The Panth the Law Cannot See
How the Sikh institution was freed, enclosed, and divided, and why the wholeness of the Panth was never the state’s to grant
Excerpt. The constitutional order has no category for the Guru’s Panth. It can recognise the Sikhs of a state, who map onto a legislature and an electoral roll, but it has nowhere to put the Panth, which is the population of no state and the creature of no Act. So when the law sets out to let Sikhs govern their own affairs, it can do so only by cutting the Panth into state-shaped pieces. The division is not the betrayal of self-government. It is what self-government becomes once it is run through a machinery that can see a state’s Sikhs and never the Guru’s Panth.
The question beneath the committees
For close to two hundred years the Panth has argued about who should govern its institutions, and the argument has had a shape we rarely stop to name.
We contest the number of seats on a committee, the share of nominees, the honesty of a chairman, the fairness of an election, the timing of a vote, the conduct of an office-holder. These questions matter. But beneath them sits a prior question:
Can the Panth act as one body under the Guru at all, or have we agreed, without ever quite deciding it, to exist only as the Sikhs of one state and the Sikhs of another?
This essay is about that prior question.
It is the institutional form of the argument set down in Under the Guru Alone: that the Sikh stands under Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji and under no other authority, and that Sikh institutions must remain answerable to the Shabad and the sangat, not to state, party, family, faction, or ideology. The book’s method is simple: Shabad first, every outside frame second.
The present Hazur Sahib dispute makes the question urgent. But the issue is older than the current Bill. The Bill is one expression of a deeper condition: Sikh institutions have been repeatedly freed into legal forms that can administer them, but cannot see the Panth whole.
Shabad and the wholeness of the Panth
The ground must be laid before the history is read.
On Ang 943, in Ramkali Siddh Gosht, Mahala 1, Guru Nanak Sahib answers the Siddhs who ask him whose disciple he is:
ਸਬਦੁ ਗੁਰੂ ਸੁਰਤਿ ਧੁਨਿ ਚੇਲਾ ॥
Romanised guide: sabad guroo surat dhun chelaa
Learning-aid sense: The Shabad is Guru, and the consciousness attuned to it is the disciple.
This settles where Sikh authority begins. It also settles where Sikh unity begins.
The Panth is not one because it shares a territory, a language, a committee, a party, or a vote. It is one because it stands together under the Shabad. Its wholeness is constituted under the Guru and nowhere else.
No state flag contains it.
No register contains it.
No legislature convenes it.
This is not a sentimental claim. It is the most practical fact in all that follows. A people whose unity rests on the Shabad cannot have that unity granted, divided, or withdrawn by any power that does not hold the Shabad.
The long story of the Sikh institution is the story of what happened when we forgot this, and allowed the Panth’s wholeness to be treated as something a state could organise.
How a Takht comes to be
Consider first how the seats of Sikh authority themselves came about, because the answer is more varied than the phrase “the five Takhts” can suggest.
Sri Akal Takht Sahib is the clearest case of a Takht raised by the Guru as an explicit seat of Sikh temporal authority. Guru Hargobind Sahib raised it after the martyrdom of Guru Arjan Sahib, facing Sri Harmandir Sahib. Sikh historical memory records that the platform was raised from within the Guru’s order, associated with Baba Buddha Ji and Bhai Gurdas Ji, not as an imperial grant. It also remembers its elevation as a challenge to worldly limits on public authority. The exact dating and some early naming details are discussed by scholars, and should be stated with care; but the meaning the Panth remembers is plain. The Takht was constituted from within the Guru’s order, not by the state.
The other Takhts carry their authority through the Gurus’ lives and through Panthic recognition over time. Keshgarh Sahib, Patna Sahib, and Hazur Sahib are places sanctified by the Gurus’ own presence and acts: the birthplace of the Khalsa, the birthplace of Guru Gobind Singh Sahib, and the place of his final earthly days and of the Guruship of Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji for the Panth. Damdama Sahib’s formal recognition as the fifth Takht came through modern Panthic and later official processes.
I set this down not to diminish any Takht. Every Takht is held by the Panth in reverence. The point is different.
Where the Gurus constituted, they constituted under the Guru’s authority. Where modern bodies declared and the state recognised, the act was now passing through committee and legal machinery. That drift, from Guru and Panth to committee and gazette, is the subject of this essay.
When trusteeship swallowed sovereignty
Its clearest single sign is hidden in the legal and institutional language.
The Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 contains the language of ministers and office-holders, and provides machinery for appointment, dismissal, and management. But it does not create a clear Panthic constitutional basis for the modern power by which the SGPC appoints and removes Jathedars as sovereignty-bearing voices of the Takhts. Later management practice and the SGPC’s own Parbandh Scheme helped fold the language of Head Minister into the office now treated as Jathedar. That is precisely the problem: an office carrying Panthic weight came to sit inside a trusteeship and management frame.
This matters.
The SGPC was created to manage gurdwaras: property, institutions, committees, elections, funds, administration. It was not created by the Guru as the source of Panthic sovereignty. Yet over time the power to appoint and remove Jathedars came to sit with the very body whose work was trusteeship.
Before modern statutory trusteeship, the Panthic principle was that questions of collective Sikh sovereignty arose through Sarbat Khalsa and Gurmata: the gathered Panth deliberating under the Guru, not a property-management committee acting by statutory default.
Read the sequence slowly.
A sovereignty that once lived in the gathered Panth under the Guru came to be exercised by a committee constituted to manage property, under a statute and management scheme that do not clearly create that sovereignty power, because the committee was present and the gathered Panth was not.
This is what it looks like when trusteeship swallows sovereignty.
It is not theory. It is the manner in which appointment, office, salary, buildings, staff, and committee control came to sit next to claims of Panthic authority. And it is why those appointments can be contested, reversed, defended, and condemned with such force to this day.
When the body that controls buildings, budgets, and payroll also controls the offices that speak from the Takht, capture is not an accident. It is designed into the arrangement.
The enclosure of 1925
It is necessary to be just to the 1925 Act, because the injustice of forgetting its achievement is as real as the harm of mistaking its nature.
The Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 was a genuine and hard-won victory. It wrested the historic gurdwaras from corrupt hereditary mahants and colonial managers, at the price of real Sikh suffering, and vested them in a body elected by Sikhs. No honest account denies this.
But the same document that freed the gurdwaras also enclosed them.
In the act of liberation, Sikh institutions were brought into being, defined, and bounded by state law. Their existence, membership, election machinery, and governing structure became creatures of a statute. Liberation and administration arrived in the same instrument.
We have lived ever since inside the second while celebrating the first.
This is the hinge on which the later history turns. Once the Sikh institution exists by the state’s recognition, its shape becomes something the state can alter. And once its shape can be altered by the state, the unity of the Panth becomes something the law recognises only on the state’s terms.
How the Panth was cut into states
Those terms became visible as Sikh institutions were divided. The pattern is consistent.
In Delhi, the gurdwaras that had once been tied to a wider Sikh institutional field came under the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971. Elections and committee formation operate through statutory machinery, including the Directorate of Gurdwara Elections.
In Haryana, gurdwaras were removed from the SGPC framework by the Haryana Sikh Gurdwaras (Management) Act, 2014. After years of litigation, the Supreme Court upheld the state legislation in Harbhajan Singh v State of Haryana in 2022. The judgment treated the matter through the competence of the state legislature and the management of Sikh gurdwaras within Haryana.
The two Takhts outside Panjab, Patna Sahib and Hazur Sahib, are also governed by their own statutory or legally structured committees.
At no point in this machinery is the Panth permitted to be the unit. The unit is always the Sikhs of a state, a territory, a statute, a roll, or a committee. The law can count those Sikhs. It can assign those Sikhs to a body. It can give those Sikhs elections under that state’s frame.
But it cannot see the Guru’s Panth as one body under Shabad.
That is the wound.
Money, party, and the prize of the golak
It would be dishonest to pretend this is only doctrine. It is also money, property, employment, prestige, contracts, and political leverage.
These bodies do not manage devotion alone. They manage vast offerings, land, schools, colleges, hospitals, staff, trusts, buildings, printing presses, media access, contracts, and appointments. Recent SGPC annual budgets have run well above ₹1,300 crore, and the 2026–27 budget, passed in March 2026, is ₹1,487.41 crore.
Once institutions hold that scale of resources, they become permanent capture targets.
To control one of these bodies is to control money and patronage as much as management. It is to influence who is employed, who is platformed, which institutions grow, which projects are funded, which voices are amplified, and which are ignored.
Public complaints and reporting have repeatedly raised concerns about funds, memberships, properties, contracts, and institutional control. Those allegations must be treated as allegations unless proved. But the constitutional point does not depend on whether every charge is established. The point is simpler:
A body that holds money, land, jobs, platforms, and offices will be fought over.
And if that same body sits close to Panthic sovereignty, then every money dispute becomes a Panthic dispute; every committee contest becomes a religious crisis; every factional appointment claims the aura of the Guru’s house.
This is why design matters.
A governance system that assumes capture will not be attempted is already unserious. A mature system assumes capture will be attempted and builds the locks.
Party is not one hand; it is many hands
The party question must also be handled precisely. The truth is worse and less tidy than a single conspiracy.
There is no one hand. There are several, each reaching for advantage.
The SGPC has long been dominated by the Shiromani Akali Dal, and critics have repeatedly described that dominance as family-centred party power. The Haryana separation was passed by a Congress state government. The Delhi committee has seen its own party struggles, alignments, defections, and accusations of outside interference. Hazur Sahib now sits under Maharashtra’s state-led reform attempt.
Congress in one state, Akali dominance in another, allegations around other parties in a third: each reaches for whatever lever lies to hand, whether assembly, Parliament, election directorate, board nomination, administrator, court, or statute, to capture, defend, strip, or redirect a body worth controlling.
This is not the signature of one master plan.
It is the predictable behaviour of many interests around large and capturable pools of money, office, and prestige.
That is more damning than a plot, not less. A plot can be exposed and defeated. This requires no coordination at all. It follows automatically from the single prior mistake of letting the Guru’s institutions be constituted as state-shaped bodies with treasuries and offices worth seizing.
What the law cannot see
Beneath the money and the parties lies the deepest layer, and it is the one the sangat has least grasped because it remains invisible until named.
The reason the Panth cannot defend its wholeness in the courts is not only that its leaders are divided. It is that the constitutional order itself has no operative category for the Guru’s Panth.
This is not an accusation. It is a structural fact.
It was made visible in the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Haryana case. The SGPC’s argument, in substance, was that Sikh shrines should remain under one Sikh body and that fragmentation breaks Panthic unity. The Court did not set out to deny Sikh feeling. It assessed the law as a constitutional court must: state competence, statutory management, minority rights in the state, and whether the affairs of the Sikh minority in Haryana were still to be managed by Sikhs. The judgment records that the Haryana Act created a separate juristic entity for the management of gurdwaras in Haryana, and the Court reasoned that because the affairs of the Sikh minority in the state were to be managed by Sikhs, Articles 25 and 26 were not violated.
Hold that logic to the light.
The principle sounds like ours: Sikh affairs managed by Sikhs alone.
But the only Sikhs the law can recognise as a single unit are the Sikhs of a state, because they map onto a legislature, an electoral roll, and an entry in the schedule of powers.
The Guru’s Panth maps onto none of these.
It is the population of no state.
It convenes no legislature.
It appears in no constitutional schedule.
It cannot be reduced to Panjab, Haryana, Delhi, Maharashtra, Patna, London, Vancouver, Nairobi, or Melbourne.
So when the principle “Sikhs should manage Sikh affairs” is run through a machine that can see only state-bounded Sikhs, it does not produce one Panth managing its own house. It produces many state-bounded bodies, each managing its own fragment.
The division is not a betrayal of the machinery. It is what the machinery is built to do.
Even the SGPC, the nearest the Sikhs have to a wider institutional body, appears in law not as the Guru’s Panth but as a statutory body with a particular legal history. It carries wider reach by legislative arrangement, not by the law’s recognition of Panthic wholeness.
This is why courts may protect statutory rights and decide legal disputes, but they cannot supply the Panthic category that the statutory order itself does not contain.
A Sikh in Amritsar, a Sikh in Delhi, a Sikh in Kurukshetra, a Sikh in Nanded, and a Sikh in London may all stand under one Guru. But the constitutional machinery sees them through different state, territorial, or national frames. It has no place where they act as one body under Shabad.
When Haryana left the SGPC framework, the Panth could not answer in legal language, “But we are one,” because the law has nowhere to record that sentence.
It could hear only the Sikhs of Haryana and the Sikhs of Panjab.
And between those two, the machinery is built to resolve the question through state categories.
The wound from our own side
Here the argument must turn inward, or it forfeits the right to be made at all.
It would be easy, and false, to tell this as the story of a people wronged only from without by a hostile state and its courts. The state’s logic is real. The law’s inability to see the Panth whole is real. But the fragmentation was not done to a unified Panth that always resisted it.
Much of it we drove ourselves.
The demand for a separate Haryana committee came from Haryana Sikhs and was pressed for years against the SGPC. The Delhi separation grew from real and bitter contests among Sikhs. The SGPC’s own paralysis is the work of Sikh party capture, not only Delhi. Sikh treasuries have been fought over by Sikh hands as often as they have been placed within reach by state law.
This is the one wound seen from two sides, the same wound Under the Guru Alone refuses to let us forget: outside pressure that has never relented, and inside failure of our own.
The thinning of transmission.
The hunger for office.
The confusion of committee control with Panthic authority.
The readiness to call in the state against a rival Sikh.
The willingness to defend a captured structure when our side holds it.
A Panth that names only the outside pressure forfeits the standing to name anything but grievance. We were not only divided. We consented to be divided, and often we asked for it.
That honesty is not self-hatred. It is the condition of repair.
What was never the state’s to give
What then is to be done, if the courts cannot grant the Panth’s unity and the state cannot constitute the Guru’s seat?
The answer is not lawlessness. It is not the abandonment of gurdwaras, accounts, property registers, employment rules, audit, or proper administration. The Guru’s institutions must be more truthful, not less disciplined.
The distinction that frees us is the old one: between the Guru’s authority and the body’s worldly existence.
A gurdwara may hold land. It may keep accounts. It may employ people. It may meet courts. It may need contracts, registers, insurance, safety rules, and legal process. On that plane, the ordinary law touches it as it touches other lawful holdings.
But none of that is the source of Sikh authority.
The Panth should keep its registers honest, its audits independent, its accounts clean, its appointments disciplined, and its conduct transparent. It should do so not because the state grants it legitimacy, but because truthful living is the Guru’s own demand.
Guru Nanak Sahib gives the test on Ang 62, in Sri Raag, Mahala 1:
ਸਚਹੁ ਓਰੈ ਸਭੁ ਕੋ ਉਪਰਿ ਸਚੁ ਆਚਾਰੁ ॥੫॥
Romanised guide: sachahu orai sabh ko upar sach aachaar
Learning-aid sense: Truth is higher than all things; higher still is truthful living.
An institution is not made true by clean accounts and a working election alone. It is made true by living truthfully: by answering in its actual working to the Shabad and the sangat, not to office, money, party, state, or faction.
That answering is precisely what no state statute can supply, because it was never the state’s to give.
The Panth’s wholeness was constituted under the Guru. A thing the state did not give, the state cannot take, divide, or withhold.
The recovery of Sikh unity is therefore not a petition to any legislature, which has no category to receive it. It is a return to the only ground on which that unity ever stood: the gathered Panth under the Shabad, constituting its own institutions and naming its own discipline.
This does not mean ignoring law. It means refusing to mistake law for Guru.
State paperwork is not sovereignty.
A register is not a Guru.
An Act is not the Panth.
Not fear, and not anger
This is not a counsel of despair, and its tone is not anger.
The whole of this history is designed to produce anger in the Sikh. A Panth moved to fury is a Panth moved exactly where its adversaries would place it. The Guru’s first words are Nirbhau and Nirvair: without fear and without enmity. They are the instrument here.
We have no reason to fear a state that holds force but was never given authority over the Guru’s seat. And we give that state no reason to fear us.
We need only stop mistaking our wholeness for something it can grant.
Powers come and go from Delhi and from state capitals, as they have come and gone for five hundred years. The throne of the Timeless does not change hands. The Panth that stands under it is not the Sikhs of any state. It is the Guru’s, and it is one.
The Takht is not the state’s to constitute
This returns us to where the present argument began, with a Bill in Maharashtra proposing to seat a state-shaped board over Hazur Sahib.
Set against this history, the Bill is not an anomaly to be amended. It is the latest instance of the oldest pressure.
The courts cannot finally save the Panth from that pressure, because the courts work inside the categories that create it. They can see a state’s Sikhs. They cannot see the Guru’s Panth whole.
The only ground left is the prior one, and it is enough.
A Takht is not the state’s to constitute.
The Panth is not the state’s to divide.
The wholeness of the Sikhs was never the law’s to see, to grant, or to take away.
It belongs to the Guru alone.
And so do we.
Gurbani note
Gurbani cited above has been checked against standard sources and the verified PanthSeva book master: Ang 943, Ramkali Siddh Gosht, Mahala 1; and Ang 62, Sri Raag, Mahala 1. English renderings are learning aids only; Gurmukhi remains primary.
Source note
The historical, financial, and legal claims in this essay should be read with the following source frame.
The Shabad-first institutional method follows Under the Guru Alone: Why Sikhi Must Remain Whole, whose method note states: “Shabad first. Every outside frame second,” and whose Prologue argues that Sikh institutions must remain answerable to the Shabad and the sangat, not to state, party, family, faction, or ideology.
On the 1925 statutory frame, see the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925. The Act’s own structure and terminology are central to the point that statutory trusteeship is not identical to Panthic sovereignty. Later discussion of “Head Minister” and “Jathedar” should be read with care because the statutory text, the SGPC Parbandh Scheme, and later practice do not carry the same kind of authority.
On Delhi, see the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971 and the Directorate of Gurdwara Elections framework.
On Haryana, see the Haryana Sikh Gurdwaras (Management) Act, 2014 and the Supreme Court judgment in Harbhajan Singh v State of Haryana upholding the Act.
On SGPC elections, no SGPC general election has been held since 2011, as recorded in contemporary reporting.
On the SGPC budget, the 2026–27 budget of ₹1,487.41 crore was passed by the SGPC in March 2026 and reported across the Indian press.
On Damdama Sahib’s modern recognition as the fifth Takht, public Sikh sources record its recognition in 1966, with later official acknowledgement.
On the Hazur Sahib Bill, see the draft Takhat Sachkhand Shri Hazur Abchalnagar Sahib Gurudwara Bill, 2024, which defines the Board, Committee, Government, Gurudwara, Gurudwara property, and the machinery of administration, control, and management.
Allegations of financial or institutional wrongdoing referred to in this essay are treated as matters of public complaint, reporting, or record, not as findings of guilt.
Correction note
If any error in text, Ang reference, attribution, legal description, historical detail, or source sense is found, it will be corrected publicly with a dated note.
Strong disagreement is welcome. Contempt is not.
Bhul chuk maaf karni ji.
Gurjit Singh Sandhu
PanthSeva