Kids Corner

The images shown reflect civilized societies' view of, and disdain of, the lack of Due Process..

Columnists

Secret Trial = Kangaroo Court = Tainted Decision

by I.J. SINGH

 

 

January 29, 2010

I was thinking of the summary judgment at the Akal Takht that declared its own erstwhile chief guilty and excommunicated him in a proceeding that left little visible trail of an honest trial. 

But I spent half that night watching on television the British hearings on how Great Britain got involved in the Iraq War. 

The sole witness under the gun for several hours was Tony Blair - the British Prime Minister at the time when Britain got entangled in Iraq.  He squirmed, and he hemmed and hawed, and he defended himself vigorously.  He sat alone with his files and he periodically consulted them.  He may have been the Prime Minister but he responded politely.  He may have been the face of Britain for 10 years but here he was the star witness under the gun.  He gave little ground but he was grilled incessantly.  The questioning was polite but firm and insistent.

I found it instructive and heartening, but not only because I remain opposed to the war and it is satisfying to see the mighty proponents of it humbled and reduced to size.  I was most gratified that it was an open hearing; citizens could watch it over the tube.  The next morning even the American newspapers carried a detailed report.  Why? So that ordinary citizens like you and I could form honest opinions of a critical issue; so that we could judge for ourselves; so that we could become better-informed citizens.

Such proceedings tell me that procedure is all-important - and it is this that was missing in the action against Darshan Singh. 

Important as it is to get to the truth, it is equally important, if not more even more vital, to know how we get to the truth. The highest court in a land is that of the people; all power flows upwards from the people, it does not dribble downwards except in despotic systems of governance. So truth must be revealed in a process that remains honest and transparent with clear accountability.

Its called DUE PROCESS. All civilized societies recognize that without it, there is no semblance of fairness, there cannot be any claim to have been just. Period.

There are no 'ifs' and 'buts'.

Judges, no matter how intelligent, educated or dedicated, are human beings and, like us, have their own biases.  Absolute objectivity is an ideal, never the reality.  We all understand that.  Yet, we accept their judgments, even when they appear entirely flawed, largely for two reasons:  Because the process appears to be procedurally sound and, if we don't, society might crumble.

As an example, I point to the 2000 Presidential Election in the United States that put George W. Bush in the White House.  Even the Supreme Court was divided over the case and half the country still thinks that the judgment was wrong on both the facts and the law.  But the fact that the people accepted with good grace what they knew in their bones to be clearly erroneous tells me that we live in a society of laws, in spite of the many times when we feel in despair about it.

This brings me to the January 29 decision of the Akal Takht (with the other Jathedars acting in concert), to ex-communicate Prof. Darshan Singh, a legendary exponent of Gurbani through kirtan and of Sikh teachings.

Is this judgment sound?  Was the trial procedurally correct?  What does it say about the state of Sikh justice and Sikh people at this time?  What are its implications for Sikhs and the image of Sikh the world over?

The fact that all five Jathedars, including that of the Akal Takht, are bureaucrats who remain subservient to the political realities of Punjab and serve at the pleasure of their political bosses makes me cringe at the quality of justice available or possible. 

But these are the ground realities in India.

Many of us who remain attached to Sikhi see that our realities in the diaspora are different from those of Sikhs in Punjab and India. There is little, if any, political interference in our lives here.  But an equal place at the table in this multifaith society outside India is the priority that drives us.

It seems to us that Sikh institutions in India, including the Akal Takht, have little or no idea of our lives and concerns and little feeling or curiosity for it.

What is the outcome then?  Whenever there is an issue with significant ramifications for Sikhs worldwide, they become caught in the maelstrom of emotion and reason.  We respect the historical position of the institution of the Akal Takht but despair at its reality. The gulf between our lives and the vision of Indian institutions continue to be almost unbridgeable.

To me, this case is clear evidence of our need to evolve our own institutions to handle our own affairs in the diaspora and not remain tied to the inadequate and frayed apron strings of the Sikh institutions in Punjab.  I say this, but I am not advocating that we abandon Punjab and our 500 year old history there.  Let's nurture it, encourage and help that land and its people and culture - as equal partners.  We just cannot remain subservient to their parochial concerns and often politically driven agenda.

How then is one to respond to the edicts of the Akal Takht, including this one? 

I would not obsess too long about it. In the history of mankind, it is not the first nor the last time that governing authorities have acted unwisely or capriciously. 

Can one walk away from this edict while holding on for life to the teaching and the ideals of Sikhi? Or should the response be a knee jerk affirmation of obedience to a flawed process.

This is a decision that each of us has to make.  And we collectively need to respect the right of every Sikh to his or her own judgment. But let's not remain like an ostrich with its head buried in the sand.

I started with the British hearings on the Iraq War.  In religious trials, as in Governmental policy disputes, I would like to see this kind of a model of open hearings instead of closed or secret trials in camera, questionable evidence and insufficient procedural safeguards against capricious judgments. The bias should be less on obedience and more on respect for individual rights.  That's the only way religions will rule the hearts and minds of people. 

If the trial by the Akal Takht against Darshan Singh appears procedurally flawed rather than one based on sound, honestly handled evidence, how can we assume the judgment to be sound?  And what does it say about the state of Sikh justice today?

Trial in a kangaroo court certainly doesn't measure up to the hopes, expectations and the standards of the Gurus. We seem to have missed the fundamentals of Sikhi in our feudal approach to basic human rights and procedures.

No man is perfect and neither may be Darshan Singh. Am I an acolyte of Darshan Singh?  Absolutely not.  But summary ex-communication, like summary execution, speaks neither of justice nor of wisdom.  It seems to have been a hurried, ill-considered step, not a picture of sehaj under pressure. 

Sikhism is, when honestly seen, a liberal, forgiving and tolerant doctrine and teaching. Let's not imprison it within the narrow prisms of our own limited vision.

This decision excommunicating Darshan Singh, based more on local politics and narrow-mindedness than fact, reminds me of what the Roman Catholic Church did to Galileo, the finest mind of his day. In the 16th century. He was forced to recant, and under duress he did so. 

Slowly but surely common sense ultimately prevailed and ... 500 years later ... the Church forgave him.

Will Sikhs too have to wait 500 years to discover the meaning of justice, accountability and transparency?

In the final analysis, I suspect the Akal Takht will be obeyed and heeded about as much as it is respected and trusted.

 

January 31, 2010

ijsingh99@gmail.com

Conversation about this article

1: Neeru Kaur (Birmingham, United Kingdom), January 31, 2010, 11:44 AM.

Another excellent article on sikhchic.com. The killer line is "Akal Takht will be obeyed and heeded about as much as it is respected and trusted". At this present time, there is not much chance of this directive being heeded. There are already messages of support for Prof. Darshan Singh and will undoubtedly continue. A major disagreement is occurring in the community before our very eyes between those who want to do parkash of the Dasam Granth and those who see this as being fundamentally against Sikhi.

2: Tejwant Singh (Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A.), January 31, 2010, 12:40 PM.

Inder ji: Thanks again for the great essay. Your vision and analysis is like from one who belongs to the Jungian circle where one can see things as being part of the circle and also from the outside of it at the same time. When a baby is born, we cut the umbilical cord so that the nurturing can begin after nature has played its part. By having our institutions in the diaspora based on Sikhi ideals, we would be able to pitch in actively in the affairs that affect Sikhi and as we would not be artificially knotted with the political umbilical cord of Punjab, this would be the perfect way to see this "Jungian Circle" created by the honchos who are sitting cross-legged on their high chairs having no regards for gurmat ideals. I have some general questions though for my own understanding of Sikhi and they are more like "thinking aloud" rather than directed towards yourself. 1) What does ex-communication mean according to Sikh values? 2) Can someone explain what kind of gurmat values it is based? 3) How can one stop someone from being a learner, a Sikh, a seeker? Ex-communication also defies and shows its disregard for gurbani, which says, "Sabh Gobind hein, Gobind bin nahin koi". 4) How can one ex-communicate Gobind?

3: Gur (Boston, U.S.A.), January 31, 2010, 4:06 PM.

The Akal Takht is "Sri Akal Takht" as long its decisions are connected and answerable only to the Akal. If its authority continuously remains prey to political jackals, time is not far when spiritually bruised Sikhs might be painfully forced to reorganize the governance of its sacred institutions.

4: I.J. Singh (New York, U.S.A.), January 31, 2010, 7:40 PM.

Gur, I would say this: Sikhi is now a reality well beyond the borders of Punjab & India. Also, the current Sikh institutional structure comes to us from a different time, when India was not a free country. It is self-evident that we need to redefine, rediscover and restructure our institutions without compromising the basics bestowed to us by the Gurus and continuing to remain inclusive, as the Sikh message is. The question is: how do we go about it?

5: Peejay (Victoria, British Columbia, Canada), January 31, 2010, 10:07 PM.

A brilliant article by Dr. I.J. Singh. It appears that these five jathedars are acting like "mahants". Perhaps it is time that the world Sikh community excommunicates these jathedars.

6: Sukhindarpal Singh (Penang, Malaysia), February 01, 2010, 1:52 AM.

As always, Sardarji puts it all in perspective. Besides due process, there are also the Rules of Natural Justice. It saddens to know that our sacred institutions are being used by powers-that-be to vilify and persecute distinguished Sikhs who have done yeoman seva for the Panth at great risk to life and limb. The true Guru-da-Sikh that Bhai Darshan Singh is, this will be but another hiccup in his mission. How do these puppeteers sleep at night knowing that they are facilitating the "bipran ki reet" we were warned about? Guru Rakha.

7: Michele Gibson (Guelph, Ontario, Canada), February 01, 2010, 7:08 PM.

Or, Peejay: a modified Edwin Markham quote might be - "They drew a circle that shut him out, heretic rebels, a thing to flout. But love and I had wit to win, we drew a circle that took them in."

8: Amitoj Singh (New Jersey, U.S.A.), February 01, 2010, 10:26 PM.

Dhan dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Dhan dhan Guru Gobind Singh ji di bani. Dhan dhan Jaap Sahib, Tva Parsad Svaiye, Chaupai Sahib, Vaar Sri Bhagauti Ji Ki Patsahi 10.

9: Ikk Mutia (India), February 02, 2010, 10:11 AM.

We outright reject the whole drama. Such dramas have nothing to do with Sikhi. We will stand by Professor Sahib through thick and thin.

10: Jas (New York, U.S.A.), February 02, 2010, 10:48 AM.

I.J. Singh Ji, your view of how such "hearings" should be conducted seems very modern and up-to-date. But, 1) How were such hearings conducted in the past - open sessions or closed sessions? That is not to suggest that things can't change but I am interested in knowing. 2) I am wondering what gurbani and Sikh history say about the concept of democracy ... Thank you for sharing this article and stirring up our minds to think about these important issues.

11: Kirat (Berkeley, California, U.S.A.), February 02, 2010, 2:32 PM.

In response to Jas, I am applying perhaps a 'modern' understanding of Sikhi, but I think that what IJ is calling for isn't necessarily democracy, but transparency. I have a hard time imagining the Gurus wanted their Sikhs to come to some decisions publically, and others in spaces that are institutionally private. Additionally, the Akal Takht only serves to lose legitimacy if it is a black boxed institution.

12: I.J. Singh (New York, U.S.A.), February 02, 2010, 5:39 PM.

I truly appreciate the encouraging comments by readers. Thank you. But I have also received privately by e-mail and phone some comments that are not so kind. They raise important issues that need to be addressed - I had alluded to some but not elaborated on them in this brief essay. I absolutely do not suggest that we walk away from the Akal Takht and design a competing center of authority in the diaspora. But to challenge and push it is our duty. Let me explain my view by an example from this society. In my 50 years in this country, I have closely seen the upheavals of the struggle for racial equality. There were statutes on the books then that outlawed interracial marriage; racial discrimination was widely practiced - often with the support of legal institutions. People like Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Park and others who protested - and often broke the law to do so - knew that they would be judged guilty and punished by the law. They accepted that possibility and yet continued to challenge and change the system by their actions. This is how we need to look at the tussle between our ideas and the present reality of the Akal Takht. We need to accept the reality of the system that exists and continue the movement for change. Success will come but not in a day. Yet, we need to evolve our own local and regional institutions - not to challenge the Akal Takht, for that would be throwing out the baby with the bath water - but we need them to address our local and regional concerns. The Akal Takht, like the Supreme Court, need not be involved in every petty issue - from election disputes to the matter of tables and chairs in local langars. The Akal Takht should become necessary as the high authority only when matters before it are of significance that matter to the entire body of Sikhs worldwide. And then it would act in continuation of what local and regional bodies (like lower courts in secular society) have considered. At this time, of course, there are many structural issues with all the Takhts and their Jathedars - they owe their positions to the S.G.P.C., which owes its own existence to an act of the Indian Parliament. This, too, remains a historical anomaly. The infrastructure needed for the Takhts to act as the Rota of Supreme Court does not exist at this time. I have debated these inter-related issues in other essays that are available on this site. We need both, short-term answers that may not be entirely satisfactory to our problems today, but we also need to work on some long-term solutions.

13: Dr. Karnail Singh (Bidston Wirral, Merseyside, U.K.), February 07, 2010, 1:16 PM.

Dear Inder ji: Thank you for your comments regarding 'kangaroo courts' which I read with great interest. I'm sorry to tell you that I have no confidence in 99.9% of any 'court' or organisation or powers-that-be, in ANY country, let alone in India and especially those involving the Sikhs. It's no consolation to say that the issue regarding Bush for example was openly discussed, for most predicted the results. In the U.K. (The Mother of Parliaments) we have the Chilcot enquiry underway and, again, most know what the outcome will be. Is it not true that most societies are run by 'politicians' who, for the most part, are essentially profoundly egotistic individuals who want to tell you that they need your support to keep them in power so they can look after only YOUR best interest? What is not said of course is that this interest gain for you HAS to be at the expense of some other group of individuals and that they (the politicians) have their eye on progressing their own career - enabling them to handsomely line their pockets on the way. Mostly, these courts and Inquiries are mere charades meriting Oscars for their 'performance' and designed to lead the public into thinking that they are getting to the 'bottom of things' and unearthing 'the truth'! More tax payers' money going to their cronies and kind! Tony Blair is under scrutiny now and we all know what a wonderful sincere God-fearing person he is! The Iraq war may be shown to be illegal in the end but Tony with some help from Bush, has put the Iraqis on the path of democracy after getting rid of Saddam with only a few losses of U.K. and U.S.A. personnel. Of course, a hundred thousand or so Iraqi civilians were also killed especially during the carpet bombing - but that's just collateral damage which is only to be expected under the circumstances. Some would say it was a price worth paying for the future of the world! With the Pope visiting U.K., perhaps the Holy Father may even consider canonizing the recently converted Mr Blair in due course. (But I'm not sure whether there is already a St. Tony or not). Returning to the subject of kangaroo courts, the Jathedars at the Akal Takht 'seem' to me to be trying to following the system based on 'The Mother of Parliaments' principle inherited from the Raj and it's understandable that they are still relative novices at the game and that's why they are behaving the way they are and being caught out! Poor things. I do wonder why they don't seem to have consulted the Guru Granth Sahib for I believe the answers will be found there. But unfortunately I'm not a Sikh scholar so perhaps I should keep quite for fear of putting my foot in it! Actually I should have kept quite in the first place - for my real reason in writing was to ask why the poor kangaroos (in the pictures accompanying your article) are being insulted and humiliated by making them dress up in such ridiculous paraphernalia?

14: I.J. Singh (New York, U.S.A.), February 15, 2010, 6:58 AM.

Kirpal Singh ji: I am sorry that your comment was so late. You mention the "ridiculous" get-up of the poor kangaroos. For that you have to speak to the Editor. That matter was his prerogative or that of the art director of the site. Sorry to demean the kangaroos. But thank you very much for your detailed comments on and about the matters raised in the piece.

Comment on "Secret Trial = Kangaroo Court = Tainted Decision"









To help us distinguish between comments submitted by individuals and those automatically entered by software robots, please complete the following.

Please note: your email address will not be shown on the site, this is for contact and follow-up purposes only. All information will be handled in accordance with our Privacy Policy. Sikhchic reserves the right to edit or remove content at any time.