Inclusion of Harmander Sahib Amritsar in Unesco World Heritage List
Mewa Singh
The executive committee of SGPC, which met on April 21, 2005, rejected the dossier prepared for seeking heritage site status for Sri Harmander Sahib. --Editors
It appears appealing to include Harmander Sahib in the list of Unesco world heritage sites. However when this matter is considered with a deep thought, in the light of SGPC dossier and the relevant rules and regulations of Unesco, it is found not to be in the interests of Sikhs and the Sikh religion.
(i) The high status of Harmander Sahib, the holiest of the holy Sikh shrines and of the Akal Takhat, will stand altered to a mere cultural site. These are exclusively religious places of the Sikh religion, wherein only the divine verses of Sikh religion, as contained in Guru Granth Sahib, are sung or recited throughout. No cultural function can be allowed there. Akal Takhat is the symbol of Sikh political power and sovereignty that exclusively deals with the matters concerning Sikhs and the Sikh religion. Since only a cultural site can be included in the world heritage list, in the dossier submitted to Unesco glaring misrepresentations have been made in order to describe these as cultural sites, the consequences of which will be dangerous for Sikhs and the Sikh religion.
(ii) It invites the intervention and interference of the Governments of India and Punjab, of Unesco, and other outside authorities for the protection, maintenance ,and management of Harmander Sahib and the Akal Takhat, which would prove disastrous for Sikhs. Sikhs had suffered great sacrifices to end outside interference in the management of their religious places, including Harmander Sahib and the Akal Takhat, and they will never tolerate it to be reintroduced in any form whatsoever.
(iii) It contradicts the Sikh dictum that Sikh religious places must be constructed and maintained by Sikhs with their selfless service and not by any outside forum like Unesco. It is an historical fact that Sikh gurus had out rightly rejected offers of the Mughal rulers, Akbar and Jehangir, and other outsiders, for the expenses of the langar, the Sikh community kitchen. For Sikhs selfless service rendered through honest means and hard earned labor has a deep meaning. Not too long ago Sikhs demolished the Government repaired Akal Takhat and constructed it through their own efforts..
(iv) No other religious place of prominence is included in the Unesco world heritage list including Mecca of Islam, any of the Mutts of Hinduism, the temples connected with the founders of Judaism and Christianity etc. The obvious reason could be that they cannot be called as cultural sites instead of religious places. Harmander Sahib also cannot be called a cultural site for inclusion in the Unesco heritage list.
(v) The dossier may be without jurisdiction, as SGPC is obliged to manage, maintain, and protect, Sikh Gurdawaras itself in accordance with the provisions of Sikh Gurdawaras Act of 1925. It has no jurisdiction to invite the intervention of Governments of India and Punjab, Unesco, and other agencies in any form whatsoever for the protection, maintenance, and managements of Sikh Gurdawaras and neither can it declare Sikh Gurdawaras as mere cultural sites, which is glaringly obvious in the dossier.
Misrepresentations of Sikh religion in the dossier
There is no ground or logic worth considering in support of the dossier, to include Harmander Sahib and Akal Takhat in the heritage list. Rather, it violates the basic dictums of Sikh religion and the statutory rules and regulations for the management of Sikh Gurdawaras.
Sikh religion has been misrepresented as merely a culture while Harmander Sahib, the holiest of the holy Sikh Gurdawaras, and Akal Takhat, representing the sovereignty of Sikhs and the Sikh religion, are shown as cultural sites. The concept of miri and piri has been misrepresented as merely social, political, economic, and cultural and the spiritual aspect are implied to constitute the social and cultural aspects of life and not of religion and soul. The Sikh Maryada has been misrepresented as merely cultural. On page 84 vol (11), of the dossier it has been stated:
“The core zone (Harmander Sahib) upholds the social and cultural plurality which is an important component of civil society. It also defines miri and piri that determine the relation between the diverse components. According to it there are two aspects of social life, the temporal and spiritual. Of these two, the spiritual aspect orders the temporal. The temporal constitutes the political and economic aspects. The spiritual constitutes the social and cultural aspects of social life.”
And,
“The social and cultural composition of these zones is diverse, it includes the Hindus, the Muslims, and the Sikhs.”
And also,
“The legal instrument for intervention and regulations must incorporate this aspect in the management plan.”
Again, on page 8 of the dossier it is written,
“There exists a system of looking after the precinct (Harmander Sahib) which is defined by the Sikh Maryada, a set of cultural values and practices. This is the basis for developing a management plan and system to attend to the conservation of movable and immovable historical components.”
“Over the years the site has acquired a dynamism and draws a variety of social and cultural elements which require a careful handling.”
“To enrich visitors experience, it is important to educate them about the world heritage site so that they have a better understanding of its history and cultural significance” (p. 163).
The Akal Takhat has been misrepresented on pages 55-56 of vol.(1):
“In the case of Harmandir Sahib, physical changes have been introduced but without destroying the continuity of cultural values, more importantly, the significant cultural components have been preserved. These are Sarovar, the water tank, the Harimndir Sahib, the Akal Takhat, the par karma and all the Shrines of the Shahids.”
“The Harmander Sahib is part of the Indian civilization that has contributed the cultural tradition of non-violence to world history” (p. 57).
The building and structure of Harmander Sahib is wrongly compared with Hindu mythology, Islamic, and Buddhist structures. The dictums of Sikh religion, Kirat Karo and Wand Chhako has been misrepresented as martyrdom and sangat, though there is no ambiguity that Kirat Karo, means earning by honest means and Wand Chhako means sharing ones earnings with the needy. The presence of Sufi Saint Sain Mian Mir at the foundation lying of Harmander Sahib has been misrepresented to show cultural plurality. A futile attempt is made to misrepresent every religious aspect of Harmander Sahib and of the Akal Takhat.
For example,
“The physical structure of Such Khand (Sanctum sanctorum) the main building has three levels, each of which corresponds to the three aspects of Supreme Being described in the Mul Mantra, Ikonkar.The Hindu word oam consists of three letters, o, a, m. O stands for urdham; above, a for adham; below and m for madham; between. Thus the word oa m, means that which is above, below and in-between; the entire universe. Ikonkar stands for the one universal Being” (p. 47).
Furthermore,
“The western half contains components, that define shaheedi (Kirat Karo) and the eastern contains components that define the sangat(Wand Chhako). These are the temporal aspects of faith and are known as Miri” (p.51).
“The architectural features of the precinct are a metaphors to understand the plurality in a social body. The precinct is itself a social body” (p. 52).
“The co presence of Guru Arjan Dev and Mian Mir in the act of lying the foundation stone makes it more than just a material structure. It expresses the idea underlying the Sikh Gurus dissent against state power namely that cultural plurality will create the new ground for just social life” (pp. 55-56).
The spiritual aspect has been stated to constitute social and cultural aspects of life, the falsity of which is even known even to a lay person, as it obviously concerns with the Spirit, the soul, and a person’s relationship with God. Similarly Sikh Maryada concerns purely with Sikh religion and is not a set of cultural values and practices. There is difference between religion and culture. A culture may be affected by religion but these belong to different domains.
Religion guides the relationship between man and God, the soul with the Super Soul, and how the individual Soul merges with the Super Soul. Culture relates to worldly affairs and civilization. Culture is mostly regional, while religion is universal. Culture changes according to the civilization and development among a people, while religion is eternal and perpetual.
The dictionary meaning of these words is clear without any scope of ambiguity:
Religion: Belief in personal God entitled to worship and obedience, system of faith and worship.
Cultural: adj. of culture, intellectual and artistic development, among a people.
Spiritual: relating to soul, relating to religion.
Temporal: pertaining to life in this world, worldly
Civilization: level of development of society, state of being civilized
It is difficult to fathom why the actual meaning of these simple words were ignored while preparing the dossier? Why were important features of Sikh religion portrayed as merely culture and the prime institutions of Sikh religion considered as cultural sites? Why was the spiritual aspect of Sikh religion termed as social and cultural?
Who is responsible for all this.
People involved in writing the dossier know best the motivation for producing this work in spite of the fact that Sikh religion now stands in the list of first five religions of the world, and both Harmander Sahib and Akal Takhat are known known throughout the world.
Interference of outsiders in the management of Harmander Sahib
In the dossier three committees have been proposed for the maintenance and management of Harmander Sahib. These are:
(i) Harmander Sahib Heritage Committee- It will comprise of one member nominated from SGPC executive and will bethe manager of Darbar Sahib. It will prepare and distribute monthly status reports to SGPC, Punjab State Government, Government of India, INTACH, and UNESCO through Harmandar Sahib monitoring committee.
(ii) Amritsar Heritage Committee- It will comprise of the secretary of urban development, secretary of culture, and secretary of local Department of Punjab Government, and both members of the Heritage Committee. It will implement all city level prescriptions including the buffer zone for long-term protection of the Darbar Sahib.
(iii) Harmander Sahib Heritage Monitoring Committee- It will have members of the above committees, and member from INTACH, representative of UNESCO, and special consultant advisors. It will monitor management plans and their implementation by discussing Harmander Sahib heritage committee reports, discussing issues pertinent to Harmander Sahib as a world heritage site, and make representations to SGPC or the Government on any outstanding issue. It will prepare and administer budgets, invite contract offers, asses the same, issue work contracts, and monitor them and be the single window between the SGPC and the contractors; it will convene weekly meetings and prepare management information reports every month for the authorities, primarily, the Punjab Government, Government of India, INTACH, UNESCO and the citizens forum representatives, and it will be part of all other committees proposed in this section.
Under the heading of property management plan (p. 163) it is stated,
“The plan also seeks to establish consensus among stake holders. It also wants to develop a road map. These are Sikh community, represented by SGPC, the Govt. of Punjab, the Govt. of India, private donors to the project and Unesco.”
Without any ambiguity there is thus obvious intervention and interference of outsiders, in the protection, maintenance, and management of Harmander Sahib and Akal Takhat, including that of the central and state governments. The heritage committee is to send monthly reports to all these authorities. The monitoring committee is to monitor management plan and to prepare and administer budgets and to deal with the contracts and contractors. The above interventions have been invited by SGPC itself in its dossier. In fact the Government of India is responsible to the Unesco for the heritage property.
The world heritage committee may also make the changes in the management of the heritage property. Section 156 of the operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convention provides:
“At the time of inscription, the committee (world heritage committee) may also make other recommendations for the protection and management of the world heritage property.”
“The state parties (Central Government) are responsible for implementing effective management activities for a world heritage property. State parties should do so in close collaboration with property managers, the agency with management authority and other partners and stakeholders in property management” (Section 117).
“Participation of local people in the nomination process is essential to enable them to have a shared responsibility with the state party in the maintenance of the property. State parties are encouraged to prepare nominations with the participation of a wide variety of stakeholders, including the managers, local and regional Govts,, local committees, NGOs and other interested parties” (Section 123).
It is obvious from the rules governing heritage properties that that Government of India will be responsible for implementing effective management of Harmander Sahib and Akal Takhat if it becomes a world heritage property. Local and regional governments and other stakeholders are also to be joined. In fact only governments of countries that are members of UNESCO can correspond with it as to the matters relating to world heritage properties, and so they are to be responsible for its management.
If any one still dares to say that there will be no intervention and interference from the Government of India and of Punjab, Unesco, and other outside authorities in the management, maintenance, and the so-called protection of Harmander Sahib, despite the clear-cut provisions in that respect in both the dossier and Unesco guidelines, some of which have been referred to above, then they are either totally ignorant of these provisions or dishonest in their views.
Dossier without jurisdiction
SGPC is obliged to manage and maintain Sikh Gurdawaras including Harmander Sahib and Akal Takhat, without any participation of an external agency, in accordance with the provisions of Sikh Gurdawaras Act of 1925. SGPC’s move to make it a world heritage property invites the intervention and interference of the Government of India, Government of Punjab, Unesco and other agencies for which the SGPC may have no jurisdiction. Similarly it can have no jurisdiction to alter a Gurdawara to a cultural site for the purpose of including it in the list of the heritage sites wherein only cultural sites are included.
These are very serious violations.
Sikh Gurdawaras Act, 1925 was enacted to manage and maintain Gurdawaras by Sikhs themselves without any outside intervention and to preach Sikh religion in accordance with the dictums of the faith and for that aim Sikhs were to elect their representatives named SGPC. Its members are duty bound to discharge their duties with honesty of purpose, for which they have been elected while remaining under the ambits of that Act, without the intervention of any outside agency.
If any member is intentionally violating the provisions, it may even lead to his or her disqualification and particularly of those who are responsible for the misappropriation and wastage of the huge funds at the disposal of SGPC. Unesco does not spend an amount as big as this on any one-heritage property, as the number of these properties is very large, while its funds are comparatively small. The budget of SGPC is over 200 crores, which is a lot more than that of Unesco for all the properties on its list.
Only cultural and natural sites can be in heritage list
The nomination form is very clear in this regard. It states,
“Under the terms of the convention concerning the protection of the world culture and natural heritage, as adopted by the general conference of Unesco in 1972, the inter Governmental committee for the protection of the world culture and natural heritage called the world heritage committee, shall establish under the title of the world heritage list, a list of properties forming part of the cultural and natural heritage”
Definition of cultural heritage
S.45, article 1, of, Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convent:
“For the purpose of this convention, the following shall be considered as cultural heritage,-- Monuments, architectural work, works of monumental sculpture and painting elements or structures of an archeological nature, inscription, cave dwellings and combination of features, which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science.
“Groups of buildings-- groups of separate or connected buildings, which because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science.”
Emblem on heritage property
S.271 provides that the emblem on the property would be put,
“This property has been inscribed upon the world heritage list of the convention concerning the protection of world culture and natural heritage”
In the world heritage list there are already 788 sites, out of which 611 are cultural sites, 154 the natural sites while 23 mixed sites. Would it enhance the stature of Harmander Sahib or lower it to be included at number 789? In my opinion it will certainly lower it. . Most of the sites included in this list are parks, caves and such like. In the Indian list are included Ajanta caves, Ellora caves, Agra fort and Qutab Minar and no religious place of any importance.
Being the centers of Sikh religion, Harmander Sahib and the Akal Takhat should not be added to such a list. No doubt Harmander Sahib has got its own architectural value, but it is secondary.
Its primary aim is religious and spiritual. Similarly, Akal Takhat stands for Sikh sovereignty and no outside intervention can be allowed.
All people involved in making the dossier have shown gross ignorance. It is a matter of grave concern for Sikhs that such a document is in the name of SGPC, the prime elected Sikh institution. SGPC should withdraw the dossier without further delay, and probe the motivation and misappropriation of funds that went in preparing this document.
