The Truth of The Akal Takhat.

Karminder Singh, PhD (Boston)

dhillon99@gmail.com

This article attempts to apply a Gurbani, Gurmat, Gur-Itihas perspective; and where applicable, existing legal provisions, in particular the Sikh Gurdwara Act of 1925, to answer the following six questions.

1. Did Guru Hargobind, the sixth Guru, set up the Akal Takhat?
2. What is the historical origin of the Akal Takhat as it exists today?
3. What is the status of the position of “Jathedar” within the context of Akal Takhat?
4. Is the Akal Takhat’s authority or jurisdiction over any matters (religious, social and political) pertaining to the Sikh World real or imagined?
5. Is the practice of “excommunication” of Sikhs by the Akal Takhat in accordance with Gurbani and Gurmat
6. Do the proponents of the Akal Takhat as an institution have a case?

 

1. DID GURU HARGOBIND SET UP THE AKAL TAKHAT?

The Historical Record. It is virtually impossible to find a single proponent of the Akal Takhat who does not claim that the Akal Takhat was set up by the sixth Guru Hargobind ji; and that it is part and parcel of the concept of “Miri-Piri.” The claim is that the Akal Takhat was constructed by the sixth Guru in 1606 AD. The question that needs answering is if there are any credible and trustworthy historical records of such a claim.

Two writers who were contemporaries of Guru Hargobind were Bhai Gurdas and Historian Mohamed Mohsen Fani. Bhai Gurdas was the scribe for Pothi Sahib, and Mohsen Fani – a writer of Persian origin who had spent a considerable number of years in India, some of which with the sixth Guru in Punjab.

Bhai Gurdas talks about the sixth Guru in 12 paurris (stanzas). Nowhere does he talk about Guru Hargobind setting up the Akal Takhat in these or any other paurris within his Vaars. In the relevant paurri^[1] he writes of Guru Hargobind ji: ਮੰਜੀ ਬਹਿ ਸੰਤੋਖਦਾ ਕੁਤੇ ਰਖਿ ਸਿਕਾਰੁ ਖਿਲਾਇਆ॥ Manji Beh Santokhda, Kutey Rakh Shikar Khelaeya. The notion of the Gurus sitting on “Manjis” is used by Bhai Gurdas for the other Gurus as well. For instance, he writes of Guru Nanak^[2]: ਬਾਬਾ ਆਇਆ ਕਰਤਾਰਪੁਰ ਭੇਖ ਉਦਾਸੀ ਸਗਲ ਉਤਾਰਾ॥ ਪਹਿਰ ਸੰਸਾਰੀ ਕਪੜੇ ਮੰਜੀ ਬੈਠ ਕੀਆ ਅਵਤਾਰਾ॥ Baba Aya Kartarpur Bheykh Udasi Sagal Utara. Peher Sansari Kaprray Manji Baith Keeya Avtara. The implications are clear: (i) that other than keeping hunting dogs, there was no difference in the way Guru Hargobind performed his Guru-ship duties when compared to other Gurus, and, (ii) that the Guru built no “Takhat” to sit on.

Mohamed Mohsen Fani authored ਦਬਸਿਤਾਨ-ਏ-ਮਜ਼ਾਹਿਬ Dabistan-E-Mazahib in 1655. Its English translation was done by David Shea and Anthony Troyer in 1843^[3]. In the narrative about Guru Hargobind, there is no mention of “Akal Takhat.”^[4]

There are those who believe that the Bachittar Natak Granth (Dasam Granth) is authentic and was indeed written by Guru Gobind Singh in 1698 AD. In this text too, there is no mention of the Akal Takhat anywhere.

The earliest record of Sikh history in the post Guru period is within the pages of Sri Guru Sobha Granth which was written by Kavi Sainapat in 1711 AD – just three years after the demise of Guru Gobind Singh – the tenth and final Guru. This voluminous historical text has no mention whatsoever of the Akal Takhat within its pages.

The next available record is Parchian, authored by Seva Das which was written in 1725 AD. There is one sakhi (narrative) about the sixth Guru within its pages, and it contains no mention of Akal Takhat.^[5]

The next available record is Gurbilas Patshahi 10 by Gyani Koer Singh, another voluminous text which was written in 1751 AD. This work too has no mention of the Akal Takhat in any form or shape.

The next available record is Kesar Singh Chibber’s Bansavlinama 10 Patshahian Da – a massive work – which was written in 1769 AD. This historical text too has no mention whatsoever of the Akal Takhat.

The next available record is Mehima Parkash, written by Sarup Das Bhalla in 1776 AD. This text too has no mention of the Akal Takhat in any form or shape.

Lt. Col. Malcolm wrote the Sketch of the Sikhs in 1812. He provides a detailed description of the final Sarbat Khalsa that took place within Amritsar in 1804. Nowhere does Malcolm use the word Akal Takht.^[6]

Ratan Singh Bhangu wrote the Pracheen Panth Parkash in 1841 AD. His work talks of the sixth Gur’s wars against the Mugal rulers but makes no mention of the Akal Takhat in any shape or form.

Bute Shah, a writer commissioned by the British rulers of Punjab to write Sikh history, wrote his book The Geographical Description of the Punjab in 1842. The original version in Persian was translated into Punjabi and published by Rev J. Porter in 1850.^[7] Bute has given a detailed description of the Darbar Sahib complex.^[8] He mentions the presence of an Akal Bunga – the residence of the Akali leaders (more of this in the succeeding portion of this essay). Bute does not mention the phrase “Akal Takht’ in any shape of form within his text.

A daily diary that provides information regarding routine matters of the court of Maharaja Ranjit Singh written by Faqeer Syed Aziz-ud-Din provides an account of the Maharaja’s visits to places of worship, offerings and donations, but makes no mention of Akal Takhat, indicating that the Maharaja was either unaware of such an institution or that it did not exist.^[9]

If indeed the Akal Takhat was set up by the sixth Guru in 1606 AD, one needs to ask this question: “Why is there no mention of it anywhere in any historical record for almost 250 years up to 1850”? It is clear therefore that there is no historical source of repute that so much as mentions Akal Takhat – let alone expound on the concept in any shape or form.

Historian Dilgeer has stated in the clearest terms that Guru Hargobind ji did not construct any structure or building and name it Akal Takhat.^[10] Dr Iqbal Singh Dhillon, author of the most comprehensive work on the history and origin of Akal Takhat openly challenged anyone to prove that the phrase “Akal Takhat” has appeared in any shape or form in any literature written prior to 1840 AD. ^[11] Dilgeer has offered 10 lakh Rupees to anyone who can establish that the same.^[12]

All he had done was to build a platform within the Darbar Sahib compound, but outside the Darbar Sahib where he sat to meet with people to discuss matters of concern to them, particularly matters that were unsuitable for discussion within the Darbar itself. There never was a name accorded to the platform, and there never was any religious, spiritual, political or social role or status that was assigned to this platform by Guru Hargobind, or any other Guru, or any Sikh leader.

There is nothing special, innovative or pioneering about the construction of a platform for people to meet, sit on, and discuss matters. The residences of village or communal leaders in Punjab – the Chaudhri, Sarpanch etc. – always had platforms that were constructed within the compounds of their homes, under the shade of some tree, where people who came to them with their social, communal, or political problems could sit and discuss with the leader concerned. This allowed the Chaudhri, Sarpanch or other leaders to keep matters and attendees within their own residences limited to family and relatives; while still welcoming and accommodating the general constituents on the platform. One would be on a strange plane of thought to want to accord any sort of special significance to the platform in the home of even the most distinguished Chaudhri or Sarpanch.

The Logic of a Takhat That Was Never Sat On. It is ridiculous to assume that the sixth Guru installed a Takhat and that the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth Gurus never came near it, let alone sit on it to exercise the authority and jurisdiction of the Takhat. Even the sixth Guru moved out of Amritsar in 1632 AD. Amritsar was where his self-created seat of authority in the form of Akal Takhat was supposedly located. Upon the Guru’s departure, the Darbar Sahib Complex and everything associated with it fell into the hands of Prithi Chand and subsequently his son Meharvan and then to his grandson Harji. Bhai Mani Singh would come to Amritsar in 1698. So, for all intents and purposes, the Mecca of Sikhi – the Darbar Sahib and everything associated with it, remained in the hands of anti-Sikhs and enemies of the Sikh world for 66 years.^[13] The ninth Guru did attempt to visit Darbar Sahib, within which precincts the Akal Takhat was supposed to have been installed, but was prevented from entering. The Guru was essentially locked out.

None of the Sikhs who are considered of high standing within the Sikh world every stepped into the place that is considered the seat of “sovereignty and authority of the Sikhs” that is the Akal Takhat. The Panj Pyare, the 4 Sahibzadas, Bhai Nand Lal and the countless Sikhs who partook in the battles involving Guru Gobind Singh had not visited this place called the Akal Takhat.

In modern day politics, using the example of the political system of the USA, the equivalent of such a scenario would be as follows. Imagine that the White House in Washington DC being set up as the nation’s seat of authority by the writers of the nation’s constitution; and all subsequent Presidents not coming anywhere near Washington and the White House. And one of the Presidents being locked out of the White House and thus prevented from entering. On what grounds then, would one assert the notion of Washington and the White House being the seat of authority of the nation’s political system. The reason why the political world of the USA accepts the White House in Washington DC as the nation’s seat of political power is because the seat has been occupied by every President the country has ever had. The validity of a seat of authority is only good if it has been occupied by its rightful owners. A throne that was never sat on by the rightful emperor is no throne indeed.

2.0 THE HISTORICAL ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT OF AKAL TAKHAT AS ITS EXISTS TODAY.

The Fraudulent Historical Record. The one text that does mention the Akal Takhat is the highly blasphemous and twice banned (by SGPC) granth of dubious authenticity – the Gurbilas Patshahi 6. This is one granth that has devoted its pages to denigrating the character of the sixth Guru to the extent of describing him as an adulterer; grounding Sikhi into the Snatan framework; and imposing the institution of a Clergy onto the parameters of Sikhi. The earlier editions of his granth have the author as anonymous. The proponents of the granth mention one Kavi Sohan and Bhagat Singh as its author. Both Kavi Sohan and Bhagat Singh are non-existent beings – having never being mentioned in any other classical texts, and having authored no other writing. Historian Harjinder Singh Dilgeer,^[14] mentions that Gurbilas Patshahi 6 was written in the late 1830s by Nirmlas Gurmukh Singh and Darbara Singh who were pujaris (clergy) of Darbar Sahib.

The claim within the Gurbilas is that it was written in 1718, but this claim is proven false by the contents of the granth itself. Incidents and events that took place up to 1839 AD are mentioned within its the pages – invalidating the claim that it was authored a decade after the demise of Guru Gobind Singh. In fact, these events and incidents suggest that the granth was authored in the vicinity of 1840 AD.

The mention of Akal Takhat within this doubtful granth must therefore be looked at within the context of its aims as mentioned in the preceding para – particularly the objective of imposing an institution of clergy onto Sikhi. Its dubious authorship and false claims of the year of writing too need to be factored into the criteria of credibility. Both its real authors – Nirmlas Gurmukh Singh and Darbara Singh – were pujaris who had their roots in Snatanism and Benares. They were clergymen with an intent of establishing an institution that would be controlled by clergy, in the sense that it would give the clergy a measure of social, political and religious control of the masses – the kind of influence and control Benares had on adherents of Snatan beliefs. The creation of an institution named “Akal Takhat” and pegged on (falsely) to the sixth Guru fitted their designs.

Nirmla Kavi Santokh Singh’s massive Gurpartap Suraj Parkash Granth which was published shortly after the Gurbilas Pathashi 6 – in 1843 AD – relied heavily on the contents of Gurbilas. Dr. Iqbal Singh Dhillon has conducted a content analysis of Santokh Singh’s work^[15] and concludes that the Nirmla Kavi talks of a “Takhat” but does not use the phrase “Akal Takhat.” Dr Iqbal notes that iIn chapter 42 Santokh Singh talks of the sixth Guru constructing a platform and laying the foundation stone of “Akal Bunga” but that the phrase Akal Takhat does not appear within the work. It is clear that despite Santokh Singh’s association with Gurmukh Singh (the writer of Gurbilas) and both being mentored by the same Nirmla Sant Singh Giani – Santokh Singh was not convinced that the sixth Guru has constructed the Akal Takhat.

The True Historical Record: A Residence Is Transformed into An Eternal Throne. The origin of the structure that stands within the Darbar Sahib Complex at Amritsar facing the Darbar Sahib as the modern-day Akal Takhat is the Akali Bunga. Its English equivalent would be Akali Residence. The existence of a residence for the Akali leaders was a practice that existed during the Misl period in Sikh History. This was a turbulent period – politically and militarily – that succeeded the defeat and execution of Banda Singh and preceded Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s raj. Its period is thus 1716 – 1799 AD. There were 12 Misls (Sikh Confederacies) that often warred with each other; and the Maharaja was able to unite them just enough, under the banner of Dal Khalsa, to establish his empire in 1801 AD.

The practice in the period of the Sikh Misls, and beginning 1765 AD, was for each Misl leader to have his residence in Amritsar which was the capital of the Sikh world then by virtue of the existence of the Darbar Sahib. The leaders of the Misls – the Misal Sardars or the Misaldars as they were known – came to Amritsar once or twice a year, and their respective Bungas served as their fixed and convenient place of residence. A great many of these Bungas were named after the Misls and others were named after their leaders. So, there was a Bunga Ahluwalia, Bunga Ramgharria, Bunga Sukercharia and Bunga Bhangian amongst the 70 odd Bungas that served as places of residence for the Misaldars of these respective Misls. A place of residence is just that. It would be baseless to accord any sort of religious or spiritual role or function to any of these Bungas.

One of the Bungas was named the Akali Bunga. Its original owner was Akali Nainna Singh. Upon his departure, Akali Phoola Singh took over ownership of this residence.^[16] Both Nainna Singh and Phoola Singh belonged to the Nihang group and were members of the Shahida(n) di Misl – one of the 12 confederacies mentioned above. The Nihang group had its headquarters outside Amritsar, but the Akali Bunga served as the residence of their leaders within the Darbar complex for reasons of convenience and ease of contact with other leaders of the Misls as well the Sikh world. Historian Dilgeer has argued that from among the Misls, the Akalis were the only group which did not occupy any land; hence they were respected by all the 11 Misls for their neutral stand on all issues.^[17] It follows therefore that the Akali Bunga was a place that bustled with activity, but only when its owners were around.

The argument that the Maharaja was ordered to be whipped (or actually whipped by some accounts) for his folly of marrying a non-Sikh woman by the then “Jathedar of Akal Takhat” Akali Phoola Singh is thus patently false on four counts. First, there was no “Akal Takhat” during the period. Two, Akali Phoola Singh was the Jathedar of his group, not of any institution, and certainly not of the then non-existent “Akal Takhat.” Three, the Maharaja – in need of political support of the Misls – often called upon the leaders of these groups. So, it was normal and natural for him to have visited Akali Phoola Singh regularly at the latter’s residence, the Akali Bunga. Four, the Maharaja continued to remain married to non-Sikh women, marrying 33 more women, maintaining a large harem and of marrying a woman almost four decades younger than him.^[18] This means that either the “power and authority of the Akal Takhat” had no jurisdiction over him, or that the “Jathedar of Akal Takhat” then was selective in his imposition of punishment, or that the “Akal Takhat,” and its “Jathedar” simply did not exist then.

This fake narrative is often used by proponents of the modern-day Akal Takhat to make two points. First, that the “Akal Takhat” had the power and authority to sanction even the Maharaja, and that Ranjit Singh bowed down to the authority. Two, that there was a lineage of “Jathedars” of “Akal Takhat” starting from Guru Hargobind in 1606 AD till the current times, and Akali Phoola Singh was in this lineage during the Sikh Raj. The first point is self-serving. There is no law, procedure or practice that accords the unelected “Jathedar” of the “Akal Takhat” any sort of power to exercise his authority over political leaders – monarchs and democratically elected ones. The second point is unsupported by history. As stated above, the Darbar Sahib Complex was in the hands of anti-Sikh forces from 1632 AD (the year Guru Hargobind ji left Amritsar, never to return) till 1716 AD (the defeat and execution of Banda Bahadur). From that point on, it was in the control of Udasis and Nirmlas till the Singh Sabha Movement of the 1920s.^[19] During the period of the Sikh Raj, it was under the control of the Benares based Nirmlas.

Upon the death of Akali Phoola Singh Nihang in 1823 AD, the Akali Bunga was occupied by Nirmla Giani Gurmukh Singh Pujari who was the son of Nirmla Sant Singh Giani, the Chief Pujari of Darbar Sahib. Sant Singh Pujari had also mentored Nirmla Kavi Santokh Singh, the writer of Gurpartap Suraj Parkash Granth – which gives one an idea of the caliber of Nirmla Gurmukh Singh Pujari who would have most certainly been mentored by his father as well. Gurmukh Singh Pujari had designs of being a man of power and authority, having embedded himself in the intrigue of place politics during the reign of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. He would be killed during the attempt by the Sandhawalia Sardars to take over the reins of power after the death of the Maharaja.

Transforming The Akali Bunga (A Residence) Into Akal Takhat (An Eternal Throne).

It becomes clear that Nirmla Gurmukh Singh Pujari had a clear plan and design (i) towards establishing an institution that would be able to exercise wide ranging power, authority and influence over the Sikh world; and (ii) in according that power and authority to himself. The physical structure of the institution that he had in mind already existed in the form of the Akali Bunga which he now occupied as his residence. What he needed was to create a self-serving historical, philosophical and even religious foundation on which to base his plan and design. Given his experience within the Sikh word as it existed within Amritsar and Darbar Sahib, his links with the Maharaja’s palace, the tutelage of his father and his philosophical mind and writing ability, his plan would move smoothly in the direction of becoming a reality.

He would be so successful that it may not be farfetched to say that Nirmla Gurmukh Singh Pujari is the father of both the concept and institution that the Sikhs world refers to as the Akal Takhat of modern times.

The first thing Gurmukh Singh Pujari did was to have the Sri Guru Granth Sahib (SGGS) installed within the Akali Bunga. He did so in 1835.^[20] The previous residents of the Akali Bunga had no need to do that because (i) it was a residence that was only occasionally occupied and (ii) it was in close proximity to Darbar Sahib where the SGGS was already installed. The installation of the SGGS within the Akali Bunga gave it a religious and spiritual status as Sikhs are generally predisposed to providing respect to any place where the SGGS is installed and would be loath to oppose or remove the SGGS from any location where it is already installed – even if the objective of the installation is merely to use the SGGS as a means to some nefarious end – collecting chrrawa, getting Sikhs to attend, or accord respectful status to a particular location as was the case with Gurmukh Singh’s decision pertaining to the Akali Bunga. Large numbers of Sikhs began visiting the Akali Bunga as a result of the SGGS being installed, and the residence took the form of a Gurdwara. The faith and conviction of the Sikhs was further cemented by Gurmukh Singh’s (insidious and false) claim that Guru Hargobind ji had constructed and occupied the Akali Bunga as his throne.

The next thing Nirmla Gurmukh Singh Pujari did was to use his palace connections to secure one lakh Rupees through Hari Singh Nalwa for the purpose of renovating and expanding the Akali Bunga. Historian Dilgeer alleges that the Nirmla Pujari embezzled a large portion of this money and found no need to provide an account given that Nalwa died two years later in 1837.^[21] In any case it shows that Gurmukh Singh Pujari had real designs in wanting to make the Akali Bunga into something very much more than it was.

Providing A Fake Narrative For the “Akal Takhat” (An Eternal Throne). The one task that remained in establishing and imposing an institution of the pujaris (clergy) onto the parameters of Sikhi was its philosophical, religious and historical framework. Given that none existed, it had to be concocted. Gurmukh Singh joined hands with Darbara Singh who was the Chief Pujari of Darbar Sahib to accomplish this task. It came in the form of a granth that claimed to provide the story of events surrounding the sixth Guru but was so highly blasphemous that both its pujari authors had to conceal their authorship behind fake names and concoct the lie that it was written in 1718. This lie of 1718 being the year of its composition served two ends: (i) it accorded credibility to the granth, and (ii) it absolved the two pujaris of their role in writing it and any possible repercussions that may arise as they were not alive in 1718. From Internal evidence of Gurbilas Patshahi 6 it’s easy to surmise that it was written in 1840.

An entire section is devoted within the Gurbilas towards establishing the lie that Guru Hargobind ji constructed the structure of the “Akal Takhat.” Given that grounding Sikhi into the Snatan framework was the other main objective of Gurbilas, the narrative is that Guru Hargobind ji had the “Akal Takhat” constructed at the behest of Lord Vishu – just as the Darbar Sahib was constructed by Guru Arjun as a mandir for Vishu; hence its name Har Mandir – Har being one of the many names of Vishu.

The account begins with the construction of Darbar Sahib as contained within Gurbilas Patshahi 6 is as follows.^[22] ਦੋਹਰਾ। ਕਾਰ ਕਢਾਵਤ ਭਏ ਥੇ ਕਛੁਕ ਦਿਵਸ ਤਿਹ ਵਾਰ। ਮਹਾ ਬਿਸਨ ਭਗਵੰਤ ਜੋ ਮਨ ਮੈ ਕੀਨੁ ਵੀਚਾਰ। ੩੧। ਮਹਾ ਮਾਏ ਜੋ ਲਛਮੀ ਤਾ ਸੋ ਕਹਾ ਸੁਨਾਇ। ਰਾਮਦਾਸ ਗੁਰੂ ਰੂਪ ਮਮ ਯ ਮੈ ਭੇਦ ਨਾ ਪਾਇ। ੩੨। ਚੌਪਈ। ਤਿਹ ਸੁਤ ਗੁਰ ਅਰਜਨ ਸੁਖਕਾਰੀ। ਮਮ ਸਰੂਪ ਸੋ ਪ੍ਰਗਟ ਨਿਹਾਰੀ। ਬਨਾਵਨ ਮਮ ਮੰਦਰ ਹੈ ਲਾਗਾ। ਸੁਧ ਸਰੋਵਰ ਰਚਿ ਵਢਭਾਗਾ। ੩੩। ਚਲੋ ਤਹਾਂ ਹਮ ਜਾਇ ਨਿਹਾਰੈ। ਕੈਸੋ ਕਰਿ ਹੈ ਪਰਉਪਕਾਰੈ। ਲਛਮੀ ਯੁਤ ਆਏ ਭਗਵੰਤਾ। ਗਾਵਤ ਜਸੁ ਜਿਹ ਬੇਦ ਅਨੰਤਾ। ੩੪।

Translation: Whence the work had gone on for some days and weeks, the great lord Vishnu contemplated. He informed the great goddess Lakshmi of his contemplation. That Guru Ramdas was my form, there being no distinction between us both. His son, Guru Arjun was my incarnation. He has begun to construct my mandir. And is constructing a blessed pool. Let’s go and bless the construction. And contribute our part. Lakshmi thus came with the Lord whose praises are sung within the bountiful Vedas.

The Gurbilas Patshahi 6 says that plan, layout and name of the temple was decided by Vishu himself. ਦੋਹਰਾ: ਹਰਮੰਦਰ ਕੈ ਚਾਰ ਦਰ ਸੁੰਦਰ ਰਚੋ ਅਪਾਰ। ਤਲਵਿ ਮੱਧ ਮੰਦਰ ਰਚੋ ਕਰਹਿੋ ਪੁਲ ਸੁਖ ਧਾਰ। ੪੪; ਇਹ ਮੰਦਰ ਮਮ ਰੂਪ ਹੈ, ਹਰਮੰਦਰ ਇਹ ਨਾਮ। ਰਿਧ ਸਿਧ ਇਹ ਠਾਂ ਹੈ ਨਿਸ ਦਿਨ ਆਠੋ ਜਾਮ। ੪੫ ।^[23] Translation: Harmandar should have four doors which will add to its beauty. Construct the mandir in the center of the pool and make a bridge to ease the task of visitors. This mandir is my form, Harmandar is its name. Its where miracles will happen every hour of every day and night.

The account within the pages of the Gurbilas then moves on to the issue of the “Akal Takhat.” The relevant verses are: ਦੋਹਰਾ: ਨਿਸ ਦਿਨ ਤੁਮ ਇਹ ਠਾਂ ਰਹੋ ਸਨਮੁਖ ਮੋਰ ਸੁਹਾਇ। ਤੁਮਰੋ ਸੁਤ ਤੁਮ ਨਿਕਟ ਹੀ ਮੇਰੋ ਤਖਤ ਬਨਾਇ।੫੦। Translation: Reside at this place day and night in the face of my blessings. Your son will construct, in proximity (of my mandir), my Takhat (throne).

The account within Gurbilas goes on to say that Lord Vishnu came to express his condolences upon the execution of Guru Arjun and reminded the sixth Guru of the deal he (Vishnu) had with the fifth Guru. The relevant verses are: ਦੋਹਰਾ: ਤੋਰ ਪਿਤਾ ਕੋ ਬਚ ਕਹੇ, ਪਾਛੇ ਮਮ ਇਹ ਭਾਇ। ਸੁਤ ਤੁਮਰਾ ਤੁਮਰੋ ਨਿਕਟ ਮੇਰੋ ਤਖਤ ਬਨਾਇ। ੩੫੪।^[24] Translation: I had stated to your father that after his passing. “Your son will construct, in proximity (of my mandir), my Takhat (throne).

Vishnu then proceeds to give specific instructions to Guru Hargobind ji. ਔਰ ਸੰਤ ਬਚ ਅਟਲ ਪਛਾਨੋ। ਬੁੱਢੇ ਮਮ ਮੈ ਭੇਦ ਨਾ ਮਾਨੋ। ਪ੍ਰਿਥਮੈ ਇਹ ਥਾਂ ਤਖਤ ਸਵਾਰੋ। ਮੀਰੀ ਪੀਰੀ ਅਸ ਦੋ ਧਾਰੋ। ਹਰਗੋਵਿੰਦ ਅਸ ਬਿਨਤ ਅਲਾਏ। ਹੇ ਪ੍ਰਬ ਲਾਜ ਨਾਮ ਮਨਿ ਆਏ। ੩੫੬।^[25] Translation: And consider the discourse of saints to be eternal. Consider no difference between me (Vishnu) and Baba Buddha Ji. First construct a Takhat in this location. Adorn two swords of Miri and Piri. Hargobind (then) vocalized his supplication by saying: “I will bring honor of your name within my mind, O Lord. “

Having been pleased with Guru Hargobind’s decision to honor Lord Vishnu’s commands, the Lord then proceeds to bless the sixth Guru. The relevant verses are: ਦੋਹਰਾ। ਰਾਮ ਕਿਸ਼ਨ ਤੇ ਆਦ ਲੈ ਪਾਛੇ ਜੋ ਅਵਤਾਰ। ਸੋਈ ਰੂਪ ਤੁਮਹੀ ਭਏ ਨਰ ਲੀਲ਼੍ਹਾ ਬਪੁ ਧਾਰ। ੩੫੭॥^[26] Translation: All Incarnations that succeed the beginning ones of Ram and Kishen; You are an incarnate of the same as was your wondrous father.

Lord Vishnu then proceeds to offer the final command to Guru Hargobind ji. ਚੌਪਈ। ਤਾਂ ਤੇ ਇਹ ਠਾਂ ਤ੍ਹਤ ਸਵਾਰੋ। ਮੇਰੋ ਨਾਮ ਤਾਹਿ ਮੈ ਧਾਰੋ। ਤਖਤ ਅਕਾਲ ਨਾਮ ਤਿਹ ਕੀਹੈ। ਤਾਹਿ ਬੈਠ ਪਿਤ ਬਦਲਾ ਲੀਜੈ। ੩੫੮॥^[27] Translation: As such, construct a Takhat in this place. You will thus earn my honor. Call it by the name of Akal Takhat. Sit on it and avenge your father.

Nirmla pujaris Gurmukh Singh and Darbara Singh thus concocted a “philosophical, religious and historical framework” that went along with their agenda of killing two birds with one stone. They had provided the groundwork for establishing and imposing an institution of the pujaris (clergy) onto the parameters of Sikhi, and they had ensured that the institution would be subservient to Snatanism. How could this not be the case when both the Harmandar and the Takhat in its proximity were built by Vishnu, according to the plan envisioned by Vishnu, and in honor of Vishnu. The concept of Miri-Piri was the brainchild of Vishnu too. Gurus Arjun and Hargobind ji were incarnations of Vishnu and thus in the service and command of Vishnu in all of these instances. The cunning, intrigue and plot of the two Nirmla pujaris to mire the entire Sikh world in their nefarious scheme and agenda is mind boggling indeed.

After the death of Nirmla Gurmukh Singh Pujari in 1843, his son Ripdumann Singh stepped into his father’s shoes and continued to stay at the Akali Bunga. From 1859 onwards, the British government took control of all Gurdwaras through an appointed manager, and since Akali Bunga was considered a Gurdwara by virtue of the parkash of the SGGS and its regular activities, it fell under the control of the British. In the late 1870s Khem Singh Bedi, heading a breakaway faction of the Singh Sabha Movement took control of the Akali Bunga. The Akali Bunga would come under the jurisdiction of the SGPC after its formation in 1925.

3.0 THE QUESTION OF THE STATUS OF “JATHEDAR” OF THE AKAL TAKHAT.

Given that that never was any historical, philosophical and spiritual foundation for the “Akal Takhat” there could never have been a “Jathedar.” The word Jathedar means the leader of a Jatha or group. There therefore has been a tendency – by error or design – to confuse individuals who were Jathedars of a group (Akali Phoola Singh, for instance) with “Jathedars of Akal Takhat.”

As stated above, in the late 1870s Khem Singh Bedi, heading a breakaway faction of the Singh Sabha Movement took control of the Akali Bunga. In 1877, this group issued an “excommunication order” against Prof Gurmukh Singh who headed the other faction. Dr Harjinder Singh writes of this incident as follows:

(T)his ‘ Fatwa’ was not issued by the (so called) Akal Takht or the (so called) Jathedar or the (so-called) Punj Piaray (Jathedar word was not in existence till 12 October 1920); it was signed by Sarbrah (manager) of all the Gurdwaras (of Amritsar and Tarn Taran), one Raes (noble man) as well as granthis, mahants, nambardars, flower- decorators, incense burner, in charges of flag post, prayer-chanters and other office-bearers of Akal Bunga, Jhanda Bunga, Darbar Sahib, Baba Atal and Tarn Taran. Those priests etc. who signed it all of them had used the word Akal Bunga with their name, and not ‘Akal Takht’.

And when in 1928, Teja Singh Bhsaurr was “excommunicated,” the parties that prepared the order, signed and issued it were Executive Members of the Religious Advisory Committee of SGPC and not the “Jathedars of Akal Takhat.”

We know that the SGPC is a product of the Sikh Gurdwara Act 1925 which was created to manage historic Sikh Gurdwaras in Punjab. The truth of the matter is that section 85(1) of The Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 designates the “Akal Takhat” as a Gurdwara under the management of the SGPC. Section 85(2) gives the power to SGPC to prepare a scheme for administration and management of the Gurdwaras described in sub-section (1) which includes the Akal Takhat.

For all intents and purposes then, the Akal Takhat is designated as a historic Gurdwara, and thus falls under the control and jurisdiction of the SGPC. The fact of the matter then is that the Akal Takhat is a Gurdwara and nothing more. The SGPC appoints the Granthi of the Gurdwara that is the Akal Takhat. The Granthi is under the employ of SGPC. He is hired by the SGPC and liable to be fired by the same.

But in the desire of making the “Akal Takhat” very much bigger than the Gurdwara that it is, and to create an illusion that the Akal Takhat has control and jurisdiction over Sikhs all over the world, the SGPC created the position of Jathedar, which is added to the Granthi’s name. The Granthi who is appointed a Jathedar is then paid an additional allowance in the form of an honorarium.

The Sikh Gurdwara Act of 1925 makes no mention of the Akal Takhat in any way whatsoever, indicating further that under this Act, the Akal Takhat has no legal standing as an institution other than being just another Gurdwara. This act also makes no mention of a “Jathedar” or “Jathedars.”

4.0 THE AKAL TAKHAT’S JURISDICTION OVER THE SIKH WORLD – REAL OR IMAGINED?

Given the historical facts, interpretations and arguments presented above, the answer to this question is clear. An institution that has no historical and philosophical foundations – except those concocted in the dubious and blasphemous Gurbilas Patshahi 6; has no standing other than a Gurdwara as designated by the Sikh Gurdwara Act of 1925; and is managed by a society (the SGPC) that is has no jurisdiction outside of Punjab; cannot exercise jurisdiction over the Sikh world in any real sense.

In any case, jurisdiction is a legal construct. The Akal Takhat is administered by the SGPC. The SGPC is governed by The Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 which was a piece of legislation in British India which legally defined Sikh identity and brought Sikh gurdwaras under the control of a body of Sikhs whose membership was limited to Punjab alone. The jurisdiction of SGPC, and by extension that of the Akal Takhat outside of Punjab, or at least outside of India, is thus non-existent.

5.0 EXCOMMUNICATING OF SIKHS BY AKAL TAKHAT – IN ACCORDANCE WITH GURBANI AND GURMAT?

The following six points are worthy of deliberation when it comes to the above-mentioned question.

One, the notion of “excommunication” does not exist within the Sikh scripture. It did not exist during the era of the ten Sikh Gurus (1469 – 1708). It did not exist in the post Guru period and the Sikh Raj period. It came to exist during British colonial rule.

Two, the pujaris at Akali Bunga (Khem Singh Bedi in particular) were exposed to the practice of excommunication when the British brought with them the tradition of Catholicism into Punjab.

Three, the first excommunication order by the Akali Bunga pujaris was overturned by the same body more than a century later in 1995. This suggests that the present-day Akal Takhat is aware of the illegitimacy of the ex-communication.^[28]

Four, a study of the main excommunications indicate that they are targeted against intellectuals, thinkers, academics and reform minded Sikhs. Such a fact raises serious questions regarding the intent of the practice. It appears that these excommunications are meant to act as a sword of Damocles to silence Sikhs who think, act and write differently from the version of the Sikh religion that is adopted by those who control the SGPC and the Akal Takhat.

Five, four of the current five Jathedars of the Akal Takhat (and the 20 Jathedars of the other 4 Takhats) and all of the Granthis in the Takhats and Darbar Sahib are schooled in the Taksali, dera and sampardayi traditions. A study of those who have been excommunicated indicate they are either NOT from these traditions, or have, at some point in time, discarded these traditions. Such a situation raises serious questions regarding the selective nature of excommunications. Are they meant only for those who belong to traditions other than the Taksali, dera and sampardayi traditions? Tharminder Singh Anand is case in point. He was excommunicated for allegedly doing what the Dhumma faction and Nanaksar derawadis have done for decades – altering bani in their gutkas. There is no evidence of Tharminder “altering” bani while there is plenty against the other two; yet it is Tharminder who paid the price.

Six, a study of complaints and calls made to the Akal Takhat to “take action” against Sikh preachers in the past 5 years shows that 100% of them are made by people affiliated with the Taksali, dera and sampardayi traditions. Case in point is the complaints against Sikh preachers Professor Inder Singh Ghagga, Bhai Ranjit Singh Dhadreanwalla and Bhai Harinder Singh of Nirvair Jatha. Such a situation raises the question of the institution of Akal Takhat and the excommunication process being used as a tool by Taksali, dera and sampardayi people against those parcharaks who belong to other traditions.

In the case of Professor Inder Singh Ghagga, Dhadreanwalla, and Harnek Singh, the assertion can be made that the root cause of their excommunication or other action by the Akal Takhat was in the tensions that existed between those who propagate progressive interpretations of Sikh theology verses those who rely on orthodox ones. The assertion can also be made that the action taken against them by the Akal Takhat is, at its core, an instrument to silence them. The points made by Harnek Singh regarding his ex-communication by the Akal Takhat is instructive. He says:

“The root cause of my excommunication by the Akal Takhat lies in the tensions that exist between those who propagate progressive interpretations of Sikh theology verses those who rely on orthodox ones. Unable to match my progressive arguments, and anxious over the growing subscriber base of my Radio Show, the orthodox groups joined hands – both in New Zealand and Punjab – to get the Akal Takhat Clergy, a firm believer in maintaining the orthodox interpretation of Sikhism, to excommunicate me.

The excommunication is, at its core, an instrument to silence me. The Akal Takhat has no jurisdiction over me – a Sikh and citizen of New Zealand. The Akal Takhat is being used by the orthodox groups to shut down the voices of progressive and reformative Sikhs. The Akal Takhat does not have the authority and power to excommunicate anyone for the reason that such a notion does not exist in the Sikh Scripture – the Sri Guru Granth Sahib.”^[29]

6.0 THE CASE BY THE PROPONENTS OF AKAL TAKHAT.

Proponents and supporters of the continued existence, authority, power and jurisdiction base their arguments on the following points and sources.

1. That the Akal Takhat was conceptualized, set up and constructed by the sixth Guru;
2. That the earliest historical account of the narrative of Akal Takhat as in (1) above is found in the Gurbilas Patshahi 6 which was authored in 1718;
3. That the “Sarbat Khalsa” of the 1700s and 1800s were held at Akal Takhat; and
4. Gurbani as contained within the SGGS ji.

Items (1) and (2) above have been dealt with in the preceding sections of this essay. If one accepts the narrative of the Gurbilas Patshahi 6 that Guru Hargobind built the Akal Takhat, then one must also accept the narrative that the Darbar Sahib, the Akal Takhat and the concept of Miri Piri was the brainchild of Lord Vishnu, that the name of the temple is Harmandar and that the Takhat belongs to Vishnu. One cannot be selective in accepting only what fits one’s agenda.

As for item (3), the Sarbat Khalsa gatherings of 1721, 1733, 1745, 1747, 1748, 1763, 1765, could not have taken place at the Akal Takhat, because such an institution did not exist then. Even the final Sarbat Khalsa of 1804 (prior to its abolition in 1805 by Maharaja Ranjit Singh), as recorded by Lt. Col. Malcolm in his 1812 book, The Sketch of the Sikhs, does not mention Akal Takht.

What remains to be examined is point 4 above. To examine the usage of relevant verses, a latest article titled “Akal Takhat – Sovereign Authority of Sikhs”^[30] within the pages of The Sikh Review will prove helpful. The article starts by quoting a verse from page 964 of the SGGS: ਵਡਾ ਤੇਰਾ ਦਰਬਾਰੁ ਸਚਾ ਤੁਧੁ ਤਖਤੁ ॥ Vda Tayra Darbar Scha Tudh Takhat. The translation provided is: “Your Court is great. Your throne is eternal.” The sentence that follows is “The Akal Takhat Sahib is the manifestation of Guru Nanak Sahib’s sovereign authority in socio-political, judicial and military realms.”

The use of a Gurbani verse to make the above point is either disingenuous or born out of ignorance. If it is the former, then the objective appears to be to mislead the reader into thinking that Guru Nanak himself supported the notion of Akal Takhat Sahib and the evidence is in the verse that is quoted. Why else is it being quoted right before the first sentence. If it’s the result of ignorance, then it would help to note the following points:

1. The verse is taken from a paurri within ਰਾਮਕਲੀ ਕੀ ਵਾਰ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ Ramkli Ki Var Mehla 5. This means the verse is authored by Guru Arjun, not by Guru Nanak as the authors would like to have the reader believe.
2. The verse that immediately follows the couplet is critical to get to the real meaning. The couplet in full is ਵਡਾ ਤੇਰਾ ਦਰਬਾਰੁ ਸਚਾ ਤੁਧੁ ਤਖਤੁ ॥ ਸਿਰਿ ਸਾਹਾ ਪਾਤਿਸਾਹੁ ਨਿਹਚਲੁ ਚਉਰੁ ਛਤੁ ॥ Vda Tayra Darbar Scha Tudh Takhat. Ser Shaha(n) Patshah Nehchul Chaur Chhat. It is clear from the second verse that this couplet of Guru Arjun is referring to the “throne of the Divine” or the “authority of the Creator” and has nothing to do with some man-made structure that is the Akal Takhat at Amritsar.

A second verse from the SGGS is used in the following manner.

“The original Takht, built by Guru Hargobind Sahib…. It was from this eternal throne that the Guru ruled as an independent and divinely inspired sovereign. As the Guru Granth Sahib says: ਸਚਾ ਆਪਿ ਤਖਤੁ ਸਚਾ ਬਹਿ ਸਚਾ ਕਰੇ ਨਿਆਉ ॥ You are eternal, the throne is eternal; the Eternal sits and delivers justice. (SGGS 949).

Again, the use of this Gurbani verse to make the point that “It was from this eternal throne that Guru Hargobind ruled…”is either disingenuous or born out of ignorance. The verse is authored by Guru Amardas ji in ਰਾਮਕਲੀ ਕੀ ਵਾਰ ਮਹਲਾ ੩ ॥ Ramkli Ki Var Mehla 3 and the full couplet – ਸਚਾ ਆਪਿ ਤਖਤੁ ਸਚਾ ਬਹਿ ਸਚਾ ਕਰੇ ਨਿਆਉ ॥ ਸਭੁ ਸਚੋ ਸਚੁ ਵਰਤਦਾ ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਅਲਖੁ ਲਖਾਈ ॥ Scha Aaap Takhat Scha Beh Kray Niayo. Sabh Sacho Sach Vartda Gurmukh Alakh Lkhayi – makes it abundantly clear that the third Guru is referring to the Divine Creator, and the ਨਿਆਉ being referred to is the justice of Divine Law or Hukm.

If one accepts the notion that Guru Hargobind ji sat on the Eternal Throne that is being referred to by Guru Arjun ji on page 964 and Guru Amardas ji on page 949 of the SGGS respectively, then one can ask two questions that were first asked Historian Harjinder Singh.^[31] (i) Who sat on this Eternal Throne prior to Guru Hargobind ji? (ii) If it did not exist prior to Guru Hargobind ji, then how was “Eternal Justice” delivered?”

A pattern can be deciphered from the manner in which Gurbani verses are used by proponents and supporters of the continued existence, authority, power and jurisdiction of the Akal Takhat. This pattern can be summarized as follows. (i) Full couplets are not provided, perhaps for fear of the reader realizing that the verse has everything to do with the Divine and the Creator, but nothing to do with the clergy institution called the ‘Akal Takhat.’ (ii) Verses are used to make points that suit the arguments of the proponents but these points are not even remotely made by the authors of the Gurbani verses. (iii) Verses of Gurus other than Guru Nanak are insinuated as being composed by Guru Nanak to add weight to arguments of the proponents. For instance, in The Sikh Review article being referred to above, a verse of Guru Arjun ji is used to make the point that “The Akal Takhat Sahib is the manifestation of Guru Nanak Sahib’s sovereign authority.”

The use of Gurbani to support the continued existence, authority, power and jurisdiction of the Akal Takhat is an exercise in futility because no such verses exist. The only way available to, and deployed by writers and advocates who wish to engage in such a futile exercise is to misquote and misuse verses with the hope that readers would be misled into thinking Gurbani does indeed support their un-tenable positions. Needless to say, such writers lack intellectual honesty – losing their integrity in the eyes of serious readers as a result.

CONCLUSIONS

The following five conclusions can be made to establish the truth of the Akal Takhat.

1. There is not an iota of evidence to suggest that the Akal Takhat was set up by Guru Hargobind ji.
2. There is no such thing as “Akal Takhat” from a genuine historical perspective either. The term cannot be found in any historical text of credibility. Its first usage is in the 1920s.
3. There is no such thing as “Jathedar of Akal Takhat” being a long-standing position dating back to the Guru period. The title “Jathedar of Akal Takhat” was first used in 1920 AD
4. The Akal Takhat is an institution that has been forced upon the Sikh world as a pujari institution by the pujari class for the purposes of control and domination of Sikh affairs and matters by the pujari clas
5. From the legal perspective the Akal Takhat is a Gurdwara and the 5 “Jathedars” are Granthis under the employ of the SGPC. They are hired, paid, and when it suits, fired by the SGPC.  

 

In essence then, the deceptions pertaining to the Akal Takhat are multi-fold. The first untruth concerns the notion that the Akal Takhat is a seat of sovereign institution with jurisdiction over the entire Sikh world. The legal provisions of the Sikh Gurdwara Act 1925 which governs both the Akal Takhat and its governing body, SGPC, accords it no such powers.

The second untruth is that the Akal Takhat was set up by the sixth Guru Hargobind Ji. All the sixth Guru did was to construct a platform to enable groups of Sikhs to have discourses. One could argue that the platform represented a concept that was related to discoursing social, political, historical and communal issues – issues that, for the reason that they are not spiritual, could not be arbitrated in the Darbar Sahib. But to take this concept into the institutionalized form that the parties who control and manage the Akal Takhat today have made it out to be – issuing edicts that are applicable to the entire Sikh world, excommunicating Sikhs, and subject to politicization by the political parties – and then say such an institution was founded by the sixth Guru is to stretch the argument too thin. Historian Dilgeer has put it as bluntly as anyone could: ਇਹ ਝੂਠ ਪਰੋਸਣਾ ਬੰਦ ਕਰੋ ਕਿ ਗੁਰੂ ਹਰਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਨੇ (ਅਖੌਤੀ) “ਅਕਾਲ ਤਖ਼ਤ ਦੀ ਸਾਜਨਾ ਕੀਤੀ” … ਜਿਹੜੀ ਕੌਮ ਗ਼ਲਤ ਇਤਿਹਾਸ ਪਰਚਾਰਦੀ ਹੈ ਉਸ ਦੀਆਂ ਨਸਲਾਂ ਝੂਠ ‘ਤੇ ਪਲਦੀਆਂ ਹਨ। ਝੂਠ ਅੱਗੋਂ ਹੋਰ ਝੂਠ ਪੈਦਾ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ।^[32] Translation: The spreading of the lie that Guru Hargobind was the founder of the (so called) Akal Takhat needs to stop…The descendant generations of nations that propagate historical fabrications are nourished on lies. Fraud breeds fraud.

The third untruth is that the Akal Takhat is “independent.” A cursory examination of its behaviour in the past 7 decades makes it clear that it is a politicized instrument, weaponized by the Badals, SGPC, deras, taksals and others for political gains.

The fourth untruth is that the “Jathedar” of the Akal Takhat is a real position with real authority comparable say to the Vatican in Rome. This would only be true if the Vatican was a mere Priest who was hired, paid and subject to being fired by a local Church in Rome.

This is not to say that the Sikh world ought not to have an independent institution with sovereign authority in social, political, and religious matters. However, such an institution must be set up with input and consent of a wide array of Sikh organizations, thinkers, writers and intellectuals. This representation must be global, if the jurisdiction is intended to be global. The Sewadars that will be appointed must be of calibre and integrity; educated, of standing; neutral, far-sighted; with a capability to lead the panth out of its myriad challenges. The organization must have a constitution that mirrors the philosophical principles of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib; and embody practical functions that reflect the needs of the Sikh world in the 21^st Century. Its constitution must empower it to be free from weaponization by political groups, sects, cults and agenda-based individuals.

The argument for reforming the current structure of the Akal Takhat, while attractive, is not practical given its history of the past 7 decades. The Akal Takhat (and to a certain extent the SGPC and Akali Dal) is too broken, too untrusted, too politicized, too divisive and too weaponized to agree to any kind of real and serious reform. A complete overhaul is required.

Sikh thinkers, writers, parcharaks, intellectuals, and institutions need to provide fresh and out of the box ideas – with intellectual honesty – to achieve such a goal. For a start, the current practice of repeating untruths, selective reliance on blasphemous texts, abusing Gurbani to make points in favor of the current structure and ignoring its continued weaponization by the political parties, politicians, deras, sampardas and taksals must stop.

1. Bhai Gurdas, Vaar 26, paurri 24^th verse four. ↑
2. Bhai Gurdas, Vaar 1, paurri 38^th, verse two. ↑
3. David Shea and Anthony Troyer, The Dabistan or School of Manners, Montanna, USA, Kessinger Publishing, 2010. ↑
4. Dr Iqbal Singh Dhillon writes on page 31 of his book, ਅਕਾਲ ਤਖਤ: ਸੰਕਲਪ ਅਤੇ ਵਿਵਸਥਾ। Akal Takhat: Sankalap Atay Vevastha, Chandigarh: Self, 2012, that Mohsen Fani does not mention the phrase “Akal Bunga” as well. Dr Iqbal’s research on the history and origin of Akal Takhat is one of the most comprehensive works that is available. Book accessed on 31 March 2025 and available here: https://www.discoversikhism.com/sikh_library/gurmukhi/akaal_takhat_sankalp_atey_vivastha.html ↑
5. Quoted in Ibid, page 32. ↑
6. Malcolm, Lt. Col. The Sketch Of The Sikhs: A Singular Nation Who Inhabit The Provinces Of The Penjab, London: John Murray, 1812. There is a description of the Sarbat Khalsa on page 120. ↑
7. Bute Shah, The Geographical Description of the Punjab, Punjabi version by Rev J. Porter, Ludhiana, Punjab: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1850. ↑
8. Ibid, page 51. ↑
9. Harjinder Singh Dilgeer, “The Myth of Akal Takhat.” Article available at https://www.academia.edu/44522964/The_Myth_of_Akal_Takht. Accessed on 30 March 2025. ↑
10. Dr Harjinder Singh Dilgeer, Akal Takhat Sahib: Concept and Role, Sikh University Press, 2011. Pp 31-37. ↑
11. Dr Iqbal Singh Dhillon. Akal Takhat, op.cit. ↑
12. This claim is long-standing, but it was communicated directly to the author for the first time via an email dated April 7, 2025 that was sent to a group of Sikhs and copied to the author. ↑
13. Baldev Singh MA, Akal Takhat, Part 1. Video available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-F3E17Lf8. Accessed on 31 March 2025. ↑
14. Dr Harjinder Singh Dilgeer, Sikh History 1 Ancient Punjab & Guru Period 1000 OE – 1708 CE; Sikh University Press, 2011. Pp. 256. ↑
15. Dr Iqbal Singh Dhillon, Akal Takhat, op.cit. Pp.34-35. ↑
16. Harjinder Singh Dilgeer, “The Myth of Akal Takhat.” Article available at https://www.academia.edu/44522964/The_Myth_of_Akal_Takht. Accessed on 30 March 2025. ↑
17. Ibid.↑
18. Maharni Jind Kaur was the youngest wife of Ranjit Singh, being married at 18 when the maharaja himself was of 55. She was the 34th maharani and mother of Dalip Singh. The maharaja died just after 4 years of their marriage. Md. Yousof Alam, “Chronicle of the forgotten female warriors: Jind Kaur” in Tripura Times, available at: https://tripuratimes.com/ttimesarticle/chronicle-of-the-forgotten-female-warriorsjind-kaur-md-yousof-alam-45.html. Accessed on April 1, 2025. ↑
19. Karminder Singh Dhillon, The Hijacking of Sikhi (Revised Version), KL: Sikhi Vichar Forum, 2022. Chapters 1 -3. ↑
20. Baldev Singh MA, Akal Takhat, Part 1. Op.cit. ↑
21. Harjinder Singh Dilgeer, “The Myth of Akal Takhat.” Op.cit. ↑
22. Joginder Singh Vedanti & Dr Amarjit Singh, Gurbilas Patshahi 6, Amritsar: Dharam Parchar Committee, SGPC, 1998. Page 122. ↑
23. Ibid. Page 124. ↑
24. Ibid. Page 205. ↑
25. Joginder Singh Vedanti Gurbilas Patshahi 6. Op. Cit. Page 205. ↑
26. Ibid. ↑
27. Ibid. ↑
28. Karminder Singh Dhillon, “The Legitimacy of Excommunication in Sikhi: The Case of Professor Gurmukh Singh,” in The Sikh Bulletin Vol 3/2023, pp22-24. Article accessible here: https://www.sikhbulletin.com/Bulletins/SikhBulletin2023Issue3.pdf ↑
29. Personal communication with the author, 15 January, 2025. ↑
30. Charanpreet Singh, Harinder Singh, Santbir Singh, “Akal Takhat – Sovereign Authority of Sikhs, in The Sikh Review March 2025. Pp 56 – 62. ↑
31. Dilgeer writes: “Today, Akal Takht is being presented as Theo-political seat of the Sikhs. The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) and the supporters of the party controlling the SGPC claim that Akal Takht is ‘Throne of Akal (God)’ and the verdict, edicts, fatwas issued by the chief priest (whom they call Jathedar) are ‘Divine proclamations.’ They also assert that Akal Takht was ‘built’ by Guru Hargobind, the Sixth Guru. In a way, this is a ‘strange’ statement; because, it means that God did not have a ‘Takht’ before Guru Hargobind Sahib; and, secondly, it was Guru Hargobind who built a ‘Takht’ for God (meaning thereby that Guru Hargobind was superior to God) … all this is contradiction in terms.” Harjinder Singh Dilgeer, The Myth Of Akal Takhat, op.cit.32 Communicated via an email dated April 7, 2025 that was sent to a group of Sikhs and copied to the author.

    REFERENCES

    Baldev Singh MA, Akal Takhat, Part 1. Video available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-F3E17Lf8. Accessed on 31 March 2025.

    Bute Shah, The Geographical Description of the Punjab, Punjabi version by Rev J. Porter, Ludhiana, Punjab: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1850.

    Charanpreet Singh, Harinder Singh, Santbir Singh, “Akal Takhat – Sovereign Authority of Sikhs, in The Sikh Review March 2025.

    David Shea and Anthony Troyer, The Dabistan or School of Manners, Montanna, USA, Kessinger Publishing, 2010.

    Harjinder Singh Dilgeer, Akal Takhat Sahib: Concept and Role, Sikh University Press, 2011.

    ________, Sikh History 1 Ancient Punjab & Guru Period 1000 OE – 1708 CE, Sikh University Press, 2011.

    ________, “The Myth of Akal Takhat.” Article available at https://www.academia.edu/44522964/The_Myth_of_Akal_Takht.

    Joginder Singh Vedanti & Dr Amarjit Singh, ਗੁਰ ਬਿਲਾਸ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹੀ ੬ Gurbilas Patshahi 6, (Punjabi) Amritsar: Dharam Parchar Committee, SGPC, 1998.

    Iqbal Singh Dhillon, ਅਕਾਲ ਤਖਤ: ਸੰਕਲਪ ਅਤੇ ਵਿਵਸਥਾ। Akal Takhat: Sankalap Atay Vevastha, Chandigarh: Self, 2012.

    Karminder Singh Dhillon, The Hijacking of Sikhi (Revised Version), KL: Sikhi Vichar Forum, 2022.

    ________, “The Legitimacy of Excommunication in Sikhi: The Case of Professor Gurmukh Singh,” in The Sikh Bulletin Vol 3/2023, pp22-24. https://www.sikhbulletin.com/Bulletins/SikhBulletin2023Issue3.pdf

    Malcolm, Lt. Col. The Sketch of The Sikhs: A Singular Nation Who Inhabit the Provinces of The Penjab, London: John Murray, 1812.

    Md. Yousof Alam, “Chronicle of the forgotten female warriors: Jind Kaur” in Tripura Times, available at: https://tripuratimes.com/ttimesarticle/chronicle-of-the-forgotten-female-warriorsjind-kaur-md-yousof-alam-45.html.

    Pandit Narayan Singh, ਵਾਰਾਂ ਭਾਈ ਗੁਰਦਾਸ ਸਟੀਕ, Varan Bhai Gurdas Steek (Punjabi), Amritsar: Bhai Chatar Singh Jiwan Singh, 15^th Edition, 2005. ↑

32. ↑