Let's try again in April

It's not good to be negative when so many people are making an effort to get things going in the right direction for the Panth. Yesterday, I went to my local Gurdwara to watch the live broadcast. I did it because I thought it would be special to watch the broadcast together in Sangat. I did it because there was such a sense of hope out there for things to go in the right direction. And I'm still hopeful. Not all is lost. It was still impressive for so much sangat to get together in one place. Many of the resolutions, if executed properly, could be a great thing for the Panth. However, most resolutions were not controversial. The true test of the maturity of yesterday's event was on the selection of the Takht Jathedars and on this front, the results were uninspiring, to say the least.

When I say let's try again in April. I say that sincerely. I don't think the program yesterday failed because of bad intentions (although I think those certainly played some part). I think it failed because there was no system in place to actually make it a proper Sarbat Khalsa. I think it failed because our "leaders" live in an ingrained culture where decisions are made based on their limited worldview and ego instead of trying to think about the larger Panth and its needs.

So let's try again in April. Things that we need to get right next time include:

1) We had no idea who was making the decisions behind the scenes. Who were the backroom players? Who did they represent? I know for a fact that many important Sikh groups were not represented including Akhand Kirtani Jatha. It seems as if making decisions was left to those who aggressively sought to make decisions rather than to an actual representative group of Gursikhs. Prominent Sikh personalities such as Bhai Ranjit Singh Dhadhriawale were not in attendance. Some are mad at him for not attending but I want to hear his reasons because I think there's a strong chance he has good ones. Maybe he felt the process was wrong. Let's see.

I know many Gursikhs don't want to hear this but I'm almost certain that no women were involved in the decision-making process. This automatically means that 50% of our panth was not represented. We can lionize Mata Bhaag Kaur all we want but until we find a way for women to actually have a say in the Panth, we won't be living up to Sikh ideals.

2) I heard a rumour yesterday afternoon that Dhian Singh Mand was going to become the Jathedar of Akal Takht. The person who told me suggested this was decided sometime ago. Decisions should not be made long in advance of the actual gathering. I asked around to some Gursikhs I know who have more knowledge of Panthic Politics than I do and they laughed. They said there was no way people would accept Mand as he was a politician and the right-hand man of Simranjit Singh Mann who is largely considered an embarrassment. And yet it happened (although he was given the caretaker title). Something that was "decided" long before the actual gathering was foisted on the Sangat which takes us to point number three.

3) There was no system to object to what was happening. The resolutions started out with the "good news" - Bhai Jagtar Singh Hawara as Jathedar of Akal Takht. Sangat was ecstatic. At GNSG in Surrey, everyone was pumped when they heard Hawara's name. And then Amrik Singh Ajnala's name came and everyone was also very happy. For both these names, the sangat at the Gurdwara joined in with the Jaikaray. Then came Baljit Singh Daduwal's name and the atmosphere quickly turned around. It was silent. Only one person in sangat joined in with the Jaikara (and just barely). Then Dhian Singh Mand was announced as caretaker Jathedar of Akal Takht and again, there was silence. Without a doubt, many people objected to Daduwal and Mand but there was no way to speak out. This was a backroom decision being rammed through.

I did not agree that Jagtar Singh Hawara was the best person in the Panth to become Akal Takht Jathedar but hearing the sangat's reaction made my disagreement irrelevant. I did not agree that Amrik Singh Ajnala was the best choice for Takht Keshgarh Sahib. The sangat's reaction again made my disagreement irrelevant. We must go with the large consensus of the Panth. The Panth's will doesn't have to be unanimous for it be accepted.

But when it came to Daduwal and Mand, it's clear that there was no consensus. These were political appointments made for the wrong reasons. And it didn't have to happen. Bhai Paramjit Singh Khalsa (Anandpur Sahib) could have been appointed to a Takht; his speech was more well-received than anyone else and he's a fearless parchaarik. There are other quality choices out there as well but it seems that narrow political interests prevailed over the Panthic interest.

I would say that "let's hope" for better in April but hope is not good enough. April's Sarbat Khalsa must not have the defects of this one. Sangat will grow tired of being dictated to. In fact, that's the whole reason we are where we are.