The Gurdwara Bill

CONSIDERING the short time in which it had to complete its work and the highly complicated nature of the provisions of the Gurdwara Bill, the Select Committee deserves credit for the thoroughness and circumspection with which it has accomplished its undoubtedly difficult task. The Bill has emerged from the committee without any substantial alteration in its structure and principal provisions; and, as we have already discussed at length its main provisions, it is not necessary to cover the same ground over again. Suffice it to say that all, or almost all, of the amendments suggested by the Sanatan or Sahajdhari Sikhs have been rejected by the committee. There is no reason to doubt that the amendments suggested by this section of the Sikhs were given a careful consideration by the committee. The committee’s report is signed by 20 members, of whom seven are Sikhs, six Hindus, four Mussalmans and three Europeans. Of these, 13 are non-officials and seven officials. The committee was thus of a most representative character. We are in agreement with the main points raised by Raja Narendra Nath and Dr Gokul Chand Narang in their notes of dissent. The provisions of the Bill relating to the definition of the word “Sikh”, the restriction on “Patits” and the absence of any guarantee that the mode of worship that has prevailed in a gurdwara from time immemorial will not be interfered with to satisfy the predilections of the party that may acquire a predominant voice in the management of a gurdwara, are bound to be a source of dissatisfaction to a considerable section of the Sikhs.