Chandigarh: Advocate Harnoor Singh has raised questions over the timing of the recent attack on Shiromani Akali Dal president Sukhbir Singh Badal in Nanded and the developments surrounding the parole of Jagtar Singh Hawara, asking whether the coincidence deserves closer examination.Badal was attacked on August 13 at a gurdwara in Nanded, Maharashtra. Security personnel intervened and overpowered the attacker, while a police officer was injured during the effort to prevent the assault. Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has ordered a detailed inquiry into the incident. (The Times of India)
The incident has acquired an additional political dimension because it came at a time when the issue of parole for Jagtar Singh Hawara was receiving renewed attention. Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann had approached Governor Gulab Chand Kataria seeking 10 days’ parole for Hawara on humanitarian grounds, citing the deteriorating health of his mother. (The Times of India)Advocate Harnoor Singh points to the timing and asks whether the two developments should simply be dismissed as coincidence. His argument, however, does not establish that the incidents are connected. Rather, it raises a question that authorities may need to address through facts, investigation and evidence.
The comparison has also drawn attention because Sukhbir Badal was attacked previously in December 2024, following the Akal Takht’s directions connected with the religious punishment imposed on him. The latest Nanded attack has therefore prompted renewed questions about the security of the SAD president and the circumstances surrounding attacks on him. Recent analysis has specifically examined the timing of the two attacks alongside developments involving Hawara. (The Indian Express)
The Hawara parole matter itself remains legally and administratively complicated. Reports on August 14 said Hawara declined a two-day custody-parole offer and sought regular parole instead, while the Punjab government’s request for a longer parole period was under consideration. (The Indian Express)
The central issue, therefore, is not to draw an unproven conclusion but to ask whether the sequence of events warrants a transparent examination. Was it merely coincidence, or is there information that investigators should establish?
For a matter involving a major political leader, a religious site, security arrangements and a highly sensitive parole controversy, the public deserves facts rather than speculation. Any possible connection should be established only through a credible investigation and evidence.
Advocate Harnoor Singh’s question ultimately puts the focus on accountability: when politically and religiously sensitive events occur so close together, should the timing simply be ignored—or should authorities examine every possible angle before reaching a conclusion?