Why Are Some Sikh Women Now Wearing The Turban?

[dallysingh101]

In history we know bibian were killed and their heads sold when the hindus and muslims wanted bounties when they couldn't find the men...

I've never heard that.

If anything they would have been sold as slaves or concubines (if attractive and young).

[double-edge]

Lol.

Our Guru tells us to pursue truth in all things. This includes our itihaas, no matter how inconvenient the truths of our history may be to our own personal agendas.

Some of you still don't seem to understand the point I am making. I never said that no Sikh woman ever wore a dastaar, I never said that it inappropriate for a bibi to wear a dastaar. My point is that the situation now, where most bibiaan do not wear a dastaar, is not unlike how it has been throughout our history.

The AKJ Rehat is the one that was fabricated by British influenced Sikhs, playing pick and mix with the Nihang Rehat by taking bits they liked (keski, sarbloh bibek) and abhorring those elements which were in conflict with their revisionist policies (jhatka, raagmala/raag kirtan). The Nihangs may have been around since Puraatan times, but so has the Damdami Taksaal. Why do they not require their women to wear keskis? I refuse to believe that a group founded in the 20th century is better placed to access the truths of our history than one which came into existence with the physical blessing of Dashmesh Pitaa himself. It is also worth mentioning that not even the Nihang Singhs make the assertion that the dastaar is mandatory for all Sikh women. No puraatan, historic samparda does.

So bhai randhir singh ji was a british influenced sikh? even though he sacrificed everything he had by standing against them and spending many years in jail?

You conveniently leave out the historical facts about this great gursikh and what he did for the panth.. yet claim to be in pursuit of the truth 'no matter how inconvenient.'

Where is the evidence that bhai sahib 'pick and mixed' rehat mr historian?

By your own ramblings you are asserting that you know the truth yet refuse to acknowledge the truth of guru jis non gender specific order of the dastaar.. instead you try to make this into a ddt vs akj debate.

Sikhi is not a fact finding course.. stop wasting your precious time, life is too short.

[Balkaar]

So bhai randhir singh ji was a british influenced sikh? even though he sacrificed everything he had by standing against them and spending many years in jail?

You conveniently leave out the historical facts about this great gursikh and what he did for the panth.. yet claim to be in pursuit of the truth 'no matter how inconvenient.'

Where is the evidence that bhai sahib 'pick and mixed' rehat mr historian?

By your own ramblings you are asserting that you know the truth yet refuse to acknowledge the truth of guru jis non gender specific order of the dastaar.. instead you try to make this into a ddt vs akj debate.

Sikhi is not a fact finding course.. stop wasting your precious time, life is too short.

Bhai Randhir Singh's religious views were heavily influenced by his excommunicated associate Teja Singh Bhasaur (known as Babu Teja Singh by certain AKJ members), a revisionist of the Lahore Singh Sabha movement. Bhasaur was very-anti Raagmala, to the extent that he advocated it's removal from saroops, along with bhatt savaiye - he even printed saroops not containing either of these baniaan. The fact that Bhai Randhir Singh forgot this when he launched his political action against the British has little bearing on the truth of his maryada. Just because somebody accomplishes a great deal for the Panth, as Bhai Sahib did, does not mean their views are correct.

The Sarbloh Bibek rehat is Nihang through and through. No other samparda practiced it until the AKJ appeared. As is the keski rehat (the only group of Sikh women throughout history who ever wore dastaars with consistency were the Akaalins, female Nihangs). I don't discount the possibility that these practices were incorporated into the AKJ due to another acquaintanceship of Bhai Randhir Singh's, this time with the Nihang scholar Akali Kaur Singh. It is clear that the AKJ is an uneasy amalgamation of Bhasaur-influenced anti-Raag protestantism, and puraatan Nihang practice (minus the jhatka which Bhai Randhir Singh detested and wrote books against).

My point about the DDT is completely legitimate. You believe that in the nether-reaches of our history all Sikh women wore turbans, so I directed your attention to a Sikh samparda from the 1700s which has never required women to wear turbans, and you tell me that this is besides the point? It's simply the case that a 20th century group is a sorry excuse for an arbiter on Sikh history compared to an institution which has practically seen it all first hand.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

A - Actually several of the 52 Hukams are gender specific -

Par istree, ma bhain, dhee bhain, kar jaananee. Par istree da sang nahee karnaa|

Istree da mooh nahee phitkaarnaa|

Singhaa da adhaa naam nahee bulaunaa

Guru Sahib is clearly only addressing Singhs here. It wouldn't be a great intellectual leap therefore to assume that Dastaar binaa nahee rehnaa| may also have been specific to men. It's also very likely that Guru Sahib didn't state that the dastaar is only mandatory for men because this was common knowledge at the time.

B - If you're going to use the Nihangs as the historic benchmark for the Sikh rehat, then you should accept jhatka/mahaprashad and sukha as authentic precepts of the rehat as well. But you won't, will you? You can't use the Nihangs when something about them suits your agenda, and then discard them when it doesn't. You can't pick and choose like that. Their rehat is their own, not that of the entire Sikh world.

C - That's exactly what I'm saying. Some women wear a dastaar, most don't, and good luck to all of them. The Taksaal however has never made it mandatory for the wives of its members (remember that there technically aren't any woman in the Taksaal, it's male-only) to wear a dastaar and that is the distinction. Do I really have to say it again?... I'll try it one last time - The only point I am making is that dastaars were never mandatory for Sikh women. I'm astonished that so few of you seem capable of digesting such a simple idea.

These same historical accounts are also the ones which specify that Mai Bhago dressed 'like a man'. If wearing a dastaar was to dress like a man, then it very strongly implies that it wasn't seen on women very often.

I really would like to up-vote; however, it fails because it would imply Guru Sahib was sexist, (which he was not!) Just because Guru Sahib particularly wrote to one gender doesn't mean it's gender-specific, all it means is that he had to use those words to match a certain group, (if he just said killing kids was bad it wouldn't have the influence as it would him saying daughters). Also even though Nihangs are a Puratan Jatha, they have since left GurSikhi.

[double-edge]

Bhai Randhir Singh's religious views were heavily influenced by his excommunicated associate Teja Singh Bhasaur (known as Babu Teja Singh by certain AKJ members), a revisionist of the Lahore Singh Sabha movement. Bhasaur was very-anti Raagmala, to the extent that he advocated it's removal from saroops, along with bhatt savaiye - he even printed saroops not containing either of these baniaan. The fact that Bhai Randhir Singh forgot this when he launched his political action against the British has little bearing on the truth of his maryada.

The Sarbloh Bibek rehat is Nihang through and through. No other samparda practiced it until the AKJ appeared. As is the keski rehat (the only group of Sikh women throughout history who ever wore dastaars with consistency were the Akaalins, female Nihangs). I don't discount the possibility that these practices were incorporated into the AKJ due to another acquaintanceship of Bhai Randhir Singh's, this time with the Nihang scholar Akali Kaur Singh. It is clear that the AKJ is an uneasy amalgamation of Bhasaur-influenced anti-Raag protestantism, and puraatan Nihang practice (minus the jhatka which Bhai Randhir Singh detested and wrote books against).

The bhasauria influence on akj is heavily cited by those opposing bhai sahib and the akj.

unfortunately for you, there is no evidence to back this claim.

Those that have actually read bhai sahibs books/writings.. and there are many of them.. fully realise that his views were influenced by gurbani and gurbani alone.

He never followed anyone apart from his guru.. this was his life.

He did know teja s bhasauria before his imprisonment when teja singh was a true follower of gurmat and gurbani. When bhai sahib came out of prison and learnt that bhasauria did not believe in bhagat/bhatt banis he refused to meet with him again and warned him to change his stance.. there is a letter by confirming this. Bhai sahib remained true to his word and never met with bhasauria again.

Again Balkaar you have based your views on unfounded hearsay and rumours which are in line with your personal prejudices of akj and tat gurmat.

[Balkaar]

The bhasauria influence on akj is heavily cited by those opposing bhai sahib and the akj.

unfortunately for you, there is no evidence to back this claim.

Those that have actually read bhai sahibs books/writings.. and there are many of them.. fully realise that his views were influenced by gurbani and gurbani alone.

The same Gurbani which his followers routinely ignore by refusing to read Raagmala or do Kirtan in accordance with the Raags lovingly specified by our own Gurus at the beginning of each Shabad?

You can deny Bhasaur's influence upon the AKJ all you want, but it's obvious that several of his precepts are represented in the Jatha, including his opposition to Jhatka, Raagmala and Raag kirtan. If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then it probably is one.

I think Bhai Sahib's heart was always in the right place, he just got pulled in a lot of different directions by the revisionists on the one hand, and by the Nihang Singhs with whom he spent time and in jail (he started keeping Bibek rehat when he was imprisoned with Akali Nihangs) and agitated against the British.

I really would like to up-vote; however, it fails because it would imply Guru Sahib was sexist, (which he was not!) Just because Guru Sahib particularly wrote to one gender doesn't mean it's gender-specific, all it means is that he had to use those words to match a certain group, (if he just said killing kids was bad it wouldn't have the influence as it would him saying daughters). Also even though Nihangs are a Puratan Jatha, they have since left GurSikhi.

I don't believe that Guru Sahib could be accused of sexism for acknowledging that there is a difference between men and women Singh ji. If he had meant for Sikh men and Sikh women to be indistinct in all things, he wouldn't have ordered one group to assume the name 'Singh' and the other 'Kaur'.

[MisterrSingh]

thing that I see is those dhiley men who want their bibian to do reesan of other dharam women put false arguments up.

You have an unfortunate habit of interpreting things in their most basic and binary terms, and passing that off as fact, based on your own experiences and inherent prejudices.

I'm assuming that "dhiley" comment is a dig at me for daring to suggest that religious adherence in certain minority communities post 9/11 has increased, particularly in the display of external religious symbols and garments, almost as a defiant response to the hostility being faced by the members of these communities due to increasing displays of overt and not-so overt prejudice from white host communities.

You do understand we - as in Sikhs - in the west don't exist in a vortex where we're immune to the various psychological and sociological influences that non-Sikhs are exposed to?

Explain to me why there's been an increase in recent times of bibiya wearing dastaara, MORE SO than in previous years before the subject of religious adherence came into sharp focus, than at any other time in post-modern history, without resorting to reasons that cannot be applied universally.

You can't just pluck feel-good, emotive sentiments out of the air to justify your reasons, particularly when those reasons have little basis in what's occurring in the wider world on multiple levels. Someone of your intelligence shouldn't switch off their brain and related faculties when they encounter something that's at odds with their worldview and beliefs.

I'm not an historian, so the wider argument about what he or she wore on their head at one time or another is irrelevant and unimportant. Wear what you like, it makes no difference to me. If what's underneath the dastaar is nirra gandh, then it's a futile exercise anyway.

[double-edge]

The same Gurbani which his followers routinely ignore by refusing to read Raagmala or do Kirtan in accordance with the Raags lovingly specified by our own Gurus at the beginning of each Shabad?

You can deny Bhasaur's influence upon the AKJ all you want, but it's obvious that several of his precepts are represented in the Jatha, including his opposition to Jhatka, Raagmala and Raag kirtan. If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then it probably is one.

There is much evidence that raagmala is not gurbani. This is why panthic rehat maryada/akal takhat state its an individual choice and not to argue over this.. Something which has alluded your intellect.

Akj are not opposed to raag kirtan.. they simply believe that the primary objective of kirtan is spiritual enlightenment and uplifting the soul, not singing in strict musical measures.

Infact many akj kirtanis do kirtan in raag, as did bhai sahib randhir singh ji.

Ok so back to the topic.. dastar is mandatory for all sikhs.. bottom line.

[JagsawSingh]

There is much evidence that raagmala is not gurbani. This is why panthic rehat maryada/akal takhat state its an individual choice and not to argue over this.. Something which has alluded your intellect.

Akj are not opposed to raag kirtan.. they simply believe that the primary objective of kirtan is spiritual enlightenment and uplifting the soul, not singing in strict musical measures.

Infact many akj kirtanis do kirtan in raag, as did bhai sahib randhir singh ji.

Ok so back to the topic.. dastar is mandatory for all sikhs.. bottom line.

I once had a conversation with an AKJ follower who tried to tell me how special Randhir Singh Grewal because he could turn copper into gold, and indeed that was one of the main reasons many came to follow him in the first place. The fact that the UK born AKJ follower said that to me though, revealed 2 things: Firstly, how uneducated the average Sikh in Punjab was in those days and secondly how badly educated many of the current generation of UK born Sikhs still are. You see, Randhir Singh was an educated man and he knew that those lacking education could be easily made to follow. So, I told my AKJ friend that if he was so easily impressed with such basic chemistry than he should get me a 2 penny coin, a glass cup and some zinc sulpate. Within a couple of minutes I said, I too will be able to turn copper into silver. And if has some strong heat available I could turn that silver into gold. Just like Randhir Singh. But there's 2 things to remember here: I'm not the type of person that wants to get uneducated people to follow me by performing science 'tricks' for them and in this day and age western born Sikhs should be educated enough to understand that a man that took away Raagmala from Gurbani because he personally didn't care for it too much is exactly the same as the modern day 'missionaries' who also want to cut some of Guru Ji's limbs off because they don't particularly care for them too much.

So, now that I've made that clear, let me repeat what I said before: The issue of Dastars and females should not be argued on the basis of support or non-support for AKJ or any other groups. It is pure and simple Sikhi that a Sikh amritdhari female MUST wear a dastar, otherwise she is NOT a Sikh.

[ms514]

VAHEGURU JI KA KHALSA, VAHEGURU JI KI FATEH

"A - Actually several of the 52 Hukams are gender specific - "

Point taken. But then, it would further the point that the Dastaar bina nahi rehna was not gender specific. If it was meant to be gender specific, it would have said something about males not being without Dastaars. There is no indication that Guru Sahib is addressing only Singhs - nothing about that specific hukam is gender specific. It is not an intellectual leap, it is fabrication.

There is a lot of implication of what "I" am willing to accept. Why is that? What does it matter what I have as my personal views? Nihang Singhs are as much entitled to call themselves Sikhs as I am. If there are differences in views on some points, so be it. Every Jathebandi has aspects of Gursikhi in it. Sarbloh is outlined in a hukamnama by Bhai Daya Singh - it is not implied in the Hukam that it was meant for Nihangs only. Sorry, but each Jathebandi picks and chooses, hence why we have Jathebandis. Go take up your argument with Damdami Taksal - if the founder of Taksal is Baba Deep Singh Ji, then how does the Dal Panth allow meat and Taksal does not?

Damdami Taksal Rehat. Read carefully, especially the footnote. It is stating that women should have a top knot and also states in that footnote, which is specific to a sentence regarding women, that a turban should be kept.

Nihangs:

Point 26, Under Oorha:

Mandatory for men and women to have blue keski in their kesh.

AKJ Rehat fabricated by British? What parts were fabricated by the British - please provide the evidence of any Jathebandi's (not limited to AKJ, any of them) Rehat being fabricated such - details of British communication that show Rehats being made up and inserted into any group. Letters, correspondence, historical documentation. If there is none, then stop making up this nonsense. The above screenshots make it clear that Dastaar was mandatory for Sikh women and are both from institutions that you yourself are stating have been around since Dasam Patshah's time.

Again, the same questions remain from the previous post:

Is the oldest Khalsa institution (the Nihangs) and the above Mahapurakhs and Stakar-jog Jathebandian wrong and promoting views that are not Gurmat? Does someone have a reference to where it was ordained that Amritdhari women were told Dastaar was optional?