Take the case of Dera Sacha Souda, a monastery of sorts, where thousands of people, particularly of low castes, throng to meditate or to listen to its chief, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, who purposely named himself so to convey the message of pluralism. Yet he dons robes like that of Guru Gobind Singh, the 10th guru of Sikhs, and even imitates him in distributing amrit, call it by the name of sherbete hayat (syrup for life).

The Dera chief goes beyond that. He inserts an advertisement to publicise his reception, where he is shown in a flowing robe and with a plume pinned on his turban, like Guru Gobind Singh. This instigates a large number of Sikhs. Several thousands come out on the streets with unsheathed swords, and there is a clash in which state buses and some buildings are set on fire. There is vandalism and destruction. No doubt, the Dera chief is to blame for the violence. But the Punjab government sits back and does nothing for the first two days. Is it because the Dera chief had issued an edict to his followers, in the recent state election, to vote for the Congress? His behaviour, particularly the advertisement, gives life to militants and hardliners, lying low practically for the last decade or so. They take over the law and order in their own hands, and the Akali Dal-led government is a mute spectator.

Comes into action the Akal Takht, the highest spiritual and temporal seat of Sikhs, and it acts like the government and issues ultimatums. Had the state government taken timely action against those who went about unchecked, particularly in the countryside, things would not have reached such a pass which they did. While the state was in the throes of one of its worst crises, the government waited for the word to come from the political affairs committee of the party.

The Dera chief could have doused the fire if he had gone to the public to say that he never meant to present himself as Guru Gobind Singh. The Dera later issued a press release to express regret. But it was too little, too late. An apology would have been in order.

I do not know why the Dera chief was adamant on not issuing an apology. The Pope did it when he realised that some of his words had hurt the Muslims. We, living in the land of Mahatma Gandhi, should never have any hesitation in saying "sorry," especially when we find that we have, wittingly or unwittingly, hurt some people.

What has disconcerted me is the role of the Akal Takht. It supplanted the state government. Calling a bandh was none of its business. This is the job of political parties. The Akalis should have done it if they had felt the need. Bandh is a political term, not religious. India, particularly Punjab, has suffered in the past because the Akal Takht had mixed religion with politics. It has been once again found doing that. Ordering the closure of deras is the government's job, not that of the Akal Takht. These are not religious issues.

The Sikh faith in miri and piri is interpreted wrongly in today's context, and politics is mixed with religion. When Guru Hargobind Sahib who, when adumbrated the concept, rationalised the joining of politics with religion, his purpose was to instill the sentiments of social service among his followers. He wanted the Sikhs to pay attention to the lowest in the land. No doubt, the Sikhs are far ahead in this field as compared to other communities. Still their contribution is not in proportion to the wealth at their command. Why the cannot community channelise money to productive avenues so as to absorb lakhs of unemployed Sikhs who are prone to drugs. One cause for the last militancy in Punjab was the unemployment of Sikh youth. The situation has not improved.

I do not understand why every time there is trouble in Punjab, some elements collect in London to raise the demand for Khalistan, a separate state. This happened last week as well. And, as usual, two Muslim MPs of Pakistani origin were there to denounce India. Pakistan has its own troubles, and they emanate from the same malady: mixing religion with politics. Take the case of Lal Masjid at Islamabad, which has become a centre of fundamentalists trying to dictate the Pakistan government.

The Sikhs, by and large, have come to accept provincial autonomy like the rest of the Indians. But the problem with the Sikh community is that it tends to mix religion with politics. It is not opposed to secularism but it overemphasises the religious identity. Guru Nanak Dev, the founder of Sikh religion, preached pluralism and put together the sayings of Hindu, Muslim and other saints in the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book. It is pluralism the Sikhs should be pursuing and upholding, not religious jingoism. When they get carried away by passions, as has been seen again and again, they exhibit a trait which only impairs the community's image. I wonder if the Dera Sacha Sauda incident is the beginning of the era of Giani Zail Singh-type politics. Then, the Congress found the extremist Bhindranwale, and lionised him to fight against the Akalis. Things went beyond control and the result was disastrous. One, the army attacked the Golden Temple where Bhindranwale had tried to build a state within a state.

Two, the Sikh guards assassinated Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

This retaliation led to another fiendish kind of reprisal: the killing of innocent Sikhs in broad daylight, 3,000 in Delhi alone. What is called the Sikh problem got more aggravated. The elevation of Manmohan Singh as prime minister has solved it to a large extent, and that Mrs Indira Gandhi's daughter-in-law, Sonia Gandhi, has brought about it has made all the difference.

The tendency all over the world is to mix religion with politics. Turkey is a brave exception, where people marched through the streets to avow their support to secularism. I wish such a thing could happen in what was once the Indian subcontinent, now divided into three nations, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The region's forte is pluralism.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.