Pakistan has categorically rejected the “baseless and fallacious” Indian claims that the management of the Gurdwara Darbar Sahib Kartarpur has been transferred to a non-Sikh body.
The Foreign Office in a statement on Thursday said the Indian claims have been rejected by the Pakistan Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (PSGPC) itself.
The Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has claimed that it received representations from the Sikh community expressing grave concern over the decision to transfer the management and maintenance of the gurudwara from the PSGPC to the administrative control of the Evacuee Trust Property Board, a non-Sikh body.
“The malicious propaganda by the Indian government is simply an attempt to malign the “Peace Corridor” initiative by casting mischievous aspersions against the interests of the Sikh community and to detract attention from India’s own reprehensible human rights violations of minorities in India, according to the FO statement.
The PSGPC remains responsible for carrying out rituals in Gurdwara Sahiban, including Kartarpur as per ‘Sikh Rehat Maryada’. The Project Management Unit (PMU) under the Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB) has simply been created to facilitate the PSGPC in this regard, it added.
The official statement also said any insinuations regarding “transferring” the affairs of the Gurdwara Darbar Sahib Kartarpur are not only contrary to the facts but also aimed at creating “religious disharmony by the Hindutva-driven BJP government in India”.
The Sikh community from all over the world remains greatly appreciative of the efforts made by Pakistan to complete the Kartarpur Sahib Corridor Project in record time and for the excellent arrangements made to facilitate pilgrims.
India would be well advised to take steps to protect its minorities and their places of worship, rather than feigning misleading and sham concerns for the rights of minorities elsewhere, the communiqué added.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ