It is the newest controversy to creep into the hallowed precincts of the Golden Temple at Amritsar. But this one questioning age-old traditions in the historic gurdwara has brought to the fore the issue of gender discrimination and power play among the Sikh clergy. The provocation: on February 13, two NRI Sikh women were prevented from participating in the "Sukh-aasan" ritual and allegedly roughed up by male devotees and volunteers of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), the apex managing body.

TORCH BEARERS: Mejinderpal Kaur (left) and Lakhbir Kaur

The Sukh-aasan is a daily late-night ritual of shifting the Guru Granth Sahib from the sanctum sanctorum to the Akal Takht precincts. Ironically, the Golden Temple is the only gurdwara where women are barred from taking part in religious ceremonies, including the recital of kirtan. Five centuries after its founder Guru Nanak Dev propounded gender equality as a cornerstone of Sikhism, it took the two British Sikh women, Mejinderpal Kaur and Lakhbir Kaur, to resurrect the debate. It's an issue on which the SGPC has been accused of playing to the gallery despite the hukamnama (edict) by five Sikh head priests in 1996 that allows baptised women to be equal partners in the seva.

"We are not seeking a right which does not exist," says Mejinderpal, a London-based lawyer. She says her visit to Amritsar was prompted by an assurance by Akal Takht Jathedar Joginder Singh Vedanti, who visited Britain last year, that there would be no restriction on the participation of women in the seva. She denies that her campaign represents western or elitist concerns and is gathering support within Sikh organisations in India as well as abroad to mount pressure on the SGPC to implement the edict. These organisations will hold a seminar in Amritsar on March 9 to chalk out the course of action. "We will not let the campaign die down," says a defiant Mejinderpal.

The SGPC, meanwhile, is in wait-and-watch mode. "It is a sensitive matter. A hasty step could well divide the community," says SGPC President Kirpal Singh Badungar. Such concerns are not entirely misplaced. After the langar controversy of 1998-there was opposition to community meals being served on dining tables-created a huge furore among Sikhs abroad, the SGPC is treading cautiously this time.

Meanwhile in a strange coincidence, on February 23 the SGPC sacked Manjit Singh, head priest of Takht Keshgarh and a staunch votary of the edict. Though ousted officially on charges of corruption, the "reformer" priest had earned the ire of the SGPC for trying to queer the pitch on the non-implementation of the 1996 edict piloted by him as the then acting jathedar of the Akal Takht. Given the power struggle in the Sikh clergy, Manjit Singh's tacit motive was to embarrass Vedanti.

MEN ONLY: Carrying the palanquin with the holy book in it is part of the late-night rituals at the Golden Temple

The first effort to remove the gender bias was made after the SGPC was set up in 1925. The SGPC Act granted equal rights to women in the management of Sikh shrines, but it was only in 1940 that the Religious Advisory Board formed by the body recommended that baptised Sikh women be allowed to recite kirtan at the Golden Temple. The orthodox group opposed the move and it could not be implemented on the pretext of the non-availability of women trained to recite Gurbani in ragas. But the matter of women's participation in the nightly rituals has faced stiffer resistance. In 1996 the Sikh clergy, spurred by the nri community, sought to end the gender bias by issuing an edict allowing women to participate in it with a rider that they should be above the age of 30 and escorted by a male family member. Manjit Singh even led a group of women to the sanctum sanctorum to take part in the seva.

But it remained just that-a symbolic gesture. The SGPC simply ignored the directive. Even the first woman SGPC president, Bibi Jagir Kaur, found it politically expedient to keep the issue under wraps in the face of opposition by the Sant Samaj-a conglomerate of Sikh seminaries that exercises considerable sway over the SGPC electorate. The SGPC's latest ploy to first gauge public opinion on the issue has invited ridicule from liberal Sikhs who see it as "a delaying tactic". "An edict issued by the Akal Takht can't be kept in abeyance as it is binding on the entire community," says firebrand SGPC member Kiranjot Kaur. In a face-saving move, Vedanti has now written to the SGPC to explore the possibility of implementing the edict.

SGPC authorities, however, cite practical problems in executing it. It anticipates bigger problems like "unsavoury" incidents occurring when women participate in the lengthy nocturnal rituals. "Our society is not so advanced as to rule out eveteasing even in holy places," says Darshan Singh, a Sikh scholar-member of the Dharam Prachar Committee of the SGPC. "Since carrying the heavy palanquin involves a lot of jostling, it will be unwise to let women take part."

The liberals rubbish the argument. "The SGPC can introduce all-women days of seva or earmark separate areas for male and female devotees," says Sikh thinker Gurtej Singh. The problem, he believes, is more to do with attitude. Gurdarshan Singh Dhillon agrees. "The ban on women devotees is an expression of a deep-seated patriarchal and chauvinistic mindset," says the Panjab University historian. Badungar feels it will take time to "mould public opinion on changing the Sikh maryada".

As the debate snowballs into a major row, it has set the tide for a new awakening among Sikh women.