Introduction

The points in this letter below are our shared concerns and reflections regarding proposals to introduce open elections for the SSSC Board of Directors. They are offered with respect for our community, care for our institutional integrity, and a deep commitment to the long-term spiritual mission entrusted to the SSSC.

These points are not intended to diminish participation, but to clarify the responsibilities involved in governing the highest spiritual authority of our organizations, including Sikh Dharma International.

The SSSC is the highest authority of our organizations, including Sikh Dharma International.
Its decisions are not merely administrative; they directly shape the spiritual and doctrinal direction of our Dharma.

For this reason, the selection of those who serve on its Board cannot rest with individuals who have not made a formal commitment to the Sikh faith.
It is not coherent for people who do not practice the Dharma—or who do not live a committed spiritual life—to participate in choosing those who will ultimately be responsible for its direction.

This criterion is not intended to exclude anyone.
Any person who feels the calling may take Sikh vows and enter the ministry.
The distinction is not one of access, but of level of spiritual commitment and responsibility.

The SSSC Board carries a central responsibility: to safeguard and uphold the mission and vision left by the Founder, THE SIRI SINGH SAHIB, BHAI SAHIB HARBHAJAN SINGH KHALSA, YOGI JI, beyond individuals, moments, or temporary pressures.

Open elections do not guarantee that those elected will be the most suitable people for this responsibility.
They simply reflect the opinion of the majority at a given moment.

Our spiritual mission cannot depend on electoral cycles or shifting majorities.
The SSSC must make decisions with a long-term perspective, far beyond what an open voting process can offer.

For this reason, many religious and spiritual organizations that have endured over time have deliberately chosen not to use open electoral systems.
This is not about accommodating short-term demands, but about sustaining a spiritual path in service to humanity over the long term.

Participation that truly strengthens a community is not built through an occasional vote, but through sustained commitment, service, and responsibility assumed in the daily life of the organization.

Presenting a high-level open election as an act of participation confuses real participation with a formal gesture that occurs without sufficient understanding of the institution or an ongoing commitment to the mission being governed.

This does not broaden participation. In practice, it tends to create dynamics of politicization, where more organized groups occupy positions of influence without broad and stable participation from the community as a whole, as we have already experienced in previous processes.

Our organization needs to strengthen real and continuous forms of participation — those that build community, understanding, and service.
A high-level open vote does not replace that work and, when presented as participation, ultimately weakens it.

This concern is not theoretical.
Our organization has already gone through an open electoral process whose stated objective was to broaden participation and increase inclusivity. The outcome of that process was clear: rather than strengthening unity, it resulted in politicization, deep internal divisions, distancing among members of the community, and an enormous cost in time, energy, and resources.

Arguments very similar to those being raised today were used at that time to justify expanding the voting base, including the claim that the SSSC was not — and should not be understood as — a religious organization. On that basis, voting rights were extended to automatically include Lead and Professional Teacher Trainers of the KRI Academy.

When significant concern was expressed by members of the Sangat, who viewed it as inappropriate to expand the electorate to these groups while excluding other long-standing community members with decades of commitment to the lifestyle, and since inclusivity was presented as the guiding principle, a further expansion of the voting base was undertaken. Members of the Sangat were allowed to apply, provided they met certain requirements.

Those requirements, however, were modified repeatedly, using criteria widely perceived as arbitrary and accommodating. Applicants were ultimately required to complete complex accreditation processes and provide multiple attestations. Despite these obstacles, many members of our international community successfully complied with all stated requirements and submitted their applications.

Subsequently, and once again through decisions perceived as arbitrary, a significant number of these applicants were disqualified without real justification. Numerous applications were lost, and entire geographic regions were excluded from the voting process using arguments that directly contradicted the original rationale. For example, individuals residing in China were barred from voting on the grounds that the SSSC was, in fact, a religious organization and that participation could place them at risk. The exclusion of other entire communities within our global Sangat was also evaluated and, in some cases, actively attempted.

The facts described above are documented in official minutes and can be independently verified.

The overall process was marked by confusion, constant changes in criteria, and a lack of coherent governance. Even direct witnesses — including current members of the SSSC — acknowledged multiple failures. The process was widely perceived as chaotic, unsuccessful, and excessively costly, leaving no sector satisfied.

Many of these consequences remain present today and have weakened our ability to serve the mission we were entrusted with, together.

Considering all the arguments presented above, we respectfully ask that pressures from particular groups to change the SSSC Board election system and automatically expand its electoral base not be taken into consideration.

We further request that the SSSC not repeat a process that has already proven divisive and harmful to the unity and effectiveness of our community, and that failed to consider the religious nature of the organization and the complexity of its internal dynamics.

Whatever mechanism is ultimately adopted — whether based on ministry participation or through a defined process of selection — it must include clear safeguards:

• limits to prevent the perpetuation of roles,
• mechanisms for review and accountability,
• clear procedures to end a director’s participation when necessary.

This is not about concentrating power, but about responsibly safeguarding the spiritual mission entrusted to the SSSC and ensuring its continuity over time.

We offer these reflections in a spirit of responsibility and service, with the intention of supporting wise discernment by the current SSSC Board.

Decisions of this magnitude must be guided not by short-term pressures or momentary dynamics, but by what best allows this organization to remain faithful to its mission and capable of serving humanity over the very long term — not only for the next 10, 50, or 100 years, but for the next 5,000 years.

The last election sought to expand the voting base but instead resulted in a deeply flawed and politicized process that left no one satisfied.

Let us learn from that experience and avoid repeating the same mistakes.

Those who resonate with these reflections are invited to add their names in support, so that this statement may be formally presented to the current SSSC Board for consideration.