Indian Parliament

Sardar Simranjit Singh Mann (Sangrur): Mr. Chairman, Sir, I stand on the combined strength of the Shiromani Akali Dal Badal and Mann to oppose this Bill because this Bill governs the Hindu religion. It is a revolutionary step for us, both the Akali Dals to get together and the leader of the Akali Dal Badal, Sardar Tirlochan Singh Tur has written to you that I will represent the case of the Sikhs on this matter. We are thoroughly opposed to this Bill because it ties us without our consent to the Hindu religion. Sikhism is a separate religion having a separate history, culture, language, script, traditions, territory and all the other requisites that make us a complete and wholesome religion. We may have some similarities with Hinduism but, on the other hand, Ibrahim and Moses are the common Godfathers of the Christians, Muslims and the Jews, yet they do not constitute one religion. They are poles apart. The history of the Middle East today will show you that all these three religions who accept Moses and Ibrahim as their Godfather are at daggers drawn and fighting with each other. Though we are not fighting with one another we are as different from Hinduism as the Muslim is from Judaism or of Christianity.

How can Hindu leadership arbitrarily, without proof of convention, tradition and history include a separate Sikh religion within the folds of Hinduism? We consider this an insult to our pride and religious feelings. We fear that if legally and constitutionally we are not detached from the folds of Hinduism; we will be devoured into the omnivorous belly of Hinduism. To give you an example, Mr. Chairman, in the preparation of the Census population totals in the country, Sikhs are classified separately. Under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, Sikhs are the distinct minority in the country………(Interruptions)

Minister of Law and Justice and Minister of Commerce and Industry (Shri Arun Jaitely): Aapki bat iss bill ke scope mein nahin aati hai. Mahilaon ka appeal period kitna hai, uska ess sey koi taluk nahin hai.

Sardar Simranjit Singh Mann (Sangrur): We are separate from you. I am trying to plead my case.

Shri Arun Jaitely: You plead it at the appropriate time. But whether women should have 30 days to appeal or 90 days to appeal is not an issue as to what the larger view of the religion is.

Sardar Simranjit Singh Mann (Sangrur): Mr. Law Minister, you can have your views after I have spoken……(Interruptions)

Shri Arun Jaitely: you can speak on the Bill. You cannot give an essay on some other subject which is not the subject of this Bill……(Interruptions)

Sardar Simranjit Singh Mann (Sangrur): You cannot muzzle up our voices……(Interruptions)

Shrimati Santosh Chowdhary (Phillaur): You should accept the facts regarding women…….(Interruptions)

Sardar Simranjit Singh Mann (Sangrur): Madam, our women are affected. How can we be a part of your religion?........(Interruptions)

Shrimati Santosh Chowdhary (Phillaur): Whenever there is a case regarding women, you divert it…….(Interruptions)

Sardar Simranjit Singh Mann (Sangrur): Do you want to muzzle my voice?...........(Interruptions)

Mr. Chairman, Sir, this is extraordinary. This is a dictatorship by the Hindu religion that if we want to break the umbilical cord, they just stand up and muzzle our voices……..(Interruptions)

Shri Madhusudal Mistry (Sabarkantha): Sir, I take strong objection to that sentence……….(Interruptions)

Sardar Simranjit Singh Mann (Sangrur): Sir, I am speaking and building up my case to be separated from the Hindu Marriage Act and by so doing, why should the Congress people always oppose us? You have trespassed into our Golden Temple, you have destroyed our culture, you have committed our genocide……..(Interruptions)

Shri Ramesh Chnnithala (Mavelikara): Whatever you are saying is not within the scope of the Bill….(Interruptions)

Sardar Simranjit Singh Mann (Sangrur): Maybe it is not but what I am talking is within the scope and ambit of the Bill……..(Interruptions)

Sabhapati Mahodhya Dr. Raghu Vansh Prasad Singh: Bill ke pravdhanoo ke anusar hi bola jai.

Sardar Simranjit Singh Mann (Sangrur): yes, Mr. Chairman, Sir, I am speaking according to the fact that we do not want to be a part and parcel of the Hindu religion. And for Heavens’ sake, just detach us. That is what I am saying. That is why I am saying that the Sikhs are a distinct minority in the country. Under various legislations relating to religion, the Panjabi language in gurumukhi script spoken by the Sikh is recognized. The Constitution of India recognized separate status for the Sikh religion. Whatever anomaly is there in Section 25, the Constitution Review Committee has proposed that such anomaly should be removed and the Sikhs should be given the separate status and recognition. This proposal has been made in the early part of 2002.

Sir, my Party and I have demanded many times in Parliament and outside its premises that the NDA Government introduce a Constitution (Amendment) Bill to amend article 25 of the Constitution and alter it to include the recommendations of the Constitution Review Committee, which was constituted by the NDA Government. We are not asking for something more and we will not accept anything less. Why is this reluctance by the Government and you, Sir? If all religious denominations in India, the Hindus, the Parsis, the Christians, and the Muslims have separate and their respective marriage laws, why not the Sikhs? Therefore, I pray that the Anand Marriage Act of 1909 become a legal tender for the Sikh marriages and we be separated from the Hindu Marriage Act once and for all and for all times to come.

The Sikh people all over the world want this forcefully tied umbilical cord unilaterally by the Hindu religion to be cut for ever, and legally and constitutionally we wish to be freed as we were by our first Guru Nanak in the 15th and 16th centuries. That is all I demand. We will not accept to be governed by the Hindu Marriage Act at all. You may call it a rebellion or revolt or anything but we will not accept to be governed by an alien religion, another religion and have our marriages solemnized under an alien religion.

Thank you very much.

(ends)

1836hrs

Shri Arun Jaitely: Sir, a few questions have been raised by the hon. Members. But one important question, which requires a response, which was raised within the ambit of this Bill by Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal is to why the proviso to Section 6 is there. The legislative reason why the proviso has been introduced, excluding those cases where decrees have already been passed annulling marriages or otherwise, and time for appeal has expired, that this will not apply to them because the rights of parties would have been created under the old law. Now, by this legislation to take away those rights, which have accrued themselves, would create a legal complication.

I give an example. Supposing 30-day period, after the divorce has expired, and the person who has obtained a divorce decree has gone and re-married on the 50th or 60th day, then what will happen? Now, by retrospectively extending the limitation, you are giving to the other spouse, who is aggrieved by that divorce, to challenge that divorce itself which would have complications on subsequent rights and the third party rights which have been created. Therefore, very carefully the proviso has been introduced. It does not take away the existing rights that have been created on the basis of decrees that have already been passed. That is the rationale behind the proviso of Section 6.

Sir, some other views have been taken. I respect the hon. Member who has given this view. There is no question of anybody trying to throttle anybody’ Shiromani Akali Dal(Amritsar) voice. Since those views are wholly outside the ambit of this Bill, I do not think there is any necessity for me to respond to that.

With these few words, I commend to the House that the Bill be accepted.

(ends)

Sardar Simranjit Singh Mann (Sangrur): Mr. Law Minister, you respond to our demand. You say yes or no. this is the tyranny of the majority. We do not accept it……(Interruptions)

DO/SSSM/2003/ 500
New Delhi, December 17th, 2003.

Dear Sardar Dhindsa,
Fateh,

I am enclosing my speech made in the House of the People on 9.12.2003 [December 13, 2003] regarding the Sikhs being separated from civil laws that govern them, from that of the Hindu Laws. The speech is in English and a translated copy in Panjabi is also enclosed. I have also said that amendment to article 25 be made by introducing a constitutional amendment bill, on the lines recommended by the Constitutional Review Committee set up by your NDA government.

I am happy to inform you, as you will see from the text of my speech, Hon’ble Member of Parliament of your faction, Sardar Tarlochan Singh Tur and I spoke in one voice, from the combined strength of the Shiromani Akali Dal in the lower house.

Despite my numerous interventions in the lower house, letters to the hon’ble Prime Minister and you, my public statements, you as our Sikh representative in the Union cabinet are not being invited or made a member of the Cabinet Committee on Security. I think your party President Sardar Parkash Singh Badal and you must take up this demand of the Sikh peoples more vigorously with the hon’ble Prime Minister.

With the absence of a Sikh representative in the Union Cabinet Committee on Security, our party the Shiromani Akali Dal(Amritsar) is of the considered opinion, that any decision by such a committee, unrepresentative of Sikh opinion, cannot be binding on the Sikh peoples. We feel there can be no commitment without representation. As such, any decision by this committee to commit an act of war, cannot be binding on the Sikh peoples and the Shiromani Akali Dal(Amritsar) will neither commit the Sikh peoples to such a decision nor cooperate with any war effort.

I must also draw your attention to the fact that no Sikh is a member of the Nuclear Command and Control system, the National Security Council and the Supreme Court of India. In a nutshell, the NDA, which governs India, of which your faction is a component, does not trust the Sikhs. This is a very serious matter and I hope you will take this up, not only with the hon’ble Prime Minister but also your party President, Sardar Prakash Singh Badal. The question of giving important Union Cabinet portfolios, like External, Home, Finance or Defence, to a Sikh, as was the practice in the past, as also we had two ministers in the Union Cabinet, of whom one was a Dalit Sikh, also needs to be taken up, along with other subjects I have pointed out. Quite frankly and honestly I must state that all this is quite demeaning to us Sikhs.

Your party, which has been given the mandate of the Sikhs, should not have supported and voted for the draconian law POTA last night in the House of the people. I cautioned both of your members of parliament, hon’ble S. Zora Singh Mann and hon’ble S. Tarlochan Singh Tur not to do so, as this was not in the tradition of the Shiromani Akali Dal, but both of them showed their helplessness, and said they were under instructions from S. Prakash Singh Badal to vote for this undemocratic peace of legislation

Your point is that the Congress government in the Panjab is resorting to repression and stopping political dissent. I agree with you. On 4th October, 2003 I was detained by the Phagwara police in the City Police station for five hours. On 20.10.2003 I was detained by the SSP, Ferozepore for twenty minutes. On 20.12.2003 I will be appearing before a TADA Court (TADA stands repealed) in Patiala House, New Delhi, in which the Union Deputy Prime Minister, hon’ble Mr. L.K Advani is taking a special interest to have me convicted. You as our Sikh representative at the Centre have not condemned these acts. However, on the other hand, I have condemned the detention and imprisonment of Akali Dal workers of the Badal faction and I personally went to meet them in the Central Jail, Sangrur on 6.12.2003 to see to their welfare and gave a public statement against the mental torture and physical discomfort they had been put to.

You are also aware that still we have Sikh detainees in jails that are facing trails under the repealed law, TADA. The Union Home Ministry in its annual report for 2002 has stated that Pakistan is giving terrorist training to Sikhs in Pakistan, Iran, Muscat and Thailand. I have opposed this absurd statement of the Union Home Ministry. The POTA law is so drafted that I can be arrested under this draconian law for opposing the long detention of the Sikhs under TADA and for negating the Union Home Ministry’s contention that Pakistan is imparting terrorist training to the Sikhs. As a representative of the Sikhs in the Union parliament it becomes my duty to do this. How could your faction, who claims to represent the Sikhs, have voted for this repressive law when you knew that the dice were so heavily loaded against us Sikhs?

By supporting the POTA legislation yesterday in parliament, hasn’t your faction further strengthened the hands of the Congress government in the Panjab to resort to greater repression? After all, being a Union Cabinet Minister you must be aware that according to the present constitutional system, law and order is a state subject and it is only the state that can decide how to use this repressive and draconian law. If you and your faction accuse the Congress government in the Panjab in the use of repressive methods in its governance then why has your faction given the Panjab government more powers to unleash greater tyranny by voting in favour of POTA? I did not vote of for this legislation because I understood it could be used against the Sikhs and minorities.

Did Sikh polity in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century give more powers to the Mughal regime, which had imprisoned our First Guru, executed our Fifth and Ninth Gurus, bricked alive our two Sahibzadas, besides torturing to death our Sikh leaders?

These are some of the very serious and pertinent questions you, as our representative in the Union Cabinet, will have to ponder over, for having your faction in the parliament vote in favour of POTA. By your appointment in the Union cabinet as a minister, you represent the interests of an entire Sikh people and not only that of the Badal faction or its family. I hope you will rise to the occasion as we have great expectations from you. You must understand I am not your rival, but your very ardent supporter.

Besides this I will be grateful if you and your faction of the Shiromani Akali Dal take up the Sikh case with the NDA government, with greater enthusiasm to separate us Sikhs from Hindu laws under which we are presently governed and amend article 25 of the constitution, besides opposing POTA and working for its repeal.

Yesterday in the parliament I was faced with a bizarre and piquant situation. It was ironic too. We accuse the Congress party for committing repression, about which there can be no two opinions, but last evening the Congress party followed me out of the House and did not vote for POTA, whereas your faction of the Shiromani Akali Dal sat there and voted for this disgraceful and shameful piece of legislation.

With regards,

Yours sincerely,

(Simranjit Singh Mann),
Member of Parliament,
Member SGPC(Sikh Parliament),
President, Shiromani Akali Dal(Amritsar).

Sardar Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa,
Hon’ble Union Minister of Chemicals and Fertilizers,
Govt. of India,
New Delhi.