Amardeep Question #1 Women As Panj Pyaras

[CdnSikhGirl]

EVERYONE ELSE PLEASE REFRAIN FROM POSTING IN THIS THREAD!!!!!!

@amardeep

First Question:  Regarding women and seva as Panj Pyaras.  Why are so many against it??

I realize this is the BIG one that most Singhs have a stink about. It feels like they are actually disgusted by the idea of a Singhni doing this seva, regardless of her avastha.  It goes beyond saying its tradition etc. Viewing some of the comments from Singhs on this, makes it sound like pure contempt and disgust towards females to even fathom the idea, like the entire female gender is being looked ‘down upon’ and seen as wicked, unworthy etc.

Points of Importance:
 

Sikh Rehet Maryada is only accepted RM by Akal Takht. And it states specifically that women are allowed. Argument against that is usually that Damdami Taksal rehet maryada says ‘Singhs’ and therefore that means no women allowed. 

Regarding DDT’s RM… ALL SEVA mentioned in DDTs RM says ‘Singh’ and not just Panj Pyaras. Here is an example of what I mean:

http://s12.postimg.org/55k60qrf1/0000008.png
 

 If one uses the argument that the wording ‘Five Singhs’ means only males, then that means DDTs RM actually says that virtually ALL seva is reserved for men only. (see above)
When I brought this paradox up before, everyone on here hummed and hawed and only said that it only applies to Panj Pyaras and not the other seva (without actually explaining HOW or WHY it only applies to Panj Pyaras).

But my point is, that if you are using the simple wording as the justification, then since the wording is the very same for nearly all seva in the DDT GRM, then women should also be not allowed to do akhand paaths, kirtan, etc either because those also specify ‘Singh’ (For example, Raagi Singhs, Granthi Singh, Singhs performing Akhand Paaths etc. see in above screenshot.)  

Also, further down in that same RM, it states under Section 3, Amrit Sanchar:
“Differences in caste, creed, colour, GENDER, rich and poor all have been ELIMINATED by the creation of the Khalsa. The true Guru is all powerful”

http://s21.postimg.org/mn8zxjxfr/0000001.png

So, in their own RM, Damdami Taksal are making statement that all differences used to discriminate have been eliminated. Obviously a person’s skin colour did not change, nor their caste (family background). What was eliminated was the discrimination based on these things… using false -statuses- to create privilege over others.  They were all seen as equal humans once they took Amrit.  Is this correct??
 

So how can one use DDTs RM as a means to discriminate against Bibis to act as Panj pyaras? When you acknowledge discrimination based on caste and colour etc are wrong (and so any caste or colour are allowed now to do seva as  Panj Pyaras, even though they too were not represented by the original five), why do some Singhs feel like gender is so different and that it’s “ok” to discriminate on gender but not the other reasons?

Is this really what "tradition" should be about? Creating false statuses and giving some priveleges over others? Preferential treatment? Does Sikhi through Gurbani etc. support a “tradition” which only serves to delineate people, create false statuses and perpetuate discrimination?
 

Especially since Gurbani tells us to treat everyone equally:



And also to shun pride in false statuses (same as DDTs RM claiming that false statuses based on caste, colour, gender, creed, etc were eliminated):

http://s18.postimg.org/lszmyh0x5/00000010.png

If you still -personally- disagree with women as Panj Pyaras, then please explain why…. and if your response includes the words “because no woman gave her head that day” then please explain why a black man or a male from a caste not represented by the original five are allowed, as no black man etc gave their head that day either. And if your answer to that includes “because caste etc were removed but someones gender isnt” then please refer to my quote from DDT’s RM stating that ALL these things were eliminated and gender is stated along with them in the very same statement. If your reason is just personal, explain why... do you personally look down on females and consider us lesser (spiritually etc) as your reason?

And finally....At the very least if someone does disagree with a woman doing this seva. Instead of getting angry, calling them nindak etc. would it not be better to just acknowledge they are following different RMs and therefore bound to different rules… and not look in disgust at the Singhni chosen to do this seva, but instead respect that she was likely chosen for the same attributes as Singhs are who are given honour to do it. That is, their dedication, their gian, their avastha.  Instead many Singhs look on with disgust as if she sullied everything just by her 'femaleness'. 
 

 

[amardeep]

Cheers for setting up this topic.

Okay you are basically pushing arguments back and forth and then you throw in counter-arguments to hypothetical arguments that havent been made yet, - to the extent that it looks like you are having a discussion with yourself.

What is the point you're trying to make ? That Sikhi discriminates against women? Or that Damdami Taksal discriminates against women? or that the Damdami Taksal Rahit Maryada does'nt actually discriminate against women, but only the members of Damdami Taksal discriminates against women because they misread their own text? Im not quite sure what is the point you're trying to make.

Edited February 5, 2016 by amardeep

[CdnSikhGirl]

Well kind of all of them!  Since its a summary of what members on here have given as reasons to prohibit women from doing this seva over the last year or so:

1) Because of DDTs RM (wording being "five singhs" 
2) Because "no woman gave her head"
3) Because while caste and skin colour were removed, someone's gender can never change
4) Because "tradition"
etc.

I have given the counter arguments along with screenshots to all 4 reasons above.  Which I have done so on here before and nobody has actually answered beyond those 4 and maybe one more (because Sant Ji said so.... but his reason again falls back to #2 above which is no woman gave her head... but then no black man did either... see what I mean?)  It always ended with... I believe in SAnt Ji so it "just is". 

What I want to know is there anything definitive in writing which says specifically that women are "not allowed" to do this seva?  Meaning not "implied" as in the DDT RM because as was pointed out, DDT DOES in fact allow women to do the other seva listed in their RM with 'singh' like kirtan etc. so coming to conclusion just based on "because it says five singhs" can not hold up.  I'm not asking about DDT specifically but because that particular RM is the one quoted most often as reason to bar Bibis from this seva. 

I am completely ignoring Paapiman's given reason, which was that women are 'incapable' of making amrit... like if they went through the motions, it wouldn't actually BE amrit because of some defect in our bodies or something. His comment was the ONLY time I have EVER heard this reason!!! Not to mention there is nothing in Gurbani to suggest that women's bodies are in any way 'defective' or 'incapable'.  

Oh there is one more reason Singh123456777 had said that since its a spiritual *rebirth* that the men are acting as the ones giving birth. So its fair because women give birth physically. However, to counter his argument... Gurbani says all of our souls are IDENTICAL. They are genderless. So spiritual rebirth would not require gender. Further, in the physical sense, a person's gender has nothing to do with creating Amrit. They are reciting banis, stirring the amrit, and sitting in bir posture and deep concentration. Guru Ji had said when five Khalsa are together he will be present.  So obviously they must be Amritdhari but being Amritdhari also does not depend on specific gender. It's open to both. And Singhnia are not told they are any "less" Khalsa than the Singhs!  (unless you count kirpan amrit which has been condemned even by DDT)  

Also, when I personally took Amrit the Panj Pyaras that day, specifically told us females present, that not only can women act as Panj Pyaras, but that they WANT to see at least some of us in their place someday, administering Amrit. So they reiterated SRM, and also stated their wishes to see more women do this seva so they were actually being positive about it.  

So what I want to know is there anything CONCRETELY written in any document SPECIFICALLY stating that women are disallowed, or are the nay sayers all just IMPLYING, and making up excuses as justifications like the above, because of their own personal views against Bibian, and are trying to project their personal feelings onto Guru Gobind Singh Ji?  Do we KNOW for SURE what Guru Ji wanted or intended? If a Bibi did volunteer her head that day do you think Guru Ji would have stopped her?

 

[amardeep]

Okay lets start all over again. Ask a question- keep it short and precise and then i'll answer. Right now I just see you arguing and discussing with yourself.  What you're doing now is asking a question, - then you throw out possible explanations you've heard from other people and then ask me to defend each of them. Which im not interested in. So ask one question, - keep it short and precise. What is your question? DOnt throw in 10 at once.

Edited February 5, 2016 by amardeep

[CdnSikhGirl]

Is there anything written anywhere that DEFINITIVELY prohibits women from seva as Panj Pyaras (meaning not implied but actual stated)??

[amardeep]

As far as I know of, - no there is nothing to suggest that women can't be panj pyare. The reason some groups are against is is due to there not being a tradition of it occouring. Historically in the 18th and 19thcentury it was the Nihangs for the most part who administered Amrit as there was a heavily martial and militant spirit to becoming a khalsa. A large majority of the panj pyare then were men and hence a tradition developed that mostly men possesed the role of being panj pyare. Not unlike in Europe today where there is a long tradition of men being CEO's, -its not because women are not allowed but its become habbit so to say. Which is changing these years.

So no, - I dont think there is anything in writing that prohibits women from being panj pyare. So you can't use this example to argue that Sikhi degrades women. Write a short comment to what i've written and come with your next question.

Edited February 5, 2016 by amardeep

[amardeep]

To add to the above. There are some traditions in Sikhi which have become a norm over time, to the extent that people think it is rules that can't be disobeyed. One example is females being panj pyare,  due to the norm that it has historically been men who administered Amrit due to its military significance.

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

Okay so the end answer is: 

 

YES Women CAN do seva as Panj Pyaras!!!  Those saying that women are outright 'prohibited' are wrong. 

It's only certain groups stopping us, and not Guru Ji, or any written rules. Traditions as you pointed can and do change especially if the changes are for positive reasons!  Traditions that develop "just because thats how its always been" don't sit well with me... we deal with those types in the military all the time who are resistant to change - any change - even positive.  

:) You just made my day!  

I'll post next question in a bit.  

[amardeep]

Another norm that has become tradition to the extent that people think its 'blasphemy' to do otherwise is the "putting to bed" of Guru Granth Sahib at night time.

The tradition most likely comes from a Sakhi wherein Sri Satguru Arjan Dev Ji Maharaj shortly after having compiled the Adi Granth placed the scripture on his bed, while he himself slept on the floor that night. Sikhs have then interpreted this to mean, that this is a custom that has to be obeyed at night. Whereas I would argue that the principle given by the Guru is that when you're in a position of having to place the Guru Granth Sahib somewhere, always make sure its put in/on the best and most respectful place in the room,- even to the extent that it is installed better than the humans in the room. This is what the Guru did. He did'n put the Guru Granth Sahib on the floor or on a table while he slept in the best place in the room (the bed).. People  look at the action instead of the underliying principle.. I dont think there is anything in Sikhi that prohibits placing the Sri Granth on a respected clean table at night... But due to tradition, people would think it odd, weird and disrespectfull to do so.... So thats another example of a norm that has become tradition.

Okay let me see your next question.

Edited February 5, 2016 by amardeep

[CdnSikhGirl]

Question #2: Does Sikhi support the idea that husbands are God over their wives (literal or otherwise)? 

In other words, does Sikhi support the idea that wives are in a subordinate position to their husbands, expected to “obey” while he gets to “command”?  Does Sikhi see us as in a lesser and more “servant” role while he is in a “leader” role? Some members have justified it with the fact that the husband leads in Anand Karaj, saying this is a symbol of her placing herself “under” his leadership (or, giving up her rights to final decision making etc as it manifests in the actual marriage).  I don’t want cultural answers, or historically males were breadwinner and women stayed at home etc as these are not based in Sikhi… I want to know what specifically does GURBANI / SIKHI state on this? 

If a husband and wife in TODAY’S world wish to be equal partners in their marriage, without any sort of hierarchy, would that be supported by Gurbani etc. or is there something definite written somewhere, taught by the Gurus etc. that says women MUST subordinate themselves beneath their husband’s authority over them? I know it’s written in Hinduism in Laws of Manu.  If using Gurbani please use full shabad to show full context and not risk taking one single tuk out of context.

I know DDTs RM uses one line from Gurbani to support it, but in that translation they place on that single tuk, does not make any sense with the rest of the shabad which has nothing to do with physical husbands and wives, but instead is speaking about satee, and relation of soul bride to husband lord.  As I will show below:

DDT’s wording of that single tuk is: "Guru Jee says, she who looks upon Her Husband as the Lord, is blessed and has firm faith; great are those wives and they are received with honour in the Court of the Lord."

http://s2.postimg.org/4n908sgq1/0000004.png

They use it to justify this command in their RM:

“A Singh must look upon his wife as his faithful Singhni, and a Singhni should look upon her husband as Parmeshwar (God)”

http://s15.postimg.org/mz6up57jv/0000005.png

However, the actual tuk IN CONTEXT of its shabad says:
“Says Nanak, she who looks upon the transcendent Lord as her Husband, is the blessed Satee she is received with honour in the court of the lord”

http://s2.postimg.org/te3a0clgp/0000006.png

--- Is this not speaking of soul bride / husband lord (and not about physical husbands and wives)? Changing it to mean physical wives and physical husbands makes no sense with the rest of the shabad and actually goes against the rahaho line which is:
“Only by the actions of destiny does she rise up and burn herself, as a 'satee'. ||1||Pause||”.   Meaning it’s speaking of destiny and not actions, of the “she” in this is referring to soul bride… all of us as are soul brides to Waheguru who is only true “husband”.  Or am I wrong here?? Especially since this is what is in the lines directly above the tuk that has been (in my opinion misused):

http://s2.postimg.org/ji2nk2wmh/0000009.png
 

And have a look at DDTs RM again, what they include right above the mistranslated line!!!! The very same thing… they acknowledge that its about soul bride to husband lord relationship. So how can they twist it to justify a woman is somehow subordinate position below her *physical* husband and that its somehow telling wives that their physical husband is GOD over them?

http://s2.postimg.org/4n908sgq1/0000004.png

 

 -------Above posted so you know what the background is based on what other members etc have said over the last year and counter arguments-------  

SO THE BASIC QUESTION IS:
Cultural influences aside (as well as Hindu influence) neither of which are Sikhi and have no bearing on it... does Sikhi itself command wives to look at their husband as God (while not expecting the same level of respect towards wives from the husbands)??  Or is it more accurate to say that Gurbani tells us to see God in each other (everyone)??

[amardeep]

 

When I looked at the Gurmukhi of the first shabad and saw the context I assumed it was translated wrong. The context talks about satee wives, and the shabad then appears to say that those women who see God as their husband - they are the true satees. Its not that women are to see their husband as God.. They are to see God as their true eternal husband, - hence don’t kill yourself in the fire ... So textually I agree with what you write next regarding your own interpretation of that shabad.

I have'nt read all Sikh scriptures or writings but I dont recall having come across anywhere that states women are to see their husbands as God. the Prem Sumarag has a line that goes something like this: "What is a woman without her man? And what is a man without his woman?"

What that said,- the patti parmeshwar concept is highly widespread in large parts of India but it is not considered as a hierarchy with the woman at the bottom and man op top who she looks upto. This is you outlining it like that. In reality it is to be seen as a somewhat romantic gesture that creates a loving social bond between the man and woman. This might be difficult for a non-Indian to understand. In the same way in some African cultures there is a tradition of women being voluntary whipped to show their love to their husbands. When Europeans tried to stop this norm due to the barbarity of women being whipped, - it was actually the women who objected to it ! For them it was a sign of their love. We non-Africans can condemn it and call it derogatory and oppressing because why aren’t the men being whipped as a gesture of showing love to their wives? But for the women, it was part of their culture and they did’n consider it derogatory…Etc etc.. Point is, some things looks weird as an outsider. Many western traditions are always weird to look at from an outsider. Why do grown men go into nature, chop a tree, take it home and into their living room, then decorate it and sing songs while they dance around it holding hands? Sounds like hill billy tradition right? No – it is part of a social cohesion amongst family members. It builds bonds between family members to celebrate Christmas like that…

But in terms of Sikhi ,- no I don’t think this Patti Parmeshwar tradition is part of the religion.. .Same way Lohri is not part of the religion yet observed by many… I don’t think Afghan Sikhs have a tradition of Patti Parmeshwar either since its not part of their culture.

Next question?

Edited February 5, 2016 by amardeep

[CdnSikhGirl]

Okay, so the point is, wives in Sikhi are NOT subordinate to their husbands, are not lower status or even expected to be blindly obedient. Patti Parmeshwar concept is cultural, not Sikhi. Meaning if a Punjabi Sikh wife wishes to, its her prerogative but just like Punjabi women may like to show devotion that way, women who are not Punjabi might show their devotion in a different way. Gifts, gestures etc.  And since Sikhi is a universal faith and path to truth, the way in which a husband and wife show their love and devotion to each other is their own choice and specific way is not forced upon everyone.  

As far as Gurbani is concerned, we should ALL see the divine light in each other.  

Okay I am happy with that answer too!  Though some other members may not be.  (same for the final answer on question 1) 

[amardeep]

Yeah. People who become Sikhs aren't expected to take up Punjabi culture. And women who wishes to follow the patti parmeshwar notion are NOT subordinate, lower status nor blindly obedient! They do it as an act of love just like some men spend 100.000 pounds on gifts to their wives.. Its an act of love though for most people it would look outright stupid to spend that much money on gifts.. You need to train yourself into stop thinking that showing acts of love all of a sudden positions you either as high or low. A woman can easily see the divine in her husband and still be his equal....

Next question. Shoot.

[CdnSikhGirl]

The reason for assuming it was heirarchal were several people: Bhagat Singh Ji saying that men require women to be obedient, and Paapiman saying that in Sikhi wives are "lower status" than their husbands and therefore husbands deserve more respect. And he specifically started a thread using that tuk above as justification to say that wives are "instructed" to do so in Sikhi.  So that's why it was assumed....  next question: 

Question #3:  Does Gurbani Condemn women of being Impure during menstruation, such that she is not allowed to do seva during that time? 

Hari Singh Randhawa caused a huge uproar last year in Canada when a group of women protested what he had previously stated about women being impure during this time. The shabad which he used to support his claim was this:

ਜਿਉ ਜੋਰੂ ਸਿਰਨਾਵਣੀ ਆਵੈ ਵਾਰੋ ਵਾਰ ॥

Ji▫o jorū sirnāvaṇī āvai vāro vār.

As a woman has her periods, month after month,

ਜੂਠੇ ਜੂਠਾ ਮੁਖਿ ਵਸੈ ਨਿਤ ਨਿਤ ਹੋਇ ਖੁਆਰੁ ॥

Jūṯẖe jūṯẖā mukẖ vasai niṯ niṯ ho▫e kẖu▫ār.

so does falsehood dwell in the mouth of the false; they suffer forever, again and again.

ਸੂਚੇ ਏਹਿ ਨ ਆਖੀਅਹਿ ਬਹਨਿ ਜਿ ਪਿੰਡਾ ਧੋਇ ॥

Sūcẖe ehi na ākẖī▫ahi bahan jė pindā ḏẖo▫e.

They are not called pure, who sit down after merely washing their bodies.

ਸੂਚੇ ਸੇਈ ਨਾਨਕਾ ਜਿਨ ਮਨਿ ਵਸਿਆ ਸੋਇ ॥੨॥

Sūcẖe se▫ī nānkā jin man vasi▫ā so▫e. ||2||

Only they are pure, O Nanak, within whose minds the Lord abides. ||2||

However when I read this full shabad, (to me anyway) it becomes apparent that it's actually speaking AGAINST the idea of menstruation causing impurity... it's saying hey you think that she is impure? well just as she has periods month after month so does the falsehood that dwells in your mouth. To me the next line makes it pretty clear, that purity is not had by washing the body, purity is only in the mind... 

There is also one other line in Gurbani which he quoted that says:

ਜੇ ਰਤੁ ਲਗੈ ਕਪੜੈ ਜਾਮਾ ਹੋਇ ਪਲੀਤੁ ॥

Je raṯ lagai kapṛai jāmā ho▫e palīṯ.

If one's clothes are stained with blood, the garment becomes polluted.

However the context of that shabad seems to be speaking about exploitation... the next line says "those who suck the blood of others..." hence the blood stained clothes seems to me to not be related to menstruation at all (or even literal blood for that matter) but more in line with the saying "having blood on your hands" meaning not literal blood... but that you caused someone else harm and that "stain" (knowing you caused pain to someone) is now on your hands. Is this correct??? 

As for cleanliness... that is different than the idea of ritual impurity.  I can certainly understand back in olden days if women did not have access to good hygiene products that they might want to stay home to avoid embarrassment.  But with today's hygiene products, there is virtually no chance of a leak or accident that would cause any issues.  If women can prepare langar during that time without anyone worrying about hygiene (and preparing food is the place that they SHOULD worry if there is an actual cleanliness issue!), then sitting on tabiya should not be a problem.  There are even some products which completely seal the menstrual fluid inside until the device is removed (Google Diva Cup), they do not leak, and can be worn for 12 hours at a time. Also, hormonal methods that actually stop the cycles all together also exist.  

Regardless of whether women themselves CHOOSE to stay home or not, or to sit on tabiya or not... is there ANYTHING in Sikhi which says they MUST not do seva while on their periods?

Again, DDT does have it in their RM that women should not sit on tabiya during periods, but their justification is the same shabads mentioned above.... SRM does not have anything like this in it.  

And should it be the choice of the Singhni themselves in the end?? 


 

[amardeep]

the first shabad is from the Asa di vaar composition. Apart from its poetic and musical beauty the bani is heavily known for its attacks on Brahmin rituals ranging from concepts of pure, impure, idol worship, caste system, views on women etc. It is also from this bani that the famous "So why call her bad?" lines comes from.. One has to know Brahmin law in order to truly understand the bani, - but in essence: The bani takes something from the Hindu Brahmin tradition and subverts it. (Just like Jesus did in his mountain speech: They say if you cheat you go to hell but I say if you even look at a woman with a lustfull eye you have sinned) etc..Under Hindu (and Muslim law) blood is considered impure, so one has to do a ritual washing if one has been touched by blood and hence considered impure.. Guru Nanak - echoing the philosophy of the Japji- then takes the notion of impurity to a higher level saying how can one get rid of impurity by merely washing the body? Impurity is related to the soul, not to the body. It's an attack on the notion of pure/impure.

The next shabad has to be read in the same light. If blood stained clothes is something you get rid off, then why do you associate with people whose hands are stained with other peoples blood?

In this regard, I agree with your interpretations. Hari Singh Randhawa is wrong in this regard if he used those shabads to justify discrimination. No wonder the Bibia fought back ;)

 

I think the Bhai Chaupa Singh Rahitnama does have a line that says females should'n read from the Guru Granth Sahib while on their period.. It must likely have to do with what you wrote above - that back in the day the females did not have acces to hygiene products hence it was better to avoid stains of blood touching the tabiya. There is a high sanctity around the Guru Granth Sahib to the effect that many old traditions say you have to bathe fully before reading from the Guru Granth Sahib and many readers even cover their mouth to avoid spit from falling on to the letters etc.In this light it is natural that issues of blood (whether from an injury or menustration) should be considered best to avoid to prevent blood from touching the tabiya.  I see it as a practical prohibition to maintain the sanctity of the area around Guru Granth Sahib.. In this day and age with modern hygiene products it does'nt apply any longer.

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

Actually the Chaupa Singh Rehetnama says women can't read from SGGSJ AT ALL as in like at no time period or not. (in sangat anyway) Though it says they can read alone for themselves. 

Can you start to see though WHERE and HOW I came to the frustration I have been feeling on all these issues??? Anyway will continue more tomorrow as I have to go out for a bit.  Cheers and thanks... 

[amardeep]

Okay talk to you later ji.

[CdnSikhGirl]

QUESTION #4  WHY are women not allowed to do most seva at Harmandir Sahib, when that is considered our most holy place, shouldn't there more than anywhere be leading by example? 

- Palki Sahib Seva - reason has been given that women can't physically carry it. But many could, and I doubt that weak women would try. I'm sure that if a woman went to do this seva she is preety sure she could physically do it. Another reason is that the men might molest her???? Souldn't SInghs doing SEVA be able to refrain themselves from molesting someone?? 

- KIRTAN - this is the big one!  No matter how talented a jatha of Singhnis is, they will never be approved to perform there, simply because of their gender. Is there anything in Sikhi to say that a male voice is prefered for Singing hymns and praises to Waheguru?  Some of the female jathas I have heard are amazing and have amazing harmonies etc that the men just can't get having lower voices!  I have heard really great male ragis too but the girls I have heard should not be left out! If they can do kirtan anywhere else, what is the reason they can not perform there?

- Washing Sanctum Sanctorum with milk - while it did happen once decades ago that was seen as a "consolation" and reasons are given that men remove their bottom and only have kachera on. Is there anything that says one MUST remove their bottoms? Or is this done only to keep from being soaked with milk? In any case if a Singhni doesn't mind getting milk on her salwar, then what is the issue??? I remember seeing a panting of a Singhni actually doing this seva with milk. 

There are much more... the jathedars that walk around are all male, the ones that attend alongside Granthi are males (putting the garlands etc), women are not even allowed to sit on same side as Ragis. Can a woman be nominated as Head Granthi at Darbar Sahib??

btw biggest opposers of women and seva there particularly kirtan were: Damdami Taksal and Sant Samaj

[amardeep]

I dont know why women are'nt allowed to do certain types of seva at Sri Harimandir Sahib. But there is no prohibition on it in Sikhi.

The below 19th century painting shows women performing kirtan at Patna Sahib during the birth of Guru Gobind Singh.

 

In the Pracheen Pant Prakash of 1840s (pre-colonial) the author Rattan Singh Bhangu writes that Jassa Singh Ahluwalia (passed away in 1780) was taught kirtan and stringed instruments by his mother and he used to accompany her when she travelled around performing kirtan in the warrior sangats and gurdware of Punjab. And his account also mention that they went to Amritsar and performed there. So I dont know when this tradition of banning women started - but it would'n surprise me if it was introduced during British rule.

Its not true that women are not allowed to accompany men doing kirtan. See this pic from the 1970s.

 

 

[dalsingh101]

10 minutes ago, amardeep said:

I dont know why women are'nt allowed to do certain types of seva at Sri Harimandir Sahib. But there is no prohibition on it in Sikhi.

The below 19th century painting shows women performing kirtan at Patna Sahib during the birth of Guru Gobind Singh.

 

In the Pracheen Pant Prakash of 1840s (pre-colonial) the author Rattan Singh Bhangu writes that Jassa Singh Ahluwalia (passed away in 1780) was taught kirtan and stringed instruments by his mother and he used to accompany her when she travelled around performing kirtan in the warrior sangats and gurdware of Punjab. And his account also mention that they went to Amritsar and performed there. So I dont know when this tradition of banning women started - but it would'n surprise me if it was introduced during British rule.

Its not true that women are not allowed to accompany men doing kirtan. See this pic from the 1970s.

 

 

Those images are awesome Singh. Any background on the 2nd one? 

[CdnSikhGirl]

That instance in 1970's with 3HO was the only that I know of... and the women were not the ones actually doing kirtan.  One tried, on the upper level of Darbar Sahib, and a group stood around her to block the jathedars who came to stop her so she was able to finish.  Not sure the background on when that was but I think she was also 3HO. 

But these things should be rectified. If nobody can answer why something is happening... then really should it continue?  In fact Akal Takht did say that women would be allowed, but then the nay sayers kicked up a huge stink. Those nay sayers were DDT and Sant Samaj. (according to news stories about it). ANd since they kicked up such a stink protesting it, still no women have done kirtan there. And this was a few years ago at least. 

[amardeep]

I'll look into their official reasoning of why women cant do kirtan and when the ban started.

Next question.

[CdnSikhGirl]

QUESTION # 5 - Why are some Singhs so against Bibis tying turbans? 

AKJ both women and men tie dastars 
Guru Ji's 52 Hukams tells all Sikhs to tie turbans
Gurbani says to let your total awareness be the turban on your head
Turban was part of uniform of Khalsa

Sometimes I feel like the Singhs against it are against it because having us be less in Guru's roop will be more justification on all the above.  Or it feels like they want it to be anyway.  Talk of wanting feminine etc. But then condemning the women for the same... 

On here I was attacked by member Crystal last year in PM asking me how I felt being a "tranny" and specifically mentioned the turban and my face (from my pic), and saying he had just realized I was first Sikh tranny... 

Do Singhs really think we look like trannies tying turbans? Were turbans really meant for only males? Didn't Mai Bhagi tie one? Didn't Harmandir Sahib require turbans of ANYONE looking to take Amrit prior to 20th century? (Or did I read that wrong)?

[amardeep]

Can we make this about Sikhi and Sikhism instead of discussing why such and such say certain things. I dont know why people say certain things, - you have to ask them directly... How would I know if all male Sikhs think females with turbans look like trannies? 

 

Btw regarding the Patti parmeshwar question from the other day and how you said it was opressive and represented un-equality I just remembered that the Prem Sumarag Granth says women are to have the name Devi as their last name. Devi means goddess. Is it opressive that women are raised to levels of divinity through their name while we men are only raised to levels of lions?? I think not...  It appears that there is a culture in India of ascribing divinity to the two genders though it happens in different ways.

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

QUESTION #6 Is there a ban on women entering Takhts or where Guru Ji is kept while she is menstruating?

I assume this will be same answer as for sitting on Tabiya. Modern Hygiene products means the issue is a non issue now.  But since Paapiman has just stated that it's a direct rule.... is he correct??