Sikh leaders described Army's statement a white lie and politically motivated
AMRITSAR: A major controversy has broken out after the Indian Army revealed it had deployed anti-drone systems and other air defence mechanisms in and around the Golden Temple complex in Amritsar amid heightened tensions with Pakistan. The disclosure, made by senior Army officers, has drawn sharp criticism and rebuttals from Sikh religious leaders, including the Akal Takht Jathedar and the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC).
The controversy stems from statements made by top Army officials, including Major General Kartik C. Seshadri and Lt. General Sumer Ivan D'Cunha, following Operation Sindoor — a military offensive targeting terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. According to the Army, intelligence inputs had warned that Pakistan could retaliate by targeting key religious and cultural sites in India, including the Golden Temple.
Lt. Gen. D'Cunha stated that advanced anti-drone and missile air defence systems, including AKASH missile batteries and L-70 air defence guns, were deployed to neutralize possible aerial threats to the shrine. The Army said it received full cooperation from the shrine's authorities, including permission from the head granthi to deploy equipment and to switch off the shrine's lights to aid defence operations.
"We ensured no damage came to the Golden Temple, thanks to the proactive deployment and coordination with the local religious leadership, " said Major General Seshadri. He also mentioned that a special protective wall, reportedly built during previous wars with Pakistan, was utilized for defence operations.
The Army’s version of events was met with disbelief and rejection by prominent Sikh leaders. Giani Kuldeep Singh, the officiating Jathedar of Akal Takht, the highest temporal seat of Sikhism, questioned both the narrative of threat and the need for military deployment within the sacred premises. He emphasized that the sanctity and sovereignty of the Golden Temple must never be compromised, even under the guise of national security.
Adding to the discord, the SGPC — the premier Sikh religious body that manages the Golden Temple — expressed doubts over the Army's claims. SGPC Chief Secretary Kulwant Singh Mannan initially suggested that the Army’s narrative may be exaggerated or politically motivated. However, he later clarified that this opinion was his own and not the official stance of the SGPC.
Giani Raghbir Singh head Granthi of Golden Temple also called Army' claim a white lie. He refuted the claim that Army had taken his permission to deploy guns. He said that no such deployment was made. He said that Army general was doing false propaganda that he (Head Granthi) was approached. He asked SGPC to conduct an inquiry into this matter and take appropriate action.
The SGPC also strongly refuted the claim that any kind of defensive wall had been constructed within the temple complex during previous wars. "There is no such wall. This is a fabricated claim that needs to be corrected in public interest, " a senior SGPC official said. The SGPC officials said that no Army-Indian or Paksitani could think of attacking Sikh shrine, Golden Temple.
The deployment of military-grade weapons inside the Golden Temple complex has rekindled painful memories of Operation Blue Star in 1984, when the Indian Army entered the shrine to flush out militants, leading to widespread damage and loss of life. The episode remains a deeply emotional and controversial issue in the Sikh community, and any suggestion of military involvement in the shrine is bound to trigger alarm.
The incident also comes amid a renewed sense of vigilance following cross-border tensions and drone-based incursions into Indian territory from Pakistan. The Army has been increasing surveillance and defence capabilities across Punjab and border states, particularly around sensitive and symbolic sites.
While the Indian Army insists that its deployment of anti-drone systems was a necessary and temporary measure backed by the shrine's administration, Sikh leaders argue that the sanctity of the Golden Temple must not be compromised, and allege that the Army’s version may not reflect the full truth.
As the debate unfolds, the need for transparent communication and mutual respect between religious institutions and security agencies becomes paramount. Ensuring both national security and the integrity of religious sanctuaries will remain a delicate balancing act in the days ahead.