Following the shocking incidents of sacrilege of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji that rocked Punjab since 2015, various religious and social groups responded with protests, sit-ins and demonstrations, demanding swift justice. Of these, the most poignant but ultimately forgotten was the protest by a group of so-called Sikh religious leaders who, moved by the sacrilege of the holy scripture, began a sit-in in the presence of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Their commitment was complete and their demand was simple yet profound: they would continue their prayers and protests until the perpetrators responsible for the sacrilege were brought to justice and punished according to the law.
The protest by the religious leaders represented a unique interfaith unity in the complex religious landscape of Punjab. Unlike the politically charged protests that often marked a response to incidents of sacrilege, their protest was deeply spiritual in nature. These ascetics, following their religious traditions, recognized the sanctity of the Sikh holy scripture and felt compelled to take action when it was desecrated. Their decision to sit in prayer and protest in front of the Guru Granth Sahib reflects the universal respect for the holy scriptures among India’s diverse religious communities.
The protest began with great enthusiasm and determination. Religious leaders set up their protest site and began continuous prayers, declaring their unwavering commitment to remain at the site until justice was served. Their presence attracted initial attention from local media and religious communities, who saw their act as a noble gesture of interfaith unity and shared concern for religious sanctity. The scene of religious communities in Punjab praying for justice over the Sikh holy scripture sent a powerful message about the harmony between them and their shared commitment to protecting religious dignity.
However, as the days turned into weeks and weeks into months, the fervor surrounding the protest by religious leaders began to wane. The complex nature of sacrilege cases, involving multiple investigating agencies, political complications and legal hurdles, meant that quick justice was unlikely. Cases were transferred to various investigative bodies, from local police to the CBI and back to state-level special investigation teams, creating a maze of bureaucratic delays that made immediate resolution impossible.
Religious leaders found themselves caught in this web of systemic delays and political maneuvering. Their simple demand became entangled in the broader political discourse surrounding the sacrilege cases, where various parties used the incidents for electoral gain rather than focusing solely on delivering justice. The interfaith nature of their protest, which should have been celebrated as a unifying force, was instead marginalized as the issue became increasingly politicized along communal and party lines.
As the protests escalated without any tangible progress, religious leaders faced practical challenges. Sustained protests required significant physical and financial resources, and it became increasingly difficult to maintain their positions. Unlike large religious or political organizations that could sustain long-term protests with rotating participants and steady funding, religious leaders lacked such institutional support. Their protests were driven entirely by spiritual determination rather than organizational support.
Media attention that initially highlighted their noble cause gradually shifted to other incidents in the sacrilege cases. Attention shifted to high-profile arrests, political statements, and legal actions, largely overshadowing the quiet, determined opposition of religious leaders. Their prayers and presence, once seen as symbols of interfaith unity, were marginalized in public discussions about the sacrilege incidents.
The abandonment of the protest came gradually rather than in a dramatic decision. As practical difficulties mounted and the prospects for immediate justice dimmed, religious leaders found themselves in a helpless position. Their physical presence at the protest site became sporadic, and eventually, the sit-in that had begun with such determination and spiritual resolve quietly dissolved. The site that had once been a symbol of interfaith prayer for justice was gradually abandoned, marking the end of a powerful statement of religious unity.
The failure of religious leaders to acknowledge or respond to the protest reflects broader systemic issues in how Punjab society and government handle the sacrilege crisis. While political parties engaged in rhetoric and blame games, and while various Sikh organizations staged their own protests and demonstrations, the genuine spiritual concern expressed by religious leaders was largely ignored. Their interfaith approach to seeking justice, which could have served as a model for broader social healing, was ignored in favor of more politically expedient responses.
Their abandonment of protest also highlighted the disconnect between religious sentiments and formal justice mechanisms at the grassroots level. The prayer-based approach of religious leaders represented a traditional way of seeking divine intervention and social justice, rooted in centuries-old practices of dharna and satyagraha. However, in the face of modern bureaucracy and legal complexities, such traditional forms of protest proved insufficient to achieve their stated goals.
The experience of religious leaders reflects a broader pattern in sacrilege cases where genuine religious concern and demand for justice became subordinate to political calculations and institutional failures. Their prayers, made with genuine devotion for justice and religious harmony, were ultimately rendered ineffective not by a lack of spiritual competence, but by the systemic failures that have characterized the entire management of the sacrilege cases.
The forgotten sit-in of religious leaders is a painful reminder of the missed opportunities following the sacrilege incidents. Their protest represented a powerful moment of interfaith healing and a united demand for justice. Instead, their abandonment of the sit-in became another victim of the politicization and mismanagement that have marked the entire sacrilege controversy.
Today, as sacrilege cases continue to drag on in various courts and investigative agencies, the memory of the religious leaders’ protest has faded from the public consciousness. Their prayers for justice have gone unanswered, not because their cause was unjust, but because the systems responsible for delivering that justice have failed to function effectively. The site of their protest, once a symbol of interfaith unity and spiritual commitment to justice, stands as a silent testimony to both the greatness of their cause and the tragedy of its abandonment.
The story of the religious leaders’ protest and its eventual abandonment serves as a microcosm of the great failure to satisfactorily resolve sacrilege incidents. It shows how genuine religious sentiment and interfaith unity can be overwhelmed by political maneuvering, bureaucratic delays and institutional failures. Most tragically, it shows how a purely spiritual demand for justice can be forgotten and abandoned when faced with the harsh realities of a system that prioritizes political expediency over moral clarity.
The religious leaders who began their protest with such hope and determination have likely returned to their ashrams and spiritual practices, carrying with them the frustration of unanswered prayers and incomplete justice. Their abandoned protest is a reminder that in dealing with Punjab’s sacrilege crisis, even the most sincere and spiritually motivated demands for justice have been left unheeded and unheeded, reflecting not only the failure of the legal system, but also the failure of society’s ability to respect and respond to genuine religious concern and interfaith unity.