Columnists
Fashion Accessories
by I.J. SINGH
A small footnote on the internet caught my eye the other day.
A Hindu woman was fired from her job at Heathrow Airport in London, England because she insisted on wearing a nose stud at her job. Her employers found this accessory unprofessional; she was equally adamant that it was a requirement of her religion.
One of the charms of Hinduism is that it is so old, and has such a variegated mix of highly sophisticated philosophy and mind-boggling mythology, along with a mélange of practices that may be contradictory and often defy analysis.
Most of us, I am sure, see Indian women, irrespective of their religion, walking around wearing nose rings or studs, and not just in India. I am sure we never think of these accoutrements as anything more than fashion statements.
In time, the religious connection has become lost, but it is clearly undeniable that religions have shaped many of our deeply held fundamentals in life. It is not just the nose stud or the pierced earrings that have religious roots - just think of the cross in the croissant.
There was a time that an unmarried Hindu woman did not wear a nose stud. She was given one at marriage. It clearly indicated that now she was no longer available but, in fact, was owned. Similar meanings apply to the wearing of pierced earrings; they were meant for slaves. The only other people who commonly wore earrings were pirates. The operative words here, in my view, are "owned" and "slaves".
In India, pets and farm animals, too, are adorned with nose rings, but they are owned and are property in law, as well as in the way society views them. They can be bought and sold in the marketplace.
When similar treatment is rendered to humans, it is called slavery. Not that slavery has been unknown in human history, but it is now universally rejected, even though pockets of it still exist.
The woman fired at Heathrow was right. In the distant past, religious practice dictated that Hindu women wear nose studs and earrings upon marriage, but not before, and never if they were widowed.
The bindi, too, that most Indian women wear on the forehead, stems from the Hindu teaching that suggests the location of the "third eye". It was another practice restricted only to married women, although that taboo is no longer remembered or obeyed.
But now one would be hard put to find theological, historical or contemporary references to such practices, and pretty much impossible to connect them to Hindu doctrine or teaching, except through some esoteric edict of Manu, the Hindu law giver.
There are no such requirements for Hindu men and absolutely no question that they demean women.
Many of these markers of Hinduism have now become symbolic identifiers of the Indic culture, and are only minimally associated with any religion, including Hinduism. On the other hand, clearly, we do not trivialize articles of faith such as the cross in Christianity, hijaab in Islam, or the long, unshorn hair, turban and kirpan, among others, of the Sikhs. These require and deserve the protection of the law, as well as respect by society.
But when I see non-Hindu women wearing such symbolic connections to Hinduism, I wonder why someone who values her own faith would want to consciously wear the markers and symbols of another. To me, it would be as if an Orthodox Jew were walking around wearing a cross, a khanda, or an icon of Ganesh.
Yet, I see many Sikh women of all ages wearing nose rings. My mother once told me that in her parents' generation, Sikh women determinedly rejected nose rings, pierced earrings, and even bindis. I think this conscious act spoke volumes for the place of women in the nascent Sikh society of that time. And I wonder what the widespread use of such symbols says about our contemporary reality.
Did the women of yesteryear look any the worse for the absence of these accessories? I'm sure not.
I am a man and many readers might wonder if the soul of a skinflint resides in me and underlies my rant against some of the most fashionable and expensive jewelry for women; I assure you I am not that devious, and would not want to deny women their pleasures in life.
I am not looking for a chain to connect the nose ring to a man's belt buckle; it is just that I am incurably curious.
Conversation about this article
1: Kaur (U.S.A.), September 20, 2007, 9:40 AM.
This author is too old school; these are the fads of this generation. Women are no longer property. The origin of nose/ear piercing may historically belong to Hindu religious practices, but these have now become fashion practices across the board. They have nothing to do with Jews, Hindus or Sikhs. Isn't it like wearing a tie?
2: G.C. Singh (U.S.A.), September 20, 2007, 11:43 AM.
The majority culture ultimately takes over the minority. Only a strong sovereign entity based on Sikh ethos will be able to preserve our unique religious and cultural identity.
3: Chintan Singh (San Jose, U.S.A.), September 20, 2007, 2:01 PM.
I agree with G.C. Singh's comment on the overwhelming influence of the majority community over a minority. Having been born and raised in Delhi where Hindu culture and lifestyle is more dominant than in Punjab, I have witnessed this first hand. Sikhs in Delhi and other parts of India celebrate Rakhri, Karva Chauth and often greet others with a Namaste. I feel that as long as we have the realization that practices such as Karva Chauth and Rakhri are contrary to our beliefs and the teachings of our Gurus, and that we should not be practicing them based upon their underlying belief, but only join in them with our Hindu neighbours simply to show respect for their faith and enjoy the festivities, it should be okay. I know this may sound unreasonable to some of my Sikh colleagues, but I am open to be convinced the other way!
4: Surinder Kaur (Bristol, England), September 20, 2007, 4:34 PM.
I wonder if Chintan Singh and G.C. Singh, living in the U.S.A. worry about the purity of their Sikh culture becoming infected with the customs of the majority American culture, whether they fear Sikhs saying 'Hello' as a greeting, wearing suits and ties, wishing Christian neighbours 'Merry Christmas', celebrating Thanksgiving, Sikh women wearing lipstick to the office, Sikh kids playing baseball and hanging out with white or black or Hispanic kids, and so on and so forth. It seems like a deeply reactionary utopianism to think that Sikhs must live un-polluted and uninfluenced by the societies in which they live, striving for 'purity' that can never be achieved.
5: Fateh Singh (Boca Raton, Florida, U.S.A.), September 20, 2007, 6:01 PM.
Am I missing something? A woman is fired from her job at Heathrow because of a nose ornament? Are there not any Musalmaanis employed at London's airports wearing burkas?
6: Roma Rajpal (Santa Clara, U.S.A.), September 20, 2007, 7:21 PM.
I think it is rather interesting and ironic that some fashion statements of today - the bindis, nose studs, and earrings symbolized "ownership" or "slavery" at one time. They were meant to put limitations on women, or even demean them, but now women use them to enhance their beauty and looks. Everyone is wearing them! People are ignoring and defying the old beliefs because they make no sense in today's world and, in reality, they don't care. Women absolutely love the artistic and intricate beautiful bindis, earrings, etc., and they care about looking good. So, the meanings of these items have gone from the negative to positive. That is a good thing. So, that's sort of "sweet revenge" against the people who meant to control and suppress women. So, it is not wrong at all to wear any of these in today's world since they no longer have any connection to a particular religion or culture. It is purely a fashion statement. What is very wrong in my eyes is when a person prohibits another woman (even if she were a widow, as is the case in Hindu practice) from wearing a bindi, a nose stud, or earrings, since then, they are acting like an "owner" and treating someone as a "slave". They are taking away the choices and rights of that person without any regard to their feelings. And, interestingly at the same time, they are supporting the views that the bindis, earrings, etc. still today symbolize something negative and wrong or that they only belong to a special group of people.
7: Tejwant (U.S.A.), September 20, 2007, 10:35 PM.
Is it okay for both men and women to wear gold and diamond crusted Khandas, Ik Ong Kaars and pseudo pictures of our Gurus as fashion accessories around their necks? Here, the minority is not being influenced by any majority but by itself. Which is more threatening in a spiritual sense for Sikhi? Diamond nose studs and ear rings or the bejeweled Sikh symbols including gold karas which the wearers consider as eternally divine? I am waiting for the day when I can buy 5 kakaar necklace with 24 carat gold naarah dangling from the diamond encrusted kachhera.:-)
8: Sharan (U.S.A.), September 21, 2007, 2:32 PM.
In my opinion, it's not merely fashion but it's also how a dominant culture affects us in general. That dominant culture could be powered by a religion (like in Islamic countries) or by a "liberal" view point, as prevalent in many Western and European countries. For Sikh men and women, the dominant culture should not pose a threat as long as the Sikh is dedicated and faithful to the Guru (Guru Granth Sahib). At the end of the day, it rests on the Sikh individual to take the true knowledge and apply it to his/her lifestyle. Once the knowledge is ingrained in the mind and soul, we will figure out the right way. Let's say that, some time in the future, the face-veil becomes a fashion accessory (as was the case in Europe and North America earlier in the twentieth century), I believe a Sikh woman can't proclaim that she is wearing the veil for fashion and still want to be addressed as a Sardarni. A balance that satisfies the mind and the soul is what one needs to strive for while enjoying material delights.
9: Jessi Kaur (California, U.S.A.), September 21, 2007, 4:56 PM.
Fashion accessories - whether they be bindies, ear rings or nose rings - are harmless statements compared to continued superstitious practices like observing karva chauth, believing one day is more auspicious than the other, going to pundits for teva reading, etc., that corrode the belief system. The bindi may once have had a religious significance. Today it is purely an adornment. Ditto with ear rings and nose rings. We "borrowed" the salwar kameez from the Muslims, we wear slacks, business suits and skirts; then why frown upon a sari, for example, as some Sikhs have started doing?
10: Simran (Las Vegas, U.S.A.), September 21, 2007, 9:41 PM.
I totally agree with Surinder Kaur, et al. Come on ! Why can't we just enjoy wearing bindis and noserings just for the heck of it? Why do we have to bring religion into it? I love celebrating Gurpurab, Diwali, Rakhri, Halloween, Christmas and other festivals. It's just the sheer joy of each festival. As long as we have strong beliefs in our own religion, we need not worry about any influences ...
11: D.J.Singh (U.S.A.), September 22, 2007, 10:25 AM.
You indicated in your essay that the purpose of giving a nose stud to the girl at the time of her marriage clearly indicated that she was no longer available and was now owned by her husband. I disagree with your explanation. The nose stud or other jewelry items were for the security of the girl child. Majority of these girls were neither educated nor were they economically independent. There were no banks or safety deposit boxes at that time. Therefore, the parents adorned their progeny with jewelry as a security for economic hardships in an era of poor information technology when it took weeks or months to gather information about the well being of family and friends. You essay certainly made me think about fashion accessories in relation to Sikhs. The Five Kakaars: Are the Symbols of a Faith turning into fashion accessories? 1) Kesh or no kesh; the traditional versus modern outlook. One willing to face discrimination, the other "liberated". Is the unshorn hair the final Sikh identity? Majority of the unshorn males tie their hair on the top. Believe me! I have seen a few with pony tails or even judas in the back. Some cover their hair with a dastar while others flaunt turbans of different colors and styles. A few wear baseball caps to work or play. Some men keep a flowing beard. Some color it to look young. Others tie it and use various hair sprays and gels to look good and also to keep their jobs. (2) Kanga. The traditional kanga is not in common use any more. (3) Kara. It started as a steel bracelet. Gold obviously symbolizes affluence! What's next? Diamond studded karas? (4) Kirpan. It's worn by most Amritdharis. It is still an integral part of traditional Sikh ceremonies. Why criticize other faiths and practices when so much needs to be done for our own?
12: Jagdeep Singh (London, England), September 22, 2007, 1:44 PM.
The biggest form of hypocrisy that I see in some of us in the Sikh diaspora is when we act as narrow minded essentialists and dream of Sikh purity without being polluted by the cultures around us. These few then often live out this backwardness in stark communalist terms that demonizes non-Sikhs. At the same time, they expect and demand that the societies they live in uphold secular, liberal and pluralist traditions by making special rules for Sikhs to wear turbans and kirpans in all realms of society, to prevent the demonization of Sikhs, to accept us and be tolerant towards our religion and practices. They want the benefits of pluralism for themselves living in the West, whilst advocating anti-plural beliefs amongst Sikhs in the diaspora and India itself. This is a hypocrisy that exists in the U.K., U.S.A. and Canada and it must be exposed relentlessly, especially when it leads to intolerance and bigotry towards non-conformist Sikhs (or any Sikh they disagree with on any number of issues), and non-Sikhs. What is the point in living in liberal, secular, pluralist democracies if you don't live those values in your own life, especially when you get protection from those very values? It is an unacceptable level of hypocrisy.
13: Gurteg Singh (U.S.A.), September 23, 2007, 12:39 AM.
Salwar Kameez has historically been a traditional dress worn by both men and women in western Punjab and has not been "borrowed" from Muslims. Only a fraction of the world's Muslim population wears it. The Dhoti, also known as a Sari, has been the traditional dress of Hindus, which is now worn by many Sikh women in India because of the influence of the dominant culture. I personally feel that the Dhoti/Sari is a very inconvenient piece of clothing to wear, especially in the daily work environment. G.C. Singh is absolutely right when he says that the majority culture ultimately takes over the minority.
14: Prabhu Singh Khalsa (Española, New Mexico, U.S.A.), September 24, 2007, 3:54 PM.
It's unfortunate that Sikh women are so comfortable putting holes in their bodies. People say it's harmless, and "why bring religion into it?" Because Guru Gobind Singh told us not to mutilate our body or hair! How come nobody is mentioning that the piercing of skin or permanent markings of tattoos is a kurehit? The beauty of the Khalsa lies in our purity. We are created as "Akal Moorat", the image of the undying. We are "Saibhang", self-illuminated. Why mutilate ourselves and follow fashion trends when the Guru gave us a perfect formula? If women's nose ring is truly part of her religion (even if it's her own version), she deserves to have her rights respected. I absolutely don't agree with mutilating our bodies, but other religions are okay with that, and people should be allowed to follow their religion.
15: Amrit Kaur (U.S.A.), September 24, 2007, 5:51 PM.
If wearing ear rings was a sign of slavery, then why do we see old pictures of maharajas wearing ear rings and other gold jewelery? Does being a Sikh mean to be a plain old Jane without any ornaments or make up? Is there something called "Sikh Fashion"? What about the Sikhs in the Western world rejecting Indian festivals or fashions, but celebrating Halloween, Baby Shower, Bridal Shower, Bachelor Party, Thanksgiving and Christmas and donning western attire? Are these Sikh practices? Whatever may be the origin of the bindi or the nose stud - and Dr. I.J. Singh may be right to some extent in his assessment - but now these are mere fashion accessories for most of the women.
16: Jaskeerat Kaur (Green Valley, U.S.A.), September 25, 2007, 12:30 AM.
Doesn't it defy the meaning of Sikhi to link such materialistic things back to their meanings in the old ages? As humans have evolved, so has the meaning of jewelry. As Sikhs we're supposed to be open to change, especially if it is a positive one. Nose rings and earrings aren't used for any negative purposes anymore; they are used in a positive manner. They are used to accessorize and, if used in the right manner, make a woman more presentable. They are used for good, not evil. As Sikhs, shouldn't we embrace this change, especially if it is a positive one?
17: Ruby Kaur (Oxford, England), September 25, 2007, 2:00 PM.
The old rhetoric of bemoaning in terms of doom 'that the majority culture ultimately takes over the minority' keeps being repeated on this thread, most curiously by Sikh men living in America. Isn't it strange that people who are so frightened about the purity of their religion and culture have chosen to live in a society like America? Why the hypocrisy? Why the puritanism, just one step away from insular chauvinism?
18: Meeta Kaur (Oakland, California, U.S.A.), September 25, 2007, 7:23 PM.
Applying historical meanings to fashion accessories in today's modern context feels a bit silly. Even sillier are the judgments that come with those who wear them and those who do not. To each their own. Aren't our spiritual journeys about growing from the inside-out? And isn't a sign of that growth a lens that is non-judgmental of others, but critically scrutinizing of one's own self? I would find it hard to comment on a man's attire b/c I'm not a man. It would feel awkward and invasive. Let jewelry simply remain jewelry.
19: Simran (Las Vegas, U.S.A.), September 26, 2007, 3:29 PM.
I think Prabhu Singh Khalsa does not know how to differentiate between adornment and mutilation. Who said that we are torturing ourselves by putting holes in our bodies? Or that, we are in a fashion battle of some sorts, where we are getting mutilated? We do not want to bring religion into it because it's only a cultural thing for us. And most of us have been brought up in that cultural society. Those who make this adornment a part of their religion, it is entirely up to them. And also, purity comes from within, the soul. We can only be Akal Moorat and Saibhang if we are filled with enlightenment and can enlighten the life of others. When we can give ourselves happiness, uplift our lives and also of the people who live with us and who are dependant on us. This is the Sikhi formula of our Gurus. And I, as a Sikh woman, want to follow it from my heart and soul and not from just having a chaste appearance.
20: Roma Rajpal (Santa Clara, U.S.A.), September 27, 2007, 4:06 PM.
Simran, well said! It is important to remember this truth that "Purity comes from within the soul". That says it all. It is the "Sikhi Formula" of our Gurus!
21: Prabhu Singh Khalsa (Española, New Mexico, U.S.A.), October 02, 2007, 7:36 PM.
The "Sikhi Formula" from our Guru is stated: "Khalsa mayro roop hai khaas" If your inner form is beautiful, so will your outer form be. I'm proud to stand in the image of Guru Gobind Singh, with every hair to the last breath! Please don't say, "Sikhi is in my heart". If it was, you'd keep your hair, maintain the purity of your body and adorn your head with the crown of spirituality. In America, people would say you're "wearing your heart on your sleeve." How about manifesting what's in your heart and soul, by living the truth as given by our beloved Guru?
22: Roma Rajpal (Santa Clara, U.S.A.), October 03, 2007, 1:23 AM.
Values such as compassion, kindness, humility, selflessness, truth, honesty, etc, are what we need to focus on to become a Sikh and Khalsa of our Guru. If you read the true definition of Khalsa, (Guru Gobind Singh Ji's - "Jaagat Jot rahe nis basur"), see if you can truly find a human that fits that description. We can only strive to become a Khalsa some day: it will take a lifetime to achieve that goal! Keeping unshorn hair is and should be a choice, since our Guru would never FORCE it on anyone. It is up to the individual and the Guru would not want it any other way. Can you imagine it otherwise?
23: Prabhu Singh Khalsa (Española, New Mexico, U.S.A.), October 10, 2007, 5:45 PM.
I would never advocate forcing anything on anybody. But I think excuses are like ...(I think you know the saying), everybody's got them and they all stink. People shouldn't make excuses for their failure in following the Guru's rahit. Guru Gobind Singh said that he loves the rahit and not the Sikh. What's inside is the most important, no doubt, but you cannot claim to have the qualities of the Khalsa on the inside if you shy away from manifesting them on the outside. After all, didn't the Guru want us to be "nyara"?
24: Roma Rajpal (Santa Clara, U.S.A.), October 11, 2007, 4:15 PM.
No excuses here. I myself have unshorn hair and Guru Gobind Singh is my hero. I am only posting my belief since it is disturbing to see so many people put others down just because the latter do not follow the full maryada.