A question that needs a quick accurate answer.

[shaheediyan]

"niranjana thats the mindset im talking about...and actually a little more then a hundred years ago a amritdhari man would not ever think about marrying a amritdhari bibi"

"An" Amritdhari.

So does that mean one half of a couple was always Amritdhari - i.e. an Amritdhari woman could never marry an Amritdhari man?

Also, does that mean that if a woman married a Singh, she could never take amrit?

You sound like your from a sect, could you please provide "historical" evidence to back up your claim.

For starters, Namdhari couples have been obliged to take amrit (both) at the time of marriage (if not before), and that has been going on for longer than your 100 year de minimis.

[akaali]

who says women use to take khande di pahul? or is that another debate...

but basically thats involved in this discussion

[Niranjana]

Akaali, please rephrase your question, as it is not clear what you are asking.

Thanks.

[akaali]

whos to say traditionally women were 'amritdhari' ?

[Niranjana]

"whos to say traditionally women were 'amritdhari' ?"

There are broadly speaking two schools of thought on this:

1. Yes, they (i.e. the wives of the Gurus etc) and everyone else (i.e. Bhai Nand Lal, Bhai Ghanaya etc) were Amritdhari the lack of mention of "Singh" and "Kaur" with their names stems from popular names being retained and adopted by the historical chronicles.

2. No they were not, the Amritdhari Khalsa (initially) represented a body of committed soldiers.

There are clearly problems with both views and we can discuss those at length if needed, however bottom line today, both men and women are permitted Amrit, it has been the case for several centuries now (so is not the invention of some British influenced SGPC marlarky) and is not the sole remit of the "Army" to have Amritdhari Singhs, since the Khalsa is not a "Kshatriya Dharam", rather the prinicipal duty of the Khalsa has always been to be a "Bhagat" over and above any leanings towards a soldier.