u/Icy-Distribution4893

We have completely failed as a society when we so utterly priced a generation of living that they simply stopped having kids.

​

Giani Kuldeep Singh Gargaj’s call for Sikh couples to have at least three or four children is not merely unrealistic—it is wickedly out of touch with the economic and social realities confronting ordinary Sikh families today. His concern about the future of the Sikh population may be sincere, but prescribing a larger family size from a position of religious authority is not a serious solution.

People do not choose to have fewer children because they have abandoned Sikhi or stopped caring about the future of the Panth. They are responding to the world in which they actually live.

Across Punjab and the wider world, young people face insecure employment, low wages, rising housing costs and intense competition for stable careers. In Western countries such as Canada, Britain and the United States, many Sikh couples require two full-time incomes simply to afford rent or a mortgage. Childcare, transportation, food, education and other necessities place enormous pressure on families. International research also recognizes that household income, housing costs, childcare expenses and labour-market insecurity directly influence whether people have children and how many they feel capable of raising.

It is easy for religious leaders to tell families to have three or four children. It is much harder to explain how parents should house them, educate them, care for them and give them a secure future. Will the institutions making these pronouncements provide affordable childcare, scholarships, employment networks, housing assistance or meaningful support for struggling parents? Without such commitments, the message amounts to asking ordinary people to carry a burden while offering them little practical assistance.

Family planning is also an intensely personal decision. It must take account of the health and wishes of women, the financial circumstances of parents and their ability to give each child sufficient care and attention. Religious leaders should support families rather than dictate their size. The strength of the Sikh community cannot be measured only by birth rates. It must also be measured by how well Sikh children are educated, supported, connected to Sikhi and prepared to serve humanity.

This controversy also exposes a deeper problem: the growing distance between the present leadership surrounding the Akal Takht and the lived experiences of Sikhs outside Punjab.

The Akal Takht remains sacred and central to Sikh collective life. However, those administering Sikh institutions are not beyond criticism. When their statements repeatedly fail to reflect the realities of Sikh families in Canada, Britain, Europe, the United States, Australia and elsewhere, they risk weakening the very authority they claim to protect.

The Sikh diaspora is not a small or temporary extension of Punjab. Overseas Sikhs have built gurdwaras, charities, businesses, educational organizations and political institutions. They provide enormous financial and humanitarian support to Punjab and to Sikh causes internationally. Yet they are too often treated as donors whose money is welcomed while their voices are kept at a distance.

The official SGPC structure consists primarily of members elected from Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh, together with members nominated from within India and Sikh religious office-holders. It lists no dedicated elected representation for Sikhs living overseas.

That democratic deficit is no longer defensible. The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee should establish meaningful, transparent representation for NRI and diaspora Sikhs—not merely ceremonial advisory positions chosen by existing officials. Overseas representatives should be selected through credible and accountable processes involving local Sikh communities, with proper representation for women, young Sikhs, professionals, scholars and established gurdwara organizations.

Representation would not mean allowing outsiders to control Punjab’s historic gurdwaras. It would mean recognizing that the Panth is global and that decisions presented as speaking for all Sikhs must include voices from across the Sikh world.

The concern about Sikh continuity deserves a serious response. That response should focus on teaching Gurbani, strengthening Punjabi-language education, supporting young families, tackling addiction, creating employment, improving institutions and giving young Sikhs a genuine voice. Simply instructing couples to produce three or four children is not leadership. It is a slogan from another era.

Unless the SGPC and the leadership surrounding the Akal Takht begin listening to NRI Sikhs and reflecting the economic realities of modern families, they will continue to lose relevance among precisely the people whose participation is essential to the future of the Panth.