Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Redoptics

Punjabi or Sikhi breaking ties with in-laws

Recommended Posts

From certain people I was told now your marriage is over through the passing of my wife, that your ties to the family are now broken and I should not communicate, go over to the house etc.

So my question is this what happens or is this a punjabi way of thought or is this taught to us through Guru Grant Sahib Ji?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Redoptics said:

From certain people I was told now your marriage is over through the passing of my wife, that your ties to the family are now broken and I should not communicate, go over to the house etc.

So my question is this what happens or is this a punjabi way of thought or is this taught to us through Guru Grant Sahib Ji?

you have history with those people , you called them  mum and dad and gave them love and respect , why should that stop just because of your partner's death ? It would be a pretty cold and hard hearted person to reject them just because of that . Do what your heart and mind tells you , from what you said your wife was a fantastic person who loved everyone in her life so would  probaly want you to look after her folks (meaning doing sukh dukh and helping them if they needed it) just as she would have done if matters had been reversed .This is the sikh viewpoint . the other cold calculating way sounds more like something from old punjabiat where female's relatives have no value to start with .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

you have history with those people , you called them  mum and dad and gave them love and respect , why should that stop just because of your partner's death ? It would be a pretty cold and hard hearted person to reject them just because of that . Do what your heart and mind tells you , from what you said your wife was a fantastic person who loved everyone in her life so would  probaly want you to look after her folks (meaning doing sukh dukh and helping them if they needed it) just as she would have done if matters had been reversed .This is the sikh viewpoint . the other cold calculating way sounds more like something from old punjabiat where female's relatives have no value to start with .

My view point totally,  thank you for the clarification. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

Break ties with the idiots who gave you that advice, lol.

Wanted to break more than ties, when they mentioned it to be honest lol but wanted to know is this the general consensus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting subject, one that people just brush under the carpet (as is the way with most things when someone passes away in our community). 

My wife's mother passed away recently and my wife doesn't want to stay in touch with her Nanke, she say's that if my "mum's not here then what's the point of me keeping up my relationship with them, I was related to them through her." I find the whole thing ridiculous, we put a lot of time and effort into building up relationships and maintaining them, to throw them away just because the person that links you to them has gone just seems wrong and speaks more about your character as a human being than anything else.

Personally, I would stay in touch, grief is a strange thing, the more we support each other through it the better, her family probably need you around to process their grief and vice versa, ignore what society say's, that's the only way we'll get rid of these inane traditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, kcmidlands said:

It's an interesting subject, one that people just brush under the carpet (as is the way with most things when someone passes away in our community). 

My wife's mother passed away recently and my wife doesn't want to stay in touch with her Nanke, she say's that if my "mum's not here then what's the point of me keeping up my relationship with them, I was related to them through her." I find the whole thing ridiculous, we put a lot of time and effort into building up relationships and maintaining them, to throw them away just because the person that links you to them has gone just seems wrong and speaks more about your character as a human being than anything else.

Personally, I would stay in touch, grief is a strange thing, the more we support each other through it the better, her family probably need you around to process their grief and vice versa, ignore what society say's, that's the only way we'll get rid of these inane traditions.

I am around theirs for the weekend,  so yeah Im staying in touch, plus if they need owt they know Ill try and help, if I can 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Redoptics said:

From certain people I was told now your marriage is over through the passing of my wife, that your ties to the family are now broken and I should not communicate, go over to the house etc.

So my question is this what happens or is this a punjabi way of thought or is this taught to us through Guru Grant Sahib Ji?

this is a question a robot would ask if it was trying to learn human behaviour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Redoptics said:

I am around theirs for the weekend,  so yeah Im staying in touch, plus if they need owt they know Ill try and help, if I can 

It's a very personal thing fella, more credit to you and your character that your willing to be there for them, when something like this happens in a family people always come out of the woodwork with their "advice", as hard as it may be, you have to maintain your composure and not give in and give them the reaction they are looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting how widows are still expected to be defer to and do sewa of her husband's folks when he is gone and yet it is regarded as optional to the guys in the vice versa scenario in Punjabiyat . As far as I know Guru Ram Das ji still did sewa and looked after Mata ji after Guru Amar Das's passing . In modern parlance he would have been considered Ghar da Jiwai  and looked down on somehow , this is madness since they gave him a home and love when he was all alone in the world.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kcmidlands said:

It's a very personal thing fella, more credit to you and your character that your willing to be there for them, when something like this happens in a family people always come out of the woodwork with their "advice", as hard as it may be, you have to maintain your composure and not give in and give them the reaction they are looking for.

One thing i did learn from all this who the 'friend's' really are i thought i had loads but in reality  that is not the case even those so called friend 'brother's' you have known all your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Redoptics said:

From certain people I was told now your marriage is over through the passing of my wife, that your ties to the family are now broken and I should not communicate, go over to the house etc.

So my question is this what happens or is this a punjabi way of thought or is this taught to us through Guru Grant Sahib Ji?

Quite a thought provoking topic of discussion. I would say do what the heart feels. 

I have also heard this and believe it to be true to an extent. At the end of the day. Our closest bond is with our kids wife ect. Extended family will look out for themselves. So its best you look out for yourself. 

We may try and say we are all family. But when it comes to the crunch we are closest to our immediate family and they are the priority not distant relatives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Redoptics said:

From certain people I was told now your marriage is over through the passing of my wife, that your ties to the family are now broken and I should not communicate, go over to the house etc.

So my question is this what happens or is this a punjabi way of thought or is this taught to us through Guru Grant Sahib Ji?

It is up to you if you want to break ties or not.

The reasoning behind is that your folks will try to get you re-married, they would want you to move on with your life.

If you are too attached, you will not be able to move on.

And the specific relatives that push to move on, the womenfolk such as your mother's and sisters. 

That is from a Punjabi point of view. 

From a Sikh point of view, attachment is a vice.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Does your misbehaving kid have a smartphone? Confiscate it - that’s a good punishment 😂😁 For young people smartphones are life support machines, along with WiFi 🤣
    • Exactly bro, the reason why the british imperialists was so fearful of the Sikh empire and the last indian kingdom to be conquered was because of their economic system of governance and military derived from the Sikh faith. So once they had managed to wage war and take it over they then installed their christian missionaries all over the place to subdue the people. This is why I wrote the other thread what is the reason for all these missionaries? Its because its a continually of oppression of the same british empire system that enslaved the people in the first place and why the natives of punjab resisted christianity and resisted islam when they first came to the lands. The punjabi's are hot blooded they do not take kindly to oppressive regimes that steal from the people overtly or covertly. When general o'dwyer opened fire on the peaceful protestors at the jallinwala bagh it wasnt because he wanted to massacre people for the sake of it. He said in his own words he feared rebellion in punjab and so it was his way to crush it early on and teach the people a lesson not to rise up even if they was peaceful because he wanted to set an example that the rulers were willing to murder and genocide them. Similarly we saw what indira gandhi and her establishment did they did that because they feared punjab feared Sikhs they wanted to teach the rebelious Sikhs that they are in power and a genocide was their way of the same system of oppression to show them not to oppose their unjust rule. And if we go back to the examples of our Guru's our 6th guru built the sri akal takht sahib as a sovereign challenge to the brutal oppressive mughul rulers of the day. After the martyrdom of guru arjan sahib ji it was game on: (kar sewa and rebuilding of sri akal takht sahib after destruction of it by the indian state in 1980s) The original takht was a simple platform, 3.5 meters (11 ft.) high and stood a little taller than the Mughal Emperors throne in Red Fort Delhi intentionally as a statement about the soverignty of the Sikhs outside the other worldly Governments. Guru Hargobind Sahib would sit in court to receive petitions and administer justice. He was surrounded by insignia of royalty such as the parasol and the flywhisk. Many Sikhs gathered here for the redressal of their grievances. The Guru desired the Sikhs to bring arms and horses as part of their offerings in order to uphold the sovereignty of the Guru and the Sangat. This was readily done and some of them personally joined Darbar Sahibs armed gaurd. Here, Guru Hargobind Sahib watched the Sikhs performing exercises in the art of warfare.   Th
    • How big should a male's kachhera be ideally ? By AjeetSingh2019,  May 25 in GUPT | ANON As big as a male in question’s backside of course! How big is his  backside if you don’t mind telling us here on a public forum. 
    • tbh i think the Sikh empire is made out to be a lot secular and inclusive than it actually was. During the early years it was quite harsh on Muslims. Before M.Ranjit Singhs raj the Bhangis actually taxed the Muslims lol  just how their people taxed us. The Masjid in Lahore was turned into a horse stable while the minars were used as watch towers, cannons were placed in the masjid, much of it had to be repaired during the British period. And even when M.Ranjit Singh came into power things weren't all that nice and cosy for the Muslims. The Empire continued taxing Muslims for many years. The Sunheri Masjid in Lahore was raided by Sikhs and held for several months, can't remember but they either turned into a Gurdwara or wanted to turn it into a Gurdwara but had to be persuaded by other Sikhs to return it back to the Muslims. The Azaan was not allowed to be sung out loud, there actually were a lot of restrictions on them! Many Mughal buildings including the Masjids were actually raided by Sikhs as well. Basically the way the Muslims had treated Sikhs/Hindus the Sikhs treated them the same way minus the persecution.  The only Mosque that was built by him was one for the kanjris of Lahore after Morans request, because the muslims never used to let kanjris enter. During his latter years he did become more lax and lifted a lot of the restrictions on the Muslims, many say it was because of Morans influence? who knows ...  As for Hindus  i think the line between Sikhs and Hindus was a lot more blurred than it is today, like Jatt Sikhs and Hindus married, just how the Rajput Sikhs and Hindus married and so on. But despite this even back then many Sardars of the darbar were strongly against the role of the Dogras and other Hindus in the empire, like the Sandwaliya Sardars. More orthodox Sikhs like the Akalis and people like Hari Singh Nalwa were against the position that Hindus like the Dogras held and they were quite loud and clear about it as well. Why M.Ranjit Singh trusted the Dogras so much is confusing! many sardars from the darbar used to warn him. I think the main problem was M.Ranjit Singhs offspring were rubbish and had no leadership qualities. His Grandson Nau Nihal Singh on the other hand was very much like his grandfather, he was intelligent and very popular among Sikhs, he even knocked his own father off the throne and briefly ran the empire, the people within the empire who were aware of his potential got him killed off on the very day he became Maharaja.  I think too many personalities who were just regular farmers or shopkeepers one day and then rose to unimaginable power and position the next all wanted a piece of the cake. Then there was the internal family feud. But the whole secular thing has hugely been blown out of proportion! and the sjw types love using the whole Sikh empire secular thing, when in actual reality it wasn't the case! Secular people do not raid and overtake other places of worship or tax them! 
    • Why would you want to move to a crap country? If you are that desperate to move come to NZ instead. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use