![]()
![]()
Relocating Gender in Sikh History
Posted by Reema in General on 08 4th, 2008 | 68 responses
I recently ran across Relocating Gender in Sikh History by Doris R. Jakobsh who is now an Assistant Professor of Religion at the University of Waterloo. I’m not a scholar of either Sikh history (and Jakobsh shouldn’t be considered one until she can read and understand Gurbani), and the ideas presented below are just fodder for discussion – not being put forth as any authoritative data.
The framework she uses notes the difference between the prescribed Sikh belief of equality amongst Sikh women and men, and what is actually practiced within the Sikh community, claiming that gender has generally been dealt with in 1 of 4 ways: silence, negation, accommodation, idealization.
One of the biggest problems that I noted when reading the book is her use of English translations of Gurbani for her basis of analysis. We’ve discussed before the problems that we, as Sikh practitioners, experience in understanding Gurbani, due to language barriers. Yet, she bases her research on translations that are subject to the same barriers and misunderstandings. Because of this language barrier, her reading of Gurbani is way off. Despite this, I do believe her feminist analysis of historical writing warrants discussion.
1- Silence: Jakobsh claims that silence is the guiding principle regarding women in Sikh history. Traditional recording of history focuses on politics and economics, realms that women have not been well represented. Women have also not been the authors of their own history, and so the specific questions asked have been those of interest to male historians.
2- Negation: Jakobsh writes “…how heterogeneous elements in Sikh history, those labeled deviant, marginal, threatening or unimportant, are negated in order to ‘generate homogeneity and represent the Sikhs as a collectivity which shared the same values and movements.” (p. 10)
M. K. Gill, in The Role and Status of Women in Sikhism, says the reason that the wives of Gurus are not known either within or outside the tradition is out of respect. Jakobsh feels that Gill negates the obvious – that even the Guru’s wives are not consequential enough to merit recording. Mata Sundri, Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s first wife, led the Panth longer than any of the nine Gurus subsequent to Guru Nanak, and through one of its more difficult and divisive periods, but very little is known of her leadership. (p. 10-11)
Nikky Guninder-Singh, another prominent Sikh woman and feminist Sikh scholar, writes that Sikh literature and sacred verse celebrates feminine aspects of the Transcendent. She writes that “[n]o negative associations belittle [woman].” Jakobsh takes issue with this claim and begins quoting misleading translations of Gurbani without an understanding of their context.
Attachment to progeny, wife is poison. None of these at the end is of any avail. (SGGS, panaa 41);
Maya attachment is like a loose woman… (SGGS, panaa 796)
However, better scholarship on the part of Dr. Jakobsh would quickly refute her assertions. The poison in the first verse does not refer to the wife (or children for that matter), it refers to attachment.
Also in the next line, the referrence to ‘loose woman’ does not refer to all women, but must be read in the context of the Shabad. It is an allusion to ‘courtier dancers’ in Hindu temples and Mughal palaces. The adjective used prior is ‘deceptive’ so it isn’t even all women, it is those courtiers that practice deception (a common practice by courtiers). For Jakobsh to use this line is to dismiss a line appearing on the very same page in the preceding shabad where Guru Nanak yells in exuberance to Vaheguru calling out “Meree Maai (My Mother!)” (Thanks for the translation, Mewa Singh!)
3- Accommodation: Jakobsh claims that the Singh Sabha movement tried to accommodate the valuable aspects of British colonial culture and ground them in Sikh tradition, reinterpreting these values into Sikh history.
These new elites, having imbibed a liberal Western education, decried the undesirable aspects of the Sikh tradition; however, they were unwilling to reject that tradition outright. They tended to walk the shaky line of accommodation within the two, often opposing, world views. Ultimately, their focus was also the reformation and reinterpretation of the Sikh tradition, made possible by their ascendancy into positions of power and prestige. Oberoi maintains that it was the development of print culture in Punjab, along with their Western education, that gave the Sabha reformers the necessary tools to reinterpret the Sikh tradition. Their world view, adopted from the European enlightenment, necessitated the etching out of a ‘novel cultural map for Punjab that would define their aspirations and reflect the changed environment of the province.’ (p.13)
However, such an analysis begs the question, if the Singh Sabha was a new and radical ‘invention,’ why was it accepted as legitimate by the masses. How did the Singh Sabha’s voice come to have authority and authenticity? Jakobsh does not provide an answer.
4- Idealization: When women are mentioned in the annal of history, it is only because they deviate from the norm, and are exceptional. (But in the annals of history, isn’t this also the case for men? Most recorded history is about men with power/exceptional men, and their conflicts with other men with power.) The main examples of Sikh women in history are those who lived exceptional lives, mainly those who participated in battle.
Gill mentions a gurdwara named after Mata Sundri, Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s first wife, immortalizing Mata Sundri through its name. But Jakobsh points out that this idea of Mata Sundri is idealized, since little is known about even the most basic facts of Mata Sundri’s life.
Even if Jakobsh’s translations and interpretation of Gurbani are way off, I think her analysis might be valuable if it forces us to ask questions that make us uncomfortable. What do you think about her claims?
Logging you in...
"These new elites, having imbibed a liberal Western education, decried the undesirable aspects of the Sikh tradition; however, they were unwilling to reject that tradition outright."
EXCUSE YOU, "Dr." Jakobsh!
What are the "undesirable aspects of the Sikh tradition?"
Because it was actually the "enlightened" and "liberal" Western British who interfered with the Sikh tradition that created an unbalanced situation for women. In the court of the Guru women were given the greatest respect and I'm sure when Guru Amar Das Ji sent women missionaries out into the world they were received with utmost respect. From what I've read the British were so afraid of Sikhs that they did their level best to destroy them and all sources of their power. They shortened banis, they put mahants in charge of Gurdwaras. One of the jobs of the mahants was to enforce un-enlightened practices including discrimination and degradation of women and lower castes. The British had never seen a society where women were treated equally and they were scared and did their best to try to degrade Sikh women.
I don't need to read the rest of the book to know that this author is full of it and undeserving of any respect.
The true Sikh tradition is the most desirable tradition for humanity. The only tradition incorporating the wisdom of all paths and encouraging righteous living above all else. It is a divine tradition without any "undesirable aspects."
EXCUSE YOU, "Dr." Jakobsh!
What are the "undesirable aspects of the Sikh tradition?"
Because it was actually the "enlightened" and "liberal" Western British who interfered with the Sikh tradition that created an unbalanced situation for women. In the court of the Guru women were given the greatest respect and I'm sure when Guru Amar Das Ji sent women missionaries out into the world they were received with utmost respect. From what I've read the British were so afraid of Sikhs that they did their level best to destroy them and all sources of their power. They shortened banis, they put mahants in charge of Gurdwaras. One of the jobs of the mahants was to enforce un-enlightened practices including discrimination and degradation of women and lower castes. The British had never seen a society where women were treated equally and they were scared and did their best to try to degrade Sikh women.
I don't need to read the rest of the book to know that this author is full of it and undeserving of any respect.
The true Sikh tradition is the most desirable tradition for humanity. The only tradition incorporating the wisdom of all paths and encouraging righteous living above all else. It is a divine tradition without any "undesirable aspects."
"These new elites, having imbibed a liberal Western education, decried the undesirable aspects of the Sikh tradition; however, they were unwilling to reject that tradition outright."
EXCUSE YOU, "Dr." Jakobsh!
What are the "undesirable aspects of the Sikh tradition?"
Because it was actually the "enlightened" and "liberal" Western British who interfered with the Sikh tradition that created an unbalanced situation for women. In the court of the Guru women were given the greatest respect and I'm sure when Guru Amar Das Ji sent women missionaries out into the world they were received with utmost respect. From what I've read the British were so afraid of Sikhs that they did their level best to destroy them and all sources of their power. They shortened banis, they put mahants in charge of Gurdwaras. One of the jobs of the mahants was to enforce un-enlightened practices including discrimination and degradation of women and lower castes. The British had never seen a society where women were treated equally and they were scared and did their best to try to degrade Sikh women.
I don't need to read the rest of the book to know that this author is full of it and undeserving of any respect.
The true Sikh tradition is the most desirable tradition for humanity. The only tradition incorporating the wisdom of all paths and encouraging righteous living above all else. It is a divine tradition without any "undesirable aspects."
EXCUSE YOU, "Dr." Jakobsh!
What are the "undesirable aspects of the Sikh tradition?"
Because it was actually the "enlightened" and "liberal" Western British who interfered with the Sikh tradition that created an unbalanced situation for women. In the court of the Guru women were given the greatest respect and I'm sure when Guru Amar Das Ji sent women missionaries out into the world they were received with utmost respect. From what I've read the British were so afraid of Sikhs that they did their level best to destroy them and all sources of their power. They shortened banis, they put mahants in charge of Gurdwaras. One of the jobs of the mahants was to enforce un-enlightened practices including discrimination and degradation of women and lower castes. The British had never seen a society where women were treated equally and they were scared and did their best to try to degrade Sikh women.
I don't need to read the rest of the book to know that this author is full of it and undeserving of any respect.
The true Sikh tradition is the most desirable tradition for humanity. The only tradition incorporating the wisdom of all paths and encouraging righteous living above all else. It is a divine tradition without any "undesirable aspects."
One quick correction -- I believe Doris Jakobsh does read Punjabi/Gurmukhi. She has studied it starting in 1995 (where she did an immersion program in Patiala, according to her website).
That said, I don't have the book in front of me, and I haven't checked her translations to see if what you say is true about her being dependent on English, or her translations being off. You may be right about that.
Secondly, given the other post at The Langar Hall on the riots in Bristol this week, it seems strange that you're resisting Jakobsh's conclusion that women are not at all as well-treated in Sikh history as many of us like to think. There is a line we like to repeat that "men and women are equal in Sikhism," but in practice that really hasn't been true.
(Just to be clear: it's still good that we have gender equality as an ideal; some other faiths have anti-women precepts as both ideals AND as practice.)
That said, I don't have the book in front of me, and I haven't checked her translations to see if what you say is true about her being dependent on English, or her translations being off. You may be right about that.
Secondly, given the other post at The Langar Hall on the riots in Bristol this week, it seems strange that you're resisting Jakobsh's conclusion that women are not at all as well-treated in Sikh history as many of us like to think. There is a line we like to repeat that "men and women are equal in Sikhism," but in practice that really hasn't been true.
(Just to be clear: it's still good that we have gender equality as an ideal; some other faiths have anti-women precepts as both ideals AND as practice.)
I think the topic has to be divided to comment -- on one hand, there's the issue of the representation of women in Gurbani, where it seems there are concerns or issues with Jakobsh's translations (and consequently, her analysis).
The second issue -- her framework for unpacking gender in Sikhi, does not seem unique (as a framework), but does sound right on. I haven't read the book, and I wish I could comment more intelligibly, but your summary of her arguments under silence/negation/idealization certainly ring true. As for accommodation, I guess I wonder if she's arguing that the Singh Sabha movement retroactively "placed" women back into the narrative of Sikh history, or if they revised history itself to make it seem as though women had been there all along. I know that sounds like a semantic difference, but it's one thing to acknowledge the exclusion of a group, and another to "back in" the information after the fact. It happens all the time, but I do think it's interesting.
I'd love to read more to see where she's going. I think one of the biggest challenges around gender equity is the dissonance between our "ideal type" (i.e., equality as we see it in Gurbani, which is also contested) and the reality of how women have been treated in our history as a social/cultural/national group.
The second issue -- her framework for unpacking gender in Sikhi, does not seem unique (as a framework), but does sound right on. I haven't read the book, and I wish I could comment more intelligibly, but your summary of her arguments under silence/negation/idealization certainly ring true. As for accommodation, I guess I wonder if she's arguing that the Singh Sabha movement retroactively "placed" women back into the narrative of Sikh history, or if they revised history itself to make it seem as though women had been there all along. I know that sounds like a semantic difference, but it's one thing to acknowledge the exclusion of a group, and another to "back in" the information after the fact. It happens all the time, but I do think it's interesting.
I'd love to read more to see where she's going. I think one of the biggest challenges around gender equity is the dissonance between our "ideal type" (i.e., equality as we see it in Gurbani, which is also contested) and the reality of how women have been treated in our history as a social/cultural/national group.
I recall coming across a review of Jakobsh's work/research some time ago, and was not overly impressed with what Jakobsh had to say. Please note, this is not to diminish the topic at hand, but only the legitimacy of Jakobsh's scholarship. She received her PhD under Harjot Oberoi's supervision - which fact alone should be enough to raise a few eyebrows.
Please consider the following article:
Sikh Spectrum
I also recall reading something by her which insinuated Guru Hargobind's father was actually Baba Buddha ji i.e. when Guru Arjan Dev ji's wife, Mata Ganga, was seeking an audience with Baba Buddha ji, it was a request for the boon of offspring by way of conjugal relations with Baba Buddha ji, and Guru Arjan Dev ji approved of this.
Jakobsh appears to have put forward this disgusting insinuation more for the sake of sensationalism (which apparently equates with academic recognition) than for any genuine scholarly purpose.
Another article dissecting Jakobsh's research:
Sikhsundesh
Please consider the following article:
Sikh Spectrum
I also recall reading something by her which insinuated Guru Hargobind's father was actually Baba Buddha ji i.e. when Guru Arjan Dev ji's wife, Mata Ganga, was seeking an audience with Baba Buddha ji, it was a request for the boon of offspring by way of conjugal relations with Baba Buddha ji, and Guru Arjan Dev ji approved of this.
Jakobsh appears to have put forward this disgusting insinuation more for the sake of sensationalism (which apparently equates with academic recognition) than for any genuine scholarly purpose.
Another article dissecting Jakobsh's research:
Sikhsundesh
Amardeep,
I questioned Jakobsh's scholarship, not the FACT that gender inequality exists.
I wouldn't have taken the time to outline her first chapter and post it if I didn't think there was some truth to be explored. The only thing I dismissed completely were her translations of Gurbani, because those seemed way off. I think her points on "silence" and "idealization" ring most true, while the negation and accommodation are more problematic, though there may definitely be some truth in those as well. I don't know yet.
I completely agree that the ideal of egalitarianism has not been realized in practice, and the point of this post was to explore/highlight how women have historically been documented within the Sikh tradition, to draw out the drastic difference between the ideal and the reality.
Regarding whether and how much Punjabi she speaks, from an interview:
J.S.T.: Do you know Punjabi?
D.R.J.: When I was at Patiala in 1996 to research material for my Ph.D. thesis, I learned to read the Gurmukhi script. I could also speak tuti-phuti (broken) Punjabi. But since there was no practice here, I have almost lost it now.
I questioned Jakobsh's scholarship, not the FACT that gender inequality exists.
I wouldn't have taken the time to outline her first chapter and post it if I didn't think there was some truth to be explored. The only thing I dismissed completely were her translations of Gurbani, because those seemed way off. I think her points on "silence" and "idealization" ring most true, while the negation and accommodation are more problematic, though there may definitely be some truth in those as well. I don't know yet.
I completely agree that the ideal of egalitarianism has not been realized in practice, and the point of this post was to explore/highlight how women have historically been documented within the Sikh tradition, to draw out the drastic difference between the ideal and the reality.
Regarding whether and how much Punjabi she speaks, from an interview:
J.S.T.: Do you know Punjabi?
D.R.J.: When I was at Patiala in 1996 to research material for my Ph.D. thesis, I learned to read the Gurmukhi script. I could also speak tuti-phuti (broken) Punjabi. But since there was no practice here, I have almost lost it now.
D.R.J.: When I was at Patiala in 1996 to research material for my Ph.D. thesis, I learned to read the Gurmukhi script. I could also speak tuti-phuti (broken) Punjabi. But since there was no practice here, I have almost lost it now.
Seems odd living and going to the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, Canada but having 'no way to practice'?
Are there no Sikhs on campus or for that matter in BC? Or how about with her advisor? How long has there been a Punjabi language program at UBC?
For some reason, I guess this just asserts that she was only interested in Sikhs that have been long dead (early 20th century) and hardly engaged with those that were living and breathing in the community in which she resided.
Seems odd living and going to the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, Canada but having 'no way to practice'?
Are there no Sikhs on campus or for that matter in BC? Or how about with her advisor? How long has there been a Punjabi language program at UBC?
For some reason, I guess this just asserts that she was only interested in Sikhs that have been long dead (early 20th century) and hardly engaged with those that were living and breathing in the community in which she resided.
One quick correction -- I believe Doris Jakobsh does read Punjabi/Gurmukhi. She has studied it starting in 1995 (where she did an immersion program in Patiala, according to her website).
That said, I don't have the book in front of me, and I haven't checked her translations to see if what you say is true about her being dependent on English, or her translations being off. You may be right about that.
Secondly, given the other post at The Langar Hall on the riots in Bristol this week, it seems strange that you're resisting Jakobsh's conclusion that women are not at all as well-treated in Sikh history as many of us like to think. There is a line we like to repeat that "men and women are equal in Sikhism," but in practice that really hasn't been true.
(Just to be clear: it's still good that we have gender equality as an ideal; some other faiths have anti-women precepts as both ideals AND as practice.)
That said, I don't have the book in front of me, and I haven't checked her translations to see if what you say is true about her being dependent on English, or her translations being off. You may be right about that.
Secondly, given the other post at The Langar Hall on the riots in Bristol this week, it seems strange that you're resisting Jakobsh's conclusion that women are not at all as well-treated in Sikh history as many of us like to think. There is a line we like to repeat that "men and women are equal in Sikhism," but in practice that really hasn't been true.
(Just to be clear: it's still good that we have gender equality as an ideal; some other faiths have anti-women precepts as both ideals AND as practice.)
There was/is an excellant Punjabi language program at UBC, offering beginner, intermediate, and advanced classes.
Even living in Waterloo, I find it hard to believe there are no avenues for her to keep up her Punjabi language skills - if she had them in the first place.
Perhaps it's difficult meeting Punjabi Sikhs who can stomach all of her b.s.?
More likely, as Mewa Singh indicated, her interest lies with Sikhs long dead, and unable to refute much of what she puts forth as scholarship; Sikhs today would ask far too many difficult questions, which may raise serious concerns about her understanding of Sikhism.
Even living in Waterloo, I find it hard to believe there are no avenues for her to keep up her Punjabi language skills - if she had them in the first place.
Perhaps it's difficult meeting Punjabi Sikhs who can stomach all of her b.s.?
More likely, as Mewa Singh indicated, her interest lies with Sikhs long dead, and unable to refute much of what she puts forth as scholarship; Sikhs today would ask far too many difficult questions, which may raise serious concerns about her understanding of Sikhism.
I think the topic has to be divided to comment -- on one hand, there's the issue of the representation of women in Gurbani, where it seems there are concerns or issues with Jakobsh's translations (and consequently, her analysis).
The second issue -- her framework for unpacking gender in Sikhi, does not seem unique (as a framework), but does sound right on. I haven't read the book, and I wish I could comment more intelligibly, but your summary of her arguments under silence/negation/idealization certainly ring true. As for accommodation, I guess I wonder if she's arguing that the Singh Sabha movement retroactively "placed" women back into the narrative of Sikh history, or if they revised history itself to make it seem as though women had been there all along. I know that sounds like a semantic difference, but it's one thing to acknowledge the exclusion of a group, and another to "back in" the information after the fact. It happens all the time, but I do think it's interesting.
I'd love to read more to see where she's going. I think one of the biggest challenges around gender equity is the dissonance between our "ideal type" (i.e., equality as we see it in Gurbani, which is also contested) and the reality of how women have been treated in our history as a social/cultural/national group.
The second issue -- her framework for unpacking gender in Sikhi, does not seem unique (as a framework), but does sound right on. I haven't read the book, and I wish I could comment more intelligibly, but your summary of her arguments under silence/negation/idealization certainly ring true. As for accommodation, I guess I wonder if she's arguing that the Singh Sabha movement retroactively "placed" women back into the narrative of Sikh history, or if they revised history itself to make it seem as though women had been there all along. I know that sounds like a semantic difference, but it's one thing to acknowledge the exclusion of a group, and another to "back in" the information after the fact. It happens all the time, but I do think it's interesting.
I'd love to read more to see where she's going. I think one of the biggest challenges around gender equity is the dissonance between our "ideal type" (i.e., equality as we see it in Gurbani, which is also contested) and the reality of how women have been treated in our history as a social/cultural/national group.
I recall coming across a review of Jakobsh's work/research some time ago, and was not overly impressed with what Jakobsh had to say. Please note, this is not to diminish the topic at hand, but only the legitimacy of Jakobsh's scholarship. She received her PhD under Harjot Oberoi's supervision - which fact alone should be enough to raise a few eyebrows.
Please consider the following article:
Sikh Spectrum
I also recall reading something by her which insinuated Guru Hargobind's father was actually Baba Buddha ji i.e. when Guru Arjan Dev ji's wife, Mata Ganga, was seeking an audience with Baba Buddha ji, it was a request for the boon of offspring by way of conjugal relations with Baba Buddha ji, and Guru Arjan Dev ji approved of this.
Jakobsh appears to have put forward this disgusting insinuation more for the sake of sensationalism (which apparently equates with academic recognition) than for any genuine scholarly purpose.
Another article dissecting Jakobsh's research:
Sikhsundesh
Please consider the following article:
Sikh Spectrum
I also recall reading something by her which insinuated Guru Hargobind's father was actually Baba Buddha ji i.e. when Guru Arjan Dev ji's wife, Mata Ganga, was seeking an audience with Baba Buddha ji, it was a request for the boon of offspring by way of conjugal relations with Baba Buddha ji, and Guru Arjan Dev ji approved of this.
Jakobsh appears to have put forward this disgusting insinuation more for the sake of sensationalism (which apparently equates with academic recognition) than for any genuine scholarly purpose.
Another article dissecting Jakobsh's research:
Sikhsundesh
Mewa and P. Singh,
To be fair, she conducted her research in the 90s. And it's not clear that she has been near UBC/Vancouver since then. If Waterloo has vast opportunities to practice Punjabi, I don't know about them. I live in a city with plenty of Punjabis, I speak to my family (who lives elsewhere) in Punjabi, and I still feel my Punjabi deteriorating.
My criticism of her translations was not an attempt to completely discredit her (not that I have the power to do so). I just wanted to point out the limitations of her analysis of Gurbani.
This language barrier might make scholarly research of Gurbani or Punjabi works difficult, but there is room for research and work on English works too. And I think her analysis of these English works is far more interesting than her analysis of Gurbani.
To be fair, she conducted her research in the 90s. And it's not clear that she has been near UBC/Vancouver since then. If Waterloo has vast opportunities to practice Punjabi, I don't know about them. I live in a city with plenty of Punjabis, I speak to my family (who lives elsewhere) in Punjabi, and I still feel my Punjabi deteriorating.
My criticism of her translations was not an attempt to completely discredit her (not that I have the power to do so). I just wanted to point out the limitations of her analysis of Gurbani.
This language barrier might make scholarly research of Gurbani or Punjabi works difficult, but there is room for research and work on English works too. And I think her analysis of these English works is far more interesting than her analysis of Gurbani.
Amardeep,
I questioned Jakobsh's scholarship, not the FACT that gender inequality exists.
I wouldn't have taken the time to outline her first chapter and post it if I didn't think there was some truth to be explored. The only thing I dismissed completely were her translations of Gurbani, because those seemed way off. I think her points on "silence" and "idealization" ring most true, while the negation and accommodation are more problematic, though there may definitely be some truth in those as well. I don't know yet.
I completely agree that the ideal of egalitarianism has not been realized in practice, and the point of this post was to explore/highlight how women have historically been documented within the Sikh tradition, to draw out the drastic difference between the ideal and the reality.
Regarding whether and how much Punjabi she speaks, from an interview:
J.S.T.: Do you know Punjabi?
D.R.J.: When I was at Patiala in 1996 to research material for my Ph.D. thesis, I learned to read the Gurmukhi script. I could also speak tuti-phuti (broken) Punjabi. But since there was no practice here, I have almost lost it now.
I questioned Jakobsh's scholarship, not the FACT that gender inequality exists.
I wouldn't have taken the time to outline her first chapter and post it if I didn't think there was some truth to be explored. The only thing I dismissed completely were her translations of Gurbani, because those seemed way off. I think her points on "silence" and "idealization" ring most true, while the negation and accommodation are more problematic, though there may definitely be some truth in those as well. I don't know yet.
I completely agree that the ideal of egalitarianism has not been realized in practice, and the point of this post was to explore/highlight how women have historically been documented within the Sikh tradition, to draw out the drastic difference between the ideal and the reality.
Regarding whether and how much Punjabi she speaks, from an interview:
J.S.T.: Do you know Punjabi?
D.R.J.: When I was at Patiala in 1996 to research material for my Ph.D. thesis, I learned to read the Gurmukhi script. I could also speak tuti-phuti (broken) Punjabi. But since there was no practice here, I have almost lost it now.
D.R.J.: When I was at Patiala in 1996 to research material for my Ph.D. thesis, I learned to read the Gurmukhi script. I could also speak tuti-phuti (broken) Punjabi. But since there was no practice here, I have almost lost it now.
Seems odd living and going to the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, Canada but having 'no way to practice'?
Are there no Sikhs on campus or for that matter in BC? Or how about with her advisor? How long has there been a Punjabi language program at UBC?
For some reason, I guess this just asserts that she was only interested in Sikhs that have been long dead (early 20th century) and hardly engaged with those that were living and breathing in the community in which she resided.
Seems odd living and going to the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, Canada but having 'no way to practice'?
Are there no Sikhs on campus or for that matter in BC? Or how about with her advisor? How long has there been a Punjabi language program at UBC?
For some reason, I guess this just asserts that she was only interested in Sikhs that have been long dead (early 20th century) and hardly engaged with those that were living and breathing in the community in which she resided.
There was/is an excellant Punjabi language program at UBC, offering beginner, intermediate, and advanced classes.
Even living in Waterloo, I find it hard to believe there are no avenues for her to keep up her Punjabi language skills - if she had them in the first place.
Perhaps it's difficult meeting Punjabi Sikhs who can stomach all of her b.s.?
More likely, as Mewa Singh indicated, her interest lies with Sikhs long dead, and unable to refute much of what she puts forth as scholarship; Sikhs today would ask far too many difficult questions, which may raise serious concerns about her understanding of Sikhism.
Even living in Waterloo, I find it hard to believe there are no avenues for her to keep up her Punjabi language skills - if she had them in the first place.
Perhaps it's difficult meeting Punjabi Sikhs who can stomach all of her b.s.?
More likely, as Mewa Singh indicated, her interest lies with Sikhs long dead, and unable to refute much of what she puts forth as scholarship; Sikhs today would ask far too many difficult questions, which may raise serious concerns about her understanding of Sikhism.
Point taken Reema. However when reading her comment to the interview question, it does raise a new question. There are different points here which we can agree/disagree on:
1) Gender Inequality within the Sikh community exists. I would definitely agree with that statement and I have a feeling P.Singh would as well. Many Sikh women AND men have been saying this for years.
2) Jakobsh's scholarship shows there seems to be an all most systematic hegemony perpetrated against women in Sikh theology, history, and historiography. You raised a number of concerns and criticisims about her claims and her scholarly abilities to make such claims (including the reliance on translations). P.Singh and I have further echoed them.
3) Can one study Sikh history and society without engaging with Sikhs and their society? This is the new question that I believe arose out of her interview answer. P.Singh and I seem to agree that in many ways it is not possible. Maybe you disagree.
A simple reply to your deteriorating Punjabi in a city full of Punjabis is that your thesis and focus of your career is probably not writing about Sikhs. If it was, I sure hope your Punjabi does not deteriorate as I would expect you to write more in the future (especially since it was Canadian taxpayer money that helped afford Jakobsh to become a scholar in Sikh studies). Also in the interview, it seems much of the inspiration of her work comes out of contemporary social problems (including sex-selective abortion). One would hope the scholar to continue to engage with the community. Although I would hardly call myself a scholar, I have studied foreign languages and have always made an active effort to either at some point go to those countries or engage with the diasporic communities (in California it definitely makes it easier!)
1) Gender Inequality within the Sikh community exists. I would definitely agree with that statement and I have a feeling P.Singh would as well. Many Sikh women AND men have been saying this for years.
2) Jakobsh's scholarship shows there seems to be an all most systematic hegemony perpetrated against women in Sikh theology, history, and historiography. You raised a number of concerns and criticisims about her claims and her scholarly abilities to make such claims (including the reliance on translations). P.Singh and I have further echoed them.
3) Can one study Sikh history and society without engaging with Sikhs and their society? This is the new question that I believe arose out of her interview answer. P.Singh and I seem to agree that in many ways it is not possible. Maybe you disagree.
A simple reply to your deteriorating Punjabi in a city full of Punjabis is that your thesis and focus of your career is probably not writing about Sikhs. If it was, I sure hope your Punjabi does not deteriorate as I would expect you to write more in the future (especially since it was Canadian taxpayer money that helped afford Jakobsh to become a scholar in Sikh studies). Also in the interview, it seems much of the inspiration of her work comes out of contemporary social problems (including sex-selective abortion). One would hope the scholar to continue to engage with the community. Although I would hardly call myself a scholar, I have studied foreign languages and have always made an active effort to either at some point go to those countries or engage with the diasporic communities (in California it definitely makes it easier!)
Mewa and P. Singh,
To be fair, she conducted her research in the 90s. And it's not clear that she has been near UBC/Vancouver since then. If Waterloo has vast opportunities to practice Punjabi, I don't know about them. I live in a city with plenty of Punjabis, I speak to my family (who lives elsewhere) in Punjabi, and I still feel my Punjabi deteriorating.
My criticism of her translations was not an attempt to completely discredit her (not that I have the power to do so). I just wanted to point out the limitations of her analysis of Gurbani.
This language barrier might make scholarly research of Gurbani or Punjabi works difficult, but there is room for research and work on English works too. And I think her analysis of these English works is far more interesting than her analysis of Gurbani.
To be fair, she conducted her research in the 90s. And it's not clear that she has been near UBC/Vancouver since then. If Waterloo has vast opportunities to practice Punjabi, I don't know about them. I live in a city with plenty of Punjabis, I speak to my family (who lives elsewhere) in Punjabi, and I still feel my Punjabi deteriorating.
My criticism of her translations was not an attempt to completely discredit her (not that I have the power to do so). I just wanted to point out the limitations of her analysis of Gurbani.
This language barrier might make scholarly research of Gurbani or Punjabi works difficult, but there is room for research and work on English works too. And I think her analysis of these English works is far more interesting than her analysis of Gurbani.
Point taken Reema. However when reading her comment to the interview question, it does raise a new question. There are different points here which we can agree/disagree on:
1) Gender Inequality within the Sikh community exists. I would definitely agree with that statement and I have a feeling P.Singh would as well. Many Sikh women AND men have been saying this for years.
2) Jakobsh's scholarship shows there seems to be an all most systematic hegemony perpetrated against women in Sikh theology, history, and historiography. You raised a number of concerns and criticisims about her claims and her scholarly abilities to make such claims (including the reliance on translations). P.Singh and I have further echoed them.
3) Can one study Sikh history and society without engaging with Sikhs and their society? This is the new question that I believe arose out of her interview answer. P.Singh and I seem to agree that in many ways it is not possible. Maybe you disagree.
A simple reply to your deteriorating Punjabi in a city full of Punjabis is that your thesis and focus of your career is probably not writing about Sikhs. If it was, I sure hope your Punjabi does not deteriorate as I would expect you to write more in the future (especially since it was Canadian taxpayer money that helped afford Jakobsh to become a scholar in Sikh studies). Also in the interview, it seems much of the inspiration of her work comes out of contemporary social problems (including sex-selective abortion). One would hope the scholar to continue to engage with the community. Although I would hardly call myself a scholar, I have studied foreign languages and have always made an active effort to either at some point go to those countries or engage with the diasporic communities (in California it definitely makes it easier!)
1) Gender Inequality within the Sikh community exists. I would definitely agree with that statement and I have a feeling P.Singh would as well. Many Sikh women AND men have been saying this for years.
2) Jakobsh's scholarship shows there seems to be an all most systematic hegemony perpetrated against women in Sikh theology, history, and historiography. You raised a number of concerns and criticisims about her claims and her scholarly abilities to make such claims (including the reliance on translations). P.Singh and I have further echoed them.
3) Can one study Sikh history and society without engaging with Sikhs and their society? This is the new question that I believe arose out of her interview answer. P.Singh and I seem to agree that in many ways it is not possible. Maybe you disagree.
A simple reply to your deteriorating Punjabi in a city full of Punjabis is that your thesis and focus of your career is probably not writing about Sikhs. If it was, I sure hope your Punjabi does not deteriorate as I would expect you to write more in the future (especially since it was Canadian taxpayer money that helped afford Jakobsh to become a scholar in Sikh studies). Also in the interview, it seems much of the inspiration of her work comes out of contemporary social problems (including sex-selective abortion). One would hope the scholar to continue to engage with the community. Although I would hardly call myself a scholar, I have studied foreign languages and have always made an active effort to either at some point go to those countries or engage with the diasporic communities (in California it definitely makes it easier!)
Reema,
Thanks for your response. I think I was focusing too much on your criticisms and I missed the points in your post where you flagged that you were generally interested in discussing what you found to be an interesting book.
First, I did open up chapter 1 of Jakobsh's book, and see that Jakobsh is referring to an SGGS translation by Gurbachchan Singh Talib (1987), which is, as I understand it, considered reputable. It is not an old, colonial translation.
Second, I am not sure how her translations of Gurbani are really off. Your interpretation of the two lines in question doesn't make sense to me. Let's look at them a little more closely, with the original text.
Here is SGGS p. 41 at SriGranth.org.
The Gurbani (down near the bottom) is: "Put kalat moh bikh hai." According to my dictionary, "Kalat" is wife (also Kalatar), and "moh" is one of those words that can be translated five different ways: "fondness, attachment, attraction, love." "Bikh" is, unambiguously, poison.
Grammatically, the fact that "put" and "kalat" are in a row before "moh" suggests that it is the attachment to child and wife that are "bikh." Your saying that it is "moh" that is "bikh," not "put kalat," doesn't really make sense to me. If it is "moh," why include "put kalat"?
Then, Here is SGGS p. 796.
M?i? moh ??arkat? n?r.
B???d? k?ma? k?ma?i?r.
(SriGranth.org translates as: Love of Maya is like a cursed woman, ugly, dirty and promiscuous.)
In response to this, you said:
Also in the next line, the referrence to ‘loose woman’ does not refer to all women, but must be read in the context of the Shabad. It is an allusion to ‘courtier dancers’ in Hindu temples and Mughal palaces. The adjective used prior is ‘deceptive’ so it isn’t even all women, it is those courtiers that practice deception (a common practice by courtiers).
Here, I think you're missing the point. Obviously, it's not "all" women who are being named by the lines, it is "dharkat nar" -- fallen women (like the courtesans and nach girls you mention).
The problem for today's feminists isn't that the text says that all women are bad, but that it uses fallen women as a metaphor for attachment ("moh"). By today's standards, that metaphor could be somewhat misogynist.
Of course, one could legitimately respond that applying today's standards to the time of the SGGS is unfair. I think it might be reasonable to say that relying on this line too much to prove there are elements of misogyny in the SGGS would be a mistake, because obviously in that time and place, "fallen" women were considered by "respectable people" to be obviously bad, and immoral. (Today, many people might say that sex workers are the victims of a misogynist culture, not entirely to blame themselves.)
In short, I see your point about the danger of relying on others' translations, and agree that strong knowledge of the language is important if you are going to base your career in Sikh Studies. But here I don't think Jakobsh's interpretations are off at all.
Thanks for your response. I think I was focusing too much on your criticisms and I missed the points in your post where you flagged that you were generally interested in discussing what you found to be an interesting book.
First, I did open up chapter 1 of Jakobsh's book, and see that Jakobsh is referring to an SGGS translation by Gurbachchan Singh Talib (1987), which is, as I understand it, considered reputable. It is not an old, colonial translation.
Second, I am not sure how her translations of Gurbani are really off. Your interpretation of the two lines in question doesn't make sense to me. Let's look at them a little more closely, with the original text.
Here is SGGS p. 41 at SriGranth.org.
The Gurbani (down near the bottom) is: "Put kalat moh bikh hai." According to my dictionary, "Kalat" is wife (also Kalatar), and "moh" is one of those words that can be translated five different ways: "fondness, attachment, attraction, love." "Bikh" is, unambiguously, poison.
Grammatically, the fact that "put" and "kalat" are in a row before "moh" suggests that it is the attachment to child and wife that are "bikh." Your saying that it is "moh" that is "bikh," not "put kalat," doesn't really make sense to me. If it is "moh," why include "put kalat"?
Then, Here is SGGS p. 796.
M?i? moh ??arkat? n?r.
B???d? k?ma? k?ma?i?r.
(SriGranth.org translates as: Love of Maya is like a cursed woman, ugly, dirty and promiscuous.)
In response to this, you said:
Also in the next line, the referrence to ‘loose woman’ does not refer to all women, but must be read in the context of the Shabad. It is an allusion to ‘courtier dancers’ in Hindu temples and Mughal palaces. The adjective used prior is ‘deceptive’ so it isn’t even all women, it is those courtiers that practice deception (a common practice by courtiers).
Here, I think you're missing the point. Obviously, it's not "all" women who are being named by the lines, it is "dharkat nar" -- fallen women (like the courtesans and nach girls you mention).
The problem for today's feminists isn't that the text says that all women are bad, but that it uses fallen women as a metaphor for attachment ("moh"). By today's standards, that metaphor could be somewhat misogynist.
Of course, one could legitimately respond that applying today's standards to the time of the SGGS is unfair. I think it might be reasonable to say that relying on this line too much to prove there are elements of misogyny in the SGGS would be a mistake, because obviously in that time and place, "fallen" women were considered by "respectable people" to be obviously bad, and immoral. (Today, many people might say that sex workers are the victims of a misogynist culture, not entirely to blame themselves.)
In short, I see your point about the danger of relying on others' translations, and agree that strong knowledge of the language is important if you are going to base your career in Sikh Studies. But here I don't think Jakobsh's interpretations are off at all.
Reema,
Thanks for your response. I think I was focusing too much on your criticisms and I missed the points in your post where you flagged that you were generally interested in discussing what you found to be an interesting book.
First, I did open up chapter 1 of Jakobsh's book, and see that Jakobsh is referring to an SGGS translation by Gurbachchan Singh Talib (1987), which is, as I understand it, considered reputable. It is not an old, colonial translation.
Second, I am not sure how her translations of Gurbani are really off. Your interpretation of the two lines in question doesn't make sense to me. Let's look at them a little more closely, with the original text.
Here is SGGS p. 41 at SriGranth.org.
The Gurbani (down near the bottom) is: "Put kalat moh bikh hai." According to my dictionary, "Kalat" is wife (also Kalatar), and "moh" is one of those words that can be translated five different ways: "fondness, attachment, attraction, love." "Bikh" is, unambiguously, poison.
Grammatically, the fact that "put" and "kalat" are in a row before "moh" suggests that it is the attachment to child and wife that are "bikh." Your saying that it is "moh" that is "bikh," not "put kalat," doesn't really make sense to me. If it is "moh," why include "put kalat"?
Then, Here is SGGS p. 796.
M?i? moh ??arkat? n?r.
B???d? k?ma? k?ma?i?r.
(SriGranth.org translates as: Love of Maya is like a cursed woman, ugly, dirty and promiscuous.)
In response to this, you said:
Also in the next line, the referrence to ‘loose woman’ does not refer to all women, but must be read in the context of the Shabad. It is an allusion to ‘courtier dancers’ in Hindu temples and Mughal palaces. The adjective used prior is ‘deceptive’ so it isn’t even all women, it is those courtiers that practice deception (a common practice by courtiers).
Here, I think you're missing the point. Obviously, it's not "all" women who are being named by the lines, it is "dharkat nar" -- fallen women (like the courtesans and nach girls you mention).
The problem for today's feminists isn't that the text says that all women are bad, but that it uses fallen women as a metaphor for attachment ("moh"). By today's standards, that metaphor could be somewhat misogynist.
Of course, one could legitimately respond that applying today's standards to the time of the SGGS is unfair. I think it might be reasonable to say that relying on this line too much to prove there are elements of misogyny in the SGGS would be a mistake, because obviously in that time and place, "fallen" women were considered by "respectable people" to be obviously bad, and immoral. (Today, many people might say that sex workers are the victims of a misogynist culture, not entirely to blame themselves.)
In short, I see your point about the danger of relying on others' translations, and agree that strong knowledge of the language is important if you are going to base your career in Sikh Studies. But here I don't think Jakobsh's interpretations are off at all.
Thanks for your response. I think I was focusing too much on your criticisms and I missed the points in your post where you flagged that you were generally interested in discussing what you found to be an interesting book.
First, I did open up chapter 1 of Jakobsh's book, and see that Jakobsh is referring to an SGGS translation by Gurbachchan Singh Talib (1987), which is, as I understand it, considered reputable. It is not an old, colonial translation.
Second, I am not sure how her translations of Gurbani are really off. Your interpretation of the two lines in question doesn't make sense to me. Let's look at them a little more closely, with the original text.
Here is SGGS p. 41 at SriGranth.org.
The Gurbani (down near the bottom) is: "Put kalat moh bikh hai." According to my dictionary, "Kalat" is wife (also Kalatar), and "moh" is one of those words that can be translated five different ways: "fondness, attachment, attraction, love." "Bikh" is, unambiguously, poison.
Grammatically, the fact that "put" and "kalat" are in a row before "moh" suggests that it is the attachment to child and wife that are "bikh." Your saying that it is "moh" that is "bikh," not "put kalat," doesn't really make sense to me. If it is "moh," why include "put kalat"?
Then, Here is SGGS p. 796.
M?i? moh ??arkat? n?r.
B???d? k?ma? k?ma?i?r.
(SriGranth.org translates as: Love of Maya is like a cursed woman, ugly, dirty and promiscuous.)
In response to this, you said:
Also in the next line, the referrence to ‘loose woman’ does not refer to all women, but must be read in the context of the Shabad. It is an allusion to ‘courtier dancers’ in Hindu temples and Mughal palaces. The adjective used prior is ‘deceptive’ so it isn’t even all women, it is those courtiers that practice deception (a common practice by courtiers).
Here, I think you're missing the point. Obviously, it's not "all" women who are being named by the lines, it is "dharkat nar" -- fallen women (like the courtesans and nach girls you mention).
The problem for today's feminists isn't that the text says that all women are bad, but that it uses fallen women as a metaphor for attachment ("moh"). By today's standards, that metaphor could be somewhat misogynist.
Of course, one could legitimately respond that applying today's standards to the time of the SGGS is unfair. I think it might be reasonable to say that relying on this line too much to prove there are elements of misogyny in the SGGS would be a mistake, because obviously in that time and place, "fallen" women were considered by "respectable people" to be obviously bad, and immoral. (Today, many people might say that sex workers are the victims of a misogynist culture, not entirely to blame themselves.)
In short, I see your point about the danger of relying on others' translations, and agree that strong knowledge of the language is important if you are going to base your career in Sikh Studies. But here I don't think Jakobsh's interpretations are off at all.
I have mixed reactions to this book which I have yet to finish reading. From discussions such as in this blog above, as well as on other forums (example, critique of the book by Dr. Baldev Singh), I find Jakobsh's interpretation of Gurbani as problematic. I will restrain my comments on this aspect of the book without having read it.
However, the framework Jakobsh employs to look at how gender has been negotiated in Sikh culture and history, and the insights she generates as a result, are worth a read. For example, her thesis (in Chapter 3 that I have briefly summarized here) on British perceptions of Sikh masculinity’ and how these perceptions corresponded favorably with the British’s understanding of their own (Victorian) masculinity, leading them to favor the Sikhs during British occupation of India, and how the subsequent dynamics of the British-Sikh interaction shaped the discourse of gender in Sikh history made me pause and think and reexamine my current understanding on this issue. Isn't that a great thing that can be said about a book?
Does anyone know what Jakobsh's response is to the criticism she has received for her Gurbani interpretation in the book. Does she still stand rigidly by her interpretation or does she even acknowledge the contested nature of the texts she has relied upon? The reason I ask this is because the criticism about her Gurbani interpretation is very specific (although some critics such as Baldev Singh have interspersed their scholarship with questions about her intentions, motives, sexual orientation and stuff that stops me short of calling his work as 'scholarship'). (I may have the same hesitancy about the nature of Jakobsh's 'scholarship' too but that will have to wait till I have finished reading the book.)
Amardeep, I wonder what would a post-colonial analysis of Jakobsh's work look like.
However, the framework Jakobsh employs to look at how gender has been negotiated in Sikh culture and history, and the insights she generates as a result, are worth a read. For example, her thesis (in Chapter 3 that I have briefly summarized here) on British perceptions of Sikh masculinity’ and how these perceptions corresponded favorably with the British’s understanding of their own (Victorian) masculinity, leading them to favor the Sikhs during British occupation of India, and how the subsequent dynamics of the British-Sikh interaction shaped the discourse of gender in Sikh history made me pause and think and reexamine my current understanding on this issue. Isn't that a great thing that can be said about a book?
Does anyone know what Jakobsh's response is to the criticism she has received for her Gurbani interpretation in the book. Does she still stand rigidly by her interpretation or does she even acknowledge the contested nature of the texts she has relied upon? The reason I ask this is because the criticism about her Gurbani interpretation is very specific (although some critics such as Baldev Singh have interspersed their scholarship with questions about her intentions, motives, sexual orientation and stuff that stops me short of calling his work as 'scholarship'). (I may have the same hesitancy about the nature of Jakobsh's 'scholarship' too but that will have to wait till I have finished reading the book.)
Amardeep, I wonder what would a post-colonial analysis of Jakobsh's work look like.
Post a new comment
Not displayed publicly.
Not displayed publicly.
Comments are welcome. This space is intended as a forum for open discussion. However, we will edit or remove comments we find inappropriate, at our discretion. No profanity, name-calling, discrimination, or hate will be tolerated, whether directed towards another commenter, a blogger, or an individual or group not directly present on TLH.
Comments by IntenseDebate
Loading IntenseDebate Comments...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bristo…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bristol/somerset/7540200.stm
Thanks for the tip ASSTLNFTFOGC — please do email us next time since this isn't really related to the topic at hand, but thanks for bringing this story to our attention.
Thanks for the tip ASSTLNFTFOGC — please do email us next time since this isn’t really related to the topic at hand, but thanks for bringing this story to our attention.
"These new elites, having imbibed a liberal Western education, decried the undesirable aspects of the Sikh tradition; however, they were unwilling to reject that tradition outright."
EXCUSE YOU, "Dr." Jakobsh!
What are the "undesirable aspects of the Sikh tradition?"
Because it was actually the "enlightened" and "liberal" Western British who interfered with the Sikh tradition that created an unbalanced situation for women. In the court of the Guru women were given the greatest respect and I'm sure when Guru Amar Das Ji sent women missionaries out into the world they were received with utmost respect. From what I've read the British were so afraid of Sikhs that they did their level best to destroy them and all sources of their power. They shortened banis, they put mahants in charge of Gurdwaras. One of the jobs of the mahants was to enforce un-enlightened practices including discrimination and degradation of women and lower castes. The British had never seen a society where women were treated equally and they were scared and did their best to try to degrade Sikh women.
I don't need to read the rest of the book to know that this author is full of it and undeserving of any respect.
The true Sikh tradition is the most desirable tradition for humanity. The only tradition incorporating the wisdom of all paths and encouraging righteous living above all else. It is a divine tradition without any "undesirable aspects."
“These new elites, having imbibed a liberal Western education, decried the undesirable aspects of the Sikh tradition; however, they were unwilling to reject that tradition outright.”
EXCUSE YOU, “Dr.” Jakobsh!
What are the “undesirable aspects of the Sikh tradition?”
Because it was actually the “enlightened” and “liberal” Western British who interfered with the Sikh tradition that created an unbalanced situation for women. In the court of the Guru women were given the greatest respect and I’m sure when Guru Amar Das Ji sent women missionaries out into the world they were received with utmost respect. From what I’ve read the British were so afraid of Sikhs that they did their level best to destroy them and all sources of their power. They shortened banis, they put mahants in charge of Gurdwaras. One of the jobs of the mahants was to enforce un-enlightened practices including discrimination and degradation of women and lower castes. The British had never seen a society where women were treated equally and they were scared and did their best to try to degrade Sikh women.
I don’t need to read the rest of the book to know that this author is full of it and undeserving of any respect.
The true Sikh tradition is the most desirable tradition for humanity. The only tradition incorporating the wisdom of all paths and encouraging righteous living above all else. It is a divine tradition without any “undesirable aspects.”
One quick correction — I believe Doris Jakobsh does read Punjabi/Gurmukhi. She has studied it starting in 1995 (where she did an immersion program in Patiala, according to her website).
That said, I don't have the book in front of me, and I haven't checked her translations to see if what you say is true about her being dependent on English, or her translations being off. You may be right about that.
Secondly, given the other post at The Langar Hall on the riots in Bristol this week, it seems strange that you're resisting Jakobsh's conclusion that women are not at all as well-treated in Sikh history as many of us like to think. There is a line we like to repeat that "men and women are equal in Sikhism," but in practice that really hasn't been true.
(Just to be clear: it's still good that we have gender equality as an ideal; some other faiths have anti-women precepts as both ideals AND as practice.)
One quick correction — I believe Doris Jakobsh does read Punjabi/Gurmukhi. She has studied it starting in 1995 (where she did an immersion program in Patiala, according to her website).
That said, I don’t have the book in front of me, and I haven’t checked her translations to see if what you say is true about her being dependent on English, or her translations being off. You may be right about that.
Secondly, given the other post at The Langar Hall on the riots in Bristol this week, it seems strange that you’re resisting Jakobsh’s conclusion that women are not at all as well-treated in Sikh history as many of us like to think. There is a line we like to repeat that “men and women are equal in Sikhism,” but in practice that really hasn’t been true.
(Just to be clear: it’s still good that we have gender equality as an ideal; some other faiths have anti-women precepts as both ideals AND as practice.)
I think the topic has to be divided to comment — on one hand, there's the issue of the representation of women in Gurbani, where it seems there are concerns or issues with Jakobsh's translations (and consequently, her analysis).
The second issue — her framework for unpacking gender in Sikhi, does not seem unique (as a framework), but does sound right on. I haven't read the book, and I wish I could comment more intelligibly, but your summary of her arguments under silence/negation/idealization certainly ring true. As for accommodation, I guess I wonder if she's arguing that the Singh Sabha movement retroactively "placed" women back into the narrative of Sikh history, or if they revised history itself to make it seem as though women had been there all along. I know that sounds like a semantic difference, but it's one thing to acknowledge the exclusion of a group, and another to "back in" the information after the fact. It happens all the time, but I do think it's interesting.
I'd love to read more to see where she's going. I think one of the biggest challenges around gender equity is the dissonance between our "ideal type" (i.e., equality as we see it in Gurbani, which is also contested) and the reality of how women have been treated in our history as a social/cultural/national group.
I think the topic has to be divided to comment — on one hand, there’s the issue of the representation of women in Gurbani, where it seems there are concerns or issues with Jakobsh’s translations (and consequently, her analysis).
The second issue — her framework for unpacking gender in Sikhi, does not seem unique (as a framework), but does sound right on. I haven’t read the book, and I wish I could comment more intelligibly, but your summary of her arguments under silence/negation/idealization certainly ring true. As for accommodation, I guess I wonder if she’s arguing that the Singh Sabha movement retroactively “placed” women back into the narrative of Sikh history, or if they revised history itself to make it seem as though women had been there all along. I know that sounds like a semantic difference, but it’s one thing to acknowledge the exclusion of a group, and another to “back in” the information after the fact. It happens all the time, but I do think it’s interesting.
I’d love to read more to see where she’s going. I think one of the biggest challenges around gender equity is the dissonance between our “ideal type” (i.e., equality as we see it in Gurbani, which is also contested) and the reality of how women have been treated in our history as a social/cultural/national group.
I recall coming across a review of Jakobsh's work/research some time ago, and was not overly impressed with what Jakobsh had to say. Please note, this is not to diminish the topic at hand, but only the legitimacy of Jakobsh's scholarship. She received her PhD under Harjot Oberoi's supervision – which fact alone should be enough to raise a few eyebrows.
Please consider the following article:
Sikh Spectrum
I also recall reading something by her which insinuated Guru Hargobind's father was actually Baba Buddha ji i.e. when Guru Arjan Dev ji's wife, Mata Ganga, was seeking an audience with Baba Buddha ji, it was a request for the boon of offspring by way of conjugal relations with Baba Buddha ji, and Guru Arjan Dev ji approved of this.
Jakobsh appears to have put forward this disgusting insinuation more for the sake of sensationalism (which apparently equates with academic recognition) than for any genuine scholarly purpose.
Another article dissecting Jakobsh's research:
Sikhsundesh
I recall coming across a review of Jakobsh’s work/research some time ago, and was not overly impressed with what Jakobsh had to say. Please note, this is not to diminish the topic at hand, but only the legitimacy of Jakobsh’s scholarship. She received her PhD under Harjot Oberoi’s supervision – which fact alone should be enough to raise a few eyebrows.
Please consider the following article:
Sikh Spectrum
I also recall reading something by her which insinuated Guru Hargobind’s father was actually Baba Buddha ji i.e. when Guru Arjan Dev ji’s wife, Mata Ganga, was seeking an audience with Baba Buddha ji, it was a request for the boon of offspring by way of conjugal relations with Baba Buddha ji, and Guru Arjan Dev ji approved of this.
Jakobsh appears to have put forward this disgusting insinuation more for the sake of sensationalism (which apparently equates with academic recognition) than for any genuine scholarly purpose.
Another article dissecting Jakobsh’s research:
Sikhsundesh
Amardeep,
I questioned Jakobsh's scholarship, not the FACT that gender inequality exists.
I wouldn't have taken the time to outline her first chapter and post it if I didn't think there was some truth to be explored. The only thing I dismissed completely were her translations of Gurbani, because those seemed way off. I think her points on "silence" and "idealization" ring most true, while the negation and accommodation are more problematic, though there may definitely be some truth in those as well. I don't know yet.
I completely agree that the ideal of egalitarianism has not been realized in practice, and the point of this post was to explore/highlight how women have historically been documented within the Sikh tradition, to draw out the drastic difference between the ideal and the reality.
Regarding whether and how much Punjabi she speaks, from an interview:
J.S.T.: Do you know Punjabi?
D.R.J.: When I was at Patiala in 1996 to research material for my Ph.D. thesis, I learned to read the Gurmukhi script. I could also speak tuti-phuti (broken) Punjabi. But since there was no practice here, I have almost lost it now.
Seems odd living and going to the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, Canada but having 'no way to practice'?
Are there no Sikhs on campus or for that matter in BC? Or how about with her advisor? How long has there been a Punjabi language program at UBC?
For some reason, I guess this just asserts that she was only interested in Sikhs that have been long dead (early 20th century) and hardly engaged with those that were living and breathing in the community in which she resided.
Amardeep,
I questioned Jakobsh’s scholarship, not the FACT that gender inequality exists.
I wouldn’t have taken the time to outline her first chapter and post it if I didn’t think there was some truth to be explored. The only thing I dismissed completely were her translations of Gurbani, because those seemed way off. I think her points on “silence” and “idealization” ring most true, while the negation and accommodation are more problematic, though there may definitely be some truth in those as well. I don’t know yet.
I completely agree that the ideal of egalitarianism has not been realized in practice, and the point of this post was to explore/highlight how women have historically been documented within the Sikh tradition, to draw out the drastic difference between the ideal and the reality.
Regarding whether and how much Punjabi she speaks, from an interview:
J.S.T.: Do you know Punjabi?
D.R.J.: When I was at Patiala in 1996 to research material for my Ph.D. thesis, I learned to read the Gurmukhi script. I could also speak tuti-phuti (broken) Punjabi. But since there was no practice here, I have almost lost it now.
Seems odd living and going to the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, Canada but having ‘no way to practice’?
Are there no Sikhs on campus or for that matter in BC? Or how about with her advisor? How long has there been a Punjabi language program at UBC?
For some reason, I guess this just asserts that she was only interested in Sikhs that have been long dead (early 20th century) and hardly engaged with those that were living and breathing in the community in which she resided.
There was/is an excellant Punjabi language program at UBC, offering beginner, intermediate, and advanced classes.
Even living in Waterloo, I find it hard to believe there are no avenues for her to keep up her Punjabi language skills – if she had them in the first place.
Perhaps it's difficult meeting Punjabi Sikhs who can stomach all of her b.s.?
More likely, as Mewa Singh indicated, her interest lies with Sikhs long dead, and unable to refute much of what she puts forth as scholarship; Sikhs today would ask far too many difficult questions, which may raise serious concerns about her understanding of Sikhism.
There was/is an excellant Punjabi language program at UBC, offering beginner, intermediate, and advanced classes.
Even living in Waterloo, I find it hard to believe there are no avenues for her to keep up her Punjabi language skills – if she had them in the first place.
Perhaps it’s difficult meeting Punjabi Sikhs who can stomach all of her b.s.?
More likely, as Mewa Singh indicated, her interest lies with Sikhs long dead, and unable to refute much of what she puts forth as scholarship; Sikhs today would ask far too many difficult questions, which may raise serious concerns about her understanding of Sikhism.
Mewa and P. Singh,
To be fair, she conducted her research in the 90s. And it's not clear that she has been near UBC/Vancouver since then. If Waterloo has vast opportunities to practice Punjabi, I don't know about them. I live in a city with plenty of Punjabis, I speak to my family (who lives elsewhere) in Punjabi, and I still feel my Punjabi deteriorating.
My criticism of her translations was not an attempt to completely discredit her (not that I have the power to do so). I just wanted to point out the limitations of her analysis of Gurbani.
This language barrier might make scholarly research of Gurbani or Punjabi works difficult, but there is room for research and work on English works too. And I think her analysis of these English works is far more interesting than her analysis of Gurbani.
Mewa and P. Singh,
To be fair, she conducted her research in the 90s. And it’s not clear that she has been near UBC/Vancouver since then. If Waterloo has vast opportunities to practice Punjabi, I don’t know about them. I live in a city with plenty of Punjabis, I speak to my family (who lives elsewhere) in Punjabi, and I still feel my Punjabi deteriorating.
My criticism of her translations was not an attempt to completely discredit her (not that I have the power to do so). I just wanted to point out the limitations of her analysis of Gurbani.
This language barrier might make scholarly research of Gurbani or Punjabi works difficult, but there is room for research and work on English works too. And I think her analysis of these English works is far more interesting than her analysis of Gurbani.
Point taken Reema. However when reading her comment to the interview question, it does raise a new question. There are different points here which we can agree/disagree on:
1) Gender Inequality within the Sikh community exists. I would definitely agree with that statement and I have a feeling P.Singh would as well. Many Sikh women AND men have been saying this for years.
2) Jakobsh's scholarship shows there seems to be an all most systematic hegemony perpetrated against women in Sikh theology, history, and historiography. You raised a number of concerns and criticisims about her claims and her scholarly abilities to make such claims (including the reliance on translations). P.Singh and I have further echoed them.
3) Can one study Sikh history and society without engaging with Sikhs and their society? This is the new question that I believe arose out of her interview answer. P.Singh and I seem to agree that in many ways it is not possible. Maybe you disagree.
A simple reply to your deteriorating Punjabi in a city full of Punjabis is that your thesis and focus of your career is probably not writing about Sikhs. If it was, I sure hope your Punjabi does not deteriorate as I would expect you to write more in the future (especially since it was Canadian taxpayer money that helped afford Jakobsh to become a scholar in Sikh studies). Also in the interview, it seems much of the inspiration of her work comes out of contemporary social problems (including sex-selective abortion). One would hope the scholar to continue to engage with the community. Although I would hardly call myself a scholar, I have studied foreign languages and have always made an active effort to either at some point go to those countries or engage with the diasporic communities (in California it definitely makes it easier!)
Point taken Reema. However when reading her comment to the interview question, it does raise a new question. There are different points here which we can agree/disagree on:
1) Gender Inequality within the Sikh community exists. I would definitely agree with that statement and I have a feeling P.Singh would as well. Many Sikh women AND men have been saying this for years.
2) Jakobsh’s scholarship shows there seems to be an all most systematic hegemony perpetrated against women in Sikh theology, history, and historiography. You raised a number of concerns and criticisims about her claims and her scholarly abilities to make such claims (including the reliance on translations). P.Singh and I have further echoed them.
3) Can one study Sikh history and society without engaging with Sikhs and their society? This is the new question that I believe arose out of her interview answer. P.Singh and I seem to agree that in many ways it is not possible. Maybe you disagree.
A simple reply to your deteriorating Punjabi in a city full of Punjabis is that your thesis and focus of your career is probably not writing about Sikhs. If it was, I sure hope your Punjabi does not deteriorate as I would expect you to write more in the future (especially since it was Canadian taxpayer money that helped afford Jakobsh to become a scholar in Sikh studies). Also in the interview, it seems much of the inspiration of her work comes out of contemporary social problems (including sex-selective abortion). One would hope the scholar to continue to engage with the community. Although I would hardly call myself a scholar, I have studied foreign languages and have always made an active effort to either at some point go to those countries or engage with the diasporic communities (in California it definitely makes it easier!)
Reema,
Thanks for your response. I think I was focusing too much on your criticisms and I missed the points in your post where you flagged that you were generally interested in discussing what you found to be an interesting book.
First, I did open up chapter 1 of Jakobsh's book, and see that Jakobsh is referring to an SGGS translation by Gurbachchan Singh Talib (1987), which is, as I understand it, considered reputable. It is not an old, colonial translation.
Second, I am not sure how her translations of Gurbani are really off. Your interpretation of the two lines in question doesn't make sense to me. Let's look at them a little more closely, with the original text.
Here is SGGS p. 41 at SriGranth.org.
The Gurbani (down near the bottom) is: "Put kalat moh bikh hai." According to my dictionary, "Kalat" is wife (also Kalatar), and "moh" is one of those words that can be translated five different ways: "fondness, attachment, attraction, love." "Bikh" is, unambiguously, poison.
Grammatically, the fact that "put" and "kalat" are in a row before "moh" suggests that it is the attachment to child and wife that are "bikh." Your saying that it is "moh" that is "bikh," not "put kalat," doesn't really make sense to me. If it is "moh," why include "put kalat"?
Then, Here is SGGS p. 796.
M?i? moh ??arkat? n?r.
B???d? k?ma? k?ma?i?r.
(SriGranth.org translates as: Love of Maya is like a cursed woman, ugly, dirty and promiscuous.)
In response to this, you said:
Here, I think you're missing the point. Obviously, it's not "all" women who are being named by the lines, it is "dharkat nar" — fallen women (like the courtesans and nach girls you mention).
The problem for today's feminists isn't that the text says that all women are bad, but that it uses fallen women as a metaphor for attachment ("moh"). By today's standards, that metaphor could be somewhat misogynist.
Of course, one could legitimately respond that applying today's standards to the time of the SGGS is unfair. I think it might be reasonable to say that relying on this line too much to prove there are elements of misogyny in the SGGS would be a mistake, because obviously in that time and place, "fallen" women were considered by "respectable people" to be obviously bad, and immoral. (Today, many people might say that sex workers are the victims of a misogynist culture, not entirely to blame themselves.)
In short, I see your point about the danger of relying on others' translations, and agree that strong knowledge of the language is important if you are going to base your career in Sikh Studies. But here I don't think Jakobsh's interpretations are off at all.
Reema,
Thanks for your response. I think I was focusing too much on your criticisms and I missed the points in your post where you flagged that you were generally interested in discussing what you found to be an interesting book.
First, I did open up chapter 1 of Jakobsh’s book, and see that Jakobsh is referring to an SGGS translation by Gurbachchan Singh Talib (1987), which is, as I understand it, considered reputable. It is not an old, colonial translation.
Second, I am not sure how her translations of Gurbani are really off. Your interpretation of the two lines in question doesn’t make sense to me. Let’s look at them a little more closely, with the original text.
Here is SGGS p. 41 at SriGranth.org.
The Gurbani (down near the bottom) is: “Put kalat moh bikh hai.” According to my dictionary, “Kalat” is wife (also Kalatar), and “moh” is one of those words that can be translated five different ways: “fondness, attachment, attraction, love.” “Bikh” is, unambiguously, poison.
Grammatically, the fact that “put” and “kalat” are in a row before “moh” suggests that it is the attachment to child and wife that are “bikh.” Your saying that it is “moh” that is “bikh,” not “put kalat,” doesn’t really make sense to me. If it is “moh,” why include “put kalat”?
Then, Here is SGGS p. 796.
M?i? moh ??arkat? n?r.
B???d? k?ma? k?ma?i?r.
(SriGranth.org translates as: Love of Maya is like a cursed woman, ugly, dirty and promiscuous.)
In response to this, you said:
Here, I think you’re missing the point. Obviously, it’s not “all” women who are being named by the lines, it is “dharkat nar” — fallen women (like the courtesans and nach girls you mention).
The problem for today’s feminists isn’t that the text says that all women are bad, but that it uses fallen women as a metaphor for attachment (“moh”). By today’s standards, that metaphor could be somewhat misogynist.
Of course, one could legitimately respond that applying today’s standards to the time of the SGGS is unfair. I think it might be reasonable to say that relying on this line too much to prove there are elements of misogyny in the SGGS would be a mistake, because obviously in that time and place, “fallen” women were considered by “respectable people” to be obviously bad, and immoral. (Today, many people might say that sex workers are the victims of a misogynist culture, not entirely to blame themselves.)
In short, I see your point about the danger of relying on others’ translations, and agree that strong knowledge of the language is important if you are going to base your career in Sikh Studies. But here I don’t think Jakobsh’s interpretations are off at all.
I have mixed reactions to this book which I have yet to finish reading. From discussions such as in this blog above, as well as on other forums (example, critique of the book by Dr. Baldev Singh), I find Jakobsh's interpretation of Gurbani as problematic. I will restrain my comments on this aspect of the book without having read it.
However, the framework Jakobsh employs to look at how gender has been negotiated in Sikh culture and history, and the insights she generates as a result, are worth a read. For example, her thesis (in Chapter 3 that I have briefly summarized here) on British perceptions of Sikh masculinity’ and how these perceptions corresponded favorably with the British’s understanding of their own (Victorian) masculinity, leading them to favor the Sikhs during British occupation of India, and how the subsequent dynamics of the British-Sikh interaction shaped the discourse of gender in Sikh history made me pause and think and reexamine my current understanding on this issue. Isn't that a great thing that can be said about a book?
Does anyone know what Jakobsh's response is to the criticism she has received for her Gurbani interpretation in the book. Does she still stand rigidly by her interpretation or does she even acknowledge the contested nature of the texts she has relied upon? The reason I ask this is because the criticism about her Gurbani interpretation is very specific (although some critics such as Baldev Singh have interspersed their scholarship with questions about her intentions, motives, sexual orientation and stuff that stops me short of calling his work as 'scholarship'). (I may have the same hesitancy about the nature of Jakobsh's 'scholarship' too but that will have to wait till I have finished reading the book.)
Amardeep, I wonder what would a post-colonial analysis of Jakobsh's work look like.
I have mixed reactions to this book which I have yet to finish reading. From discussions such as in this blog above, as well as on other forums (example, critique of the book by Dr. Baldev Singh), I find Jakobsh’s interpretation of Gurbani as problematic. I will restrain my comments on this aspect of the book without having read it.
However, the framework Jakobsh employs to look at how gender has been negotiated in Sikh culture and history, and the insights she generates as a result, are worth a read. For example, her thesis (in Chapter 3 that I have briefly summarized here) on British perceptions of Sikh masculinity’ and how these perceptions corresponded favorably with the British’s understanding of their own (Victorian) masculinity, leading them to favor the Sikhs during British occupation of India, and how the subsequent dynamics of the British-Sikh interaction shaped the discourse of gender in Sikh history made me pause and think and reexamine my current understanding on this issue. Isn’t that a great thing that can be said about a book?
Does anyone know what Jakobsh’s response is to the criticism she has received for her Gurbani interpretation in the book. Does she still stand rigidly by her interpretation or does she even acknowledge the contested nature of the texts she has relied upon? The reason I ask this is because the criticism about her Gurbani interpretation is very specific (although some critics such as Baldev Singh have interspersed their scholarship with questions about her intentions, motives, sexual orientation and stuff that stops me short of calling his work as ‘scholarship’). (I may have the same hesitancy about the nature of Jakobsh’s ‘scholarship’ too but that will have to wait till I have finished reading the book.)
Amardeep, I wonder what would a post-colonial analysis of Jakobsh’s work look like.
Mr. Singh,
I look forward to hearing your thoughts after you finish the book. I put it down for a bit but will probably finish it over the holidays.
From the bit I've read though, I agree with you in that the feminist framework she employs in examining Sikh history is a much needed perspective (such as looking at influences of conceptions of masculinity). I wonder how problematic it might be if it's a western feminist perspective, but I don't know enough about eastern feminism to be able to say anything to this. If anyone is versed in eastern feminist thought, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I'm not aware of any responses she's given to the criticism she's received, but if others are, I do hope you'll share.
Mr. Singh,
I look forward to hearing your thoughts after you finish the book. I put it down for a bit but will probably finish it over the holidays.
From the bit I’ve read though, I agree with you in that the feminist framework she employs in examining Sikh history is a much needed perspective (such as looking at influences of conceptions of masculinity). I wonder how problematic it might be if it’s a western feminist perspective, but I don’t know enough about eastern feminism to be able to say anything to this. If anyone is versed in eastern feminist thought, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
I’m not aware of any responses she’s given to the criticism she’s received, but if others are, I do hope you’ll share.
Reema Ji,
I have reviewd Jakobsh's work on the SikhSpectrum. It is over 2oo pages comprising 15 chapters. I suggest that you discuss jakobsh's work in light of my review on the SikhSpectrum. Currently SikhSpectrum gets close to half a million visitors to the site every month. Moreover, you are also commenting on my review withput my knowledge. I would like to question your credentials as experts on Aad Guru Granth Sahib and Sikh history. Leaving hard science like math, chemistry and physics aside, whatever is taught in humanities nowadays at western universities could be summed up in three words: manipualtion, deceptions and outright lies. Read my review of McLeod's work and the meaning of Hindu.
Regards.
Baldev Singh
Reema Ji,
I have reviewd Jakobsh’s work on the SikhSpectrum. It is over 2oo pages comprising 15 chapters. I suggest that you discuss jakobsh’s work in light of my review on the SikhSpectrum. Currently SikhSpectrum gets close to half a million visitors to the site every month. Moreover, you are also commenting on my review withput my knowledge. I would like to question your credentials as experts on Aad Guru Granth Sahib and Sikh history. Leaving hard science like math, chemistry and physics aside, whatever is taught in humanities nowadays at western universities could be summed up in three words: manipualtion, deceptions and outright lies. Read my review of McLeod’s work and the meaning of Hindu.
Regards.
Baldev Singh
Baldev Singh,
Your caricature of the humanities hardly sounds scholarly.
The number of hits you project for Sikhspectrum are outlandish.
No one is required to discuss the book in 'light' of your commentary.
Baldev Singh,
Your caricature of the humanities hardly sounds scholarly.
The number of hits you project for Sikhspectrum are outlandish.
No one is required to discuss the book in ‘light’ of your commentary.
baldev singh and jodha, there's an easy way to settle this disagreement – provide a link to your site's hits or some other verification.
baldev singh and jodha, there’s an easy way to settle this disagreement – provide a link to your site’s hits or some other verification.
SikhSpectrum is a quarterly onlile journal. Instead of saying monthly, I hsould have said quartely, half a million visitors to the website. So I oppologize for the mistake.
As for as Jodha is concerned he/she is welcome to debate with me Jakobsh's work on the SikhSpectrum. I am a trained scientist, I do not hide my identity, nor do I discuss other's work clandistinely. Truth can be discussed only in the open.
I have asked Dr. Kakobsh or her supporters to point out where I criticized her work unfairly. She misinterpreted almost every verse of Gurbnai. And she says that Guru Nanak's views about women were no very different from the author of Brhaspatismriti.
Does Jodha know what is Brhaspatismriti?
Scholars do not hide their identity, only propagandists do.
Regards.
Baldev Singh
SikhSpectrum is a quarterly onlile journal. Instead of saying monthly, I hsould have said quartely, half a million visitors to the website. So I oppologize for the mistake.
As for as Jodha is concerned he/she is welcome to debate with me Jakobsh’s work on the SikhSpectrum. I am a trained scientist, I do not hide my identity, nor do I discuss other’s work clandistinely. Truth can be discussed only in the open.
I have asked Dr. Kakobsh or her supporters to point out where I criticized her work unfairly. She misinterpreted almost every verse of Gurbnai. And she says that Guru Nanak’s views about women were no very different from the author of Brhaspatismriti.
Does Jodha know what is Brhaspatismriti?
Scholars do not hide their identity, only propagandists do.
Regards.
Baldev Singh
The discussion here has influenced me in buying the Jakobsh book and start reading it for myself. I am impressed by her credentials. She is a Professor at the University of Waterloo, one of the top universities in Canada. The Blackberry device was invented at Waterloo and one of the co-founders of the company has gifted a large endowment to start a new international Institute of Physics. Stephen Hawkings from Cambridge will be a visiting Professor at the Institute. The bar for hiring at Waterloo must be very high, so Jakobsh must have done something right to be hired by a major league university. Also, I was impressed by the fact that her book had garnered a 200 page review. This is indeed extraordinary. I have only seen 2-3 page long reviews.
But this is not a book on Gurmat and Gender. She is mostly looking at what the British did in the Punjab and how Sikh reformers responded. Anyways for Gurmat I would read the likes of Bhai Vir Singh, Bhai Jodh Singh and Principal Teja Singh. These Sikh thinkers not only wrote about Gurmat but lived it.
When it comes to modern sociological issues I have no hesitancy in reading contemporary writers. Jakobsh could be an instance of that. Someone recommended I read a memoir called Shame, written by a Sikh woman in Britain.
The discussion here has influenced me in buying the Jakobsh book and start reading it for myself. I am impressed by her credentials. She is a Professor at the University of Waterloo, one of the top universities in Canada. The Blackberry device was invented at Waterloo and one of the co-founders of the company has gifted a large endowment to start a new international Institute of Physics. Stephen Hawkings from Cambridge will be a visiting Professor at the Institute. The bar for hiring at Waterloo must be very high, so Jakobsh must have done something right to be hired by a major league university. Also, I was impressed by the fact that her book had garnered a 200 page review. This is indeed extraordinary. I have only seen 2-3 page long reviews.
But this is not a book on Gurmat and Gender. She is mostly looking at what the British did in the Punjab and how Sikh reformers responded. Anyways for Gurmat I would read the likes of Bhai Vir Singh, Bhai Jodh Singh and Principal Teja Singh. These Sikh thinkers not only wrote about Gurmat but lived it.
When it comes to modern sociological issues I have no hesitancy in reading contemporary writers. Jakobsh could be an instance of that. Someone recommended I read a memoir called Shame, written by a Sikh woman in Britain.
A question for Mr Baldev Singh?
You state that Jakobsh says the following:
And she says that Guru Nanak’s views about women were no very different from the author of Brhaspatismriti.
Could you please provide the page reference for this in her book.
A question for Mr Baldev Singh?
You state that Jakobsh says the following:
And she says that Guru Nanak’s views about women were no very different from the author of Brhaspatismriti.
Could you please provide the page reference for this in her book.
Stinder Ji, page 25 of Prof. Jakobsh's book and my rebuttal: http://www.sikhspectrum.com, November 2006, chapter 3 and refernce 16.
Regards.
Baldev Singh
Stinder Ji, page 25 of Prof. Jakobsh’s book and my rebuttal: http://www.sikhspectrum.com, November 2006, chapter 3 and refernce 16.
Regards.
Baldev Singh
Jodha is right, no one is required to read Prof. Jakobsh work in light of my commentary. However, Jakosh's work deals with Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat), Sikh history and traditions. How could any reader who lacks the knowledge of the three be able to judge the veracity of Jakobsh's work? In the October issue of SikhSpectrum I have posted, Nanakian Philosophy: Path of Enlightenement based entirely on Aad Guru Granth Sahib, the only authentic source of Gurmat. I urge the readers to read this manuscript and compare what Jakobsh wrote about Guru Nanak and then draw you conclusions.
Ignorance is the roort cause of human problems. Knowledge/Truth is the solution. Sikh mean "learner of Truth" and the process continues till death. Every day the human race is moving closer and closer to the Eternal Truth and understanding that is the primary purpose of our life. How could one become a Sachiara ( moral enlightened being)? Guru Nanak asks this question in the first stanza of his composition JapJi and he also gives the answer: By undrestanding Hukam (Cosmic Law) and living in harmony with it.
My comment on Humanities was about what is taught about Sikhism in Western Universities and I stand by my statement. There is no Western schloar to my knowledge who has studied Aad Guru Granth Sahib which is only authentic source of Sikh ideology.
Regards.
Baldev Singh
Jodha is right, no one is required to read Prof. Jakobsh work in light of my commentary. However, Jakosh’s work deals with Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat), Sikh history and traditions. How could any reader who lacks the knowledge of the three be able to judge the veracity of Jakobsh’s work? In the October issue of SikhSpectrum I have posted, Nanakian Philosophy: Path of Enlightenement based entirely on Aad Guru Granth Sahib, the only authentic source of Gurmat. I urge the readers to read this manuscript and compare what Jakobsh wrote about Guru Nanak and then draw you conclusions.
Ignorance is the roort cause of human problems. Knowledge/Truth is the solution. Sikh mean “learner of Truth” and the process continues till death. Every day the human race is moving closer and closer to the Eternal Truth and understanding that is the primary purpose of our life. How could one become a Sachiara ( moral enlightened being)? Guru Nanak asks this question in the first stanza of his composition JapJi and he also gives the answer: By undrestanding Hukam (Cosmic Law) and living in harmony with it.
My comment on Humanities was about what is taught about Sikhism in Western Universities and I stand by my statement. There is no Western schloar to my knowledge who has studied Aad Guru Granth Sahib which is only authentic source of Sikh ideology.
Regards.
Baldev Singh
Many thanks, Mr Baldev Singh Ji, for your listing the page number ( page 25), for Jakobsh’s book. The exact line reads as follows: “ Guru Nanak’s stance towards women as manifested in this passage was strikingly similar to that of the writer of the Brhaspatismrti, written in the fourth century CE, albeit from within a different context.” So she is talking of a similarity only in the instance of a single verse of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, not his entire thought or writings. This is far more nuanced and multilayered than what you state about her: “ And she says that Guru Nanak’s views about women were no very different from the author of Brhaspatismriti. ” Earlier on page 24, she also writes: “Guru Nanak, on the other hand criticized yogis for their solitary, ascetic, spiritual search. Contrary to the yogic apprehension of sexuality, Guru Nanak furthered the ideal of the householder. Enlightenment was not to be found within the realm of austerity. The religious community of householders, who contributed concretely to society, who offered their services to their religious community, who brought forth children and provided for them, were, for Guru Nanak, ideal devotees.” This passage is a clear statement of Sikh thought and shows distinctly how Sikhi is different from Hinduism with its insistence on ascetic lifestyles.
I have now finished reading the book. It is a typical academic book, some of it interesting, some of it repetitive, some of it speculative, some of it backed by sources. At best it deserves a 600 to 800 word book review. Gurmat is a different matter entirely. It is eternal, revelatory, experiential and unitary. Academic books are rooted in time, are fragmentary and ever-changing in their arguments. Mix these two together and we will get neither Gurmat nor academic books. The best of Gurmat will come from Sikh theologians. Why should we look at Jakobsh for a lead in this?
Many thanks, Mr Baldev Singh Ji, for your listing the page number ( page 25), for Jakobsh’s book. The exact line reads as follows: “ Guru Nanak’s stance towards women as manifested in this passage was strikingly similar to that of the writer of the Brhaspatismrti, written in the fourth century CE, albeit from within a different context.” So she is talking of a similarity only in the instance of a single verse of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, not his entire thought or writings. This is far more nuanced and multilayered than what you state about her: “ And she says that Guru Nanak’s views about women were no very different from the author of Brhaspatismriti. ” Earlier on page 24, she also writes: “Guru Nanak, on the other hand criticized yogis for their solitary, ascetic, spiritual search. Contrary to the yogic apprehension of sexuality, Guru Nanak furthered the ideal of the householder. Enlightenment was not to be found within the realm of austerity. The religious community of householders, who contributed concretely to society, who offered their services to their religious community, who brought forth children and provided for them, were, for Guru Nanak, ideal devotees.” This passage is a clear statement of Sikh thought and shows distinctly how Sikhi is different from Hinduism with its insistence on ascetic lifestyles.
I have now finished reading the book. It is a typical academic book, some of it interesting, some of it repetitive, some of it speculative, some of it backed by sources. At best it deserves a 600 to 800 word book review. Gurmat is a different matter entirely. It is eternal, revelatory, experiential and unitary. Academic books are rooted in time, are fragmentary and ever-changing in their arguments. Mix these two together and we will get neither Gurmat nor academic books. The best of Gurmat will come from Sikh theologians. Why should we look at Jakobsh for a lead in this?
Stinder Ji,
Read the whole pargraph, it is not just one line, read my fifteen chapters and then let me know what do you think. I would also uger you to read her book and the refernces she has cited.
Moreover Brhaspatismriti is about the inhuman Varana Ashrama Dharama. There the author talks about the property distribution among the childrens Brahamans when vast majority of the population (greater than 90%, Sudras and Antyajas) had no property to speak of. Please read about Varna Ashrama Dharama.
Furthermore, Jakobsh’s Eurocentric approach to the study of “gender role” in Sikh history is also problematical as there is a pitfall here: The inherent shortcomings of a Eurocentric approach to the study of non-Europeans have been well publicized and this may have had a direct bearing on Jakobsh’s study. For example, black scholars in the United States have pointed out and argued effectively that a Eurocentric scholar looks at slavery and the history of black people from the perspective of a slave owner, not of a slave, from the perspective of colonizers, not the victims of colonization. Similarly, black women scholars have objected to a Eurocentric approach to the study of black women because, though white and black women live in the same country, their experiences are not the same. Then it should not be unreasonable to ask how could modern Western paradigms like Joan Wallach Scott’s [7]6 hypotheses of gender study be applied to Sikh women who lived in a totally different environment in Punjab (Indian sub-continent) from the 15th to 20th century. Besides, most of the information Jakobsh has used in her thesis comes from the writings of British colonial officials, orientalist and missionaries.
Regards.
Baldev Singh
Stinder Ji,
Read the whole pargraph, it is not just one line, read my fifteen chapters and then let me know what do you think. I would also uger you to read her book and the refernces she has cited.
Moreover Brhaspatismriti is about the inhuman Varana Ashrama Dharama. There the author talks about the property distribution among the childrens Brahamans when vast majority of the population (greater than 90%, Sudras and Antyajas) had no property to speak of. Please read about Varna Ashrama Dharama.
Furthermore, Jakobsh’s Eurocentric approach to the study of “gender role” in Sikh history is also problematical as there is a pitfall here: The inherent shortcomings of a Eurocentric approach to the study of non-Europeans have been well publicized and this may have had a direct bearing on Jakobsh’s study. For example, black scholars in the United States have pointed out and argued effectively that a Eurocentric scholar looks at slavery and the history of black people from the perspective of a slave owner, not of a slave, from the perspective of colonizers, not the victims of colonization. Similarly, black women scholars have objected to a Eurocentric approach to the study of black women because, though white and black women live in the same country, their experiences are not the same. Then it should not be unreasonable to ask how could modern Western paradigms like Joan Wallach Scott’s [7]6 hypotheses of gender study be applied to Sikh women who lived in a totally different environment in Punjab (Indian sub-continent) from the 15th to 20th century. Besides, most of the information Jakobsh has used in her thesis comes from the writings of British colonial officials, orientalist and missionaries.
Regards.
Baldev Singh
As a cursory note I want to point out here that neither Jakobsh's thesis supervisor, Harjot Oberoi nor the external examiner of her thesis, Gloria Goodwin Raheja, nor the university examiners Margery Fee and Tineke Hellwig, nor Joy Dixon, Chair of the examining committee, nor Kenneth Bryant and Mandakranta Bose who read the thesis have expertise in Sikh theology (Nakian philosophy, Gurmat), history and culture and the Punjabi language.
Regards.
Baldev Singh
As a cursory note I want to point out here that neither Jakobsh’s thesis supervisor, Harjot Oberoi nor the external examiner of her thesis, Gloria Goodwin Raheja, nor the university examiners Margery Fee and Tineke Hellwig, nor Joy Dixon, Chair of the examining committee, nor Kenneth Bryant and Mandakranta Bose who read the thesis have expertise in Sikh theology (Nakian philosophy, Gurmat), history and culture and the Punjabi language.
Regards.
Baldev Singh
Baldev Singh Ji it seems you did not get my post at all. You are urging me to read the Jakobsh book when I have clearly stated in my post that I have just finished reading the book, all 296 pages of it, including the citations, many in Gurmukhi. And since you have earlier raised the issue of what is truth? What is propaganda? I will only say that there is no truth without acknowledgement, without humility, and without good will. Truth is not some sterile and abstract thing manufactured in a lab. It is a living entity expressed by great Sikhs like Bhagat Puran Singh of Pingalwara, Amritsar. He lived the truth in his everyday life. As for academic truth it changes with the times. What is true in an academic book in 1970 will have again changed in 1990, and will shift again in 2012 and so on. To save us from this abstract and artificial knowledge, Guru Nanak Dev Ji tells us in the Jap Ji Sahib that Truth is eternal, has been here since the beginning of creation and will always be here. This is the cosmic truth that is lived within Hukam, Nam Simran and Vismad.
Kindly stop being patronizing and telling me or for that matter others what they ought to read. Colonialism, Varna Dhram Ashram, Eurocentrism are all commonplace in academic books. Labeling something is not an argument. We can surely do better than that.
It seems even after writing a 200 page review you are still worried about its veracity. You continue self-promoting the review and your expertise. Why such deep anxiety? In Sikh metaphysics there is no place for intermediaries. We do not have a Brahman caste that interprets for us. Anyways I have no intention of having the last word on Jakobsh or any other author as in Gurmat that would be a sign of Haumai ( I-myself). So I am done with this issue, time to move on to other threads here.
Baldev Singh Ji it seems you did not get my post at all. You are urging me to read the Jakobsh book when I have clearly stated in my post that I have just finished reading the book, all 296 pages of it, including the citations, many in Gurmukhi. And since you have earlier raised the issue of what is truth? What is propaganda? I will only say that there is no truth without acknowledgement, without humility, and without good will. Truth is not some sterile and abstract thing manufactured in a lab. It is a living entity expressed by great Sikhs like Bhagat Puran Singh of Pingalwara, Amritsar. He lived the truth in his everyday life. As for academic truth it changes with the times. What is true in an academic book in 1970 will have again changed in 1990, and will shift again in 2012 and so on. To save us from this abstract and artificial knowledge, Guru Nanak Dev Ji tells us in the Jap Ji Sahib that Truth is eternal, has been here since the beginning of creation and will always be here. This is the cosmic truth that is lived within Hukam, Nam Simran and Vismad.
Kindly stop being patronizing and telling me or for that matter others what they ought to read. Colonialism, Varna Dhram Ashram, Eurocentrism are all commonplace in academic books. Labeling something is not an argument. We can surely do better than that.
It seems even after writing a 200 page review you are still worried about its veracity. You continue self-promoting the review and your expertise. Why such deep anxiety? In Sikh metaphysics there is no place for intermediaries. We do not have a Brahman caste that interprets for us. Anyways I have no intention of having the last word on Jakobsh or any other author as in Gurmat that would be a sign of Haumai ( I-myself). So I am done with this issue, time to move on to other threads here.
Stinder Ji, Truth hurts and it is easy to talk about about Truth but it is very difficult to face the truth. Guru Nanak Called spade a spade. Read Guru Nanak's Asa Dee Var. I am curious why are you so worried about and disturbed by my review of Jakobsh's work. If you think that I am wrong then why don't you write your own review and publish it on the SikhSpectrum to enlighten the readers?
Generally, scholars are very cautious and careful in using the information that is beyond the pale of their expertise. However, Jakobsh solves this problem by making a terse disclaimer: “Let me point out that I am not a scripture scholar. I have heavily relied on the contribution of scripture scholars from the discipline of Sikh studies. She uses unreliable second and third hand information to suit her preconceived notion that Nankian philosophy (Gurmat] is anti-women. She has gleaned less than two dozens of verses from G.S. Talib’s “literal and Brahmanical” English translation of AGGS which contains 5,894 hymns consisting of about 55478 verses (tuks/lines). Without checking the veracity of meaning/interpretation of these verses with experts, she argues that bias against women started with Guru Nanak and it became stronger with his successors until it reached its climax with the emergence of “hyper-masculine Khalsa.” It is not surprising that she has either distorted or misinterpreted or used the literal and incorrect translation or interpreted the verses out of context to suit her preconceived notion that Sikh Gurus were biased against women. One wonders at the identity of those “scripture scholars from the discipline of Sikh studies” whom she had consulted! Since she has used Talib’s translation, let me point out its weakness by citing just three examples. First, let us examine his following translation/interpretation of the “Opening Verse” of AGGS which is the creedal statement or foundation of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat):
He is the Sole Supreme Being; of eternal manifestation;
Creator, immanent Reality; Without Fear;
Without Rancour; Timeless Form; Unincarnated;
Self-Existent; Realized by grace of the holy Preceptor.
In the “Opening Verse” there is no word that could be translated as He. Besides, there are other errors in the translation. Here is the Gurmukhi text and my interpretation of the “Opening Verse”:
siq nwmu krqw purKu inrBau inrvYru Akwl mUriq AjUnI sYBM gur pRswid ]
That One and Only (IkOoh) — known as Truth (Sat Naam),
Creator (Karta), Omnipresent (Purkh), Sovereign and
Self-Sufficient/Self-Sustaining (Nirbhau), without enmity and non-retributive (Nirvair), Timeless Being/Deathless Being (Akal Moorat), does not incarnate /beyond birth and death (Ajuni), Self-Created/Eternal (Saibhan), Enlightener (Gur) and Bounteous and Sustainer (Parsad).
In the “Opening Verse” Guru Arjan has given some attributes of an Entity he calls “Oh” meaning That. In Punjabi “oh” is gender neutral; it is used both for man and woman. Neither Guru Nanak nor Guru Arjan assigned specific name or gender to "God". The next example is erroneous literal translation.
Dnu jobnu Aru PulVw nwTIAVy idn cwir ]
pbix kyry pq ijau Fil Fuil jMumxhwr ]
"Wealth, youth and bloom of flowers after four days vanish: Like water-cresses as they decline, they slump and fall".
AGGS, M 1, p. 23.
However, in Punjabi the expression “chaar din (cwir idn)” means short-lived, not literally “four days.” The third example is Brahmanical interpretation.
iqQY sIqo sIqw mihmw mwih ]
“In that sphere abide numberless heroines like Sita of surpassing praise and beauty indescribable.”
AGGS, Jap 37, p. 8.
Here “sito sita (sIqo sIqw)” means stitched together (one with God), not Sita the wife of Rama Chandra, son of King Dasratha.
Regards.
Baldev Singh
Stinder Ji, Truth hurts and it is easy to talk about about Truth but it is very difficult to face the truth. Guru Nanak Called spade a spade. Read Guru Nanak’s Asa Dee Var. I am curious why are you so worried about and disturbed by my review of Jakobsh’s work. If you think that I am wrong then why don’t you write your own review and publish it on the SikhSpectrum to enlighten the readers?
Generally, scholars are very cautious and careful in using the information that is beyond the pale of their expertise. However, Jakobsh solves this problem by making a terse disclaimer: “Let me point out that I am not a scripture scholar. I have heavily relied on the contribution of scripture scholars from the discipline of Sikh studies. She uses unreliable second and third hand information to suit her preconceived notion that Nankian philosophy (Gurmat] is anti-women. She has gleaned less than two dozens of verses from G.S. Talib’s “literal and Brahmanical” English translation of AGGS which contains 5,894 hymns consisting of about 55478 verses (tuks/lines). Without checking the veracity of meaning/interpretation of these verses with experts, she argues that bias against women started with Guru Nanak and it became stronger with his successors until it reached its climax with the emergence of “hyper-masculine Khalsa.” It is not surprising that she has either distorted or misinterpreted or used the literal and incorrect translation or interpreted the verses out of context to suit her preconceived notion that Sikh Gurus were biased against women. One wonders at the identity of those “scripture scholars from the discipline of Sikh studies” whom she had consulted! Since she has used Talib’s translation, let me point out its weakness by citing just three examples. First, let us examine his following translation/interpretation of the “Opening Verse” of AGGS which is the creedal statement or foundation of Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat):
He is the Sole Supreme Being; of eternal manifestation;
Creator, immanent Reality; Without Fear;
Without Rancour; Timeless Form; Unincarnated;
Self-Existent; Realized by grace of the holy Preceptor.
In the “Opening Verse” there is no word that could be translated as He. Besides, there are other errors in the translation. Here is the Gurmukhi text and my interpretation of the “Opening Verse”:
siq nwmu krqw purKu inrBau inrvYru Akwl mUriq AjUnI sYBM gur pRswid ]
That One and Only (IkOoh) — known as Truth (Sat Naam),
Creator (Karta), Omnipresent (Purkh), Sovereign and
Self-Sufficient/Self-Sustaining (Nirbhau), without enmity and non-retributive (Nirvair), Timeless Being/Deathless Being (Akal Moorat), does not incarnate /beyond birth and death (Ajuni), Self-Created/Eternal (Saibhan), Enlightener (Gur) and Bounteous and Sustainer (Parsad).
In the “Opening Verse” Guru Arjan has given some attributes of an Entity he calls “Oh” meaning That. In Punjabi “oh” is gender neutral; it is used both for man and woman. Neither Guru Nanak nor Guru Arjan assigned specific name or gender to “God”. The next example is erroneous literal translation.
Dnu jobnu Aru PulVw nwTIAVy idn cwir ]
pbix kyry pq ijau Fil Fuil jMumxhwr ]
“Wealth, youth and bloom of flowers after four days vanish: Like water-cresses as they decline, they slump and fall”.
AGGS, M 1, p. 23.
However, in Punjabi the expression “chaar din (cwir idn)” means short-lived, not literally “four days.” The third example is Brahmanical interpretation.
iqQY sIqo sIqw mihmw mwih ]
“In that sphere abide numberless heroines like Sita of surpassing praise and beauty indescribable.”
AGGS, Jap 37, p. 8.
Here “sito sita (sIqo sIqw)” means stitched together (one with God), not Sita the wife of Rama Chandra, son of King Dasratha.
Regards.
Baldev Singh
Satider ji,
I am surprised at your apologism for the propaganda aimed at Sikhi for the sake of Academics. You seem to imply that just because academic truth is not eternal, we should not be bothered by it and investigate the truth but rather just sit back and let others abuse the academics for the purpose of propaganda. Just because academic truth changes is no justifcation to write propaganda. Academics don't justify to write things beyod your academic qualification. The truth is this is NOT academics but delibrate desecration of values and for anybody to suggest that people should remain silent and gulp it in is unprincipled.
Satider ji,
I am surprised at your apologism for the propaganda aimed at Sikhi for the sake of Academics. You seem to imply that just because academic truth is not eternal, we should not be bothered by it and investigate the truth but rather just sit back and let others abuse the academics for the purpose of propaganda. Just because academic truth changes is no justifcation to write propaganda. Academics don’t justify to write things beyod your academic qualification. The truth is this is NOT academics but delibrate desecration of values and for anybody to suggest that people should remain silent and gulp it in is unprincipled.
Stinder Ji does not want me to suggest to him to read about the Varana Ashrama Dharma, but he has no problem lecturing me about Haumai and great Sikh theoligians. He is upset about my review of Prof. Jakobsh's thesis and he does not want me to say anything more about it. He says he saw only 2-3 pages of my review and he does not want others to read it. In other words he read only the introduction to my review and from that he drew his conclusions about my review. Must be a very brilliant man!
My review ran over 200 pages beacaue Jakobsh's thesis is full of manipualtion, deception and lies. There is hardly any page in her book that does not attack Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) or Sikh Gurus or Sikhs. It is not a gender study, it is ploy to echo Arya Samaj line of Propaganda against Sikh Gurus and Sikhs.
If it was about Gender why would she riducle in a derogatory manner the Custom of Karewa, magnificient and caring ceremony for the marriage of widow among Jats and other agriculturist communities? Among Brahmans, Khatris and Banias widows spent misrable lives either in their parents homes or Hindu temples.
Further she made no mention of the kidnaping of young Maharaja Dalip Singh and his conversion to Christianity and for what purpose?
It was the British colonists who passed laws that in Phulkian States "females" could not become rules. Again it was the British colonists who passed laws that if a couple did not have a son, they could not give their agricultural land to their daughter. It was the British colonist who prohibted landless people from using the Shyam Lot (common land for the whole whole village).
It was the British Colonists who revived caste system among the Sikhs by taking control of Gurdwaras and making Hindu Pujaris and Mahants in-charge of them. It was the British colonists who invented the Aryan Race theory and claimed that Jats and Rajputs are the descendats of early Aryans, hence kinship with Europeans.
The British observers noted that Jat females were sturdy and physical fit to do the farm work. They did not say anywhere that they were devoid of feminine sensuality. But Jakobsh's interprets this observation as: Jat females are "manly" On the basis of the remarks of a single European while ignoring dozens other Europeans, she says homosexsuality was widly practiced by Sikhs. Now Homosexuality is universal, so the incidence of homosexuality amongs Sikhs is no more or less than in other religious communities. And she claims that Khalsa Sikhs are hyper-masculine. She does not explain anywhere what does "hyper-masculine" mean. May be Satinder Ji can expalin what is "manly Jat female" and "hyper-masculine Khalsa" since he claims that he has read her book and understood it properly.
If Stinder Ji or any one else wants to defend her work they are welcome to debate with me.
Those days are gone when people could publish "filth" about Sikhi and Sikhs through Oxford University Press, Cambridge Unversity Press, Indian Express, Hindustan Times, The Tribune Chandigar or any other Hindu publication and get away with it, as Internet is the Great Equalizer. I would expose "depraved scholars of Sikh studies" the same way I exposed the the missionary from New Zealand, W. H. McLeod. None of the western shcolars have studied Aad Guru Granth Sahib or know the Punjabi language. I challenge young enlightened Sikhs to study Aad Guru Granth Sahib and Sikh history.
Stinder Ji is uptset about my review but he has no concern what Jakobsh wrote. It is sad and deplorable that he is trying to mis- lead the readrers about the contents of the thesis. I would urge Sikhs to read Jakobsh's book and see how easy it is to a Ph. D. degree in Sikhism from western universities.
Finally, I urge all Sikhs to read SikhSpectrum and publish well-researched articcles on the SikhSpectrum. This site is operated by a very intelligent and multi-talentd young Sikh who inspired me to write on Sikhism after he read my article, "Gandhi as a Rascit" which I wrote as a rebuttal to Oprah Winfrey's false propaganda: Gandhi won India freedom without shedding blood and that Gandhi was the savior of untouchables. It was through SikhSpectrum that I found my friend Colonel GB Singh (US Army, retired, author of Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity and Gandhi: Under Cross Examination.
I am a retired Pharmaceutical Research scientist and have numerous pulications and patents in the field. I obtained my Ph. D. Degree in Medicinal Chemistry from the State University of New York at Buffalo. In science Ph. D. Degree is awared for orignal and novel Research. It seems for a Ph. D. in Sikhism one could write anything and get a Ph. D. from western universties and get hired by a University as Professor.
Chardi Kala.
Regards.
Baldev Singh
Stinder Ji does not want me to suggest to him to read about the Varana Ashrama Dharma, but he has no problem lecturing me about Haumai and great Sikh theoligians. He is upset about my review of Prof. Jakobsh’s thesis and he does not want me to say anything more about it. He says he saw only 2-3 pages of my review and he does not want others to read it. In other words he read only the introduction to my review and from that he drew his conclusions about my review. Must be a very brilliant man!
My review ran over 200 pages beacaue Jakobsh’s thesis is full of manipualtion, deception and lies. There is hardly any page in her book that does not attack Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat) or Sikh Gurus or Sikhs. It is not a gender study, it is ploy to echo Arya Samaj line of Propaganda against Sikh Gurus and Sikhs.
If it was about Gender why would she riducle in a derogatory manner the Custom of Karewa, magnificient and caring ceremony for the marriage of widow among Jats and other agriculturist communities? Among Brahmans, Khatris and Banias widows spent misrable lives either in their parents homes or Hindu temples.
Further she made no mention of the kidnaping of young Maharaja Dalip Singh and his conversion to Christianity and for what purpose?
It was the British colonists who passed laws that in Phulkian States “females” could not become rules. Again it was the British colonists who passed laws that if a couple did not have a son, they could not give their agricultural land to their daughter. It was the British colonist who prohibted landless people from using the Shyam Lot (common land for the whole whole village).
It was the British Colonists who revived caste system among the Sikhs by taking control of Gurdwaras and making Hindu Pujaris and Mahants in-charge of them. It was the British colonists who invented the Aryan Race theory and claimed that Jats and Rajputs are the descendats of early Aryans, hence kinship with Europeans.
The British observers noted that Jat females were sturdy and physical fit to do the farm work. They did not say anywhere that they were devoid of feminine sensuality. But Jakobsh’s interprets this observation as: Jat females are “manly” On the basis of the remarks of a single European while ignoring dozens other Europeans, she says homosexsuality was widly practiced by Sikhs. Now Homosexuality is universal, so the incidence of homosexuality amongs Sikhs is no more or less than in other religious communities. And she claims that Khalsa Sikhs are hyper-masculine. She does not explain anywhere what does “hyper-masculine” mean. May be Satinder Ji can expalin what is “manly Jat female” and “hyper-masculine Khalsa” since he claims that he has read her book and understood it properly.
If Stinder Ji or any one else wants to defend her work they are welcome to debate with me.
Those days are gone when people could publish “filth” about Sikhi and Sikhs through Oxford University Press, Cambridge Unversity Press, Indian Express, Hindustan Times, The Tribune Chandigar or any other Hindu publication and get away with it, as Internet is the Great Equalizer. I would expose “depraved scholars of Sikh studies” the same way I exposed the the missionary from New Zealand, W. H. McLeod. None of the western shcolars have studied Aad Guru Granth Sahib or know the Punjabi language. I challenge young enlightened Sikhs to study Aad Guru Granth Sahib and Sikh history.
Stinder Ji is uptset about my review but he has no concern what Jakobsh wrote. It is sad and deplorable that he is trying to mis- lead the readrers about the contents of the thesis. I would urge Sikhs to read Jakobsh’s book and see how easy it is to a Ph. D. degree in Sikhism from western universities.
Finally, I urge all Sikhs to read SikhSpectrum and publish well-researched articcles on the SikhSpectrum. This site is operated by a very intelligent and multi-talentd young Sikh who inspired me to write on Sikhism after he read my article, “Gandhi as a Rascit” which I wrote as a rebuttal to Oprah Winfrey’s false propaganda: Gandhi won India freedom without shedding blood and that Gandhi was the savior of untouchables. It was through SikhSpectrum that I found my friend Colonel GB Singh (US Army, retired, author of Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity and Gandhi: Under Cross Examination.
I am a retired Pharmaceutical Research scientist and have numerous pulications and patents in the field. I obtained my Ph. D. Degree in Medicinal Chemistry from the State University of New York at Buffalo. In science Ph. D. Degree is awared for orignal and novel Research. It seems for a Ph. D. in Sikhism one could write anything and get a Ph. D. from western universties and get hired by a University as Professor.
Chardi Kala.
Regards.
Baldev Singh
Stinder Ji has attempted to portray Prof. Jakobsh's work as objective academic scholarship. I woul aorreciate if he/she or Pro. Jalobsh would respond to Chapter 7 of my reciew (www.sikhspectrum.com, November 2206)
Regards.
Baldev Singh
Chapter 7
Questioning the Martyrdom of Guru Arjan & the Bravery of Sikhs
Walking in the footsteps of McLeod, Jakobsh plunges ahead and questions both Guru Arjan’s martyrdom and the bravery of Sikhs. While it is clear to me that her motives are to distort Sikhism at every opportunity she gets, she fails to explain the relevance of Guru Arjan’s martyrdom to her thesis. Without doubt she talks about “martyrdom” of which she has minimal understanding. Reading her book leaves no doubt in my mind that she has very little understanding of the Sikh scripture (AGGS), Sikh history, Sikh traditions, Punjabi language and the Punjabi folklore:
According to Sikh traditional sources, this culminated in Emperor Jahangir’s order to kill Guru Arjan in 1606 while he was in custody in Lahore. McLeod has questioned the element of martyrdom that has been attached to Arjan’s death, given its obscurity within the available sources. According to McLeod, all that is known for certain is that Guru Arjan died while imprisoned by the Mughals [1].1
Does Jakobsh understand the meaning of “martyrdom” as enunciated in the AGGS? Does she know why the Mughals arrested Guru Arjan? Does she know what crime he was charged with? At least, she admits that the Mughals killed Guru Arjan. It is well-known that during the Muslim rule, non-Muslims who received the capital punishment, were given the choice of escaping death by embracing Islam, which Guru Arjan spurned and willingly died for his faith. So Guru Arjan died the death of a martyr because his example fits the simplest definition of a martyr: “anyone who dies for his/her faith.”
Serious students of Sikh history know that from the very beginning, the Sikh movement was opposed to the tyranny of Mughal rulers and caste system and the exploitation of the masses by the government, rich and the religious establishment. Therefore, the concept of martyrdom is inherent in the Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat), as opposition to tyrannical forces is fraught with danger to to one’s life. Guru Nanak exhorted people to join his movement with a clear message that his path requires supreme sacrifices:
If you want to play the game of love (follow the righteous path/Truth) then follow me and be prepared to make supreme sacrifices. Once you step on this path, do not hesitate to offer your head.
AGGS, M, 1, p. 1412.
Guru Nanak’s above proclamation is central to the Sikh Movement???the basis of Miri-Piri (temporal and spiritual sovereignty) and the evolution the noble Khalsa Order. Only a moral person, a gurmukh (God-centered being, moral enlightened being) can be a mir-pir/Khalsa.
Guru Nanak denounced the bigotry of Islam and the oppression of Muslim rulers and their administrators in no uncertain terms.
The rulers are like hungry lions and their officials as wild dogs, who harass and persecute the innocent subjects.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1288.
The man-eater (Muslim ruler) performs Namaz (formal Muslim prayer). The one who carves out the flesh for him wears the sacred thread around his neck (Khatri). The Brahman blows the conch in the Khatri’s house to sanctify his doings. The Brahman also shares the ill-gotten bread of the Khatri.
AGGS, M 1, p. 471.
Further, he prolaimed freedom of conscience (religion) and universal liberty and equality by declaring allegiance only to God/Truth:
There is no other king except the Almighty.
AGGS, M 1, p. 936.
There is one Throne and one King.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1188.
Guru Nanak also makes the distinction between physical death, which is inevitable and spiritual death, which is avoidable. One should mourn spiritual rather than physical death.
It is Hukam (Cosmic Law, Divine Law) which causes birth and death, or birth and death occur according to Hukam.
AGGS, M 1, p. 472.
Additionaly, he put forward the concept of Haumai (self-centeredness) to account for human behaviour. It it is Haumai that causes spiritual death. Haumai and its progeny of five drives/instincts: Kaam (lust, sexual drive), Kroadh (anger), Loabh (covetousness, economic drive), Moah (attachment) and Ahankaar (egotistical pride) are responsible for the corruption of morals and the development of criminal behavior. Behind all human problems and sufferings?from individual problems to bloody international conflicts is the invisible hand of Haumai and the five elements. That is why in the AGGS, the Gurus warn us again and again not to yield to the pressure/temptations of Kaam, Kroadh, Loabh, Moah and Ahankar. The Gurus advise us to live a life of restraint and modesty. One who fights against the deleterious influence of Haumai and the five passions and keeps them under control is a gurmukh, a real warrior, and a hero according to Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat). A gurmukh does not waiver from the path of righteousness/Truth as he/she has conquered the fear of physical death. Guru Nanak has elaborated on this theme in his hymns:
Even if I were to live under blood-sucking rulers, I will love and glorify God/Truth and would never get tired of doing so.
AGGS, M 1, p. 142.
In other words a gurmukh never deviates from the path of righteousness/Truth under any circumstances. Such a person is indeed a true warrior and his/her death is celebrated:
Hey people! Do not regard death as bad if it is the death (subdual) of Haumain (self-centeredness). It is justified to call a person a warrior/martyr who accepts such a death. Those are true warriors/martyrs, who die for Truth.
AGGS, M 1, pp. 579-580.
A gurmukh neither worries about death, nor longs for life of attachment, as it is God Who nurtures and sustains all breath by breath and morsel by morsel.
AGGS, M 1, p. 20.
If one submits to dishonour without moral resistance then all efforts to subsist are fruitless.
AGGS, M 1, p. 142.
Guru Nanak defied the restrictions that the Muslim rulers imposed on the demoralized Hindus and his successors echoed and amplified what he said by calling for the establishment of just and benevolent rule:
First of all die to self (subdue Haumai), do not pursue life of attachment (worldly pleasures with corrupting influences), treat all with utmost humility and, then follow me (righteous path).
AGGS, M 5, p. 1102.
What could these helpless kings do, whom could they harm? “O’ the Giver of comforts, please protect us all, as the world belongs to You,” prays Nanak.
AGGS, M 5, p. 1211.
“Whom the Guru puts on the path of righteousness/Truth becomes fearless,” says Nanak.
AGGS M 5, p. 211.
Not the slightest harm comes to those whom God protects.
AGGS, M 5, p. 218.
“Listen! O’ my mind,” says Nanak, “A wise (enlightened) person neither frightens anyone, nor is afraid of anyone.”
AGGS, M 9, p. 1427.
All are partners in God’s commonwealth and God does not look at anyone as a stranger.
AGGS, M 5, p. 97.
Enmity to none, nor we consider anyone stranger, getting along with all (living in harmony) is our creed.
AGGS, M 5, p. 1299.
Now the “Benevolent One” has decreed that no one would be persecuted. All would live happily in peace under the Halemi Raj (just rule of benevolence).
AGGS, M 5, p. 74.
After in depth study of Guru Ram Das’ Baan/Gurbaani (hymns), Professor Hans [2]2 makes a keen and remarkable observation when he says: “Thus, even in the times of Guru Ram Das the martyrdom of the Sikh Guru was in the air” and Professor Grewal elaborates on it further:
The Sikh Panth was a state within the Mughal Empire at the death of Akbar, but a state that had its opponents and enemies whose presence was continuously felt by the successors of Guru Nanak. The enemies were becoming more numerous, and their intrigues were on the increase. … Akbar’s catholicity could protect the Gurus and their followers against open violence, but it could not obviate the nefarious designs of their enemies. … Within eight months of Akbar’s death in October 1605, Guru Arjan died the death of a martyr at the end of May 1606, tortured by the new emperor’s underlings at Lahore[3].3
Now let us examine Jakobsh’ put down of Sikh bravery. It seems, while commenting on the bravery of “Mai Bhago” Jakobsh suffers from a bout of delusion:
“As a woman, it could only be upon the suppression of her sexuality, in her exchange of female for male attire that Mai Bhago could continue as an acceptable member of Guru’s retinue [4].”4
What an absurd and ludicrous statement! Don’t men and women in modern armed forces have similar uniforms? Do these women suppress their femininity or become lesser of women in Jakobsh’s estimation? What about women who wear trousers like men? Are they hiding/suppressing their femininity to survive in male dominated world? In Mai Bhago’s time the attire of the Khalsa was the most practical military uniform, so how did she suppress her sexuality by wearing the Khalsa attire? Jakobsh! Does dress really determine a person’s sexuality? Do the Scottish men wear kilts (knee-length skirts) to suppress their masculinity? Besides, in many cultures and countries men and women wear the same dress, for example in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh both men and women wear salwar (trousers) and kameez (shirt).
Further on she says:
Another fascinating aspect of this incident is the understanding that Mai Bhago taunted the deserting males. As Louis Fenech has pointed out in his study of the taunt in Sikh tales of heroism and martyrdom, women’s taunt was often accompanied or replaced by the giving of a glass bangle to a male, churian paunian. The purpose of the bangle or taunt was to present that particular male as effeminate. According to Fenech (1996: 183):
In essence such displays demonstrate that male has been deprived of the force and vigour with which he is characteristically associated in Punjabi culture. He is in other words emasculated. … Within Punjabi culture referring to men as women, particularly by women, is a grave insult and is meant to persuade the male to demonstrate the contrary [5].5
Now, in which patriarchal culture are men not taunted as effeminate when they fail to perform their tasks? In the West, the taunt is “wear skirts” whereas in India it is “wear bangles.” But what “taunts” have to do with Sikh martyrdom or heroism? Sikhs inherited these taunts from their Hindu, Muslim and Sultani-Hindu ancestors. Furthermore, most of the Sikhs about whom Jakobsh and Fenech are talking were either first or second generation Sikhs, who were barely one percent of the Punjab population during the period of 1680s to 1780s. The other remarkable thing about them is that the overwhelming majority of them exited the Sudra or untouchable ranks. There is no evidence in the Indian history that these taunts inspired either Hindus or Muslims to take up arms against the tyrannical Muslim rulers or the invaders from Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asia or the dehumanizing caste system. Small bands of invaders from central Asia and Afghanistan carved out fiefdoms throughout the Indian landscape culminating in the Mughal Empire. And later on Europeans who came as traders colonized the Indian subcontinent and put up signs: ”Indians and dogs are not allowed.” It seems these taunts did not stir the virility of Indians? Only scholars like Fenech nurtured in the hare-brained environment of McLeodian “Western methodology of historical research” could dig up the “historical truth” that Sikh heroes and martyrs were inspired by “feminine taunts”! How irrational one can be! What is more amazing is that for this type of research the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia awarded Ph. D. degree to Louis Fenech and Doris Jakobsh, respectively.
References
1. Doris R. Jakobsh, Relocating Gender In Sikh History:
Transformation, Meaning and Identity, Oxford University Press: New Delhi, 2003, p. 36.
2. Surjit Hans, A Reconstruction Of Sikh History From Sikh
Literature, ABS Publications: Jalandhar, 1988, p. 111.
3. J. S. Grewal,The Sikh Of The Punjab, Cambridge University Press: New Delhi, 1994, pp. 60-61.
4. Doris R. Jakobsh, Relocating Gender In Sikh History:
Transformation, Meaning and Identit, Oxford University Press: New Delhi, 2003, pp. 48-49.
5. Ibid., p. 49.
Stinder Ji has attempted to portray Prof. Jakobsh’s work as objective academic scholarship. I woul aorreciate if he/she or Pro. Jalobsh would respond to Chapter 7 of my reciew (www.sikhspectrum.com, November 2206)
Regards.
Baldev Singh
Chapter 7
Questioning the Martyrdom of Guru Arjan & the Bravery of Sikhs
Walking in the footsteps of McLeod, Jakobsh plunges ahead and questions both Guru Arjan’s martyrdom and the bravery of Sikhs. While it is clear to me that her motives are to distort Sikhism at every opportunity she gets, she fails to explain the relevance of Guru Arjan’s martyrdom to her thesis. Without doubt she talks about “martyrdom” of which she has minimal understanding. Reading her book leaves no doubt in my mind that she has very little understanding of the Sikh scripture (AGGS), Sikh history, Sikh traditions, Punjabi language and the Punjabi folklore:
According to Sikh traditional sources, this culminated in Emperor Jahangir’s order to kill Guru Arjan in 1606 while he was in custody in Lahore. McLeod has questioned the element of martyrdom that has been attached to Arjan’s death, given its obscurity within the available sources. According to McLeod, all that is known for certain is that Guru Arjan died while imprisoned by the Mughals [1].1
Does Jakobsh understand the meaning of “martyrdom” as enunciated in the AGGS? Does she know why the Mughals arrested Guru Arjan? Does she know what crime he was charged with? At least, she admits that the Mughals killed Guru Arjan. It is well-known that during the Muslim rule, non-Muslims who received the capital punishment, were given the choice of escaping death by embracing Islam, which Guru Arjan spurned and willingly died for his faith. So Guru Arjan died the death of a martyr because his example fits the simplest definition of a martyr: “anyone who dies for his/her faith.”
Serious students of Sikh history know that from the very beginning, the Sikh movement was opposed to the tyranny of Mughal rulers and caste system and the exploitation of the masses by the government, rich and the religious establishment. Therefore, the concept of martyrdom is inherent in the Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat), as opposition to tyrannical forces is fraught with danger to to one’s life. Guru Nanak exhorted people to join his movement with a clear message that his path requires supreme sacrifices:
If you want to play the game of love (follow the righteous path/Truth) then follow me and be prepared to make supreme sacrifices. Once you step on this path, do not hesitate to offer your head.
AGGS, M, 1, p. 1412.
Guru Nanak’s above proclamation is central to the Sikh Movement???the basis of Miri-Piri (temporal and spiritual sovereignty) and the evolution the noble Khalsa Order. Only a moral person, a gurmukh (God-centered being, moral enlightened being) can be a mir-pir/Khalsa.
Guru Nanak denounced the bigotry of Islam and the oppression of Muslim rulers and their administrators in no uncertain terms.
The rulers are like hungry lions and their officials as wild dogs, who harass and persecute the innocent subjects.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1288.
The man-eater (Muslim ruler) performs Namaz (formal Muslim prayer). The one who carves out the flesh for him wears the sacred thread around his neck (Khatri). The Brahman blows the conch in the Khatri’s house to sanctify his doings. The Brahman also shares the ill-gotten bread of the Khatri.
AGGS, M 1, p. 471.
Further, he prolaimed freedom of conscience (religion) and universal liberty and equality by declaring allegiance only to God/Truth:
There is no other king except the Almighty.
AGGS, M 1, p. 936.
There is one Throne and one King.
AGGS, M 1, p. 1188.
Guru Nanak also makes the distinction between physical death, which is inevitable and spiritual death, which is avoidable. One should mourn spiritual rather than physical death.
It is Hukam (Cosmic Law, Divine Law) which causes birth and death, or birth and death occur according to Hukam.
AGGS, M 1, p. 472.
Additionaly, he put forward the concept of Haumai (self-centeredness) to account for human behaviour. It it is Haumai that causes spiritual death. Haumai and its progeny of five drives/instincts: Kaam (lust, sexual drive), Kroadh (anger), Loabh (covetousness, economic drive), Moah (attachment) and Ahankaar (egotistical pride) are responsible for the corruption of morals and the development of criminal behavior. Behind all human problems and sufferings?from individual problems to bloody international conflicts is the invisible hand of Haumai and the five elements. That is why in the AGGS, the Gurus warn us again and again not to yield to the pressure/temptations of Kaam, Kroadh, Loabh, Moah and Ahankar. The Gurus advise us to live a life of restraint and modesty. One who fights against the deleterious influence of Haumai and the five passions and keeps them under control is a gurmukh, a real warrior, and a hero according to Nanakian philosophy (Gurmat). A gurmukh does not waiver from the path of righteousness/Truth as he/she has conquered the fear of physical death. Guru Nanak has elaborated on this theme in his hymns:
Even if I were to live under blood-sucking rulers, I will love and glorify God/Truth and would never get tired of doing so.
AGGS, M 1, p. 142.
In other words a gurmukh never deviates from the path of righteousness/Truth under any circumstances. Such a person is indeed a true warrior and his/her death is celebrated:
Hey people! Do not regard death as bad if it is the death (subdual) of Haumain (self-centeredness). It is justified to call a person a warrior/martyr who accepts such a death. Those are true warriors/martyrs, who die for Truth.
AGGS, M 1, pp. 579-580.
A gurmukh neither worries about death, nor longs for life of attachment, as it is God Who nurtures and sustains all breath by breath and morsel by morsel.
AGGS, M 1, p. 20.
If one submits to dishonour without moral resistance then all efforts to subsist are fruitless.
AGGS, M 1, p. 142.
Guru Nanak defied the restrictions that the Muslim rulers imposed on the demoralized Hindus and his successors echoed and amplified what he said by calling for the establishment of just and benevolent rule:
First of all die to self (subdue Haumai), do not pursue life of attachment (worldly pleasures with corrupting influences), treat all with utmost humility and, then follow me (righteous path).
AGGS, M 5, p. 1102.
What could these helpless kings do, whom could they harm? “O’ the Giver of comforts, please protect us all, as the world belongs to You,” prays Nanak.
AGGS, M 5, p. 1211.
“Whom the Guru puts on the path of righteousness/Truth becomes fearless,” says Nanak.
AGGS M 5, p. 211.
Not the slightest harm comes to those whom God protects.
AGGS, M 5, p. 218.
“Listen! O’ my mind,” says Nanak, “A wise (enlightened) person neither frightens anyone, nor is afraid of anyone.”
AGGS, M 9, p. 1427.
All are partners in God’s commonwealth and God does not look at anyone as a stranger.
AGGS, M 5, p. 97.
Enmity to none, nor we consider anyone stranger, getting along with all (living in harmony) is our creed.
AGGS, M 5, p. 1299.
Now the “Benevolent One” has decreed that no one would be persecuted. All would live happily in peace under the Halemi Raj (just rule of benevolence).
AGGS, M 5, p. 74.
After in depth study of Guru Ram Das’ Baan/Gurbaani (hymns), Professor Hans [2]2 makes a keen and remarkable observation when he says: “Thus, even in the times of Guru Ram Das the martyrdom of the Sikh Guru was in the air” and Professor Grewal elaborates on it further:
The Sikh Panth was a state within the Mughal Empire at the death of Akbar, but a state that had its opponents and enemies whose presence was continuously felt by the successors of Guru Nanak. The enemies were becoming more numerous, and their intrigues were on the increase. … Akbar’s catholicity could protect the Gurus and their followers against open violence, but it could not obviate the nefarious designs of their enemies. … Within eight months of Akbar’s death in October 1605, Guru Arjan died the death of a martyr at the end of May 1606, tortured by the new emperor’s underlings at Lahore[3].3
Now let us examine Jakobsh’ put down of Sikh bravery. It seems, while commenting on the bravery of “Mai Bhago” Jakobsh suffers from a bout of delusion:
“As a woman, it could only be upon the suppression of her sexuality, in her exchange of female for male attire that Mai Bhago could continue as an acceptable member of Guru’s retinue [4].”4
What an absurd and ludicrous statement! Don’t men and women in modern armed forces have similar uniforms? Do these women suppress their femininity or become lesser of women in Jakobsh’s estimation? What about women who wear trousers like men? Are they hiding/suppressing their femininity to survive in male dominated world? In Mai Bhago’s time the attire of the Khalsa was the most practical military uniform, so how did she suppress her sexuality by wearing the Khalsa attire? Jakobsh! Does dress really determine a person’s sexuality? Do the Scottish men wear kilts (knee-length skirts) to suppress their masculinity? Besides, in many cultures and countries men and women wear the same dress, for example in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh both men and women wear salwar (trousers) and kameez (shirt).
Further on she says:
Another fascinating aspect of this incident is the understanding that Mai Bhago taunted the deserting males. As Louis Fenech has pointed out in his study of the taunt in Sikh tales of heroism and martyrdom, women’s taunt was often accompanied or replaced by the giving of a glass bangle to a male, churian paunian. The purpose of the bangle or taunt was to present that particular male as effeminate. According to Fenech (1996: 183):
In essence such displays demonstrate that male has been deprived of the force and vigour with which he is characteristically associated in Punjabi culture. He is in other words emasculated. … Within Punjabi culture referring to men as women, particularly by women, is a grave insult and is meant to persuade the male to demonstrate the contrary [5].5
Now, in which patriarchal culture are men not taunted as effeminate when they fail to perform their tasks? In the West, the taunt is “wear skirts” whereas in India it is “wear bangles.” But what “taunts” have to do with Sikh martyrdom or heroism? Sikhs inherited these taunts from their Hindu, Muslim and Sultani-Hindu ancestors. Furthermore, most of the Sikhs about whom Jakobsh and Fenech are talking were either first or second generation Sikhs, who were barely one percent of the Punjab population during the period of 1680s to 1780s. The other remarkable thing about them is that the overwhelming majority of them exited the Sudra or untouchable ranks. There is no evidence in the Indian history that these taunts inspired either Hindus or Muslims to take up arms against the tyrannical Muslim rulers or the invaders from Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asia or the dehumanizing caste system. Small bands of invaders from central Asia and Afghanistan carved out fiefdoms throughout the Indian landscape culminating in the Mughal Empire. And later on Europeans who came as traders colonized the Indian subcontinent and put up signs: ”Indians and dogs are not allowed.” It seems these taunts did not stir the virility of Indians? Only scholars like Fenech nurtured in the hare-brained environment of McLeodian “Western methodology of historical research” could dig up the “historical truth” that Sikh heroes and martyrs were inspired by “feminine taunts”! How irrational one can be! What is more amazing is that for this type of research the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia awarded Ph. D. degree to Louis Fenech and Doris Jakobsh, respectively.
References
1. Doris R. Jakobsh, Relocating Gender In Sikh History:
Transformation, Meaning and Identity, Oxford University Press: New Delhi, 2003, p. 36.
2. Surjit Hans, A Reconstruction Of Sikh History From Sikh
Literature, ABS Publications: Jalandhar, 1988, p. 111.
3. J. S. Grewal,The Sikh Of The Punjab, Cambridge University Press: New Delhi, 1994, pp. 60-61.
4. Doris R. Jakobsh, Relocating Gender In Sikh History:
Transformation, Meaning and Identit, Oxford University Press: New Delhi, 2003, pp. 48-49.
5. Ibid., p. 49.