Place Of Women In Sikhi?

[Singh123456777]

In a physical birth a male is needed for his sperm yes this is true... But in the nine months it is the mother who cares for the unborn child and she gives it nutrients and life etc... Same thing with panj pyara seva... When the patasa is put into the bata that seva should be done by the female.. Without patasa Amrit cannot be made and without the male a baby cannot be made.. So for both instances the other gender is used... The panj pyaras is gonna give the nutrients(naam/bani etc) just like when a mother gives a child nutrients.. The man is not the one giving nutrients but the female.. I think you sorta understand to what I'm getting to lol...

[Singh123456777]

They are on here!!!!!!! Do a quick search and you find the threads!! (note: Chaupa Singh Rhetnama)

when I read bhai chaupa Singh rehitnama I read that a person who doesn't give Amrit to a woman is a tankhayia...

[CdnSikhGirl]

In a physical birth a male is needed for his sperm yes this is true... But in the nine months it is the mother who cares for the unborn child and she gives it nutrients and life etc... Same thing with panj pyara seva... When the patasa is put into the bata that seva should be done by the female.. Without patasa Amrit cannot be made and without the male a baby cannot be made.. So for both instances the other gender is used... The panj pyaras is gonna give the nutrients(naam/bani etc) just like when a mother gives a child nutrients.. The man is not the one giving nutrients but the female.. I think you sorta understand to what I'm getting to lol...

That would be somewhat more acceptable as at least Amrit Sanchars could not happen without a woman then. But I don't know of any cases where it's stated this must be done by a female.

And Panj Pyares for other duties? (ie, dishing out punishment for fallen, permission to remarry after divorce, taking part in nagar kirtans etc, since those duties do not involve amrit sanchar you are fine with women acting as panj pyares in those cases? It's only Amrit Sanchar that you think they should be all male... and you think men should be barred from adding the patasa?? I think many women would be ok with this... but in most cases woman are not even allowed to be the ones to add the patasa. Its done also by a male.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[truthseeker546]

This is interesting for someone looking from outside the faith. I studied women in religion at University. Comparing different religions on how they theologically and historically have viewed and treated women.

Although I never looked into Sikhism, I can say like most religions, there is a big difference between opposing views on women.

Also there is a contradiction between what the a religions founders says to what historical narratives tell us. The brutal truth is apart from a view pockets of certain cultures, women liberation didn't happen until secular western movements bought it to the worlds attention.

As for Sikhism in particular, in the 400 year history after the 10 gurus, has a female Sikh ever taken a position of authority, either in the main golden temple or say any of the 5 main takhts.

Also I have read in a few places women didn't take amrit until much later in Sikhi, some people have rejected this view - however historical evidence points towards the former rather then the later. Anyone have any proofs on this matter?

Also, I understand this maybe a cultural aspect as opposed to Sikism, but as the vast majority of Sikhs are Indians, the culture expects the women to be a housewife, servile to the husband. Certain quotes like that of " your husbands are your lords" don't really help.

So apart from the lip service that most religions tend to spew out " that we are all equal" - historically is sikhism any different from any other religion?

[CdnSikhGirl]

Also I have read in a few places women didn't take amrit until much later in Sikhi, some people have rejected this view - however historical evidence points towards the former rather then the later. Anyone have any proofs on this matter?

Found in Persian literature....from the scholar Ghulam Mohyiuddin, an emissary to the mughal emperor, who observed the first amrit sanchar first hand, vaisakhi 1699:

"Though orthodox men have opposed him, about twenty thousand men and women have taken baptism of steel at his hand on the first day.The Guru has also told the gathering: I'll call myself Gobind Singh only if I can make the meek sparrows pounce upon the hawks and tear them; only if one combatant of my force equals a lakh and a quarter of the enemy."

Because he was witnessing this event as an outsider and Muslim at that, he had no reason to make it up. Instead of specifying 'Sikhs' or even just 'people' or 'infedels' he used the words 'men and women' to specify that both took Amrit that first day.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[SAadmin]

As for Sikhism in particular, in the 400 year history after the 10 gurus, has a female Sikh ever taken a position of authority, either in the main golden temple or say any of the 5 main takhts.

-It's well know fact there were manji system (centers establishment where gursikhs were chosen to do parchar-preach) was started by Guru Amar das ji, they were 22 manjiya intially strategically placed everywhere in india to do parchar. Here is the list of manjiya http://www.sikhiwiki...hp/Manji_System and there were manjiya(dharamsala centers to spread dharma) given to sikh woman as well to do parchar to masses including woman to give them empowerment.

- Mata sahib devan- mother of khalsa is given mother status in khalsa and there are historical accounts of mata sahib devan/mata ajeeto ji taking control of sikh affairs, bought sikhi spirit back in khalsa when khalsa were outnumbered, bought back khalsa who went astray-away from guru and also read stories of mai bhago.

[truthseeker546]

Found in Persian literature....from the scholar Ghulam Mohyiuddin, an emissary to the mughal emperor, who observed the first amrit sanchar first hand, vaisakhi 1699:

"Though orthodox men have opposed him, about twenty thousand men and women have taken baptism of steel at his hand on the first day.The Guru has also told the gathering: I'll call myself Gobind Singh only if I can make the meek sparrows pounce upon the hawks and tear them; only if one combatant of my force equals a lakh and a quarter of the enemy."

I would like to see the original word that is in Persian which was used for " baptism" - I think the Persian word could have been " wafadari " or " beyet" which are polysemous, it can mean - allegiance or oath depending on context.

Also what does Baptism of steel mean. hows this different from any normal baptism, to me may mean more towards an oath - oath of steel seems more Persian type wording to me. I may be wrong but it's an interesting question.

at N30 singh . Yes I know women were involved in "some" public jobs, such as the masnad - and in every religion some women - normally related to some central figure are venerated. However my question was more to do with have women in Sikhism been given equality since the 10 gurus.

I've already asked about why there were no female gurus, (and yet we have female avtars in the 24 avtars) and even a young child of 5 to be a guru but no women - this is simply explained as leela from God. No other explanation.

Moving forward you have certain figures who wrote the Rahit namas - how many females wrote these or all of them are men?

umm how many head granthis have there been in the golden temple that were female. In fact I know in Christianity recently women have been allowed to become priests/bishops - don't think we'll ever see a female pope any time soon. But what about Sikhism, I haven't heard of women even now in recent times being the head of Gudwarars or the main religious authoritative figures. why is this when Sikhism claims to be more towards women and male equality than other faiths.

I know females in Sikhism can be granthis, but this is not really an authoritative role as being head granthi or being the chairman of the SPGC or how many female Jathedars have there been of the Akal takht?

I know Jagir Kaur was the first female to be elected as president of the SGPC however this is very very recently in 2004. And she was the chief of the committee since 1999. So am I right in saying Sikhism didn't have these women in these prominent roles until after western women movements had taken root?

Edited April 30, 2015 by truthseeker546

[kdsingh80]

've already asked about why there were no female gurus, (and yet we have female avtars in the 24 avtars) and even a young child of 5 to be a guru but no women - this is simply explained as leela from God. No other explanation.

To satisfy 21st century people Sikhism must need 1000 Guru's . There should be Dalit Guru , non punjabi guru and Guru from all races and castes, there should be one Guru at least from each. There are no answers to these questions

[CdnSikhGirl]

Truth Seeker... The Gurdwara here locally, has made history twice now, by having ALL FEMALE executive... TWICE! That's EVERY single position on the executive were elected females! Including the President. And every year at least one member is female. This year we have 3 females... Secretary, Treasurer, and a Member at Large. I am actually the treasurer! Here is a story about when we had all female executive and our president:

http://www.sikhchic.com/people/taking_the_bull_by_the_horns

I especially like when she explains:

"With education, economic empowerment and an analytical look back at the teachings and lives of the Gurus, the study of Sikh Scriptures has reawakened Sikh women as well as Sikh men. They are now conscious of rights of women as equal partners in human progress, and citing the Holy Scriptures, they are fighting back for these rights. Sikhism promised an equal place to women but unfortunately the practice fell far short of the preaching."

Edited April 30, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[truthseeker546]

lol at Kdsingh80 - well welcome to the modern world, where people ask questions and don't just blindly accept whatever your personal beliefs are. If your religion is claiming to be fairest religion when it comes to gender, people will put it to the test. If you claim that your religion is for the entire human race, people will question it.

Do you really expect someone like me (a non Sikh) to simply believe that God decided to come in the form of 10 Indians in the 14 centenary, back to back not going to different places or times. (that are clear) ... or 24 forms again in all in India. what about the other 6 Billion people on the planet?

This is going off topic, the post is about women in Sikhism.

[truthseeker546]

@ SatKirin - that's great ! you go girls.

This is however in Canada, where I'm sure western women liberation has had more of a positive impact than Sikhism per say. You see the same kind of thing in almost all religions on small scales in the west. and like you say in your post - women made history - in 1999 ??? when did Sikh history start and why did it take so long for this to be achieved.

why do late for a religion that claims women had equal rights from the beginning. and have women been equal position in places of real authority. The 5 takhts in India for example.

[CdnSikhGirl]

@ SatKirin - that's great ! you go girls.

This is however in Canada, where I'm sure western women liberation has had more of a positive impact than Sikhism per say. You see the same kind of thing in almost all religions on small scales in the west. and like you say in your post - women made history - in 1999 ??? when did Sikh history start and why did it take so long for this to be achieved.

why do late for a religion that claims women had equal rights from the beginning. and have women been equal position in places of real authority. The 5 takhts in India for example.

One word... CULTURE.

The religion is not the culture. Following the religion itself, without cultural influence this is possible. There is a reason that NOT ONE of the Singhs above supported their views with Gurbani... because they can't. Their answers ALL came down to culture.

Regarding Akal Takht there were several females now who have been on the RAB... one I know of is Dr. Inderjit Kaur but that was awhile ago now. There have been others since.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[kdsingh80]

lol at Kdsingh80 - well welcome to the modern world, where people ask questions and don't just blindly accept whatever your personal beliefs are. If your religion is claiming to be fairest religion when it comes to gender, people will put it to the test. If you claim that your religion is for the entire human race, people will question it.

Do you really expect someone like me (a non Sikh) to simply believe that God decided to come in the form of 10 Indians in the 14 centenary, back to back not going to different places or times. (that are clear) ... or 24 forms again in all in India. what about the other 6 Billion people on the planet?

This is going off topic, the post is about women in Sikhism.

The more anyone tries to be logical and rational the less he/she is going to believe in religion. . There was a serial about true supernatural events which used to write " those who believe in ghosts no proof is necessary those who don't no proof is enough" I just want to say those who want to believe in a religion no logic is necessary those who don't no logic is enough"

[SAadmin]

@ SatKirin - that's great ! you go girls.

This is however in Canada, where I'm sure western women liberation has had more of a positive impact than Sikhism per say. You see the same kind of thing in almost all religions on small scales in the west. and like you say in your post - women made history - in 1999 ??? when did Sikh history start and why did it take so long for this to be achieved.

why do late for a religion that claims women had equal rights from the beginning. and have women been equal position in places of real authority. The 5 takhts in India for example.

Sikh history went through one of roughest war history, we fought so many wars against oppressive mughal Islamic fascism and recent history hindu goi fascism. We hardly any time to self reflect fix minor issues, fix out of balance patriarchy issues. Nevertheless, its much better than fascist men in saudi arabia who oppress their women where their women subjected to slave systematic torture of saudi women to feel power.

[Ragmaala]

Satkirin Ji,

What does the concept of Shiva & Shakti mean to you ? Is it similar to Male & Feminine energy ?

Do you belive that man and woman has different energy or same? Do you believe in Moon or Sun Energy, Ida or Pingala, One is warm and another is cool ? It seems like there is a polarity in energies, like a negative & positive charge, like a north& south pole ? Is either less than the other ?

When man or woman are in a union, do you believe they are equal in terms of energy ? One is receiving another is giving.

Ignore the physical aspect, talk to me in terms of non-physical/energy level.

[CdnSikhGirl]

Of course they are equal! There is no energy hierarchy and we are all the same on the nonphysical level. Our souls are genderless. Gender is only required for physical procreation. Tear off these physical shells and we are all the same. Not sure what u r trying to say and how it pertains to Singhs allowing or disallowing Singhnis (if Singhs should even be in the position to allow or disallow Singhnis as that implies control over) to do seva and religious duties which does not require a penis to perform.

Perfect example is the Gurdwara here.... We had all female management committee. This has not happened before so why? It obviously can be done because they did it and succeeded at it... So why weren't more bibis encouraged to take leadership roles in Sikh history? The Singhs here didn't feel hurt or emasculated by it. They encouraged the women instead. Why can't this happen more?

[Ragmaala]

ok agreed that souls are genderless and equal no doubt. and lets say energies are equal too.

But before realizing the soul , or reaching the level of soul , are the male or female energies same or different ? or do you believe if there is anything such as male or feminine energies ?

if you answer this then i will place my view point.

[CdnSikhGirl]

ok agreed that souls are genderless and equal no doubt. and lets say energies are equal too.

But before realizing the soul , or reaching the level of soul , are the male or female energies same or different ? or do you believe if there is anything such as male or feminine energies ?

if you answer this then i will place my view point.

No I don't believe that. We are told over and over in Gurbani that these bodies are false... our true identity is the *genderless* light within. When I look at someone I no longer see male vs female or white vs black vs Indian etc. I only see that light. And it's the same for everyone... even if they have not realized it yet, and are not espousing the qualities of God.

[Ragmaala]

^ ok fair enough. I have nothing more to say.

[Ragmaala]

satkirin,

just one more question,

What according to you should the qualities be in a person who wants to do sewa in 5 beloved ones ?

[CdnSikhGirl]

Too often I have seen Singhs chosen for Panj Pyares simply because they were males, when right there in front of their eyes were females with much more bhagti.

When choosing Panj Pyares, they should be chosen without bias (such as above), but instead chosen based on jivan mukta. They should be the highest spiritual realized Gurmukhs that are present. Those who have turned their dedication entirely to God, and have become fully spiritually realized beings who fully live life in devotion to the ONE. The reason those first five were not afraid to give their heads literally... was because they had attained that state, where they knew the truth to reality and that their physical bodies were only transitory. They knew beyond all doubt, and so there was no fear. They just happened to be male on that day, but there are plenty of Singhnis who have reached this state as well.

Now days, it's simply become a way Singhs can show off at Nagar Kirtans etc. and majority of them are not even that devoted. It's become a show off thing "hey I am a man so its my right to do this" kind of attitude. And in my opinion, this is WAYYYYY off the mark of what Panj Pyares are supposed to represent.

[Ragmaala]

They should be the highest spiritual realized Gurmukhs that are present. Those who have turned their dedication entirely to God, and have become fully spiritually realized beings who fully live life in devotion to the ONE.

I agree.

I personally do not have the answer to this question of male or female in Panj Pyara Sewa. And I do not feel that this question is important enough to know the answer to. It will not help me in my path. All I know is Naam Japo Naam Japo & the necessary knowledge will be imparted in time.

So this will be my last post regarding woman issue and the panj pyare. Even after all this discussion we have reached no where , and it will remain so for many years lol anyways

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!!!

[truthseeker546]

I'm not entirely convinced its all cultural, as seen by some many views by Sikhs on this forum. It's also religious interpretation.

some Sikhs defiantly have a certain way of looking of the male / female dynamic and it's only equal in name.

" Sikh history went through one of roughest war history, we fought so many wars against oppressive mughal Islamic fascism and recent history hindu goi fascism. We hardly any time to self reflect fix minor issues, fix out of balance patriarchy issues. Nevertheless, its much better than fascist men in saudi arabia who oppress their women where their women subjected to slave systematic torture of saudi women to feel power."

Not all of Sikh history is filled with wars. Let's not get carried away. Your telling me in the last 500 years, Sikhs have been so occupied in wars they couldn't "minor" issues.

And yes I may well be better then Saudi Arabia. The interesting difference between Islam (in Saudi Arabia) and Sikhism (in India) is that women had far more freedom and rights before the rise of Wahabism about 100 years ago. As opposed to Sikhism in India where you have more freedoms in the last 100 years. Both are due to cultural and sometimes radical interpretations of a faith.

I know about extreme Islamic interpretations, wanted to see Sikhisms also. Thanks to this forum, I have been seeing a few.

[das]

I know about extreme Islamic interpretations, wanted to see Sikhisms also. Thanks to this forum, I have been seeing a few.

Congratulations for that. Isn't that great? YOU found what YOU were looking for. It's a nature's rule that one would find what one is SEEKING. One could seek positive/negative, and he/she would get it.

Edited May 1, 2015 by das

[CdnSikhGirl]

Well... he's right! It IS negative, at least for the Sikh women! Any unbalance / inequality is negative... at least for the ones who end up with on the bottom side of the coin, the side with less privelages etc.

It's great of course for the ones who have the majority of power, authority etc. And they will usually fight tooth and nail to keep the balance of power in their favour. (Which is highly evident by some of the explanations on here trying to justify womens inferior status).

And he's right in that at least with SOME Singhs, the word equality is in name only. In practice there is unbalance... where Sikh women fall on the unprivelaged side. Because there are never any restrictions placed on Singhs... ever. Yet Singhnis have to endure restrictions placed upon them by Singhs at every corner and in nearly all seva (at specific places like Darbar Sahib) except for langar. The balance of power is evident because of the simple fact that these Singhs think it's their right to restrict Singhnis and tell them 'No' at all! (If someone establishes a position in relation to someone where they think it's their right to tell the other what they can and can not do, then the power is OBVIOUSLY skewed and that person believes they are above or in authority over the other) This is the case with many Singhs on here... who keep saying "Sikh women can't do this, Sikh women can't do that). If you notice, its never the other way around. Sikh women NEVER tell SIkh men what they can or can not do.

There is a DEFINITE heirarchy - even if it's unspoken - and it goes against actual teaching in Gurbani. Sikhi teaches absolute equality but it's not practiced AT ALL!

I believe part of it is *physical* human nature... males have a primal need to dominate... however just like anger, lust, greed, etc it can be overcome. In fact, it's actually part of greed / anger so this need for domination is a primal phsyical need and not spiritual related at all. Greed for power, anger if the one who's power over which they think they have, tries to assert their independence from that person's control. Good example the argument for women Panj Pyares. You can actually see the anger in the words of those who oppose it. Those Singhs fight tooth and nail to keep women out. Why? Why does it BOTHER them so much on a personal level??? It goes back to this dominant position and the fear of losing that dominant position. That primal need for domination. So while women are actually fighting against the primal tendency to back down in fear by asserting themselves and pushing forward as leaders etc, men are actually increasingly falling into their primal roles instead of trying to surpass them. Like it or not, this drive has been referred to MANY times as Caveman mentality.

And I am not talking about all Singhs... just the ones who refuse to surpass this. In fact vast majority of Singhs do not think like this at all! I received a beautiful email on here from a Singh in Canada who told me he completely agrees with full equality and that I have more than backed up that ideal with Gurbani. The fact that so many in this thread refuse to acknowledge what Gurbani is saying frustrated him so he refrained from posting. But I highly appreciated his words, and its good to know that MANY Singhs actually support full equality of their Mothers, Sisters, Wives, Daughters when it comes to full participation in Sikhi.

The icing on the cake of this whole thing, is that any time a Singhni wishes to escape that caveman mentality, and assert her equality (as stated in Gurbani) she is accused of having Ego. While those who make this statement, think it's perfectly fine to assert their dominance over her, and not consider that to be Ego at all. You know I received a second email in PM on here (I wont mention who it was) who accused me of being in Ego simpply for trying to show that Singhs and SInghnis are equal and deserve to be treated as such. However this same Singh is always on here asserting that men should have dominance over women just... because some baba said so or that's how its supposed to be. And yet he doesn't think that's Ego at all. Too funny!

Edited May 1, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur