Akal Takhat Smacks Rochester Gurdwara Trustees on Kirpan Ban

By Anju Kaur, SikhNN staff writer, Washington Bureau
Posted: Monday, April 04, 2011 | 01:11 pm

Updated: Thursday, April 7, 2011 - 4:05pm

The Akal Takhat, in a stinging letter issued last month, severely reprimanded the trustees of the Gurdwara of Rochester, New York, for using a lawsuit to ban Kirpans from its premises, and added that a place of worship that limits the Kakars in any way cannot not be called a Sikh gurdwara.

“A site or a religious place where there is any restriction of any kind on any of the Kakars (Kirpan, Kanga, Kesh, Kachh or Karra) gifted by Guru Sahib, such site or place absolutely does not retain the right to be called a Sikh Gurdwara,” said Jaswinder Pal Singh, assistant to Jathedar Gurbachan Singh, in the March 9 letter.

The trustees had first asked the court in May 2010 to bar Kirpans on the gurdwara premises, then went back a second time to ask it to only restrict certain sizes, which the court did in January 2011.

According to the Akal Takhat’s letter, neither scenario was acceptable.

The Akal Takhat also took particular aim at Santokh Badesha, a trustee and one of the original founders more than 30 years ago, who stated in a Nov. 12, 2010, court affidavit that he was a “Baptized and life-long practicing Sikh” even though he does not keep his Kesh or carry a Kirpan.

“I am a baptized Sikh and practice Sikhism,” Badesha wrote in an email to SikhNN. He voluntarily took Amrit during his Khalsa school days in India. “(But) I do not carry all K(akar)s like majority of Sikhs.”

An Amritdhari Sikh is often referred to as a Baptized Sikh to explain to the mainstream public a ceremony in which a Sikh takes a vow to always abide by the Khalsa code of conduct set by Guru Gobind Singh.

All the court documents in this case refer to Amritdharis as “Baptized” Sikhs.

The Akal Takhat responded (translated) to Badesha: “Continuing your false statements on the principle of the Sikh Kirpan and Khanday-Baatay-dhee-Pahul, despite your own cut Kesh, you have claimed yourself in the American court to be an Amritdhari Sikh, which is absolutely false and is nothing more than the despicable misdeed of mocking Khanday-Baatay’s code of conduct. According to Sikh principles, code of conduct and tradition, a person who cuts his holy hair cannot be called a Sikh.”

At first Badesha said the letter was a fraud: “We believe that this is concocted from here (United States).”

But when it was explained that the letter was secured by an envoy to the Akal Takhat from the World Sikh Council – America Region, he said: “We have no idea what World Sikh Council has against us. There is a history of us and them.”

The letter ended with the jathedar issuing a directive to Badesha and the trustees, demanding a clarification before the next steps are taken.

The last court activity was March 22, in which the trustees asked the judge to seal personal information in the gurdwara’s membership list. Both sides agreed, said Michael Massino, the defense attorney. But when the trustees recently asked that deposition testimony remain confidential, the defendants did not agree to it, he said.

The parties are still taking depositions, a court clerk said. The next court date has not been set yet.

COURT: INJUNCTION GOOD FOR GURDWAARA BUSINESS, KIRPAN ISSUE IRRELEVANT

The New York Supreme Court in Monroe County did not consider the Kirpan or any religious issue in this case because of the constitutional separation of church and state. It sees this case as a property dispute.

“Despite the fact that both sides attempted to engage the court in a dispute over church doctrine and practice, the causes of action pled in the complaint depend… on legal principles of corporate government and property, which in turn depends “on a determination of who owns and has authority over the (gurdwara premises),” Judge Kenneth R. Fisher stated.

While the gurdwara had a constitution when it was established in the late 1970s, and incorporated in 1983, formal elections did not take place until 2009 when the sangat was significantly larger and disputes arose over its management.

“It is my sincere belief that the current conflicts at the (gurdwara) are the result of defendants’ personal disagreements with the manner in which Sikhism is practiced,” Badesha said in a June 8, 2010, affidavit.

“They were treating the gurdwara like a country club,” said Makhan Singh, one of the defendants. Two shabads, langar and socializing, with occasional bhangra in the langar hall, he said. And they also had disputes over Sikh teachings at the Khalsa school.

Both sides also disagreed on the election results. The trustees said they won. The defendants complained of election fraud.

In December 2009, the trustees re-incorporated the gurdwara as an Article 9 corporation, which defines it as having a self-perpetuating board, no general elections.

“It was a back door move to make it their private property,” Makhan Singh said. “They nullified the constitution and incorporated the gurdwara under Article 9 without telling anybody. We only found out when they filed the lawsuit to ban us from the gurdwara.”

The lawsuit arose over who controls the gurdwara, the trustees or the sangat. The judge sided with the trustees, for now.