A great deal of unnecessary confusion has arisen over the SGPC executive’s move to remove the Akal Takht chief, Mr Jasbir Singh Rode, and the other head priests and replace them with nominees of the United Akali Dal. This confusion could have been avoided if in the wake of the move, the authorities in Amritsar and Chandigarh had let it be known that the action was illegal since, under the SGPC Act, only the general body could remove the Akal Takht chief and the other head priests and that too after giving them an opportunity to explain charges against them. It is, of course, true Mr Rode and the others themselves had been appointed in an illegal manner, that is by a so-called sarbat khalsa for which there is no provision in the law. But the SGPC executive which had endorsed their appointment now argues that it had done so under the pressure of the militants. This again is true but irrelevant on two counts. First, the SGPC leadership has been in league with the militants for the last five years. Secondly, there is reason to believe that this time it has acted under the pressure of the Panthic committee in Pakistan. The move is also the result of factional infighting in the SGPC. For instance, Mr Harinder Singh, who took over as the acting president of the SGPC on the arrest of Mr Gurcharan Singh Tohra, has denounced the move. So has the All India Sikh Students Federation.
Reports suggest that Mr Badal has taken the lead to remove Mr Rode and the other priests. It is difficult to believe that he could have dared go that far without Mr Tohra’s support. But be that as it may, it is obvious that he could not have moved against Mr Rode unless he was assured of the full support of the Panthic committee. This leader of the Bhindranwale clan is assured of the support of the Damdami Taksal and the All India Sikh Students’ Federation, two main centres for the recruitment of the terrorists, Babbar Khalsa and sections of the Khalistan Liberation Force and the Khalistan Commando Force. Such a formidable combination can be challenged only by the Panthic committee with the full backing of Pakistan. This speaks of a vertical split among the militants, with Mr Rode leading one formation and the Panthic committee the other. In this conflict, Mr Badal almost certainly and Mr Tohra possibly have made common cause with the Panthic committee. This by itself does not make Mr Rode and the other priests moderates with whom the Indian state can do business. But the situation can only worsen if the UAD nominees backed by Pakistan take over the Golden Temple and other important gurdwaras. The government has adopted the policy of non-interference in this intra-militant struggle. Indeed, its anxiety to avoid such a struggle on the eve of Guru Arjun Dev’s martyrdom anniversary on June 17 may explain its rather strange behaviour in the past three days. But the split has been on the cards since the release of Mr Rode and the other priests. With the advantage of hindsight, it can be said that the Panthic committee has been behind the sharp increase in the killings in Punjab in recent months and that the purpose has been to discredit Mr Rode. The UAD leaders (Mr Amrinder Singh, the former maharaja of Patiala, must be excluded from this list) were apparently not aligned with the Panthic committee in the beginning. That appears to be a more recent development.