#Ranjit-Singh | [Instagram: @ranjitsingh.ma](https://www.instagram.com/ranjitsingh.ma/) | [Substack: @ranjitsinghma](https://substack.com/@ranjitsinghma) | <br> **Following on from the previous posts highlighting the status of the Guru Khalsa Panth and the authority (or lack thereof) of the Akaal Takht, this post expands further on the concept of the “Sarbat Khalsa”.** If the Khalsa is the Guru, and the Akaal Takht does not serve as an authority to represent and dictate to the Khalsa, then how does the Khalsa reach consensus and make decisions? Through the concept of _Sarbat Khalsa._ # Origins The Sarbat Khalsa is a meeting amongst Khalsa Sikhs to pass resolutions or “Gurmatte” on matters affecting the Khalsa and to determine appropriate strategies for the future. While the first conceptual instance of this can arguably be traced to Guru Gobind Singh summoning the Sangat in the late 17th century to inaugurate the Guru Khalsa Panth, the term _Sarbat Khalsa_ itself (as well as _Gurmatta_), along with its formal structure, does not appear in the Guru’s Bani or literature outputted by the Anandpur Darbar. Instead, it appears to have been a political innovation of the Guru Khalsa in the 18th century, developed in response to the needs of the post-human Guru era. Just as Misls were a later development. Interestingly, the term _Misl_ itself is a label applied retrospectively to them too. Regardless, the Guru Khalsa Panth would hold further assemblies of this sort as an expression of their collective Guru status after the departure of the human Gurus. Notable examples include the decision related to the Nawabi of Sardar Kapoor Singh and the subsequent resolutions to reformat the Khalsa into Misls in later Sarbat Khalsa gatherings. When the Misl system arose, the Sarbat Khalsa became an opportunity for Misldhars to coordinate activity strategically and deal with shared external threats such as those associated with the Mughals and the Afghans. However, it is worth noting that this system was not as universally complied with as one might assume. The Phulkian Misl, constituting the leaders of Patiala, Jind and Nabha, often refused to submit to the authority of the Sarbat Khalsa and instead remained largely independent. Occasionally they would join with the Dal Khalsa (a term for the Misls as a wider collective), and at other times pursued separate alliances, most infamously with the British.  When the Khalsa centralised under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the Sarbat Khalsa fell out of practice, as decision making was concentrated under one political will determined in the Darbars of the Maharaja. In a way, this marked a regression from the innovations the Khalsa had developed to reconcile each member’s autonomy and sovereign status with collective coordination. Instead, it was a reversion to the type of governance models already common during and prior to that period, and were studied in the Anandpur Darbars of Guru Gobind Singh. Along with this, the Misls themselves lost much of their autonomy and were amalgamated into the new imperial army. As with all instances of putting your eggs in one basket, this experiment in centralisation inevitably failed despite its great successes while it lasted. Thereafter, the Khalsa Panth plunged into chaos and near extinction. In time, the survivors would return, but to a new landscape of Sikhi shaped by foreign rule and shifting paradigms. With this, came the distortion and dilution of much of the original Khalsa traditions and understandings. In particular, the concept of the Sarbat Khalsa. --- # How do they work now? They pretty much don’t. Post-British colonialism, the Sarbat Khalsa has devolved into a complete and utter mockery. What was once a strategic gathering of Khalsa Misls to coordinate actions between themselves has now become a theatrical spectacle, neither functional nor philosophically coherent with the Khalsa ethos. --- > **Demagogue** > *noun >* > A political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument. --- In recent times, Sarbat Khalsa gatherings have become appeals to populism. By virtue of their format, it makes them susceptible to manipulation by demagogues, who appeal to the masses by pulling on their heartstrings and exploiting emotions to gain power and legitimacy, rather than offering clear strategy or rational argument. Babai, sectarian leaders, and organisations and figures originating from offshoot traditions from the Khalsa or even cults with dubious allegiances can lead them and produce a list of resolutions and rally the crowd. The wider public are then invited to attend, and if they can get enough people to shout loud enough _Jaikarai_ then this apparently validates their legitimacy and authority. How is this even measured? Is there someone recording the decibels? Does it have to be above a certain threshold to pass? What if you disagree, do you just not say anything or do a quieter Jaikara? Obviously this will be drowned out so how is the no vote counted, if at all? How do we know attendees are all informed enough to have a vote? How do we know everyone present are even at least Sikh? This is one of the worst possible methods of achieving consensus, and arguably even worse, more dysfunctional than the broken ballot-box system or the concept of a direct democracy in general which was criticised by Socrates over two thousand years ago. Azadism, in the Azadist Manifesto, also elaborates a critique of democracy on the basis that it violates individual autonomy in favour of “mob-rule”. It is no wonder why these modern Sarbat Khalsa processes are so ineffective. They are an insult to the Gurgaddi of the Khalsa, particularly in their presumption that any resolutions passed in these settings are binding on all Sikhs, including Khalsa members who may not agree, never consented to the process, or were not even present. Either perhaps because they weren’t invited, or weren’t even born yet. Which is another absurdity to note. A resolution passed decades ago is apparently meant to still be just as valid now, even if those declarations and decisions were, as of yet, never achieved and ultimately unsuccessful. For the decades that followed, these determinations have just been eulogised rather than reviewed, revised or followed-up upon meaningfully, let alone subjected to a six-month assessment of objectives. On top of this, it is just a poor display of our Panth’s professional conduct. The earlier Misl system, for all its flaws and historical limitations, operated at a far higher level, respectfully, professionally, strategically, and effectively. Despite them being a few hundred years old, the Misls were still more advanced, both in structure and execution, than what we see today. Our lack of decorum today is shamefully unsophisticated for a people who claim to be Akaal Purakh Ki Fauj. # Reform the Sarbat Khalsa As the Guru Khalsa Panth, we have every right to reformat our political institutions to make them more effective and adaptive to the ever-changing situations we are in. The same way how Guru Gobind Singh dismantled the Masand system (that was established by the earlier Gurus) once he found them no longer functional and working against his interests. This recent distortion of the Sarbat Khalsa practice is clearly severely lacking too, and so, as members of the Guru Khala we must re-evaluate. The following are my _suggestions_ for an alternative. ## Reject the Populist Model First and foremost, we must abandon the flawed notion that the Sarbat Khalsa is supposed to be a sort of general election where everyone gets a vote via shouting Jaikarai. This is not a public referendum, and the concept of direct democracy itself is deeply flawed. A more meaningful approach would be to treat them once again as strategy meetings to coordinate activity between Sikh institutions and organisations that are actually working on Panthic projects. These meetings could be used to: - Review the last six months - Set targets for the next six - Resolve issues or conflicts - Share intelligence and strategies - Address external threats and capitalise on opportunities Much like how the early Misls operated in the past, and similar to how modern State institutions and intelligence agencies (e.g., the FBI, CIA, etc.) convene to align their operations and ensure they are not stepping on each other’s toes. Publicity is not always necessary. While some transparency is ideal, many strategic matters require private discussions. Participation should be limited to those who are actually doing the work and therefore have a genuine need to coordinate, iron out differences and identify opportunities for collaboration or existential threat management. ## Limited Exclusivity & Jurisdiction Some may object to the idea of exclusivity, but this concern stems from a misunderstanding. Under this new conception, the Sarbat Khalsa is not meant to make decisions on behalf of others. It is simply a forum for Khalsa institutions and individual Khalsapanthis to coordinate amongst themselves. They have no right to issue dictates to the wider Sikh community, or even to one another. If a particular Misl or group disagrees with a strategy or proposal, they are under no obligation to follow it. Instead, of those Misls or Khalsapanthis who do choose to follow it, then instead of arrogantly claiming the mantle of “the Panth” and invalidating the Khalsa (or Sikh) status of all those who choose to opt out, they instead label themeselves as part of the working group for that particular strategy. For instance, if a strategy is proposed to engage with a new post-colonial concept of nationalism and thereby establish Sikh nation-state called Khalistan in the Punjab region, then the adherents of this could logically label themselves as “Khalistani”. Anyone who does not consent to being a part of that or align with it, would not have to forfeit their identity as Khalsa, Sikh or Panthic  on the basis that they reject that approach or prefer to priortise something else. The same way how anyone who refuses to accept the pursuit of a non-nation-state project, perhaps an imperial ambition to liberate Iran and revive an Indo-Persian Empire via a Khalsa Intelligence Agency approach, would not be declared non-Khalsai. Or perhaps, more simply put, if two people choose different career paths, it does not make either one of them unemployed — that depends on whether they or not they indeed adopt a career path at all. Additionally, no one working group has a monopoly on any particular ambition either, and therefore, if another Misl or Khalsapanthi presents a more compelling method or strategy, then the Khalsa can consider it and change coalitions. This way, healthy, productive competition is ensured, where innovation and multi-pronged approaches are incentivised, thereby increasing the likelihood of success, rather than being stuck with one working group, with one strategy that may or may not work. One may argue that this decentralisation may mean resources are divided, but instead, I would argue it preserves resources so that we don’t put all our eggs in one basket. Instead, it provides opportunity to experiment, and when one approach starts returning results, then, upon seeing this success, other Khalsapanthis can join in to accelerate the rate of success by allocating their resources to it. Unified resource allocation is only desirable if the allocator is competent and results are apparent. Otherwise it’s a waste, where the opportunity cost is too high. On top of this, more is not always better. I am a big believer in the Pareto Principle, where the majority of the change is only ever driven by a minority of the total population. When we recognise that each Khalsapanthi is _Sava Lakh_, then concerns related to numbers are secondary. A few can create a lot of impact depending on their level of clarity, competency and Kirpa. Furthermore, it also also ensures each individual member of the Khalsa is free to pursue and prioritise their own methods and ambitions, either as an individual Khalsapanthi, a Misl, or wider coallition, provided they do not impede the right for others to do the same. Which is where a base principle like the _Non-Aggression Priniciple_ (NAP) used in Azadist political-economic philosophy may be wise to implement.  --- “The NAP is the freedom to operate however you desire, provided it does not impede the right for others to do the same” --- We can justify this as a core operational principle the Khalsa adheres to collectively using examples like Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur’s Shaheedi, where he gave up his own life to protect the freedom of others, of even a different tradition, to practice what they wanted and not what the Mughal regime of the time were imposing upon them. The ultimate expression of upholding the NAP against tyranny. ## A Khalsa Constitution How could this be codified? I propose a _constitution_ of sorts to be established that all Khalsapanthis pledge alligience to either when they take Pahul, or join a Misl (or both). This should be held sacred, almost as highly as GurBani itself by virtue of it being produced by the Guru Khalsa. The constitution does not need to be a lengthy document. All it needs to do is state the fundamental laws of mutual respect for each member of the Khalsa’s self-autonomy and sovereign status. It should clearly outline the NAP, and declare breaches of it as illegal in Khalsa Inter-Misl Law (Dal Khalsa Law).  It should also outline the appropriate measures for breaches of the NAP. These might range from independent arbitration (mediated by a mutually agreed third party), to (in the most extreme cases) hostile intervention. For instance, if a rogue Misl uses violence aggressively and refuses arbitration, then enforcement through direct action may be necessary. The Khalsa, as a collective, has a duty to act and stop such actors through the appropriate means. They must not just turn a blind eye and brush issues under the carpet. Otherwise, the entire institution of the Khalsa is discredited. If we cannot self-regulate, the reputation of the Guru Khalsa, and therefore the Guru, suffers. The reputation of the Guru Khalsa _is_ the reputation of the Guru. Any Khalsapanthi who violates the constitution after pledging to it and refuses to be held accountable should be deemed an oathbreaker and ostracised by the Misls. In reality, whether or not a Khalsapanthi or a particular Misl has breached the NAP will not always be clear-cut. There should be a distinction made between direct and indirect violations, and it is a role for _Khalsa Law Keepers_ or _Khalsa Constitutional Lawyers_ to measure the “degrees of seperation” of how indirect it is. These lawyers are a specialist role devoted to interpreting the laws and applying them to make judgements in the real world. They could serve as legal counsel within individual Misls, or even form Misls in and of themselves, fully devoted to the practice of law. Naturally, over time, there would develop a population of judges, made up of the Panth’s wisest and most respected. They then would be sought after for the quality of their judgements and expert opinions. Thereby, instead of taking an issue to a generic mediator neither disputing party trusts, they would instead prefer taking their issue to a judge since their ruling would be widely accepted by many other Misls. If they rule in your favour, it would be reputable for you, and harder for your opponent to gather support. The difference lies in whether we ignore these tensions or choose to acknowledge them, and provide appropriate avenues to arbitrate disputes without resorting immediately to violence. These avenues would take the form of dedicated institutions: _Khalsa Courts of Law_. This whole system creates room for reconciliation, negotiation, and even friendly competition, rather than resorting to violent conflict or open war as the only resort. When disagreements persist, other methods of resolution including debate, wise counsel, or even duels between champions can be explored, as was sometimes the case historically. A Misl or Khalsapanthi who seeks forgiveness from the Khalsa Panth would have to seek it from each affected Misl to prevent hostilities brought upon them. In reality, most mistakes will not impact the entire Panth all that deeply, if at all, especially if it is sufficiently decentralised. In such cases, reconciliation may be more localised. But in the case of broader transgressions, wider reconciliation will be necessary. Not mandated, but the incentive to do so would be high if the transgressor wishes to end or prevent hostilities against them. Despite this, not every Misl or Khalsapanthi is obligated to forgive, each one decides for themselves. The worse the transgression, the harder it will be to gain forgiveness. Not all will adhere to this constitution, and again, that is a reality we must contend with. No system is perfect, every one has trade-offs. I just believe that this one, despite its setbacks, has the highest potential to be effective in terms of progressing Khalsa Raaj and maintains the sanctity of the decision to establish the Khalsa as Guru. For better or worse, it respects each Khalsapanthi as a self-autonomous, sovereign in their own right. There is no single dictatorship, but instead many Monarchs ruling over their own jurisdictions, whether that be within their Misls as Misldars, or on themselves as individual Khalsapanthis with the freedom to choose to remain by themselves, join or exist a Misl, or go on to establish their own. The constitution is a cultural aid to help enshrine a shared value system, but ultimately, it would be the incentive structures we establish as a Panth by creating conflict resolution institutions that serve as roadblocks on the path to intra-Khalsa or inter-Misl/Khalsapanthi violence. It is also not overly necessary to have a physical constitution. It is more important to embed the principles into the ethos of the Khalsa. This can be achieved without a clearly laid out document, but the document can help to cement it into culture. It isn’t a perfect solution, and societies can stray from it with time. Hence, if we do decide to establish one, then the following considerations are encouraged: 1. Refrain from adding too much complexity to the constitution as it risks loopholes being exploited. 2. Do not use poetry, it must extrememly unambiguos. 3. It should be written in English as a priority alongside other languages and scripts, and updated carefully with new translations if the lingua franca of the time changes. Again, the simpler you can make it, the easier this will be to do, and the longer it will last. However, do not make it so simple that it becomes ambiguous, and therefore hard to understand or easy to manipulate interpretations. ## Forget _Sarbat_ Despite the word “Sarbat,” the entire Khalsa Panth does not need to be physically present, nor is that logistically viable today anyway. Neither is it strategically wise (one missile and we’re all dead). Given the size and spread of the Panth today, absolute consensus is likely near impossible. You might achieve it on some very broad issues, perhaps on questions like “should the Khalsa keep Kes” (and it wouldn’t surprise me even this may spark debate today), but when it comes to intricate questions on policy or strategy, you can forget it. Without complete consensus, usage of terms like “Gurmatta” may now, more than ever, be unviable and inappropriate if used in a way to label any decision making where you have not got a hundred-percent compliance. Perhaps even the term _Sarbat_ Khalsa needs to be archived now too since we will likely never get the entire Panth to attend such a meeting (nor should). Terminology aside (for now), instead of working top-down, let’s go bottom-up. If you, as a Khalsapanthi, have a plan or idea, don’t wait for Panth-wide approval. Start small. Communicate it with those around you. Form a localised unit or Misl, and prove your concept through action. If it succeeds, others will naturally take notice and an organic, local Ekta develops and grows alongside your successes. If it fails, then it was a lesson learnt — not a waste. This model avoids the paralysis of waiting for one central institution (like the Akaal Takht) to decide everything for us, or for an impossible consensus to form and be validated from a shouting match in a field. By encouraging a diversity of approaches, we allow for experimentation, iteration and innovation, thereby increasing our rate of progress as a Panth. As outlined in more depth in Section III of the Azadist Manifesto, Azadism’s economic principles show the value in decentralised competition when it comes to evolving real solutions. ## Restore Decorum and Discernment Let’s be clear: it’s was called a Sarbat _Khalsa_, not a Sarbat _Sikh_... and certainly not Sarbat _anyone who turns up and shouts the loudest_. There must be a decorum, and a complete rejection of substandard and nonsensical practices masquerading as tradition. If the Khalsa wishes to succeed, we must become pragmatists, not sentimental loyalists to broken systems and approaches. It is a Nishaani of how sheepish this Panth has become to legitimise many of the current dysfunctional methods and understandings like those associated with the Sarbat Khalsa, Akaal Takht or any of the resolutions passed by them. You may agree or disagree with decisions issued by them, but do so on their own merit, not on the sole basis that they originate from this farce of a technique that has been misappropriated as a “Sarbat Khalsa”. In truth, this recent attempts at Sarbat Khalsa, post-colonialism, holds zero legitimacy in my mind. Which is further reinforced by their lack of enforceability and results anyway. Whilst I may respect the individuals present at them, their intentions and their ambitions, I do so on their own merits, not due to the format in which they revealed them. The only types of Khalsa consensus building exercises I now personally recognise as legitimate are the kinds where Khalsa organisations or individual Khalsapanthis come together as independent entities to work out how to operate in collaboration with one another, or to avoid violating each other’s autonomy or jurisdiction. They should be proper strategic meetings with outcomes, actions and reviews. Following on from my earlier encouragement of pragmaticism, it would be incredibly unpragmatic not to leverage the expertise available amongst non-Khalsa Sikhs, or even non-Sikhs entirely when appropriate too. So to reiterate: the Sarbat Khalsa isn’t meant to be some democratic election like what is done in various nation-states around the world every so often to decide which clown gets put in charge of the nukes. It’s a strategy meeting between different Khalsa Misls, in a similar way how modern agencies coordinate for missions. They don’t need to broadcast their intentions and get the whole public involved to do this weird clapping contest where you make some noise if you agree. And neither should we. Forget this idea of congregating like cattle in a big field and giving platforms to shepherds who treat us like sheep. If the Akaal Takht were to be utilised once again as a practical institution, then it should abandon being some Sikh version of a Vatican and become an actual secure meeting place for the Khalsa organised as a modernised Misl system. As for decision making within Khalsa organisations, institutions or (hopefully one day again) Misls, these can and should be done independently and can receive the input of anyone as per the unique constitution of each one. Whenever interests align and multiple Khalsa entities come together to coordinate, then this is a better representation of a Sarbat Khalsa than what is often assumed as one these days. Instead, this format of Panthic reconciliation respects the autonomy and independent authority of each entity over their own jurisdictions. One can’t impose a centralised will over another, and each is given a final say in their own matters regardless of the consensus. Thus requiring compromise and patience if one wants anything done together, whilst maintaining and respecting each others’ independence and autonomy. Something that is severely lacking in the broken Panthic systems of today. This is not a top-down autocratic relationship, it is a partnership for mutual benefit. If an agreement cannot be reached, then fine. Each try it their way and let the results or consequences speak for themselves. # A System That Can Begin Now The real beauty of this whole proposal is that it requires no overarching centralised authority to administer and mandate that this is the new way of doing Khalsa consensus-building exercises. It can happen right now! This publication is itself a proof and an attempt at it. Not that it is contingent on it, but if your wish to further validate it, you, the reader, as an independent Khalsapanthi can reach out and offer to enter a Non-Aggression Pact with me or my organisation. If you want to be a part of our Panthic entity, then consider applying to Bunga Azaadi. We are a Sikh Think Tank, devoted to the study of Sikhi & Statecraft, and engaging in projects that advance our Grand Strategy to achieve our vision for Khalsa Raaj. Guru Gobind Singh’s Anandpur Darbars brought together the leading minds of the time to cultivate an elite Sikh intelligentsia. These gatherings laid the ideological foundations and shaped the mindsets of the next generation of Khalsa Sikhs, who would go on to establish the first Sikh republics, Misls and empires. We aim to do our part at reviving the Sikh intelligentsia today, to forge the minds that will shape the Khalsa Raaj of tomorrow. All Sikhs are welcome to apply, Khalsapanthi or not. The Bunga is more of a support mechanism for the Khalsa who operate behind the scenes by providing advanced Vichaars and outputs. So when it comes time to negotiate and host Khalsa consensus-building events in this style, then it will indeed be a productive activity, with accountability and measurability. We have even developed a Bunga Azaadi Debate Format which can be utilised for such endeavours. We require no mandate from anyone else to do the work we wish to do. We do not require nor desire permission from the Pujaris squatting the Akal Takht building. Nor do we need to wait around for some fantasy of a Panth-wide, _Sarbat_ Khalsa to materialise, just so we can begin the basic process of even how a Sikh State would work. If we did then we would still be waiting till we are all long dead. Instead, Azadism, the Azadist Manifesto and the Vichaars being conducted by Bunga Azaadi were established as an attempt to produce at least something as a starting point, where we can iterate from with individuals receptive to the effort. I urge my fellow Sikhs and Khalsapanthis to abandon an _Ekta_ first mentality, and adopt a results first mentality. Consensus is only necessary when there are relevant outcomes and efforts. At which point, much of what I suggested here can (and already does) happen. I can already collaborate with some Khalsa organisations, and I can compete against others. The line is when one threatens violence or attempts it. They who disrespect Khalsapanthi autonomy and sovereignty, who breach the NAP and disregard the implications of the Khalsa being the Guru, are classified as _Modern-Day-Masands_ in my eyes. To create consensus around this, I would simply highlight their behaviour and expose them. If what I say is false, they would persist, if what I say is true, then they will desist. It is up to each Khalsapanthi to make up their own minds and bring about either result. Likewise, the dispute resolution process is already immediately available. If I personally had an issue with someone, if we both wanted to, we could take the matter to an independent third party we both consent to to arbitrate the dispute. If either of us do not like the judgement, then we could take it to another one we both consent to and repeat. To avoid this cycle, we may sign an agreement beforehand giving assurances that we accept the judgement no matter who it favours. This then allows us to put it behind us. However, if the other party continues hostilities, or breaks that agreement, then it would tarnish their reputation as an aggressor in the eyes of even more people. This reputation based system provides regulation whilst preserving respect for Khalsa autonomy and sovereignty. But the true vision for this system is predicated on whether or not the Khalsa is fulfilling its purpose as service providers for security and justice. As moral agents engaged in Dharam Yudh to advance the cause of Khalsa Raaj. If the Khalsa is not doing any of that, or even cognisant of its mission and purpose in the first place, let alone recognise their own status as Guru, then there is no need for any consensus-building at all. Simply because there are no toes to step on. If no one is in the business of making real advancements for Khalsa Raaj, then what is the point of any of it. The only reason my proposal has not already emerged naturally already at scale is precisely because these foundational understandings are missing at the moment. Too many, whilst not overtly saying it, reveal through their actions (or lack thereof) believe becoming a member of the Khalsa is _just_ about dressing up and doing more _Paath_. They fail to recognise the spiritual foundations, the embedded apotheosis, and the subsequent political objectives of the Khalsa. For many, becoming Khalsa is a mere fashion statement. For others, they have fooled themselves into thinking it is just a necessary step for spiritual advancement, and not a political expression with duty to be pursued within duality, _even if it is ultimately illusory_. But this will soon change as those conscious Khalsapanthis are gearing up for Mislisation. A revived Mislocracy is beginning, as per the standards of the new and improved, Modernised Misl System. To learn more and to get involved in this, read the [Dharam Yudh Pipeline White Paper.](https://azadism.substack.com/p/the-dharam-yudh-pipeline?utm_source=publication-search)