Second marriages

[learningkaur]

Hi Sangat Ji

What is the Sikh view of a anand Karaj of a second marriage where the previous partner is still alive? If these can be booked and go through then are we to assume they are in hukam and the first was a karmic relationship which was always going to end?

Are the second couple ever really married if the promises were made with the first spouse?

[ZilaaNawaab]

I don't know about "second marriages", but I can say this:

The relationship you would form with your partner can never be replaced and a "second marriage" will and never be the same emotional love-bonding relationship. Often times, people still remember and miss their "previous" partners. That's all. 

[jjs8]

Are you looking for someone? cuz I'm single. 

[chatanga1]

On 3/19/2021 at 12:10 PM, learningkaur said:

What is the Sikh view of a anand Karaj of a second marriage where the previous partner is still alive?

The modern view is very different from pre-British days, where is was fine for men to take more than one wife. Many Sikhs did, and it came to a stutter, when the British took over and tried to force their one man-one woman rule on their colonies. In India, the Hindus and Sikhs bought their colonial masters views wholesale, but the Muslims didn't, and resisted any changes to their religion. After 1947, Congress introduced the family law, where it was illegal to marry under 18 and a man could only have one living wife. But they made special provisions for Muslims. Quite ironic seeing as nehru saw himself as a secularist.

The British also tried this marriage formula on african tribes/colonies where they met a great deal of resistance, to the point where they gave up.

An old tradition that has all but disappeared from Sikhs, is that if a husband were to die, his wife would be married to a sibling closest in age, regardless of whether that sibling was married already. There were 2 resons for this. Firstly, any children would kept secure in the family unit. Secondly, if the widow were to be married to another family, she would not take any children with her, so the children would essentially lose their father AND mother, and also the cost of re-marrying the widow into another family would be borne by the husband's family, not her pre-marriage family. So, it was a good solution.

Widow re-marriage was also encouraged by the Gurus.

 

 

On 3/19/2021 at 12:10 PM, learningkaur said:

If these can be booked and go through then are we to assume they are in hukam and the first was a karmic relationship which was always going to end?

The relationship should be the same and a Sikh shouldn't end his association with his first wife, if he were to take another.

 

On 3/19/2021 at 12:10 PM, learningkaur said:

Are the second couple ever really married if the promises were made with the first spouse?

Yes, because the promises are not made to each other but to the Guru.

 

A side note: Sikh population is really dwindling in Panjab, and having multiple wives would be a great way of increasing population percentage.

[MisterrSingh]

14 minutes ago, Suchi said:

However, in today's case there is an excess of men over women, so in reality polyandry is more appropriate not polygamy.  

Sounds a bit gay, tbh.

Would the husbands call each other bhaji?

[Jai Tegang!]

2 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

The modern view is very different from pre-British days, where is was fine for men to take more than one wife. Many Sikhs did, and it came to a stutter, when the British took over and tried to force their one man-one woman rule on their colonies. In India, the Hindus and Sikhs bought their colonial masters views wholesale, but the Muslims didn't, and resisted any changes to their religion. After 1947, Congress introduced the family law, where it was illegal to marry under 18 and a man could only have one living wife. But they made special provisions for Muslims. Quite ironic seeing as nehru saw himself as a secularist.

The British also tried this marriage formula on african tribes/colonies where they met a great deal of resistance, to the point where they gave up.

An old tradition that has all but disappeared from Sikhs, is that if a husband were to die, his wife would be married to a sibling closest in age, regardless of whether that sibling was married already. There were 2 resons for this. Firstly, any children would kept secure in the family unit. Secondly, if the widow were to be married to another family, she would not take any children with her, so the children would essentially lose their father AND mother, and also the cost of re-marrying the widow into another family would be borne by the husband's family, not her pre-marriage family. So, it was a good solution.

Widow re-marriage was also encouraged by the Gurus.

 

 

The relationship should be the same and a Sikh shouldn't end his association with his first wife, if he were to take another.

 

Yes, because the promises are not made to each other but to the Guru.

 

A side note: Sikh population is really dwindling in Panjab, and having multiple wives would be a great way of increasing population percentage.

Those were practical and wise choices in that time. It allowed strong families to keep going despite losing important members. No wonder our numerical strength grew so much despite heavy losses now and then. 

[MisterrSingh]

1 hour ago, Suchi said:

Well, it does still/did happen.  Most cases are in Himachal region and tend to be between 2+ brothers married to a woman, to keep from having to divide limited assets/lands and keep multiple families.

I guess they could call each other 'paaji' as they do now!  

It would be home from home.   

That kind of makes sense although it's not something I'd be comfortable with even if it's a brother. 

[MisterrSingh]

1 minute ago, Suchi said:

Hmm.  Not everything logical works at the emotional level.  That's where culture comes in.  But it shows our conditioning.

I understand from the perspective of assets, resources, and children. But I'm an intensely protective individual. I don't want another man inside my woman even if he is my brother. 

[MisterrSingh]

10 minutes ago, Suchi said:

I'm not putting it forward as a suggestion.  I am just putting it out there as a possibility.  

Of course, just as most women today cannot share her man/husband with anyone else, whereas in other cultures they accept it as they don't believe they have other options ie staying single or living alone which are both unacceptable in Islamic cultures.

That's something (perpetual batchelor-hood) that isn't alien to our own culture, though. It's not ideal but it was very common in the past, either for ascetic reasons or for slightly more sober purposes.

[jkvlondon]

1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

I understand from the perspective of assets, resources, and children. But I'm an intensely protective individual. I don't want another man inside my woman even if he is my brother. 

if you are dead you will not have a say. besides many chadar marriages were not for consummation but protection