The transfixing incident erupted acontroversy over a Sewadar in Golden temple saying‘This is Punjab, not India’ to a girl with Tiranga painted on her cheek

A video of a girl in a heated argument with a Sewadar in the Golden temple aftershe was refused entry allegedly for Tiranga painted on her faceleftthe nation aghast, in which the guard is heard saying with sheer audacity that this is Punjab, not India, and then attacked to snatch the camera of the man who was recording this altercation. It was adisturbing and deplorable video from a state where khalistani activities are rapidly growing. It quickly went viral and stirred a controversy over this audacious and inappropriate behavior shownby the guard which instantly attracted intense public flak. There can probably be several angles to this controversy, howeverthe statement by the guard is utterly flabbergasting and it is worth noticing what instigated him to utter such words that not only corroded the image of the shrine, but also kind of tarnished Sikh patriotism.

Political reactions regarding this video came vehemently, asking the ruling party to answer responsibly for these incidents that are relentlessly happening in the state. Moreover, public reactions are the main reason why the Gurudwaracommittee had come forward for damage control. Political parties have linked this statement to the ongoing khalistani activities in Punjab. For, this was absolutely transfixing to hear that statement. Now it has become a twisted affair.

The Gurudwara committee has issued its clarification through a few videos in which the secretary has explained the incident and attributed the guard’s audacious statement to the girl’s provocation. He stated that the girl was wearing a skirt due to which the sewadar refused to let her enter the golden temple. Furthermore, he also claimed that there is nothing to link it with khalistani and urged people to not doubt Sikh patriotism, reminding of the great sacrifices made by the Sikh, exaggerating how the Golden temple welcomes everyone irrespective of their religion and countries, and disdainfully pointing out at Hindu temples where non – Hindus are not allowed. Meanwhile, the alleged Sewadar clarified in a video that it was nothing about Indian flag, it was actually her dress which was not allowed in  Gurudwara. Anyone can understand that he was reading a clarification probably given by the committee after his statement erupted this controversy. He claimed he denied entry to girl as he legs were not covered, however, in the video the girl posted on social media, he didn’t say anything about dress, except his controversial statement.

There are a few translated statements given by the general secretary that seem questionable as well as awkward:

  1. The girl was wearing a skirt, and it provoked the guard to deny her entry.
  2. Political comments over this is not appropriate, and nobody should doubt Sikh patriotism.
  3. When you need people to go to the border of china, who do you send? You send Sikhs. Are they also khalistani?
  4. You speak of tricolor, so many Sikhs come home wrapped in the tricolor.
  5. People who are making such accusations about Sikhs are themselves traitors.

A lot more was stated by the committee secretary indirectlytargeting people and political parties who expressed their ire against the guard’s statement. A video has also been shared by the Gurudwara committee showing the guard denying entry to girl for wearing frock, while in clarification, General secretary claimed that she was wearing skirt that later made his claims questionable. In this video, the same guard was heard asking other people to checka dustbin placed nearby to know whatobjectionable items the man with that girl was carrying in the premises.

It is important to meticulouslyrummage through all details of the incident in order to unearth the truth. Here, this case appears distressing as the statements given by the committee and the guard are kind of confusing and lack credibility. It is because nobody has clearly talked about the statement that erupted whole controversy, whereas a twisted clarification was given. Moreover, instead of giving sincere apologies, the secretary has showed malignancy against people from other states by saying it’s only Sikhs who are sent to the border to fight with China and Pakistan, Isn’t it an insult of soldiers other communities give to the nation?

He even claimed that the tricolor the girl had painted on her cheek didn’t have Ashok Chakra, andit could be any political symbol. That categorically indicates that he somewhat justified the guard’s statement. ManyTourists visit baghaborder and get tricolor painted, and there is always a strong prospect of having something missing like ashok chakra in these temporary tattoos. I believe the committee should understand that any replica of Tiranga is worth respecting. Later on, the committee issued apology.

Now the questions we should be asking ourselves as well as the Gurudwara committee, are if it was a matter of dress codethat was claimed to provoke the guard, and definitely had nothing to do with tricolor, then why did he say this is Punjab, not India while arguing with the girl? Besides, she wore a frock with leggings that unmistakably refutedthe claim made by the guard that she wore a skirt. In videos posted by the committee, it was claimed that after being stopped from entering the Gurudwara, the girl angrily tried to pull down her leggings. In sooth, there happened nothing like that as shown in the vitiated videos. Denying khalistani influence on Sikh youths is ridiculous and downright dangerous, as we are familiar with the fact that there is a strong khalistani penchant swiftly thriving in Punjab that seldom comes out through such statements like what the guard said.

The committee should ponder why the guard who is in service of God, said such abominablewords. It is possible to plainly infer through given statements that whatever was clarified and explained pertaining to this controversy, wasinfact an attempt for damage control, attribution, and indirect justification by saying it wasn’t tricolor that was denied by the guard. However, that audacity in guard’scomment ‘This is Punjab, not India’ debunked all attempts of clarification about having no khalistani liaison with this case. For, denying entry to a girl for her dress wouldn’t have surely made a guard say something like this even in case of provocation, provided that he had no khalistani urge to say this about India likewhat khalistani dreamers routinely shout in Canada and other countries. The onusis on all of you to decide which side of the case convinces you most and which one seems confusing.

Was it worth reading? Let us know.