Sacrilege & Sovereignty: The Guru, the Panth & the State

Welcome to SickCast, brought to you by Sick Research Institute, illuminating every path. Biyad B is back in the news, and this time the Punjab government has passed a new anti-sacrilege law. What is the larger context around the new law? How has Biyad B, irreverence, been dealt with historically? What are its panthik and legal understandings? How does it relate to the reverence six collectively show to the Guru Granth Sahib? And how, given recent cases in the news, can we understand individual and collective responses informed by the current realities on the ground? Wai Urujika Khalsa, Wai Urujiki Fateh, my name is Rosalene Kohd and I'm a research associate here at SickCree. I'm joined today by Herndir Singh, who is the senior fellow at SickCree. He also co-founded the Sick Research Institute and the Punjab Digital Library, envisioned the Quarancing Academy and organized the free Akal Dakhth campaign. Good to have you here, Herndir Singh. Thanks for joining me today. What did you call the Soharjik today? Okay, so there's a lot of context setting that I feel like we have to do for this conversation. So back in 2022, you and I had a conversation about Biddi or irreverence. And it was another like current events podcast that we were doing where we talked about what this word actually means, how SickS have sort of individually and collectively tried to respond to what has been a long and painful pattern of attacks on the Guru Granth Sahib, met with silence in the legal system. So this was four years ago. Today we're picking that conversation back up because of what's in the news. So in April, the Punjab Legislative Assembly unanimously passed the Jagat Jyoth Sirigur Granth Sahib Siddhkar Amendment Act 2026, which is this new anti-Sakralij law with like pretty, I mean, yeah, pretty intense penalties of like up to life imprisonment. So I wanted to kind of start us by sort of framing Biddi again for our listeners. What is it and how does it kind of figure into these larger like blasphemy laws? And then as we go on, I'd actually like us to dive into what the law actually does and how we can think about the larger questions of like sovereignty and governance that it raises for us. So to begin, can you please help us remember what Biddi is and how it sort of figures into these larger, like maybe global blasphemy laws that we might see in other places? Yeah, I mean, we can talk about it in a second text first. So let's start there. Look, the Bay Advi, when we say it is Bay and Adapto Advi Banea. So this is coming really from Farsi or Persian. In that context, in its root or its connotations, it refers to many different things. It can mean how we educate what the culture is, what is being polite mean, what is a proper demeanor and things of that nature. Eventually, in a religious arena, you know, say we say what is the moral code. But in the secular world, we say what kind of ethical code does it develop? Now, when this word is imported in South Asia and it comes to Punjabi element as we see it in last, let's say 100 years or so, you know, it gets used to talk about, you know, in English, we'll use words like disrespect or something is not decent, which means it's indecent or not reverential enough or irreverent. And that's really more of the connotation in the Punjabi Sikh world, especially when it comes to Gurgansaab itself. So this is how in our thought, in our words, in our deeds, in our behaviors, how are we creating and implementing protocols to assure there's a highest level of reverence in respect to Gurgansaab. So if there is no other, the absence of other, the absence of reverence creates Bayadab or without other, but without reverence. And then when you go into the legalities of that, which is the context today, and the last 20 plus years and globally in South Asian context that starts because in South Asia it goes back to 1860s when the British created the first laws and the terms they use is sacrilege and blasphemy. And these are the words which are still used being globally. So blasphemy laws, sacrilege law or desecration laws, they come into play in the codification world, what the state does either from a religious code or a secular code. Yeah, that's really, that's helpful on it. It also makes me wonder a little bit about how to understand this as like a diaspora sick, if I can use that term. But, you know, when we talked four years ago, there was this like complete sort of ignorance that I had about the long and painful history of Bid-B sort of incidents in Punjab outside of Punjab as well. And I was completely kind of unaware of the attempts to go through like legal means to actually get this addressed. So when I first heard about this law, I was like, okay, finally, great. You know, like kind of uncritically thought about it as just like good news. And so on the surface it does sound like, okay, this is the accountability like six have been demanding for so long. But then reading the news within weeks of it, you know, being passed, we see that the Agaltak Sahib has spoken out against it, you know, raised issues with it. The SGPC has raised alarms. And so have many other like Sikh scholars and sort of thought leaders and religious leaders both in Punjab and outside of Punjab. So maybe you can start us with what is happening? Like what does this law actually say? What does it actually do so that we can kind of understand what it is that we're dealing with before we get into a deeper conversation? Yeah, let's put it in the, as I think you kind of alluded to it all. So let's put a little bit of a global context. So we don't think this is only happening with Sikhs in Punjab in South Asia only. Look, the debate on whether even blasphemy law should exist has been going on for a long time. And it is still continuing. I remember when we last talked and I had looked it up. There were 84 countries which had blasphemy laws even now. And if I recall it right last year, there was a report I had read. I'm trying to recall the name of the report and the organization. Basically, there's a campaign which is there. There's a global campaign to end blasphemy laws. And they put out a report last in 2024, I think. And they said blasphemy laws still exist in 89 countries. So there have been more changes globally which have come in blasphemy laws while the Europe which started large part of this. We like to think it was only in Afghanistan or Iran because they are in the news that these things happen. No, I mean, this was in an Indian context. Actually, I shouldn't even say Indian context in the British context, which was not just the subcontinent of India or South Asia. I mean, they were ruling Yemen from India from Bombay as well. So when we are looking at these blasphemy laws, they are very much an issue even now. Now when there is a conversation about this in the globe, it is in the context of that this is also violating freedom of thought. This is also violating and this is largely said by humanists and the atheists and the non-religious, but it does include religious voices as well. So among the within the sick fold, this conversation is also taking place. What really is blasphemy because the laws use this word or sacrilege and are these even our terms? And what do we mean when we say Biahtibi or adab as we talked about it? So there is this tension between these blasphemy laws and this freedom of thought and expressions and religious sentiments. By the way, Europe is going through this as well. So I mean, Denmark has passed some laws on this in the last 10 years as well. So my point in sharing this is this is very much a live conversation and there are global campaigns happening on this on both sides of it. That said, what you're seeing now is that between what has happened currently is an act which was passed in a hurry and it has been signed and became a law. Even in more hurry. So when people don't review and you're seeing this in US, you have seen this in the Indian Parliament. So this is a global thing. When something is being done in a haste and it becomes from act to law very quickly without proper reviews, even by the people who are voting on it. You know something ain't right with it. So there's a question of intent, not just pragmatically whether six have been asking for it or not as well. Now, what we do need to understand in this case is this is a process when we last talked four years ago. Large part of this weird contextualized happened because of 2015 incidents of sacrilegious or sacrilege, blasphemy, desecration. We can use that interchangeably in this context, although they carry a very specific meaning when it comes to the legalities. A large part of those in Punjab were happening with Guru Granth Sahib and they were happening at a very large level where six had a whole Burgundy murcha on it, for example. And this is where Akal Thak, SCPC, State of Punjab, Indian State and their laws. I don't know what's the word to use, but they all came in confrontation. And there's a movement to do something about it by six of Punjab. That movement, yes, many things happened. For example, in 2008 it was SGPC which asked for we need some regulations, but their scope was very little. Between 2008 and 2026, they had two amendments to that, which the National Government one time didn't sign. They had different rules of IPCs which Punjab tried to invoke, which also didn't get signed. So all I'm saying is there are a lot of legal manipulations happening. There are political manipulations happening. And even though SGPC asked for this, SGPC was silent about it in its initial days of current phenomena. Almost everyone on the political side of Punjab, of the ruling parties, actually agreed with it, almost everyone. It was unanimously passed in Punjab legislature with Ansaba as they call it. But almost unanimously, the scholars, the theologians and now SGPC and SGPC appointed Jathedars, Punjab-based organizations, India-based organization and diaspora-based organization largely are opposing it. So that's all we need to know in a simplistic way. Yes, we need some protections, but the question is what protection, what enforcement, what is the intent of the law, what will be the enforceability of the law and all of those are being questioned right now. Yeah, and I think, so this is getting at something that I was also wondering about of like, if these like sick institutions and these sick theologians and thought leaders are all saying that like they weren't consulted, they don't agree. It gets at this like larger question of like governance and sovereignty, I think that I think maybe we don't understand sitting, at least sitting where I am. I don't understand fully. One of the things that I kept hearing in conversations amongst like diaspora six was like, well, you know, you live in a modern nation state, you have to deal with the law of the land. Sort of what are you complaining about basically? And then there's also this added thing of like, same thing of how I sort of said earlier that I found it encouraging at first because I wasn't thinking about its implications and I didn't actually read what was in the law. But this other sentiment of like, for so long, this is what you've wanted type of rhetoric. So I guess my question is, if we're going to talk about sovereignty, which is a word that has come up so so much in the sort of feedback and statements against this law. Can you help us understand the role of Guru Vajnepanth and grunt? No small question. When it comes to thinking through these matters, creating actual mechanisms to address these matters and how this has kind of, I mean, completely strayed from our own sort of traditions of self governance, especially when it comes to the Guru Granth Sahib. Well, the self governance has been the issue for six in a legal context at least for at least 101 years now. I mean, sovereignty has so many angles, but even in the context of the Guru Granth Sahib, like we said, you know, the British India laws were based from 1860s law, which was passed by, I don't know which year, but the 1860s when they said that, the act was in the British by the British government. And then they created what they call IPCs, which is Indian Penal Code, which is how an act is enforced in legal terms. And they did that in fact, I pulled that out in 1927 for section 295A. So 1927 is when enforcement of these understandings of these sacred ledges and blasphemies are operating in both sides of Punjab, India and Pakistan. Now that said, remember at the same time what happened in 1925, they created a sacred war act. So for 1925 to 2026, you have 101 years of legally the word Guru Granth Sahib is involved in these things now. So you're dealing with modern nation states, earlier an imperial state under the British, you know, British India to now the modern states of India and Pakistan. And these are the internal laws. And those laws, six have been fighting from day one. We can say there's a monolith on this because there never is when it comes to legal issues and political issues. But from a Sikh perspective, Guru Granth Sahib is the world. It is not just Granth. And when Granth is the Guru for the Sikhs, which is what Guru Gobind Singh made it in 1708, two days before he left this earth. And he entrusted that guruship to Guru Khalsa Panth. Khalsa is the Sikh collective of the Panth. They're not just in self declaration that they were following the way of Guru Nanak. They are saying as a collective, you're following the way of the Nanak of Guru Nanak Sahib. And that's the Khalsa Panth part. They were given guruship, which means they are the ones who will be deciding in all matters related to Guru Granth Sahib. And it largely operated like that with no within the Guru period, within the post Guru period in the 18th century. Sure, they were burning and looting and desecrating, but we did not allow anyone to make laws about how to regulate Guru Granth Sahib. In last 100 years, this is happening. Remember, I'm saying in 1927, they're taking the law and making a legal system out of it, Indian Penal Code, they call it. Section 295 and 295 is important because then there's 295A over the years. There was an introduction of 295A over the last 20 years. Some of them didn't get passed. Some of them are games between Indian state of Punjab versus the Union government of India. And eventually in this case, and which is what I want to say, because next year is an election year and because previous two governments didn't do anything about it. This government, which is up, the political party is Am Aadmi Party. It was voted unanimously by all political parties in Punjab, which includes the Congress, which includes the Akhali's in that sense, whatever their representation might be. It includes the BJP's, whatever their representation might be and others. My point is it is approved and then signed into law by the governor who is installed for Punjab by the BJP, which is the central government or the Union government. My whole point in mentioning this is sure in 2008, as Deep Srimanikal Lidl was a partner of Bharatiya Chanta Party BJP. They asked for a particular things. This one is an umbrella. This one is not just about Guru Granth Sahib in between. They went through many other things, including other religious texts. All I want to say here, Jaisalini, is this that if you want to understand governance, sick governance hasn't been operating. Sick governance for the last 101 years have been run by the laws of British India to the Union of India. Now, their relationship between the centre and Punjab, the Delhi and Punjab being run from Chandigarh. What you are seeing is an outcome of those games and those manipulations in order to show or cater to particular kinds of things, such that something can be said about by these two major parties involved that they are doing something for sick in Punjab. Now, are they doing something? Are they going to create severe punishments? Are they going to really help in getting rid of desecrations? Or are they going to make sure they're going to be more severe punishments? Those are the kind of questions which are on everyone's minds, including many sicks in Punjab and outside. This really is a legal manipulation for electioneering, which is about 10 months away. Yeah, which I think I had said to you before we started that it seems odd that this is happening so fast when we've been asking for this for so many years. And I think there was some kind of like parade of victory or something that happened. Is this correct? Of like certain politicians celebrating the act getting passed. Yeah. So what happens is there are elements in there which make sense, but there are elements which don't make sense. So we can't just do, okay, well, part of it is good and part of it is bad. The larger part is the state doesn't have a right to regulate Guru Granth Sahib. In fact, if I may bring in here, I'm just recalling this. I remember I was in India at the time in 1999 and there were conversations about changing the Sikh-Gurdwara Act and actually an amendment to do was circulated. What is important to bring in here is in 2000 there was a Supreme Court judgment in India, Indian Supreme Courts, which actually declared Guru Granth Sahib to be what they call juristic person. Now, what that really legal lingo it means it's a legal person, not a natural person like you and I are. Now, again, the intention may have been good, but you know, then there were questions even back then. I remember having conversations with even law professors at Granthave University to people in Chandigarh and some prominent lawyers at the time. So I understood that there were things which were going to help Sikhs because of the property rights and things of that nature. But what it did do was it was also equating it because Hindu idols are considered juristic person. A mosque is considered a juristic person. A Gurdwara is considered a juristic person. And at that time it was actually SGPC court case in Somnath and others where Guru Granth Sahib was declared a juristic person. Now, the judgment also said that Guru Granth Sahib is not an idol and Guru Granth Sahib and Sikhi does not believe in idol worship. But at the same time, when you open up something to a legalistic definitions, general public doesn't understand it. And even for legal purposes, how it gets implemented for particular rights is anybody's guess. Yeah, I think that really flows beautifully into some of the specifics I wanted to get into to sort of unpack with you about things that others have pointed out are problematic if we can use that word or concerning. And maybe we can delve into some of those. So like one of the things that really struck me was, you know, we live in sort of like an age of unprecedented surveillance. And there is this thing in the law, this, yeah, this move to maintain a kind of a public register of records, which, you know, there's records of printing, storage, distribution of the Guru Granth Sahib. And the Jatthi Dhar actually warned that sort of making this public information available to making this information public could be weaponized. People could kind of falsely report Biddi cases in an attempt to, yeah, for all kinds of reasons. There's also this concern that was raised about just like surveillance of six, especially in a post-84 world where we know voter rolls were used to locate and then target six. And then there's also this question of like when you sort of, yeah, like put a, I'm trying to use my words carefully and respectfully here, but when you put a barcode or you assign a number to a Sarup of the Guru Granth Sahib which we have this kind of like utmost living relationship with, isn't that also itself a kind of objectification of the Guru in like an attempt to get to the Guru. Yeah, surveil and track. So these are the kind of, this is like a s