|
WSN Exclusive: The Inside Story
Badal’s Legal Advisor’s Role in
Sehajdhari Sikh Imbroglio
How Hardev Singh Mattewal’s son pushed for corrupted definition of
Sehajdhari
Sach Kanwal Singh
|
 |
|
|
Badal’s Legal Advisor who argued for corrupted definition of
Sehajdhari in High Court. He also claimed that there was no
evidence that the first nine Sikh Gurus were keshadharis. His
father, now Punjab AG, had publicly opposed the SGPC’s demand to
disenfranchise Sehajdharis under
Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 |
|
CHANDIGARH: Hunt is
on within the SGPC for a scapegoat after the imbroglio over the
corrupted and distorted definition of the Sehajdhari Sikh forced the
SGPC to eat its words and review the entire decision, thus forcing a
major somersault and loss of face.
By all indications, the SGPC may make some minor player,
possibly its secretary Harbeant Singh, the scapegoat. Poor Harbeant
Singh is accused of even forging his matriculation certificate, and
experts laughed at his abilities to pull off such a daring legally
complicated trick in the High Court. Had he been accused of pulling
rabbits out of a hat, it would have been more believable.
But then, who were the dramatis personae behind the scene who
were responsible for the impugned affidavit before the High Court
that defined the Sehajdharis as Sikhs even if they cut their hair
all their lives?
The World Sikh News has already brought to the fore the role
of Punjab Advocate General Hardev Singh Mattewal and Sikh History
Research Board chairperson Anurag Singh.
In one of the strongest advocacy of giving Sehajdharis the
right to vote under the Sikh Gurdwara Act 1925, Hardev Singh
Mattewal, four times Advocate General of Punjab, courtesy CM Parkash
Singh Badal, wrote
an article in The Tribune. The World Sikh News brought forth
this publicly expressed opinion.
 Once again, when it was time to clearly define who could be
counted as a Sehajdhari Sikh, Hardev Singh Mattewal who sports a
white turban, had to per force stay behind the scene. But the Badals
wanted “their own man” in the
Punjab and Haryana
High Court, little trusting the SGPC counsels and others like
Navkiran Singh who could have spoilt the game.
Enter Pavit Mattewal. Hardev Singh Mattewal’s son who does
not use “Singh” and does not sport a “turban”, cuts his hair, shaves
his beard, calls himself a role model for Sikhs and is being
projected as such by leading media in Punjab, impleaded himself as a
party in the case that involved the question of the definition of a
Sikh for the purpose of admission in minority-run professional
colleges.
In a recent interview to a leading English weekly, Pavit
Mattewal was trying to quickly pull out of his memory his big legal
achievement. Thankfully he remembered one: “one in which he got a
non-bailable warrant issued against Bollywood actor Suniel Shetty in
a cheque bounce case.”
Pavit Mattewal’s real identity? He is Legal Advisor to Punjab
Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal. Clearly, Mr Badal chooses his
advisors carefully, preferably those who cannot be accused of being
a “Singh”.
Pavit argued strongly in favour of Sehajdharis being counted
as Sikhs even if they cut their hair. “As an avid student of Sikh
history and tradition, I requested the court to make me a party in
this case which it did,” he claimed.
What made this legal advisor of Badal an expert on the issue
“two months of research and brainstorming,” he said. It is not clear
what kind of research this man did, but in the
Punjab and Haryana High Court, where a three-judge bench was
hearing the case, Pavit Mattewal dropped a bombshell that jolted
even the judges. He said there was no historical or documentary
evidence to prove that the first nine Sikh Gurus were “keshadharis”.
One of the judges asked Pavit to close his eyes and tell them
if he can visualise a Sikh Guru without his hair. That was something
that cooked Pavit’s goose. Otherwise the clacking was just not
stopping.
Now just imagine a scenario in which the Legal Advisor to
Patron of Akali Dal Parkash Singh Badal, during the arguments on a
case involving a major theological question of definition of a Sikh,
is asked by the judge, “And what are you, Mr Mattewal?” He will have
the ignominy of responding, “My Lord, I am patit.” Unless, of
course, Pavit Mattewal has bought the Sehajdhari definition being
pedaled by Sehadhari Federation president Paramjit Singh Ranu who
thinks patits are not patits but Sehajdharis and a patit is only
when an Amritdhari commits any of the four “kurehats”.
There is no end to those creating confusion, but people like
Pavit Mattewal are hired to create confusion, they become scholars
on a theological-political-religious issue with research of two
months. As a journalist in
Punjab recently
remarked, “It is a wonder why men like Dr Ganda Singh or Taran Singh
or Fauja Singh studied Sikhism for decades if such issues can be
decided by Legal Advisors hired by Parkash Singh Badal with two
months of study and research?”
Clearly, this is
a case of “instant scholars” who provide customized definitions as
per convenience of RSS or BJP or the Badals or sects based in Beas
or Sirsa, and frankly, is there a difference among all these?
29 December
2008
|
Read Also
