Kids Corner

Images: above & thumbnail - details from painting by Amrit & Rabindra Kaur Singh. Below, first from bottom - from painting by Sukhpreet Singh. 2nd - from painting of a Sikh wedding by Melanie. 3rd - from photo by Fiona Aboud. Homepage - Gurumustuk Singh.

Columnists

For Sikhi to Flourish,
Sardarnis Must Lead, Not Lag

by I.J. SINGH

 

A friend of mine recently got into some hot water. In fact, it was a bit hotter than hot.

A discussion had broken out on the Internet on how to interpret some coda in the Sikh Rehat Maryada (Code of Conduct).

The Code speaks of the need of long, unshorn hair. The discussion started with the question on "Can Sikh women tweeze their eyebrows?" This is something that many Sikh women do.

My friend opined that the Sikh injunction applies equally to men and women, and if they are Amritdhari, then they must follow the code.

Someone responded that hers was a knee-jerk response typical of Amritdharis who think they are superior to non-Amritdhari Sikhs. Another person demanded that she produce the exact words and lines of Guru Gobind Singh when he enjoined women to follow such a code. In short, my friend's position was branded unfashionable, unrealistic and obviously behind the times, if not exactly primitive.

The taunting, hectoring tone that coloured the responses was meant to dominate the listener. It was framed to score points, not to shed light.

Hence this exercise today.

Is it true that the Rehat Maryada applies only to men? Well! I can point to a professor or two of Sikh Studies who think so. And I know a number of Sikh men and women who would agree with them.

A cursory perusal of the Rehat Maryada seems to reinforce this idea. It seems to leave women pretty well out of the discussion, with one glaring exception. It asks - demands - that a Sikh father must marry his daughter to a Sikh man.

Then why is it that this reasoning doesn't sit well and comfortably with me?

Why do I resist the idea that the Sikh Rehat Maryada is directed at males only, and women don't seem to have a place in it?

Let us first digress a moment.

When in 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote in The American Declaration Of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," did he really mean to leave out the women?

I know there are legal scholars who view the Constitution as it was written centuries ago and are guided by the intent of the Founding Fathers when they framed the laws. They do not comfortably entertain the possibility of the Constitution as a dynamic document that may evolve a broader view and application than intended at the beginning.

Yet no one today would interpret the laws so narrowly as to deny women their rights. (I say this with full knowledge of the fact that women won the right to vote in the U.S. only in 1920.)

The matter of equal rights for women and Blacks seems to have been largely settled in theory, if not entirely in practice quite yet. Surely, the efforts of gays and many other minorities will likely take considerably more time. The point is that struggling to define the meaning of the laws continues, in order to capture the spirit of what was penned ages ago.

This tells me that the language of laws written centuries ago has to be interpreted, while keeping in mind the culture and context of the times. It serves no purpose - in fact it ill-serves society - when such words are interpreted literally and divorced from the context of society and the times.

I have illustrated my position with a single issue that has been historically well documented but astute readers can, I am certain, provide many more telling examples.

Now let's return to the Sikh Rehat Maryada.

True that it was not drafted centuries ago, but only in the mid-twentieth century. But do not lose sight of the society and culture that produced the document.

For example, look at the line that asks Sikh fathers to marry their daughters only to Sikhs. My first reaction was that here is a male chauvinistic society at work and a religion in which women have no role, no authority, no voice and no particular duty - no stake, no ownership.

Is that really so?

Look at the traditional Indian (including Punjabi) society, irrespective of religion. The model that I describe here is now in retreat and decline, but the majority of Indians still follow this pattern:

Most traditional Punjabi families are still agrarian, or were so until no more than two generations ago. They remain largely rooted to land. For farmers, land-holdings are paramount.

If children marry and move about to put down roots miles away, family landholdings would inevitably be divided with each succeeding generation. Progressively smaller holdings would result in a downward economic spiral.

So what is one to do?

A joint family system evolved in which intergenerational families stayed together and pooled their resources and talents. At marriage, the bride received a dowry from her parents that would be akin to her inheritance and then renounced all future claims to her ancestral property. The groom brought his bride back to his family home. Now this became the home she belonged to. The groom's family gained a daughter; the bride's family lost one.

Not unoften, the bride was renamed by the groom's parents. If her husband died, she would often be remarried to one of his brothers. This would keep the landholdings undivided.

This also meant that the bride followed the customs and ways of the new family she had joined. If they were good Sikhs, she practiced a good Sikh way of life. If they adopted and followed other ways, so did she.

So if the code of conduct demands that a girl be married to a Sikh, she would automatically raise a Sikh family. Such a provision is not in the Rehat Maryada for a boy because if a boy is a practicing Sikh, whoever he marries will come into the Sikh fold automatically.

So you see, if the context of existing social mores, culture and time is kept in mind, the wording in the Rehat Maryada is really fairly consistent and not necessarily sexist.

Times have changed. It would, of course, be far, far better if the text is now rephrased so that modern readers can easily understand.

Clearly, this also implies that the Code would be retranslated and reinterpreted anew for each new generation.

Also, in such an agrarian society, sons were more valued, since they made more useful farmers and hunters. Now times have changed. The doctrinal Sikh emphasis always was that girls, too, be valued, but economic constraints and cultural idiosyncrasies did not always permit it.

Today, there should be no reason not to practice equality in education and opportunities, as well as in rights and duties.

If we leave women, and that means all mothers, out of the loop of religious teachings and requirements, that indeed would be a disaster. I cannot think of a more effective or pernicious way to consign Sikhi to slow but sure decimation.

There is also little doubt that the Keshadhari Sikh tradition shows a clear unbroken continuity of over 300 years, from the time of Guru Gobind Singh in 1699. It was clearly not invented by the Singh Sabha, though the latter did play a pivotal role in clarifying it.

Thus it seems to me pointless to demand that one produce the line and page of the words uttered by Guru Gobind Singh in support of the articles of faith that Sikhs wear.

Contemporaneous records support that the tradition was codified in 1699. But keep in mind the words of T.S. Eliot that "history has many cunning passages and contrived corridors, and deceives us by vanities."

Remember, too, that Indian culture has not always valued or maintained written historical records. The oral tradition is all that we can point to, and it is often corrupted by additions, deletions, omissions and inaccuracies.

(Even then, I point out that the authenticity of Sikh teaching is perhaps the best documented of the major religions; I doubt that a direct challenge of this sort could be satisfactory answered by most.)

I notice, however, that in spite of these caveats, the tradition of unshorn hair is not seriously questioned. What is often questioned by many is whether we should continue to follow such a tradition today, three centuries later. Or, if this tradition means every hair on the body, no matter where it is, or does it point only to hair on the head for both sexes and also to those on the face for males.

Can other hair in aberrant places be removed or not?

I don't think a serious discussion on the matter exists.

I am not at all offended, in fact I am delighted, that the discussion is taking place on the Internet and elsewhere in public, for that's where it belongs.

And who should be discussing such matters?

Of course, the Sikhs!

What baffles me is that a legal case on whether Sikh women may tweeze their eyebrows or not - a question that started the wheels turning in my head - found its way into the Indian judicial system. Can you imagine debating and parsing the definition of a Jew by the judiciary of a secular country?

But we have inherited this distorted system from the time when the premier Sikh body (S.G.P.C.) took birth under law and the aegis of the British government in 1925. When India became independent in 1947, it inherited this legal framework which subordinated a religion (Sikhi) to the country's legislature and judiciary.

And now many Sikhs want an All India Gurdwaras Act, which would only compound the folly.

We Sikhs have not yet evolved our own elaborate ecclesiastical judiciary that can help resolve such internal matters. It is something that we need to do.

This tells us that at this time, we have neither the will nor the means to resolve our own disputes and need a monkey in the middle.

To me, such questions will continue to arise. Answers, too, will evolve; they will be satisfactory to some and not to others.

Whatever answer one chooses to accept, it certainly does not make one less or more civilized, and never unctuously, self-assertively right. The purpose of discussion should be to shed light and to enlighten both sides, not to engage in thunderbolts of putdowns.

I remind my readers that a large number of us have, in past years, faced many, many derogatory comments about the long hair and beards that Sikh men wear. If some people challenge our Sikh practice and find it unattractive, that does not render our practice unacceptable or undesirable.

We need not bow to ignorance or even to different taste. Similar reasoning applies to women who decide not to shape their eyebrows. This does not make anyone primitive - except perhaps the ones who demean the others by such accusations.

The conversation should continue. Expect not immediate enlightenment on either side. That would be disappointing.

 

June 10, 2009

ijsingh99@gmail.com

Conversation about this article

1: Irvinder Singh Babra (Brantford, Ontario, Canada), June 10, 2009, 8:35 AM.

Are we over-burdening our women with this added responsibility?

2: Raj (Canada), June 10, 2009, 11:53 PM.

Our women rightly demand social, educational, economical equality and no right-minded Sikh can or will dispute it either. What about religious equality? Why wouldn't the same rules and discipline apply to them?

3: Minti Kaur (Bedford, New York, U.S.A.), June 11, 2009, 10:01 AM.

Dear Irvinder ji: it is not a burden but a gift and a privelege in some eyes, and a right in others.It all depends on how you perceive it. Nevertheless, the conversations need to take place ...

4: Tejwant (U.S.A.), June 11, 2009, 11:58 AM.

One more thought provoking essay by Inder ji. But for the Sardarnis to lead, we, the Sardars should be opening the doors for them to enter or to exit and show their potetial to the world. The British realized the asset of the handsome Sikh men when they made them welcome all the guests outside posh hotels around the world; now we, as Sikh men, should use the same asset for the Sardarnis in our society. Female infaniticide is not the fault of the Sardarnis but of our macho/patriarchal way of thinking. Once we embrace and raise our daughters in an equal manner as we raise our sons, then only can we pave the way for our Sardarnis to lead. Without these kinds of efforts, it will just remain hot air as it has been for a long time. Good intentions are only good when followed by actions, and these actions are needed to be taken by us men.

5: Jaswant Singh Azad (Melbourne, Australia), June 11, 2009, 6:56 PM.

I am appalled that in this day and age, Sikhs - yes, Sikhs, out of all the people in the world - are discussing some imagined dichotomy between the rights enjoyed by, and obligations expected from, men and women! I sincerely believe that this issue has not surfaced as a genuine one ... there is some mischief afoot! Just look around you ... since 1984, every basic belief and strength of Sikhi has been questioned through frivolous and petty nitpicking. We Sikhs are too decent and straightforward - we need to become more vigilant against the stuff finding its way out of brahman-led and RSS infiltrated India! We are in a Cold War against a nutty brand of Hindu fundamentalism, which is as sinister as its Christian, Muslim and Jewish counterparts. We need to be careful, or else it will quickly give birth to our own brand of kooks - who, sadly, are already around, but mercifully in insignificant numbers still.

6: Gurjeet Singh (Birmingham, U.K.), June 12, 2009, 10:20 AM.

I am the youngest of all, amongst us siblings; I have two sisters. I was born and brought up in the metropolitan city of Bombay, India. I remember, when we were all going to school, we started talking to each other in English or Hindi. We were commanded and warned by our father to speak only Punjabi in the house, but could speak in whatever language outside with our friends. And all of us took it seriously. That warning given to us, I can still remember ... it must date back to when I was 7 - 8 years old. Days went by and my sisters got married, one by one. As soon as they got married, I don't know what struck their minds, they started to trim off their hair split-ends, and even started waxing and doing their eyebrows. I was amazed and surprised by their actions. My parents knew as well what they were upto but did not say a thing, which surprised me even more. Years have passed by, now neither of them trim their hair but they do wax their limbs and do their eye-brows. Nobody told them to do so ... and nobody told them to regain their ability of not trimming their head hair, even if there are split-ends. What I realized was that it was merely a stunt, a sort of lets-do-and-see-what-happens situation, as they were not under the looking glass of my parents. They did it and realized that it is not a GREAT experience. Maybe, one day they will regain their full ability to follow the full discipline of our faith.

7: Panjab Singh (Sacramento, California, U.S.A.), June 14, 2009, 12:11 PM.

"Can Sikh women tweeze their eyebrows?" Even many Amritdhari men like their wives to do so. The Rehat Maryada asks - demands - that a Sikh father must marry his daughter to a Sikh man. Who is following? There are countless cases of Sikh women marrying Hindus and white Christians where a Sikh father is subjected to a second wedding ceremony.

8: Tarsem Singh (New Delhi, India ), June 19, 2009, 8:07 AM.

I agree with S. Jaswant Singh ji. There are forces working against Sikhs and have penetrated into our very institutions. The latest example is that the Guru Granth Sahib and the Dasam Granth has been bound in one volume with 2800 plus pages. We need to be alert on this issue. People ask the SGPC to clarify who is a Sikh and who is sehjdhari Sikh, and whether hair should be shorn or ladies should tweeze their eye brows or not. Answers to these questions are very simple: instead of asking them of others, one need only introspect and ask one's own conscience whether he/she is a Sikh. No one else can answer this question. Guru Gobind Singh has simply directed us to respect nature and preserve our hair which is a natural gift. If the Gurus' teachings do not suit our temperament, we should be bold enough to discard the Guru rather than finding excuses and blaming others. I reproduce a paragraph from an issue of the Nishaan magazine: "We have example of the Jewish community who after the holocaust at the hands of Nazis, held a conference in Europe where they passed a resolution of far reaching import. Inter alia, these resolutions affirmed that THEY SHALL SPARE NO EFFORT IN PASSING THEIR RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS AND THEIR LANGUAGE TO THEIR OFFSPRINGS. THEY ALSO RESOLVED THAT THEY SHALL ARRANGE TO PROVIDE THE HIGHEST TYPE OF ACADEMIC EDUCATION TO THEIR CHILDREN SO THAT THEY SHALL BE ABLE TO BEAT ANYONE IN ANY COMPETITION." Can we not make a similar resolve? I think our gurdwaras should display this in bold letters.

9: Harpreet Singh (India), June 20, 2009, 1:43 PM.

I second the opinion of S. Panjab Singh. The most important thing to do right now for all Sikhs is to see that no Sikh girls marry outside the panth. It's very painful to see it happening. It's the most apalling of all the problems facing us today. Manmohan Singh already has all his daughters married to Hindus.

10: Gurpreet Singh (Chandigarh, Punjab), November 06, 2010, 4:38 AM.

Sikh women need to have their own say and that too must be intelligent in the manner that it should at no cost hinder what we Sikhs call our identity. With ever increasing effect of media and television on our thinking and life, which by all means portray a society of traditions other than Sikhism, I hardly can see why young Sikh men and women won't drift astray. We as a community are vulnerable today as we are under attack by not just outside vested interests but our very own inability ... inability to establish and then introduce the meaning, values and reasons underlying Sikh traditions to young minds.

Comment on "For Sikhi to Flourish,
Sardarnis Must Lead, Not Lag"









To help us distinguish between comments submitted by individuals and those automatically entered by software robots, please complete the following.

Please note: your email address will not be shown on the site, this is for contact and follow-up purposes only. All information will be handled in accordance with our Privacy Policy. Sikhchic reserves the right to edit or remove content at any time.