰ ਨੇਸਤੋਨਾਬੂਦ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਇਰਾਦਾ ਧਾਰੀ ਬੈਠੀ ਹੈ। ਸਦਾ ਤੋਂ ਇਹ ਆਪਣੇ ਮਨਸੂਬੇ ਨੂੰ ਲਾਗੂ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਆਪਣੀ ਸਮਰੱਥਾ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਪੱਬਾਂ-ਭਾਰ ਹੋਈ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਮਨਸੂਬੇ ਉੱਤੇ ਅਮਲ ਦੀਆਂ ਅਨੇਕਾਂ ਪੈੜਾਂ ਹਿੰਦ ਦੇ ਇਤਿਹਾਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਹਨ। 1947 ਦੇ ਬਸਤੀਵਾਦ ਦੇ ਖ਼ਾਤਮੇ ਤੋਂ ਬਾਅਦ ਏਸ ਕੋਲ ਆਧੁਨਿਕ ਸਟੇਟ ਦੀ ਅਥਾਹ ਸ਼ਕਤੀ ਆਉਣ ਨਾਲ ਏਸਨੇ ਔਰੰਗਜ਼ੇਬ ਦੀ ਤਰਜ਼ ਉੱਤੇ ਹਿੰਦ ਨੂੰ, ਇੱਕ ਵਾਰ ਫੇਰ, ਇੱਕ-ਵਰਣ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਤਹੱਈਆ ਪੂਰੀ ਤਨਦੇਹੀ ਨਾਲ ਆਰੰਭ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ। ਏਸ ਸੰਦਰਭ ਵਿੱਚ, ਅਨੇਕਾਂ ਟੇਢੀਆਂ ਚਾਲਾਂ ਚੱਲੀਆਂ ਗਈਆਂ। ਜਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ, ਸਿੱਖ ਆਗੂਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਖ਼ਰੀਦ ਕੇ ਪੰਥ ਨੂੰ ਹਮਦਰਦ ਅਗਵਾਈ ਤੋਂ ਵੰਚਿਤ ਕਰਨਾ, ਪਾਖੰਡੀ ਸਾਧਾਂ, ਡੇਰੇਦਾਰਾਂ, ਕੱਚੀਆਂ ਬਾਣੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਦੇ ਸ਼ਰੀਕਾਂ ਵਜੋਂ ਉਸਾਰਨਾ, ਅਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਦੀ ਰਹਿਤ ਨੂੰ ਮਿਟਾਉਣ ਦੇ ਨਿਰੰਤਰ ਯਤਨ ਕਰਨੇ ਅਤੇ ਸਿੱਖੀ ਨੂੰ ਖੋਰਾ ਲਾਉਣ ਦੀਆਂ ਚਾਲਾਂ ਚਲਣੀਆਂ। ਸਿੱਖੀ ਨੂੰ ਖ਼ਤਮ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਇਸ ਨਪਾਕ ਮਨਸੂਬੇ ਨੂੰ ਖ਼ੂਨੀ ਅੰਜ਼ਾਮ ਦੇਣ ਲਈ 1984 ਵਿੱਚ ਗੁਰੂ ਦੇ ਦਰਬਾਰ ਉੱਤੇ ਵਹਿਸ਼ੀਆਨਾ ਹਮਲਾ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ, ਸਿੱਖ ਰੈਫਰੰਸ ਲਾਇਬ੍ਰੇਰੀ ਸਾੜੀ ਗਈ, ਅਕਾਲ ਤਖ਼ਤ ਢਾਹਿਆ ਗਿਆ, ਸ਼ਹੀਦਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਿਰਤਾਜ ਦੇ ਸ਼ਹੀਦੀ ਦਿਹਾੜੇ ਅਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਸਰੋਵਰ ਦੇ ਕੰਢੇ ਜੁੜੇ ਬੇਕਸੂਰ ਅਤੇ ਹਰ ਪੱਖੋਂ ਮਾਸੂਮ ਬੱਚਿਆਂ, ਇਸਤਰੀਆਂ ਬਿਰਧਾਂ, ਸੇਵਾਦਾਰਾਂ, ਰਾਗੀਆਂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਗੋਲੀਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਭੁੰਨਿਆ ਗਿਆ। ਆਪਣੀ ਤਰਫ਼ੋਂ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਨੇ ਔਰੰਗੇ ਦੀ, ਮੀਰ-ਮੰਨੂੰ ਅਤੇ ਅਹਿਮਦਸ਼ਾਹ ਅਬਦਾਲੀ ਦੀ ਤਰਜ਼ ਉੱਤੇ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਖ਼ਤਮ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਆਖ਼ਰੀ ਵਾਰ ਕੀਤਾ ਸੀ। ਏਸੇ ਸੰਦਰਭ ਵਿੱਚ ਨਵੰਬਰ 1984 ਦਾ ਕਤਲੇਆਮ ਵੀ ਏਸ ਨਾਪਾਕ ਇਰਾਦੇ ਦੀ ਇੱਕ ਕੜੀ ਹੋ ਨਿਬੜਦਾ ਹੈ।

ਸਿੱਖੀ ਦੇ ਅਜ਼ੀਮ ਸੱਚ ਦੀ ਅਕਾਲ ਫ਼ਤਹਿ ਦਾ ਇਹ ਮੋਜ਼ਜਾ ਹੋਇਆ ਕਿ ਹਮਲੇ ਦਾ ਹੁਕਮ ਦੇਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਅਤੇ ਹਮਲੇ ਦੀ ਅਗਵਾਈ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਇਸ ਹਮਲੇ ਤੋਂ ਬਾਅਦ ਥਰ-ਥਰ ਕੰਬਦੇ, ਓਸ ਘੜੀ ਨੂੰ ਲਾਹਨਤਾਂ ਪਾਉਂਦੇ ਰਹੇ ਜਦੋਂ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਹਮਲੇ ਦੀ ਯੋਜਨਾ ਘੜੀ ਸੀ। ਇਹਨਾਂ ਦਾ ਆਖ਼ਰ ਓਹੀ ਹਸ਼ਰ ਹੋਇਆ ਜੋ ਓਸ ਵਕਤ ਸੰਪੂਰਣ ਸੱਤਾਧਾਰੀ ਸੰਤ ਬਾਬਾ ਜਰਨੈਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਖ਼ਾਲਸਾ ਅਤੇ ਅਕਾਲੀ ਫ਼ੌਜਾਂ ਦੇ ਸਿਪਾਹਸਲਾਰ ਜਨਰਲ ਸ਼ੁਬੇਗ ਸਿੰਘ ਦੇ ਕਾਤਲਾਂ ਦਾ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਸੀ। ਇਹਨਾਂ ਦਾ ਦਾਨਵ ਸਭਿਆਚਾਰ ਓਦੋਂ ਦਾ ਆਪਣੀ ਬੇਸ਼ਰਮੀ ਉੱਤੇ ਕਾਲੀਆਂ, ਗੁਮਨਾਮੀ ਦੀਆਂ ਚਾਦਰਾਂ ਹੀ ਤਾਣਦਾ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਰਹਿੰਦੀ ਦੁਨੀਆਂ ਤੱਕ ਤਾਣਤਾ ਰਹੇਗਾ।

ਸਿੱਖੀ ਦੇ ਵਾਰਸਾਂ, ਖਾਲਸਾ ਪੰਥ ਦੇ ਨੁੰਮਇੰਦਿਆਂ ਦਾ ਫਰਜ਼ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਲੱਖ ਤੋਂ ਉੱਤੇ ਮਰਜੀਵੜਿਆਂ ਦੀ ਸਹੀ ਨਿਸ਼ਾਨਦੇਹੀ, ਵੇਰਵੇ ਆਦਿ ਇਕੱਤਰ ਕਰਕੇ ਸੱਤਾ ਦੇ ਨਸ਼ੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਚੂਰ ਹੋਏ ਜਰਵਾਣਿਆਂ ਉੱਤੇ ਲਾਹਨਤਾਂ ਦੇ ਮੁਨਾਰੇ ਉਸਾਰਨ ਲਈ ਯਤਨਸ਼ੀਲ ਹੋਵੇ। ਇਹ ਏਸ ਲਈ ਵੀ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਅਗਾਂਹ ਨੂੰ ਖ਼ੂਨ ਦੇ ਪਿਆਸੇ ਹਰ ਜ਼ਾਲਮ ਨੂੰ ਇਹ ਪਤਾ ਹੋਵੇ ਕਿ ਓਸ ਦੀਆਂ ਕਰਤੂਤਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸਾਰਾ ਜੱਗ ਜਾਣੇਗਾ ਅਤੇ ਲਾਹਨਤਾਂ ਪਾਵੇਗਾ।

ਸਥਾਈ ਸਭਿਆਚਾਰਕ ਬਹੁਗਿਣਤੀ ਅੱਜ ਵਾਪਰ ਰਹੇ ਕੁਕਰਮਾ, ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੀ ਨਿੱਤ ਹੋ ਰਹੀ ਬੇ-ਅਦਬੀ, ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਪੁਲਿਸ ਰਾਹੀਂ ਕਤਲ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਰੁਝਾਨ, (ਭਾਈ ਜਸਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਗੁਰਦਾਸਪੁਰ), ਜੇਲ੍ਹਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਨਾ-ਜਾਇਜ਼ ਡੱਕ ਕੇ ਮਾਰਨ ਦਾ ਅਮਲ (ਭਾਈ ਕੁਲਵੰਤ ਸਿੰਘ), ਝੂਠੇ ਮੁਕੱਦਮੇ ਬਣਾਉਣ (ਪਾਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਫਰਾਂਸ) ਵਰਗੀਆਂ ਅਨੇਕਾਂ ਕਾਰਵਾਈਆਂ ਕਰ ਕੇ ਸੰਕੇਤ ਦੇ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਓਸਦੀ ਸਿੱਖ ਦੁਸ਼ਮਣੀ ਨਾ ਮੱਠੀ ਹੋਈ ਹੈ ਨਾ ਓਸ ਦਾ ਵਿਨਾਸ਼ਕਾਰੀ ਪ੍ਰਕੋਪ ਘਟਿਆ ਹੈ। ਉਹ ਸਿੱਖੀ ਨੂੰ ਖ਼ਤਮ ਕਰਨ ਉੱਤੇ ਤੁਲੇ ਹੋਏ ਹਨ। ਉਹਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਢੁਕਵਾਂ ਜੁਆਬ ਦੇਣਾ ਬਣਦਾ ਹੈ।

ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦਸਵੇਂ ਪਾਤਿਸ਼ਾਹ ਸਰਬੰਸ ਦਾਨੀ ਦੀ ਸਿੱਖ ਪੰਥ ਦੇ ਵਾਰਸਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਤਾਕੀਦ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਦੇ ਉਪਦੇਸ਼, ਅਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਦੀ ਦਾਤ ਅਤੇ ਰਹਿਤ ਨੂੰ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਮਾਤਰ ਦੇ ਭਲੇ ਲਈ ਕੀਮਤੀ ਧਰੋਹਰ (ਅਮਾਨਤ) ਸਮਝ ਕੇ ਸਦਾ ਮਹਿਫ਼ੂਜ਼ ਰੱਖਣ। ਖਾਲਸਾ ਪੰਥ ਦੇ ਅਨੇਕਾਂ ਸ਼ਹੀਦਾਂ-ਮੁਰੀਦਾਂ ਦੀ ਵੀ ਇਹੋ ਸੱਧਰ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਜ਼ਿੰਮੇਵਾਰੀ ਨੂੰ ਵਿਸਾਰ ਕੇ ਆਦਰਯੋਗ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਅਖਵਾਉਣਾ ਸੰਭਵ ਨਹੀਂ। ਅੱਜ ਦੇ ਦਿਨ ਆਉ ਆਪਣੇ ਗੌਰਵਮਈ ਵਿਰਸੇ, ਮਾਣ-ਮੱਤੇ ਇਤਿਹਾਸ ਨਾਲ ਕੀਤੇ ਕਉਲ ਪਾਲ਼ੀਏ। ਦੁਨੀਆ ਦੇ ਮੋਹ, ਲਾਲਚ ਅਤੇ ਭੈ ਤਿਆਗ ਕੇ ਸੱਚੇ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੀ ਸ਼ਰਣ ਇਹ ਕਹਿੰਦਿਆਂ ਆ ਪਈਏ, ‘‘ਸੋ ਦਰੁ ਕੈਸੇ ਛੋਡੀਐ ਜੋ ਦਰੁ ਐਸਾ ਹੋਇ’’। ਕਰਮਨਾਸ਼, ਕੁਲਨਾਸ਼, ਧਰਮਨਾਸ਼, ਭਰਮਨਾਸ਼, ਕਿਰਤਨਾਸ਼ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਰਹਿਤ ਦੇ ਧਾਰਨੀ ਹੋਈਏ ਅਤੇ ਮਨੁੱਖ ਮਾਤਰ ਦੀ ਮੁਕਤੀ ਦੇ ਦਰਵਾਜੇ ਸਦੀਵੀ ਤੌਰ ਉੱਤੇ ਖੁਲ੍ਹੇ ਰੱਖਣ ਵਿੱਚ ਗੁਰੂ ਰਾਹ ਉੱਤੇ ਤੁਰੇ ਆਪਣੇ ਬਜ਼ੁਰਗਾਂ ਦੀ ਪੈੜੋਂ-ਪੈੜ ਵੱਡੇ ਹੌਸਲੇ ਨਾਲ ਤੁਰਦੇ ਜਾਈਏ।

                   ਸਾਰੇ ਇੱਕਸੁਰ ਹੋ ਗਾਉਂਦੇ ਜਾਈਏ, ‘‘ਇੱਕ ਰੁਸੇ ਨਾ ਮੇਰਾ ਕੰਲ਼ਗੀਂਆਂ ਵਾਲਾ, ’ਤੇ ਜੱਗ ਭਾਂਵੇ ਸਾਰਾ ਰੁਸ ਜੇ।’’

(ਇਹ ਲੇਖ 31 ਮਈ, 2012 ਨੂੰ ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਰੇਡੀਓ, ਕੈਲਗਰੀ ਦਵਾਰਾ ਪ੍ਰਸ਼ਾਰਿਤ ਕਰਨ ਹਿਤ ਲਿੱਖਿਆ ਗਿਆ)

ਮੰਗਿਆ ਚੜ੍ਹਨ ਨੂੰ, ਮਿਲਿਆ ਚੁੱਕਣ ਨੂੰ

      ਕੱਲ੍ਹ (17 ਮਈ 2012) ਦਾ ਦਿਨ ਬਹੁਤ ਸੁਭਾਗਾ ਦਿਨ ਸੀ; ਪ੍ਰੰਤੂ ਨਹੀਂ ਵੀ ਸੀ। ਸੁਭਾਗਾ ਏਸ ਲਈ ਸੀ ਕਿ ਸਿੱਖ ਗਗਨ ਮੰਡਲ ਵਿੱਚ ਨਵੀਂ ਚਰਚਾ ਛਿੜੀ ਜਿਸ ਤੋਂ ਭਲੇ ਦੀ ਆਸ ਜਾਗੀ। ਨਹੀਂ, ਕੇਵਲ ਏਸ ਲਈ ਨਹੀਂ ਸੀ ਕਿ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਦੇ ਅੰਬਰ ਉੱਤੇ ਬੇਹੱਦ ਡੂੰਘੀ ਗਹਿਰ ਛਾਈ ਰਹੀ, ਕਈ ਹਵਾਈ ਉਡਾਨਾਂ ਰੱਦ ਕਰਨੀਆਂ ਪਈਆਂ, ਪਰ ਏਸ ਲਈ ਵੀ ਕਿ ਸਿੱਖ ਮੰਡਲ ਵਿੱਚ ਆਸਾਂ ਦੀ ਕਿਰਨ ਬਖੇਰਦੀਆਂ ਸੰਭਾਵਨਾਵਾਂ ²ਸ਼ਾਮ ਢਲਦਿਆਂ ਤੱਕ ਨੂਰਾਨੀ ਬੁਰਕੇ ਲਾਹ ਕੇ ਨਿਰਾਸ਼ਾ ਦੀਆਂ ਕਾਲੀਆਂ ਬਦਲੀਆਂ ਦਾ ਰੂਪ ਧਾਰ ਚੁੱਕੀਆਂ ਸਨ।

ਸਵੇਰੇ ਖ਼ਬਰਾਂ ਪੜ੍ਹੀਆਂ ਤਾਂ ਪਤਾ ਲਗਿਆ ਕਿ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਕੌਲਿਜ ਦੇ ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸੀਪਲ ਨੇ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਲਈ ਵਿਆਹ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਦਾ ਨਵਾਂ ਖਰੜਾ ਬਣਾਇਆ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਉੱਤੇ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤਸਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਭਰਪੂਰ ਚਰਚਾ ਹੋਈ ਹੈ। ਕੌਮ ਅੰਗੜਾਈਆਂ ਲੈਂਦੀ ਜਾਗਦੀ ਜਾਪੀ। ਥੋੜਾ ਜਿਹਾ ਖੱਦਸ਼ਾ ਸੀ ਕਿ ਅਜਿਹਾ ਖਰੜਾ ਤਾਂ 2007 ਤੋਂ ਮੌਜੂਦ ਹੈ, ਏਸਨੂੰ ਦੁਬਾਰੇ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਦੀ ਕਿਹੜੀ ਲੋੜ ਸੀ ਕਦੇ ਕੁਈ ਮੁੜ-ਮੁੜ ਕੇ ਪਹੀਆ ਈਜਾਦ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ? ਪਰ ਇਹ ਸੋਚ ਕੇ ਤਸੱਲੀ ਹੋਈ ਕਿ ਨਵਾਂ ਬਣਾਇਆ ਹੈ, ਬੜਾ ਗੱਜ ਵੱਜ ਕੇ ਕੌਮ ਦੀ ਸਮੂਹਿਕ ਯਾਦ ਵੱਲ ਠੇਲ੍ਹਿਆ ਹੈ, ਯਕੀਨਨ ਪਹਿਲੇ ਨਾਲੋਂ ਚੰਗਾ ਹੀ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ।

ਘਰੇਲੂ ਲਾਇਬ੍ਰੇਰੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਪਹੁੰਚਦਿਆਂ ਸਾਰ ਏਸਨੂੰ ਲੱਭਣ ਦੀ ਕੋਸ਼ਿਸ਼ ਜਾਰੀ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤੀ। ਬ੍ਰਿਟਿਸ਼ ਸਿੱਖ ਫੈਡਰੇਸ਼ਨ ਨੇ ਅਤੇ ਹੋਰ ਕਈਆਂ ਨੇ ਇਹ ਖਰੜਾ ਭੇਜਿਆ ਸੀ ਪਰ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਵਿੱਚੋਂ ਕੋਈ ਵੀ ਖੁਲ੍ਹ ਨ ਸਕਿਆ। ਇੰਟਰਨੈਟ ਦੇ ਵੀ ਸੌ-ਸੌ ਪੁਆੜੇ ਹਨ। ਅਥਰਾ ਮਨ ਬੇ-ਲਗਮ ਵਛੇਰੇ ਵਾਂਗ ਏਧਰ-ਓਧਰ ਛੜੱਪੇ ਮਾਰਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਰੁਝ ਗਿਆ। ਚਾਰ ਵਜੇ ਡੇ ਐਂਡ ਨਾਈਟ ਵਾਲੇ ਦਲਜੀਤ ਅਮੀ ਨੇ ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸੀਪਲ ਵਾਲਾ ਖਰੜਾ ਭੇਜਿਆ ਅਤੇ ਉਹ ਖੁਲ੍ਹ ਗਿਆ। ਮਨ ਨੂੰ ਲਗਾਮ ਪਾ ਕੇ ਮੋੜਿਆ ਅਤੇ ਤੁਰੰਤ ਓਸਦਾ ਮੁਤਾਲਿਆ ਸ਼ੁਰੂ ਕਰ ਦਿੱਤਾ।

ਏਸੇ ਸਮੇਂ ਵਿਦੇਸ਼ੋਂ ਇੱਕ ਸੁਨੇਹਾ ਆਇਆ ਕਿ ਰਾਜ ਸਭਾ ਵਿੱਚ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕੀਤੇ ਖਰੜੇ ਦੀ ਨਕਲ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਵੀ ਕਾਫੀ ਸਮੇਂ ਤੋਂ ਭੰਬਲਭੂਸਾ ਬਣਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਸੀ। ਏਸਦੀ ਚਰਚਾ ਸਭ ਪਾਸੇ ਸੀ ਪਰ ਪ੍ਰਤੱਖ ਦਰਸ਼ਨ ਦੁਰਲੱਭ ਸਨ। ਸ਼ਾਮੀਂ ਅਜੀਤਗੜ੍ਹ ਵਾਲੇ ਹਰਦੀਪ ਸਿੰਘ ਕੋਲੋਂ ਅਚਾਨਕ ਇਹ ਵੀ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਹੋ ਗਿਆ। ਏਸ ਉੱਤੇ ਤਰਲੋਚਨ ਸਿੰਘ ਦੇ ਦਸਤਖ਼ਤ ਵੀ ਹਨ। ਹਰਦੀਪ ਸਿੰਘ ਦਾ ਆਖਣਾ ਸੀ ਕਿ ਇਹੋ ਬਿੱਲ ਅੱਜ ਪਾਰਲਾਮੈਂਟ ਦੇ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਅਧੀਨ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਤੁਰੰਤ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਬਣਨ ਜਾ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ। ਏਸ ਦਾਅਵੇ ਨੂੰ ਸੱਚ ਮੰਨ ਕੇ ਹੀ ਵਿਸ਼ਲੇਸ਼ਣ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ। ਤਰਲੋਚਨ ਸਿੰਘ ਕੋਲੋਂ ਤਸਦੀਕ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਕੋਸ਼ਿਸ਼ ਕੀਤੀ ਗਈ ਪਰ ਸਫ਼ਲ ਨ ਹੋਈ। ਮੋਬਾਇਲ ਫ਼ੋਨ ਓਸ ਨੇ ਚੁੱਕਿਆ ਨਹੀਂ ਅਤੇ ਘਰੋਂ ਪਤਾ ਲੱਗਿਆ ਕਿ ਪਟਿਆਲੇ ਲਈ ਘਰੋਂ ਨਿਕਲ ਚੁੱਕਿਆ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਖਰੜਾ ਉਹ ਸੀ ਜਿਸ ਨੂੰ ਬਿਨਾ ਵੇਖੇ ਆਸਾਂ ਬੱਝੀਆਂ ਸਨ ਕਿ ਧਾਰਾ 25  ਦੇ ਬਾਵਜੂਦ ਇਹ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਦੀ ਵਖਰੀ ਹੋਂਦ ਨੂੰ ਸਵੀਕਾਰ ਕਰੇਗਾ। ਏਸ ਬਿਨਾ ਉੱਤੇ ਕਈਆਂ ਨੇ ਏਸਦਾ ਭਰਪੂਰ ਸਵਾਗਤ ਵੀ ਕੀਤਾ। ਵਸਾਖੀ ਵਾਲੇ ਦਿਨ ਅਜਿਹੀ ਸੰਭਾਵਨਾ ਸ਼ੁਭ ਜਾਪੀ ਸੀ।

ਜਦੋਂ ਏਸ ਨੂੰ ਪੜ੍ਹਿਆ ਤਾਂ ਇੱਕਦਮ ਪਾਣੀ ਦਾ ਸੌ ਘੜਾ ਸਿਰ ਪੈ ਗਿਆ। ਏਸ ਵਿੱਚ ‘ਸਿੱਖ ਵਿਆਹ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ’ ਜਿਸ ਨਾਂਅ ਹੇਠ ਇਹ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰਿਆ ਜਾ ਰਿਹਾ ਸੀ, ਦਾ ਜ਼ਿਕਰ ਵੀ ਹੈ ਨਹੀਂ। ਇਹ ਤਾਂ ਸਿਰਫ ਆਨੰਦ ਮੈਰਿਜ ਐਕਟ ਵਿੱਚ ਸੋਧ ਕਰਦਾ ਖਰੜਾ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਆਨੰਦ ਕਾਰਜ ਦੀ ਰਸਮ ਹੇਠ ਏਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕੀਤੇ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਕੋਈ ਵੀ (ਸਿੱਖ, ਗੈਰਸਿੱਖ) ਵਿਆਹ ਕਰਵਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਕਦਾਚਿੱਤ ਸਿੱਖ ਪਛਾਣ ਨੂੰ ਨਿਖਾਰਨ ਦੇ ਕੰਮ ਨਹੀਂ ਆ ਸਕਦਾ। ਸਗੋਂ ਇਹ ਤਾਂ ਧਾਰਾ 25 ਦੀ ਧਾਰਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਪੱਕ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ। ਅਗਾਂਹ ਤੋਂ ਏਸ ਸੰਦਰਭ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੇਵਲ ਇਹੋ ਕਿਹਾ ਜਾ ਸਕੇਗਾ, ‘ਸਿੱਖ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਹੀ ਹੁੰਦੇ ਹਨ। ਇਹਨਾਂ ਵਿੱਚੋਂ ਕਈ ਹਿੰਦੂ ਮੈਰਿਜ ਐਕਟ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਵਿਆਹ ਕਰਵਾਉਂਦੇ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਕਈ ਆਨੰਦ ਮੈਜਿਰ ਐਕਟ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਆਪਣੇ ਵਿਆਹ ਵਖਰੇ ਰਜਿਸਟਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਦਰਜ ਕਰਵਾਉਂਦੇ ਹਨ।’ ਜਾਪਦਾ ਇਹ ਵੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਸ਼ਾਇਦ ਸਨਦ ਵੀ ਕੇਵਲ ਏਨਾ ਹੀ ਆਖੇ ਕਿ ਵਿਆਹ ਆਨੰਦ ਮੈਰਿਜ ਐਕਟ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਸ਼ਬਦ ਕਿ ਆਨੰਦ ਵਿਆਹ ਦੀ ਰਸਮ ਨਾਲ ਸ਼ਾਦੀ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲੇ ਸਿੱਖ ਹਨ, ਵੀ ²ਸ਼ਾਇਦ ਸਨਦ (ਸਰਟੀਫਿਕੇਟ) ਵਿੱਚ ਕਾਨੂੰਨਨ ਲਿਖੇ ਨਾ ਜਾ ਸਕਣ। ਜਾਪਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਇਹ ਆਨੰਦ ਕਾਰਜ ਨੂੰ ਵੀ ਹਿੰਦੂਆਂ ਦੀ ਇੱਕ ਹੋਰ ਵਿਆਹ ਵਿਵਸਥਾ ਦੇ ਤੌਰ ਉੱਤੇ ਸਥਾਪਤ ਕਰਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਹਾਈ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ।

ਏਸਨੂੰ ਆਖੀਦਾ ਹੈ, ‘‘ਪੁੱਟਿਆ ਪਹਾੜ ਅਤੇ ਨਿਕਲਿਆ ਚੂਹਾ।’’ ਆਖਰ ਅਜਿਹੇ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਦਾ ਕੀ ਲਾਭ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਕਿਸਨੂੰ ਹੈ?

ਇੱਕ ਜ਼ਿੰਦਾ-ਦਿਲ ਮਰਾਸੀ ਤੱਪਦੀ ਦੁਪਹਿਰ ਨੂੰ ਰੇਤਲੇ ਰਾਹ ਉੱਤੇ ਤੁਰਿਆ ਜਾ ਰਿਹਾ ਸੀ। ਗਰਮ ਬਾਲੂ ਠਿੱਬੀ ਜੁੱਤੀ ਨਾਲ ਉੱਡ ਕੇ ਓਸਦੀਆਂ ਖੁੱਚਾਂ ਉਂਤੇ ਪੈ ਰਹੀ ਸੀ। ਓਸ ਬੇਹਾਲ ਹੋਏ ਨੇ ਅਰਦਾਸ ਕੀਤੀ, ‘ਅਲਾਹ। ਬੰਦੇ ਨੂੰ ਕੋਈ ਛੋਟਾ-ਮੋਟਾ ਟੱਟੂ ਹੀ ਦੇ ਛੱਡ।’ ਰੱਬ ਵੀ ਮਸ਼ਕਰੀ ਮੋਡ (ਮੋਦੲ) ਵਿੱਚ ਸੀ। ਅਰਦਾਸ ਤਕਰੀਬਨ ਝਟਪੱਟ ਹੀ ਸੁਣੀ ਗਈ। ਅਗਲੇ ਮੋੜ ਉੱਤੇ, ਟਿੱਬੇ ਦੇ ਪਰਲੇ ਪਾਸੇ, ਵਣ ਹੇਠ ਇੱਕ ਠਾਣੇਦਾਰ ਖੜ੍ਹਾ ਸੀ। ਓਸਦੀ ਘੋੜੀ ਨੇ ਹੁਣੇ-ਹੁਣੇ ਵਛੇਰਾ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਸੀ। ਓਹ ਓਸਨੂੰ ਅਗਲੇ ਪਿੰਡ ਲੈ ਜਾਣਾ ਚਾਹੁੰਦਾ ਸੀ। ਮਰਾਸੀ ਨੂੰ ਵੇਖਕੇ ਓਸਨੇ ਝੱਟ ਸੱਦ ਲਿਆ ਅਤੇ ਮੋਢਿਆਂ ਉੱਤੇ ਨਵਾਂ ਜੰਮਿਆ ਵਛੇਰਾ ਚੁੱਕਾ ਦਿੱਤਾ। ਮਰਾਸੀ ਅੱਗੇ ਨਾਲੋਂ ਵੀ ਔਖਾ ਹੋ ਗਿਆ। ਆਖਣ ਲੱਗਾ, ‘ਜਾਹ ਉਇ! ਪੁੱਠੀਆਂ ਸਮਝਣ ਵਾਲਿਆ! ਮੰਗਿਆ ਸੀ ਚੜ੍ਹਨ ਨੂੰ। ਤੂੰ ਦੇ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਚੁੱਕਣ ਨੂੰ।’ ਸੱਚ ਜਾਣੋਂ ਸਿੱਖ ਕੌਮ ਨਾਲ ਵੀ ਇੱਕ ਮਖ਼ੌਲ ਹੋਣ ਵਾਲਾ ਹੈ। ਆਨੰਦ ਮੈਰਿਜ ਸੋਧ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਚੜ੍ਹਨ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਘੋੜਾ ਨਹੀਂ, ਚੁੱਕਣ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਹੈ। 

ਏਸ ਸਬੰਧੀ ਦੋ ਹੋਰ ਗੱਲਾਂ ਕਰਨੀਆਂ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹਨ। 17 ਮਈ ਦੇ ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਟ੍ਰਿਬਿਊਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਜਥੇਦਾਰ ਅਵਤਾਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਮੱਕੜ ਦਾ ਬਿਆਨ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਸ਼੍ਰੋਮਣੀ ਕਮੇਟੀ ਤੋਂ ਸਲਾਹ ਲੈ ਕੇ ਅਤੇ ਸਹਿਮਤੀ ਨਾਲ ਹੀ ਇਹ ਖਰੜਾ ਤਰਲੋਚਨ ਸਿੰਘ ਨੇ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕੀਤਾ ਸੀ। ਤਰਲੋਚਨ ਸਿੰਘ ਦਾ ਆਖਣਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਏਸ ਖਰੜੇ ਨੂੰ ‘ਜਥੇਦਾਰ’ ਅਕਾਲ ਤਖ਼ਤ ਦੀ ਪ੍ਰਵਾਨਗੀ ਵੀ ਹਾਸਲ ਹੈ। ਏਸ ਦਾ ਸਿੱਧਾ ਮਤਲਬ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਇਹ ਖਰੜਾ ਸ਼੍ਰੋਮਣੀ ਅਕਾਲੀ ਦਲ ਬਾਦਲ ਵੱਲੋਂ ਤਰਲੋਚਨ ਸਿੰਘ ਰਾਹੀਂ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਅੰਦਾਜ਼ਾ ਠੀਕ ਜਾਪਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਅਕਾਲੀ ਦਲ ਨੇ ਅਜੇ ਤੱਕ ਏਸ ਸਬੰਧੀ ਮੁਕੰਮਲ ਮੌਨ ਧਾਰਨ ਕੀਤਾ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ। ਤਰਲੋਚਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਨੂੰ ਤਾਂ ਆਮ ਵਾਕਫ਼ੀਅਤ ਰੱਖਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਵੀ ਓਸ ਕੁਹਾੜੀ ਦਾ ਬਾਹਾਂ ਜਾਣਦੇ ਹਨ ਜੋ ਲਗਾਤਾਰ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਪੰਥ ਦੀਆਂ ਜੜ੍ਹਾਂ ਉੱਤੇ ਵਰ੍ਹ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ। ਬਾਗ਼ੀ ਬਾਬਾ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਚੰਦ ਅਤੇ ਉਦਾਸੀ ਫਿਰਕੇ ਬਾਰੇ ਓਸਦੇ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਵੀ ਏਹੋ ਕਹਾਣੀ ਕਹਿੰਦੇ ਹਨ। ਹੁਣ ਕੀ ਜਾਣੀਏ, ਕਿ ਅਕਾਲੀ ਦਲ ਵੀ ਏਹੋ ਕੁਝ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਸ਼੍ਰੋਮਣੀ ਕਮੇਟੀ ਵੀ?

ਏਸ ਮੋੜ ਉੱਤੇ ਸੋਧ ਨੂੰ ਗੁਪਤ ਰੱਖਣ ਦੀ ਗਲ ਵੀ ਸਮਝ ਆ ਜਾਣੀ ਚਾਹੀਦੀ ਹੈ। ਭਾਵਨਾ ਸੀ, ਢੱਕੀ ਰਿਝੇ ਤੇ ਕੋਈ ਨ ਬੁੱਝੇ। ਕਬਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਖਾਮੋਸ਼ੀ ਦੀ ਵੀ ਕੋਈ ਲੋੜ ਨਹੀਂ ਸੀ। ਜਿਸ ਪੰਥ ਤੋਂ ਡਰ ਕੇ ਮੂੰਹ ਵਿੱਚ ਘੁਘਣੀਆਂ ਪਾਈਆਂ ਹੋਈਆਂ ਹਨ ਉਹ ਤਾਂ ਕੁੰਭਰਣੀ ਨੀਂਦ ਘੂਕ ਸੁੱਤਾ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ। ਅਜੇ ਜਾਗਣ ਦੀ ਕੋਈ ਸੰਭਾਵਨਾ ਨਹੀਂ। ਓਸ ਦੀ ਵਿਰਾਸਤ ਦਾ ਦਾਅਵਾ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਕੋਈ ਨਜ਼ਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਆ ਰਿਹਾ। ਸਾਰੇ ਰਲ਼-ਮਿਲ਼ ਕੇ ਖੁਲ੍ਹ ਖੇਡੋ, ਭਾਈਓ!

ਹੁਣ ਗੱਲ ਕਰੀਏ ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸੀਪਲ ਦਲਜੀਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਦੇ ਖਰੜੇ ਦੀ ਜਿਸ ਨੂੰ ਜਥੇਦਾਰ ਗੁਰਬਚਨ ਸਿੰਘ (24 ਘੰਟਿਆਂ ਦੇ ਅੰਦਰ-ਅੰਦਰ) ਅੱਧੇ ਸਾਹ ਤਕਰੀਬਨ ਪ੍ਰਵਾਨ ਅਤੇ ਅੱਧੇ ਸਾਹ ਤਕਰੀਬਨ ਰੱਦ, ਕਰ ਚੁੱਕਿਆ ਹੈ। ਜੇ ਇਹ ਖਰੜਾ 2007 ਤੋਂ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਆਇਆ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਤਾਂ 2007 ਵਾਲਾ ਏਸਦੀ ਨਕਲ ਜਾਪਣਾ ਸੀ। 2007 ਵਾਲੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਵਿਆਹ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਤੋਂ ਇਲਾਵਾ ਕੁਝ ਮੱਦਾਂ ਸਨ ਜੋ ਕਿ ਵਿਰਾਸਤ, ਕਾਰਜ ਵਿਧੀ ਆਦਿ ਨਾਲ ਸਬੰਧ ਰਖਦੀਆਂ ਸਨ। ਇਹ ਏਸ ਲਈ ਸੀ ਕਿ ਜਿੱਥੇ ਉਹ ਵਰਤਿਆ ਜਾਣਾ ਸੀ ਉੱਥੇ ਇਹਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ ਸੀ। 2012 ਵਾਲੇ ਦਲਜੀਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਦੇ ਖਰੜੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਇਹ ਵੀ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਅਜਿਹੀਆਂ ਹੋਰ ਵੀ ਜਿਹੜੀਆਂ ਕਿ ਹਿੰਦੋਸਤਾਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਿਵਿਲ ਕੋਡ ਦੇ ਹੁੰਦਿਆਂ ਵਾਧੂ ਹਨ। ਏਸ ਖਰੜੇ ਦੀਆਂ 35 ਮੱਦਾਂ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ 2007 ਵਾਲੇ ਦੀਆਂ 32 ਹਨ। ਕੁਲ ਮਿਲਾ ਕੇ ਜਾਪਦਾ ਇਹੋ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਪਹੀਆ ਦੁਬਾਰੇ ਈਜਾਦ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ। ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਹੋਏ ਏਸ ਖਰੜੇ ਦੇ ਹਰ ਪੰਨੇ ਉੱਤੇ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਇਹ ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸੀਪਲ ਦਵਾਰਾ ਤਿਆਰ ਕੀਤਾ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ। ਆਪਣੇ ਬੌਧਿਕ ਅਧਿਕਾਰ ਨੂੰ ਬਰਕਰਾਰ ਰੱਖਣ ਦੀ ਇਹ ਤਰਕੀਬ ਨਕਲ ਕਰਨਯੋਗ ਜਾਪਦੀ ਹੈ।

ਕੁਝ ਕੁ ਏਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਜੇਹਾ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਸਿੱਖ ਪੰਥ ਨੂੰ ਵਾਰਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਖਾਂਦਾ। ਜਿਵੇਂ ਕਿ ਤਲਾਕ ਸਬੰਧੀ ਦਰਸਾਇਆ ਕਾਹਲਾਪਣ (ਨਿਰਧਾਰਿਤ ਸਮੇਂ ਤੋਂ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ ਦੀ ਸੰਭਾਵਨਾ, ਹਰ ਰੋਜ਼ ਅਦਾਲਤੀ ਕਾਰਵਾਈ, ਪ੍ਰੰਪਰਾ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਵੀ ਤਲਾਕ)। ਕੁਝ ਏਸ ਤੋਂ ਵੀ ਅਗਾਂਹ ਹੈ। ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਦੇ ਤਿੰਨ ਵਰਗ, ਸਿੱਖ, ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤਧਾਰੀ ਸਿੱਖ ਅਤੇ ਸਹਿਜਧਾਰੀ ਸਿੱਖ ਬਣਾਏ ਗਏ ਹਨ। ਸਿੱਖ ਤਾਂ ਸਹਿਜ ਅਵਸਥਾ ਤੋਂ ਵਾਕਫ ਹਨ। ਸਹਿਜਧਾਰੀ ਪ੍ਰੰਪਰਾ, ਫਿਰਕੇ ਜਾਂ ਸਹਿਜਧਾਰੀ ਟ੍ਰੇਡ ਯੂਨੀਅਨ ਤੋਂ ਨਹੀਂ। ਕਿਹੜੇ ਵਰਗ ਦਾ ਆਨੰਦ ਕਾਰਜ ਕਿਵੇਂ ਹੋਣਾਂ ਹੈ, ਦਾ ਵੇਰਵਾ ਨਹੀਂ। ਇਹ ਵਰਗੀਕਰਣ ਅਗਾਂਹ ਜਾ ਕੇ ਵੱਡੇ ਬਖੇੜੇ ਦਾ ਮੁੱਢ ਬਣ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ। ਜੇ ਸਹਿਜਧਾਰੀਆਂ, ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤਧਾਰੀਆਂ ਦਾ ਵਿਆਹ ਇੱਕੇ ਮਰਿਯਾਦਾ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਹੋਣਾ ਹੈ ਤਾਂ ਵਰਗੀਕਰਨ ਬੇਲੋੜਾ ਅਤੇ ਭੰਬਲਭੂਸਾ ਪੈਦਾ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਹੈ। ਰਹਿਤ ਮਰਿਯਾਦਾ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਆਨੰਦ ਕਾਰਜ ਤਾਂ ਠੀਕ ਹੈ ਪਰ ਇਹ ਨਹੀਂ ਦੱਸਿਆ ਕਿ ਸ਼੍ਰੋਮਣੀ ਕਮੇਟੀ ਪ੍ਰਵਾਣਤ ਰਹਿਤ ਮਰਿਯਾਦਾ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਜਾਂ ਕੂਕਿਆਂ ਦੀ ਮਰਿਯਾਦਾ ਜਾਂ ਕਿਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਡੇਰੇ ਦੀ ਮਰਿਯਾਦਾ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਕੀਤੇ ਵਿਆਹ ਨੂੰ ਆਨੰਦ ਕਾਰਜ ਜਾਣਿਆ ਜਾਵੇਗਾ ਜਾਂ ਨਹੀਂ? ਖਾਸ ਤੌਰ ਉੱਤੇ ਏਸ ਸਥਿਤੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਕਿ 2012 ਦੇ ਖਰੜੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਆਨੰਦ ਕਾਰਜ ਦੀ ਵਿਧੀ ਦਾ ਵਿਸਥਾਰ ਨਹੀਂ। ਆਨੰਦ ਕਾਰਜ ਕਦੋਂ ਮੁਕੰਮਲ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਕਿਸ ਘਟਨਾ ਨੂੰ ਸੰਪੂਰਨਤਾ ਬਖਸ਼ਣ ਵਾਲੀ ਜਾਣਿਆ ਜਾਵੇ ਦਾ ਵੀ ਵੇਰਵਾ ਨਹੀਂ। ਇਹ ਵੀ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਸੀ ਕਿ ਆਨੰਦ ਕਾਰਜ ਦੇ ਗਵਾਹਾਂ ਆਦਿ ਦਾ ਵੀ ਜ਼ਿਕਰ ਕਰਕੇ ਅਨਿਸ਼ਚਤਾ ਨੂੰ ਟਾਲਣ ਦੀ ਕੋਸ਼ਿਸ਼ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਂਦੀ। ਏਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਖਾਸ ਤੌਰ ਉੱਤੇ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਵਿਆਹ ਕੇਵਲ ਗੁਰਦਵਾਰੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੀ ਸੰਪੰਨ ਹੋ ਸਕੇਗਾ, ਏਸਦਾ ਸਿੱਖ ਵਿਆਹ ਨਾਲ ਜਾਂ ਆਨੰਦ ਕਾਰਜ ਦੀ ਪ੍ਰਕਿਰਿਆ ਨਾਲ ਕੋਈ ਸਬੰਧ ਨਹੀਂ ਸਗੋਂ ਇਹ ਆਮ ਆਦਮੀ ਦੀਆਂ ਮੁਸ਼ਕਲਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਵਾਧਾ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਸਵੱਬ ਬਣ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ। ਏਸ ਖਰੜੇ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਹੋਰ ਥਾਵੇਂ ਵਿਆਹ ਰਚਾਉਣ ਦਾ ਕਾਰਣ ਗੁਰਦਵਾਰੇ ਤੋਂ ਦਸ ਮੀਲ ਤੋਂ ਵੱਧ ਦੂਰੀ ਹੋਣ ਨੂੰ ਉਚਿਤ ਦੱਸਿਆ ਹੈ। ਕੀ ਇਹ ਝਗੜੇ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋਣਗੇ ਕਿ ਫਲਾਨੀ ਥਾਂ ਗੁਰਦਵਾਰੇ ਤੋਂ 9 ਮੀਲ 7 ਫਰਲਾਂਗ ਹੈ ਜਾਂ ਦਸ ਮੀਲ। ਫਰਲਾਂਗ?

35 ਮੱਦ ਵਿੱਚ ਪ੍ਰਵਾਧਾਨ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਪ੍ਰੰਪਰਾ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਤਲਾਕ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਕਈ ਕਿਸਮ ਦੀਆਂ ਬੁਰੇ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵ ਵਾਲੀਆਂ ਅਲਾਮਤਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਜਨਮ ਦੇ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ। ਅਦਾਲਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਸੌ ਝੂਠ ਬੋਲੇ ਜਾਂਦੇ ਹਨ। ਜੇ ਸਵਾਲ ਉਠਾਇਆ ਜਾਵੇ ਕਿ ਏਸ ਕੁਲ ਦਾ ਫਲਾਨੀ ਕੁਲ ਜਾਂ ਗੋਤ ਜਾਂ ਜਾਤ ਵਾਲਿਆਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਕਦੇ ਵਿਆਹ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋਇਆ ਅਤੇ ਏਸ ਪਰੰਪਰਾ ਦੇ ਅਧਾਰ ਉੱਤੇ ਤਲਾਕ ਮੰਗਿਆ ਜਾਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਕੀ ਵੱਡਾ ਅਨਰਥ ਅਤੇ ਸਿੱਖੀ ਦਾ ਘਾਣ ਨਹੀਂ ਸਮਝਿਆ ਜਾਵੇਗਾ? ਹੋਰ ਵੀ ਥੋੜਾ ਬਹੁਤ ਕੁਝ ਅਣਸੁਖਾਵਾਂ ਹੈ ਜਿਵੇਂ ਕਿ 18 ਸਾਲਾ ਕੁੜੀ ਦਾ ਵਿਆਹ ਯੋਗ ਹੋਣਾ ਪਰ ਮੁੰਡੇ ਦਾ 21 ਸਲਾਂ ਉੱਤੇ ਜਾ ਕੇ ਵਿਆਹ ਕਰਵਾ ਸਕਣਾ। ਏਸ ਵਖਰੇਵੇਂ ਦਾ ਕੋਈ ਸਪਸ਼ਟ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ, ਸਮਾਜਿਕ ਜਾਂ ਵਿਗਿਆਨਿਕ ਆਧਾਰ ਨਜ਼ਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਆਉਂਦਾ। ਜਾਪਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ 2007 ਵਾਲੇ ਖਰੜੇ ਤੋਂ ਨਿਖੇੜਨ ਮਾਤਰ ਲਈ ਇਹ ਵਿਧੀ ਅਖਤਿਆਰ ਕੀਤੀ ਗਈ ਹੈ।

ਵਿਆਹ ਦੇ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਸਬੰਧੀ ਟਿੱਪਣੀ ਕਰਦੇ ਵਕਤ ਇੱਕ ਬੁਨਿਆਦੀ ਸਚਾਈ ਨੂੰ ਧਿਆਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਰੱਖਣਾ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ। ਉਹ ਇਹ ਕਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੀ ਬਾਣੀ ਵਿਚੋਂ ਪ੍ਰੇਰਨਾ ਲੈ ਕੇ, ਗੁਰਦਰਸਾਈਆਂ ਕਦਰਾਂ-ਕੀਮਤਾਂ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਤਾਂ ਹਰ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਘੜਨਾ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ ਪ੍ਰੰਤੂ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਨੂੰ ਕੁਰਾਨ-ਮਜੀਦ ਜਾਂ ਇਸਲਾਮੀ ਸ਼ਰਹਾ ਦੀ ਤਰਜ਼ ਉੱਤੇ ਸੰਸਾਰਿਕ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਦਾ ਸ੍ਰੋਤ ਜਾਣਨਾ ਵੱਡੀ ਅਤੇ ਤਬਾਹਕੁੰਨ ਭੁਲ ਹੋਵੇਗੀ। ‘ਜੋ ਸਿਰੁ ਸਾਈ ਨਾ ਨਿਵੈ ਸੋ ਸਿਰੁ ਕੀਜੈ ਕਾਂਇ ਕੁੰਨੇ ਹੇਠਿ ਜਲਾਈਐ ਬਾਲਣ ਸੰਦੈ ਥਾਇ’ ਨੂੰ ਆਧਾਰ ਬਣਾ ਕੇ ਜੇ ਫੌਜਦਾਰੀ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਘੜਿਆ ਜਾਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਸਿੱਖ ਪੰਥ ਦਾ ਕੀ ਹਸ਼ਰ ਹੋਵੇਗਾ ਸਹਿਜੇ ਹੀ ਅੰਦਾਜ਼ਾ ਲਾਇਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਵੀ ਸੰਭਵ ਹੈ ਕਿ ‘‘ਮਾਇਆ ਹੋਈ ਨਾਗਨੀ ਜਗਤਿ ਰਹੀ ਲਪਟਾਇ’’ ਦਾ ਆਸਰਾ ਲੈ ਕੇ ਕੋਈ ਤਸਕਰ ਆਖੇ ਕਿ ਉਹ ਸੰਸਾਰ ਨੂੰ ਮਾਇਆ ਤੋਂ ਬਚਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਹੀ ਜੂਝ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ; ਤਾਂ ਉਹ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਤੌਰ ਉੱਤੇ ਵੱਡਾ

ਪਰਉਪਕਾਰੀ ਗਿਣਿਆ ਜਾਵੇਗਾ ਜੋ ਜੱਗ ਦੀਆਂ ਬਲਾਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੇ ਸਿਰ ਲੈ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ। ਗੁਰਆਸ਼ਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਸੀ ਕਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਗ੍ਰੰਥ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੀ ਪਾਕ ਬਾਣੀ ਨੂੰ ਦੁਨਿਆਵੀ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਦਾ ਇਨ-ਬਿਨ ਆਧਾਰ ਮੰਨਿਆ ਜਾਵੇ।

ਗੁਰਬਾਣੀ ਨੂੰ ਆਧਾਰ ਬਣਾ ਕੇ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ‘ਏਕ ਜੋਤਿ ਦੁਇ ਮੂਰਤੀ’  ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਪ੍ਰੇਰਨਾ ਤਾਂ ਧਰਮ ਦਾ ਕਰਮ ਹੈ ਪਰ ਏਸਨੂੰ ਤਲਾਕ ਵਿਰੋਧੀ ਪ੍ਰਾਵਧਾਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਬਦਲਣਾ ਅਜਿਹੀ ਗਲਤੀ ਹੋਵੇਗੀ ਜੋ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਧਰਮ ਤੋਂ ਦੂਰ ਲੈ ਜਾਣ ਦਾ ਕਾਰਣ ਬਣੇਗੀ। ਏਸ ਵੇਲੇ ਪਟਨਾ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਦੇ ਜਥੇਦਾਰ ਨੂੰ ਵੀ ਸ਼ਾਇਦ ਏਸ ਸਚਾਈ ਨਾਲ ਸਹਿਮਤ ਕਰਨਾ ਮੁਸ਼ਕਿਲ ਹੋ ਜਾਵੇ ਕਿ ਗੁਰਸ਼ਬਦ ‘ਏਕ ਜੋਤ ਦੁਇ ਮੂਰਤੀ’ ਦਾ ਉਪਦੇਸ਼ ਦਿੰਦਾ ਹੈ ਨਾ ਕਿ ਇੱਕ ਜੋਤ ਚਾਰ ਮੂਰਤੀਆਂ ਦਾ!

ਗਹਿਰ ਗੰਭੀਰ ਪੰਥ ਏਸ ਦੇ ਸਮਰੱਥ ਹੋਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਠਰ੍ਹੱਮੇ ਨਾਲ ਹਰ ਪੱਖ ਨੂੰ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਕੇ ਸਾਰਥਕ ਫੈਸਲੇ ਕਰ ਸਕੇ। ਚੰਗਾ ਹੁੰਦਾ ਜੇ ਚਰਚਾ 2007 ਤੋਂ ਹੀ ਲਗਾਤਾਰ ਹੁੰਦੀ ਰਹਿੰਦੀ। 1909 ਵਾਲਾ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਵੀ ਵਿਆਪਕ ਚਰਚਾ ਤੋਂ ਬਾਅਦ ਬਣਿਆ ਸੀ ਹਾਲਾਂਕਿ ਓਸ ਵੇਲੇ ਚਰਚਾ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਏਨੇ ਵਿਕਸਤ ਸਾਧਨ ਨਹੀਂ ਸਨ। ਫੇਰ ਵੀ ਤਕਰੀਬਨ ਸਾਰੀ ਕੌਮ ਨੇ ਯੋਗਦਾਨ ਪਾਇਆ ਸੀ। 1935 ਵਾਲੀ ਰਹਿਤ ਮਰਿਯਾਦਾ ਦੀ ਤਿਆਰੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਤਾਂ ਵਿਦੇਸ਼ਾਂ ਦੀ ਸੰਗਤ ਦਾ ਵੀ ਭਰਪੂਰ ਹਿੱਸਾ ਸੀ।

ਹੇਠਾਂ ਸਰਦਾਰ ਤਰਲੋਚਨ ਸਿੰਘ ਵਾਲਾ ਖਰੜਾ ਆਮ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਲਈ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ। 2007 ਵਾਲਾ ਤਾਂ 28 ਅਪ੍ਰੈਲ ਤੋਂ ਦੁਬਾਰਾ ਵੀ ਪੰਥ ਦੀ ਕਚਿਹਰੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਹਾਜ਼ਰ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾ ਚੁੱਕਾ ਹੈ। ਗੁਰੂ ਕੇ ਸਿੱਖ ਹੰਸ ਬ੍ਰਿਤੀ ਧਾਰਨ ਅਤੇ ਦੁਧ ਪਾਣੀ ਦਾ ਨਿਖੇੜਾ ਬਿਬੇਕ ਨਾਲ ਕਰ ਲੈਣ। ਇਹੋ ਸਦ ਰਹਿਣੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਦਾ ਸਥਾਈ ਹੁਕਮ ਹੈ।

(ਇਹ ਲੇਖ ਕੁਝ ਦਿਨ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਕੁਝ ਦੋਸਤਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਭੇਜਿਆ ਗਿਆ ਸੀ ਜੋ ਹੁਣ ਇੱਥੇ ਪ੍ਰਕਾਸ਼ਿਤ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ।)

The cold-blooded murder of Jaspal Singh

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!

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.

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.

From : Gurtej Singh, (Letter to the Editor for publication)

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 10^th 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.

The Sikh Marriage Act

[ Dear Friends, I have written a letter to all the MP's representing Punjab in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.The purpose is to request them to advocate comprehensive Sikh Marriage Act in the parliament (copy is reproduced). I have also written a letter to Ms. Sonia Gandhi with the same purpose in view. A draft comprehensive Sikh Marriage Act. has been enclosed with the letters (Copy reproduced here). It is necessary that those who can, must write to our MP's and other leaders requesting them to enact a comprehensive full fledged, proper Act. - Regards, Gurtej Singh]

Urgent for Legislative purposes

To: The Honourable
…………………..
Member Lok Sabha                                                         

From: Gurtej Singh,                                                                

742, Sector 8,                                                              

Chandigarh                                                                

           (094178-71742)                                                                       
April 28, 2012

Subject: Suggestions regarding the Sikh Marriage Act under active consideration of the parliament

Dear 

      One is generally aware that a Sikh Marriage Act is under consideration of the parliament. The shape, scope and content of the proposal is a mystery, as contrary to general practice nothing about it has been made public officially. It was suspected from certain hints appearing in the Media that a provision for registration alone was to be added to the skeletal Anand Marriage Act of 1909. This matter was widely debated in the visual and print media and the general opinion that emerged from the exercise was that the resultant product would be grossly inadequate. In that form it would serve almost no purpose expected of the legislation by the Sikhs since 1955.

      The Sikhs are a distinct people representing a distinguishable culture. They expect the country’s parliament to enact a personal law for them that would reflect the ground reality.

      Last evening at about 5 PM, I received a call from Sardar Tarlochan Singh ex-MP. It became known that he was the prime mover of the proposed legislation and the worst fears that it is severely limited in scope came to be known. As feared the proposal merely aims at adding a provision for registration.

      Sardar Tarlochan Singh revealed that he has consulted certain persons before framing the proposal. It was found that the persons consulted by him had no knowledge of law or the Sikh culture but were peripheral or nominated members of certain management committees and institutions, notoriously ill-equipped to give opinion on such matters.

      I wish to bring it to your kind notice that this is grossly inadequate and will not afford any material or psychological comfort to the Sikh people. A marriage law needs to define the ceremony, the parties thereto and has to provide for other situations related to the institution of marriage. A more comprehensive law is necessary.

      In December 2007, an exercise was done to draft a model Sikh Marriage Bill. It has been closely scrutinised by some of the well known legal luminaries and has been approved by them

unreservedly. I have the honour to send a draft of the comprehensive proposal for your consideration and approval. If desired it may be circulated for wider consultation. I am certain each MP moves in a circle of well informed jurists who will be in a position to give opinion on the draft Bill. Since all our MPs are so well informed on matters pertaining to Sikh culture and customs, they will be able to make choices that represent the general will of the Sikh people.

      The proposed bill is just a draft. It may kindly be used with or without amendments to augment the proposal pending before the parliament for consideration. If used thus it may go a long way in transforming the exercise in futility that is about to be undertaken, into a worthwhile venture.

      I dare to encroach on your valuable time in the fond belief that this communication may help you in some slight degree to perform your duties to the people of the country a wee bit better.

     

                                                                                                                       Yours sincerely,

                                                                                                                            

 (Gurtej Singh)

Urgent for Legislative purposes

To:  The Houourable 
        Ms Sonia Gandhi MP 
        Chairperson, United Progressive Alliance

        10, Janpath, New Delhi-110001.

From: Gurtej Singh                                                                            

           742, Sector 8

           Chandigarh.
           (094178-71742)

          April 28, 2012                                                                         

Subject: Suggestions regarding the Sikh Marriage Act under active consideration of the parliament.

                                                                                                                                 

Dear 

      I am the aam admi – who fits perfectly into the mould envisaged by your government. I am flattered by the attention that your government pays to inconsequential people like me. It is this consideration that emboldens me to write to you.

      I have serious misgivings about the kind of Anand Marriage Act that is being crafted by the government under the leadership of your party. I believe that a mere amendment providing for registration will not turn the century old Act into an   instrument capable of coping with the needs of modern day living. A full fledged Act comprising of rules regulating the different aspects of married life will be necessary.

      In December 2007, an attempt was made to prepare a comprehensive Sikh Marriage Act. The resultant document was shown to several prominent legal persons. They found it in order. It is enclosed herewith (as Appendix A). I write with the faith that it will receive adequate attention from your party and if found to be in order, it will be incorporated into the present Act to the extent possible.

      The gift of Sikh Marriage Act that your party plans to give to the people must become workable and must not remain a dead letter.

      In this connection I have written a letter to some MPs from the Punjab, I am enclosing the format (Appendix B) for your information and in elaboration of the above.

                                                                                                                  Yours sincerely,

                                                                                                                      

 (Gurtej Singh)

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.