VATICAN STATUS FOR NANKANA SAHIB

2 thoughts on “VATICAN STATUS FOR NANKANA SAHIB

  1. Mukhtiar Singh

    Whilst getting Vatican status for Nankana Sahib is a noble idea, I think first and foremost the Darbar Sahb complex in Amritsar which includes the Akaal Takht should be the main focus for getting a Vatican status. Sikh history has always considered this complex to be the central focal point where large meetings like the Sarbat Khalsa were held for centuries. The Indian government should be approached in this regard by both DSPC and SGPC. Main benefit of this will be to keep the Darbar Sahb complex protected from nefarious eyes and events like what happened in 1984. There are many more people (Sikhs and non-Sikhs) who visit Darbar Sahb. With all due respect for Guru Nanak and Nankana Sahb, we should give Darbar Sahb your priority. Will the Indian government agree on this is a big question.

  2. Phillip Andre

    If anxious to secure Vatican-style status for somewhere of immense importance to the Sikh community globally, it obviously makes greater sense to secure such status for the Darbar Sahib complex in Amritsar rather than for Nankana Sahib, but securing such status is highly unlikely, for the reason hinted at by Mukhtiar above. As I wrote to a good friend about this matter recently in relation to Nankana Sahib (although the points below apply just as much – and perhaps even more so – to the Darbar Sahib complex):
    Is the idea that Nankana Sahib should be designated an albeit tiny independent state in exactly the same way the Vatican City is regarded as a small independent state with its own form of governance and the right to set up diplomatic offices in other nation states and issue its own stamps, etc.? The chapter of the book seems (for the most part) to suggest this would be a good thing (but also it occasionally seems to suggest something a bit different), but just how likely is it that a country such as Pakistan would surrender sovereignty over even a tiny patch of land it regards as rightly its own? Also, would such a tiny Sikh-run “state” be deemed by both Pakistan and India as Khalistan in embryo? I can see this idea NOT being welcomed in either Islamabad or Delhi, especially given the sort of political regimes that hold sway in both capitals just now.

    Anyway: if I have misinterpreted the thrust of the chapter, perhaps the chapter needs a wee bit of re-writing.

    It must not be forgotten that the Vatican City secured its present status as an independent statelet (albeit largely reliant on Italy for the supply of numerous services, etc. to sustain it at reduced cost to the Vatican itself) under the despised fascist regime of Mussolini, and, because the Vatican City secured its longed-for independent status with such a contemptible regime, the Roman Catholic Church was forced to compromise with fascism in many terrible/contemptible ways. Would the Sikhs feel equally obliged to dine with the devil (the Pakistani government) that granted Nankana Sahib the same status as the Vatican City? The more the idea is thought through, the more one must question its viability (although its desirability is another issue altogether).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *