Listen to the article
In an unprecedented move, Takht Patna Sahib has issued a formal directive to the Sikh community, calling for an immediate end to what it describes as “false propaganda, rumours and misleading interpretation” against Damdami Taksal chief Baba Harnam Singh Dhuma. The decree, released on Tuesday, marks what observers believe to be the first time a Sikh Takht has issued such specific protection for an individual Sikh leader.
The directive, titled “The directive by five high priests of Takht Patna Sahib” and signed by Takht Patna Sahib superintendent Daljit Singh, was promptly shared on Baba Dhuma’s Facebook page Tuesday evening.
“In recent days, there seems to be an unfortunate and condemnable attempt to spread rumours and false propaganda within the Sikh community through social media and other channels, which is harmful to the unity of the Panth,” the statement reads. It goes on to defend Baba Dhuma, describing him as someone “continuously serving the community through the promotion of Gurmat, Amrit Sanchar events, and selfless service.”
The Takht claims that “mischievous and anti-Panth elements” fearful of Baba Dhuma’s “growing popularity and influence” are orchestrating a campaign to damage his reputation with false accusations.
Religious authorities at Takht Patna Sahib, one of the five seats of temporal authority in Sikhism, issued a stern warning that such campaigns are “not only condemnable but also against the Panthic code and the honour of the great personalities.” The directive emphasizes that “wrong statements being made against the saints and Gurmat preachers will never be tolerated.”
The five Panj Piare (beloved ones) Singh Sahibans of the Takht instructed the entire Sikh community to cease activities they believe harm Panthic unity. The directive also included a broader appeal for responsible social media use, urging community members “not to share any video or post without proper verification.”
This unusual intervention comes in the wake of significant controversy surrounding Baba Dhuma and Damdami Taksal, particularly after the seminary—once led by militant Sikh leader Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale—publicly aligned itself with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This political association has triggered sharp criticism from various Sikh organizations and individuals.
Religious scholars and community observers note the extraordinary nature of this directive. While Sikh religious leaders, including Takht jathedars, have frequently faced public criticism—sometimes expressed in harsh language—this appears to be the first instance of a Takht issuing a protective directive specifically for an individual Sikh personality.
Damdami Taksal holds significant historical importance in Sikhism as a seminary dedicated to teaching traditional Sikh practices, scripture interpretation, and martial arts. Its political alignments have often been closely watched within the community, particularly given its association with Bhindranwale, who remains a polarizing figure in Indian politics and Sikh history.
The directive concludes with a call for unity: “Let us all unite to avoid false propaganda, remain steadfast on the path of truth and Gurbani, and strengthen Panthic unity. May Waheguru grant the entire community wisdom and understanding to keep the Panth united, progressing, and ensure the victory of truth.”
As this situation unfolds, it raises important questions about the role of Sikh religious authorities in mediating community discourse, particularly around controversial political alignments that have traditionally divided opinion among Sikhs in Punjab and throughout the diaspora.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
15 Comments
As a Sikh, I’m curious to learn more about the specific allegations and the Takht’s rationale for issuing this directive. Maintaining unity is important, but so is ensuring accountability and honest discourse.
While I understand the Takht’s desire to maintain unity, I’m curious to learn more about the specific concerns they are addressing and whether their directive is proportionate and balanced.
The Takht’s statement emphasizes Baba Dhuma’s positive contributions, but I wonder if there are any specific allegations or concerns being addressed. More context would be helpful to fully evaluate the situation.
The Takht’s move to protect a Sikh leader from ‘false propaganda’ is understandable, but I hope they maintain impartiality and do not shut down legitimate criticism or dissent.
It’s important to maintain unity within the Sikh community, but accusations of ‘false propaganda’ can also be used to suppress dissenting views. Hopefully this is not the case here, and the Takht’s intent is to promote truth and transparency.
This situation highlights the delicate nature of managing information and discourse within the Sikh community. I hope the Takht can find a way to address concerns while preserving the principles of transparency and open dialogue.
As a Sikh, I appreciate the Takht taking a stand against divisive misinformation. However, I hope they approach this issue carefully and avoid any appearance of undue influence or favoritism.
The Takht’s directive raises interesting questions about the balance between unity and accountability within Sikhism. I’m curious to see how this unfolds and whether it sets a precedent for future cases.
This is a complex situation that requires nuance. While I respect the Takht’s authority, I believe open and honest dialogue is essential for the Sikh community to navigate such matters constructively.
This is a complex issue that touches on the balance between community cohesion and the freedom of expression. I hope the Takht can find a way to address misinformation without unduly restricting legitimate criticism or debate.
The Takht’s intervention raises interesting questions about the role of religious authorities in addressing political and social issues within the Sikh community. I hope this leads to a thoughtful and constructive dialogue.
This is an interesting development. While I understand the need to address misinformation, I hope the Takht’s directive is balanced and does not stifle legitimate criticism or debate around Sikh leadership.
As a Sikh, I’m curious to see how this situation unfolds and whether the Takht’s directive is viewed as a necessary measure to address misinformation or as an overreach of their authority. Maintaining unity is important, but so is ensuring accountability and honest discourse.
This is an interesting development that raises important questions about the role of religious authorities in addressing political and social issues. I hope the Takht can find a way to address concerns while preserving the principles of transparency and open dialogue.
The Takht’s directive highlights the challenges of navigating the intersection of religion, politics, and social media in the modern era. I hope this leads to a thoughtful and nuanced discussion within the Sikh community.