US Employers: the Turban is un-American and not Sexy [Updated]
The Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (better known as SALDEF, and SMART before that) has been vigorously defending a turbaned Sikh man, Sukhbir Channa, who was told by Disney that he would not be hired for a position because he did not have the “Disney look.” Angela Bliss, a spokesperson for Disneyland, explained that, “The Disney look is a fresh, clean and approachable look, ensuring that every guest feels comfortable with our entire cast.” Apparently a turbaned Sikh is neither fresh, clean, nor approachable, and makes others uncomfortable. Apparently in a “magical” environment that contains oversized pigs, mice, and other characters, it is a human with a simple religious headdress that is unwelcome. Apparently a major company whose creations are an integral part of practically every American child’s upbringing cannot teach those very children the fundamental values of tolerance, respect, and acceptance in this increasingly diverse and pluralistic nation. Rather than work to alleviate any possible (though not demonstrated) discomfort with a turbaned Sikh, Disney has pandered to and thereby legitimized the notion that turbaned Sikhs are to be marginalized and excluded from aspects of American society. I could go on and on.
This week, I learned that another major company informed a Sikh that a turban should not be worn in the presence of customers.
In this case, the manager of a New York-based National Wholesale Liquidators (NWL) store told a turbaned Sikh female employee to remove her turban because she “would appear sexier without it.” The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought sexual harassment charges against the discount liquor store chain, and the claims were ultimately settled. The settlement provides that NWL will pay $255,000 to the Sikh and other victims of employment discrimination and will engage in “three years of anti-discrimination training and monitoring for all employees and supervisors at the locations where the manager in the suit has worked[.]”
I don’t know where to begin. The manager’s comments clearly display some ignorance as to the turban being an article of faith for the employee and thus not something that can be just set aside for appearance’s sake. They also demonstrate that Sikh women also are subject to an employer’s expectations that a female employee move towards the stereotypical “attractive” look (whatever that is), that Sikh women are also objectified and that they are viewed as instruments to be used to generate higher sales. The turban, something sacred for Sikhs, has been explicitly placed on a spectrum of attractiveness by others, where Sikhs themselves often struggle with how people will perceive them in the West; for Sikh women, who contend with society’s depictions of what is “hot or not”, this struggle is even more pronounced. At bottom, for a Sikh woman — possibly our mother, wife, or sister — to be treated by an employer in this fashion is appalling.
I have reviewed many EEOC complaints in the past and have found most to be without merit. In this case, however, the EEOC should be commended for safeguarding the rights of this Sikh woman and the other victims of NWL’s discriminatory acts. From the news reports that I’ve read so far, it appears as though the EEOC’s claims were premised on sex discrimination (that the Sikh woman was harassed), not on religious-based discrimination. That is cause for concern — asking someone to remove their turban as a condition of employment is actionable discrimination, as is sexual harassment. But hopefully in the course of the litigation it came to light how significant the turban is to the Sikh employee.
Let’s hope SALDEF and others continue to fight on behalf of aggreived Sikhs and that federal civil rights agencies, such as the EEOC, do their part to protect our people from the discriminatory conduct of American employers.
UPDATE: According to a Sikh Coalition press release, NWL “agreed to make changes to their employment policies and pay money damages to nine victims of harassment,” including the Sikh female. Incidentally, NWL has filed for bankruptcy.
117 Responses to “US Employers: the Turban is un-American and not Sexy [Updated]”
Saldef has done good work in the past and I'm glad they're on this case. I hope I don't get a reputation for hijacking threads but I am going to risk it.
We don't do ourselves any good when Sikh men go out in public with baseball caps or patka's. How can we say that a turban is an article of faith when we walk around the mall wearing a yankees hat. Has anyone ever seen Monty Panesar wearing a turban? The only reason I can see for this is laziness. How hard is to put on a turban? Is that what Guru Gobind Singh wanted us to do?
Saldef has done good work in the past and I’m glad they’re on this case. I hope I don’t get a reputation for hijacking threads but I am going to risk it.
We don’t do ourselves any good when Sikh men go out in public with baseball caps or patka’s. How can we say that a turban is an article of faith when we walk around the mall wearing a yankees hat. Has anyone ever seen Monty Panesar wearing a turban? The only reason I can see for this is laziness. How hard is to put on a turban? Is that what Guru Gobind Singh wanted us to do?
Saldef has done good work in the past and I’m glad they’re on this case. I hope I don’t get a reputation for hijacking threads but I am going to risk it.
We don’t do ourselves any good when Sikh men go out in public with baseball caps or patka’s. How can we say that a turban is an article of faith when we walk around the mall wearing a yankees hat. Has anyone ever seen Monty Panesar wearing a turban? The only reason I can see for this is laziness. How hard is to put on a turban? Is that what Guru Gobind Singh wanted us to do?
haha.
haha.
haha.
Marine Kaur, thanks for your comment. I appreciate your interest in the subject, though I respectfully disagree that "laziness" is the only reason why Sikh men do not wear a turban. Obviously I cannot speak for all such Sikh men, but I think there are a number of possible reasons why a Sikh man does not wear a turban, including not wanting to put up with discrimination and harassment, a desire to conform with the West's notion of what is acceptable, and hoping to appear more attractive to females. I am not arguing that any of these reasons justifies disobedience of the kes requirement, but I do think there are other explanations for not wearing a turban other than laziness.
Marine Kaur, thanks for your comment. I appreciate your interest in the subject, though I respectfully disagree that “laziness” is the only reason why Sikh men do not wear a turban. Obviously I cannot speak for all such Sikh men, but I think there are a number of possible reasons why a Sikh man does not wear a turban, including not wanting to put up with discrimination and harassment, a desire to conform with the West’s notion of what is acceptable, and hoping to appear more attractive to females. I am not arguing that any of these reasons justifies disobedience of the kes requirement, but I do think there are other explanations for not wearing a turban other than laziness.
Marine Kaur, thanks for your comment. I appreciate your interest in the subject, though I respectfully disagree that “laziness” is the only reason why Sikh men do not wear a turban. Obviously I cannot speak for all such Sikh men, but I think there are a number of possible reasons why a Sikh man does not wear a turban, including not wanting to put up with discrimination and harassment, a desire to conform with the West’s notion of what is acceptable, and hoping to appear more attractive to females. I am not arguing that any of these reasons justifies disobedience of the kes requirement, but I do think there are other explanations for not wearing a turban other than laziness.
Whoa. I am not talking about former Sikhs, I am talking of men with kesh, who put on a hat and go shopping. What other reason is there, other than laziness. I assume they don't go to work looking like that. Are they that weak that they are embarrassed to go out in public?
Whoa. I am not talking about former Sikhs, I am talking of men with kesh, who put on a hat and go shopping. What other reason is there, other than laziness. I assume they don’t go to work looking like that. Are they that weak that they are embarrassed to go out in public?
Whoa. I am not talking about former Sikhs, I am talking of men with kesh, who put on a hat and go shopping. What other reason is there, other than laziness. I assume they don’t go to work looking like that. Are they that weak that they are embarrassed to go out in public?
What's your authority for the proposition that a Sikh man must wear a turban — as opposed to something else — to cover his kes?
What’s your authority for the proposition that a Sikh man must wear a turban — as opposed to something else — to cover his kes?
What’s your authority for the proposition that a Sikh man must wear a turban — as opposed to something else — to cover his kes?
Marine Kaur asked if anyone had seen Monty wearing a turban – here is a picture from his High School days
http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/6911/dsc04365y…
Marine Kaur asked if anyone had seen Monty wearing a turban – here is a picture from his High School days
http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/6911/dsc04365y…
Marine Kaur asked if anyone had seen Monty wearing a turban – here is a picture from his High School days
http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/6911/dsc04365yr6.jpg
Marine Kaur,
I personally know multiple Sikhs who keep their kesh and occasionally wear baseball caps/patkas/bandanas when in public. They live in communities where they're constantly harassed for their turban by adults and children alike, flicking them off, yelling 'terrorist,' making them generally unwelcome everywhere. A baseball cap dulls the harassment.
They're more comfortable wearing their turban at work because the people at work know them, more colleagues than strangers know their faith, and they've already gained the respect of their colleagues.
To be on the defensive every single moment in public, to constantly be ostracized for your appearance, is difficult. I also find it disheartening when keshdari Singhs choose not to wear their turbans, but we need to be understanding of the environment in which they're operating.
Some may be wavering about whether they want to keep their hair and turban, and this may be a transitional stage.
I don't think it's pure laziness, I think they have legitimate reasons, and those reasons can be addressed. For example, one way to combat community ignorance of Sikhs might be for surrounding Sikh communities to provide support, educate the isolated communities on who Sikhs are by writing editorials in local newspapers about Sikhism. Ironically, I think the best way to provide exposure about Sikhism is to have more Sikhs in the public eye, in positive lights.
There are times that I am definitely lazy.
Marine Kaur,
I personally know multiple Sikhs who keep their kesh and occasionally wear baseball caps/patkas/bandanas when in public. They live in communities where they’re constantly harassed for their turban by adults and children alike, flicking them off, yelling ‘terrorist,’ making them generally unwelcome everywhere. A baseball cap dulls the harassment.
They’re more comfortable wearing their turban at work because the people at work know them, more colleagues than strangers know their faith, and they’ve already gained the respect of their colleagues.
To be on the defensive every single moment in public, to constantly be ostracized for your appearance, is difficult. I also find it disheartening when keshdari Singhs choose not to wear their turbans, but we need to be understanding of the environment in which they’re operating.
Some may be wavering about whether they want to keep their hair and turban, and this may be a transitional stage.
I don’t think it’s pure laziness, I think they have legitimate reasons, and those reasons can be addressed. For example, one way to combat community ignorance of Sikhs might be for surrounding Sikh communities to provide support, educate the isolated communities on who Sikhs are by writing editorials in local newspapers about Sikhism. Ironically, I think the best way to provide exposure about Sikhism is to have more Sikhs in the public eye, in positive lights.
Marine Kaur,
I personally know multiple Sikhs who keep their kesh and occasionally wear baseball caps/patkas/bandanas when in public. They live in communities where they’re constantly harassed for their turban by adults and children alike, flicking them off, yelling ‘terrorist,’ making them generally unwelcome everywhere. A baseball cap dulls the harassment.
They’re more comfortable wearing their turban at work because the people at work know them, more colleagues than strangers know their faith, and they’ve already gained the respect of their colleagues.
To be on the defensive every single moment in public, to constantly be ostracized for your appearance, is difficult. I also find it disheartening when keshdari Singhs choose not to wear their turbans, but we need to be understanding of the environment in which they’re operating.
Some may be wavering about whether they want to keep their hair and turban, and this may be a transitional stage.
I don’t think it’s pure laziness, I think they have legitimate reasons, and those reasons can be addressed. For example, one way to combat community ignorance of Sikhs might be for surrounding Sikh communities to provide support, educate the isolated communities on who Sikhs are by writing editorials in local newspapers about Sikhism. Ironically, I think the best way to provide exposure about Sikhism is to have more Sikhs in the public eye, in positive lights.
There are times that I am definitely lazy.
There are times that I am definitely lazy.
I have never seen Monty Panesar when he's not playing cricket, and when he's playing cricket he doesn't wear a turban, just like every Sikh cricketer from Bishan Bedi to Harbhajan Singh, because it's impracticle to wear a turban when playing sports like cricket. I really don't think we should pick on individuals like Monty Panesar as if they are doing anything wrong.
I have never seen Monty Panesar when he’s not playing cricket, and when he’s playing cricket he doesn’t wear a turban, just like every Sikh cricketer from Bishan Bedi to Harbhajan Singh, because it’s impracticle to wear a turban when playing sports like cricket. I really don’t think we should pick on individuals like Monty Panesar as if they are doing anything wrong.
I have never seen Monty Panesar when he’s not playing cricket, and when he’s playing cricket he doesn’t wear a turban, just like every Sikh cricketer from Bishan Bedi to Harbhajan Singh, because it’s impracticle to wear a turban when playing sports like cricket. I really don’t think we should pick on individuals like Monty Panesar as if they are doing anything wrong.
what do you call it when a sikh chooses to wear a hat to avoid having to explain why they wear a dastar?
i dont think laziness is THE reason, but like mewa singh – i have been lazy…in those times i tied a little lopsided dastar and put my hood over it. does that count as a "hat"
a quick and easy dastar isn't americanizing like a baseball hat/bandana, i think they're pretty different (and i think the motivations for them are different, from what i've heard from baseball hat wearers).
what do you call it when a sikh chooses to wear a hat to avoid having to explain why they wear a dastar?
i dont think laziness is THE reason, but like mewa singh – i have been lazy…in those times i tied a little lopsided dastar and put my hood over it. does that count as a “hat”
what do you call it when a sikh chooses to wear a hat to avoid having to explain why they wear a dastar?
i dont think laziness is THE reason, but like mewa singh – i have been lazy…in those times i tied a little lopsided dastar and put my hood over it. does that count as a “hat”
this is totally a tangent, but i meant the hood over the dastar…how do we feel about hoods?
a quick and easy dastar isn’t americanizing like a baseball hat/bandana, i think they’re pretty different (and i think the motivations for them are different, from what i’ve heard from baseball hat wearers).
a quick and easy dastar isn’t americanizing like a baseball hat/bandana, i think they’re pretty different (and i think the motivations for them are different, from what i’ve heard from baseball hat wearers).
this is totally a tangent, but i meant the hood over the dastar…how do we feel about hoods?
this is totally a tangent, but i meant the hood over the dastar…how do we feel about hoods?
I a Singh wears a patka or baseball cap because he is afraid, then he's better off cutting his hair. Khalsa Sikhs wear the turban for a reason – to stand out with courage.
I though wear a patka on occasion, when I am running, biking, playing football or hockey – that's not laziness, that's practicality. I don't know much about monty singh, but I imagine that because he is a sports player, he doesn't wear a full daastar.
I a Singh wears a patka or baseball cap because he is afraid, then he’s better off cutting his hair. Khalsa Sikhs wear the turban for a reason – to stand out with courage.
I though wear a patka on occasion, when I am running, biking, playing football or hockey – that’s not laziness, that’s practicality. I don’t know much about monty singh, but I imagine that because he is a sports player, he doesn’t wear a full daastar.
I a Singh wears a patka or baseball cap because he is afraid, then he’s better off cutting his hair. Khalsa Sikhs wear the turban for a reason – to stand out with courage.
I though wear a patka on occasion, when I am running, biking, playing football or hockey – that’s not laziness, that’s practicality. I don’t know much about monty singh, but I imagine that because he is a sports player, he doesn’t wear a full daastar.
Waheguru ji ka Khalsa Waheguru ji ki Fateh
[quote comment="7583"]What's your authority for the proposition that a Sikh man must wear a turban — as opposed to something else — to cover his kes?[/quote]
from the Sikh Rehat Maryada:
Section Four
CHAPTER X
Living in Consonance with Guru's Tenets (Gurmat Rehni)
Article XVI
t. For a Sikh, there is no restriction or requirement as to dress except that he must wear Kachhehra (A drawer type garment fastened by a fitted string round the waist, very often worn as an underwear.) and turban.
We have only TWO requirements for dress, kachhera and turban. That's it, just two. Is it really so difficult to follow this maryada?
I'd even go a step further and suggest that Sikh WOMEN should be wearing dastaars too. Yes, it makes us stand out. Yes, it forces us to be strong and courageous in the face of adversity. In short, it forces us to behave like a Sikh.
If code of conduct or strength of character are not important enough reasons, consider this. The turban is a gift from our Guru. Why on earth would you want to turn down such a gift?
bhul chuk maaf…
Waheguru ji ka Khalsa Waheguru ji ki Fateh
[quote comment=”7583″]What’s your authority for the proposition that a Sikh man must wear a turban — as opposed to something else — to cover his kes?[/quote]
from the Sikh Rehat Maryada:
Section Four
CHAPTER X
Living in Consonance with Guru’s Tenets (Gurmat Rehni)
Article XVI
t. For a Sikh, there is no restriction or requirement as to dress except that he must wear Kachhehra (A drawer type garment fastened by a fitted string round the waist, very often worn as an underwear.) and turban.
We have only TWO requirements for dress, kachhera and turban. That’s it, just two. Is it really so difficult to follow this maryada?
I’d even go a step further and suggest that Sikh WOMEN should be wearing dastaars too. Yes, it makes us stand out. Yes, it forces us to be strong and courageous in the face of adversity. In short, it forces us to behave like a Sikh.
If code of conduct or strength of character are not important enough reasons, consider this. The turban is a gift from our Guru. Why on earth would you want to turn down such a gift?
bhul chuk maaf…
Waheguru ji ka Khalsa Waheguru ji ki Fateh
[quote comment=”7583″]What’s your authority for the proposition that a Sikh man must wear a turban — as opposed to something else — to cover his kes?[/quote]
from the Sikh Rehat Maryada:
Section Four
CHAPTER X
Living in Consonance with Guru’s Tenets (Gurmat Rehni)
Article XVI
t. For a Sikh, there is no restriction or requirement as to dress except that he must wear Kachhehra (A drawer type garment fastened by a fitted string round the waist, very often worn as an underwear.) and turban.
We have only TWO requirements for dress, kachhera and turban. That’s it, just two. Is it really so difficult to follow this maryada?
I’d even go a step further and suggest that Sikh WOMEN should be wearing dastaars too. Yes, it makes us stand out. Yes, it forces us to be strong and courageous in the face of adversity. In short, it forces us to behave like a Sikh.
If code of conduct or strength of character are not important enough reasons, consider this. The turban is a gift from our Guru. Why on earth would you want to turn down such a gift?
bhul chuk maaf…
There's a specific exception for women (re: the dastar) in the Rehit. We haven't really had a chance to fully converse about women and the dastar (aside from a very blundering — on my part — post), but I think the call to consolidate the physical representation of Sikhs into a single unifying item (the dastar, as opposed to kachera, the kara, or the kirpan) may not be the best method of addressing the other issues that are enveloped in manifesting the Sikh image.
There's a specific exception for women (re: the dastar) in the Rehit. We haven't really had a chance to fully converse about women and the dastar (aside from a very blundering — on my part — post), but I think the call to consolidate the physical representation of Sikhs into a single unifying item (the dastar, as opposed to kachera, the kara, or the kirpan) may not be the best method of addressing the other issues that are enveloped in manifesting the Sikh image.
There’s a specific exception for women (re: the dastar) in the Rehit. We haven’t really had a chance to fully converse about women and the dastar (aside from a very blundering — on my part — post), but I think the call to consolidate the physical representation of Sikhs into a single unifying item (the dastar, as opposed to kachera, the kara, or the kirpan) may not be the best method of addressing the other issues that are enveloped in manifesting the Sikh image.
[quote comment="7705"]
There's a specific exception for women (re: the dastar) in the Rehit. We haven't really had a chance to fully converse about women and the dastar (aside from a very blundering — on my part — post), but I think the call to consolidate the physical representation of Sikhs into a single unifying item (the dastar, as opposed to kachera, the kara, or the kirpan) may not be the best method of addressing the other issues that are enveloped in manifesting the Sikh image.[/quote]
interesting…
i wouldn't call it a "specific exception", as much as a modern "choice". i believe it says women "may or may not" wear a turban, correct? regardless, this is a very recent development. until the 1940s, everyone who received Amrit at Akal Takht was required to wear a keski regardless of gender. then Jathedar Gurmukh Singh Musafir decides that not enough women were taking amrit because they'd rather wear their hair like hindu ladies. so he says ok, keski isn't required for women. this doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as far as my limited understanding, Sikhi shouldn't about compromise or about fitting in or about fashion… Guru ji makes no distinction in gender for anything else, it simply doesn't make logical sense that there would be a gender distinction in such an integral part of our external identity.
sorry to disrupt the direction of the thread. it's just something that has always confused me. how can Sikh women expect men to wear a dastaar and keep kes while they don't seem to care about it for themselves?
bhul chuk maaf…
[quote comment="7705"]
There's a specific exception for women (re: the dastar) in the Rehit. We haven't really had a chance to fully converse about women and the dastar (aside from a very blundering — on my part — post), but I think the call to consolidate the physical representation of Sikhs into a single unifying item (the dastar, as opposed to kachera, the kara, or the kirpan) may not be the best method of addressing the other issues that are enveloped in manifesting the Sikh image.[/quote]
interesting…
i wouldn't call it a "specific exception", as much as a modern "choice". i believe it says women "may or may not" wear a turban, correct? regardless, this is a very recent development. until the 1940s, everyone who received Amrit at Akal Takht was required to wear a keski regardless of gender. then Jathedar Gurmukh Singh Musafir decides that not enough women were taking amrit because they'd rather wear their hair like hindu ladies. so he says ok, keski isn't required for women. this doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as far as my limited understanding, Sikhi shouldn't about compromise or about fitting in or about fashion… Guru ji makes no distinction in gender for anything else, it simply doesn't make logical sense that there would be a gender distinction in such an integral part of our external identity.
sorry to disrupt the direction of the thread. it's just something that has always confused me. how can Sikh women expect men to wear a dastaar and keep kes while they don't seem to care about it for themselves?
bhul chuk maaf…
[quote comment=”7705″]
There’s a specific exception for women (re: the dastar) in the Rehit. We haven’t really had a chance to fully converse about women and the dastar (aside from a very blundering — on my part — post), but I think the call to consolidate the physical representation of Sikhs into a single unifying item (the dastar, as opposed to kachera, the kara, or the kirpan) may not be the best method of addressing the other issues that are enveloped in manifesting the Sikh image.[/quote]
interesting…
i wouldn’t call it a “specific exception”, as much as a modern “choice”. i believe it says women “may or may not” wear a turban, correct? regardless, this is a very recent development. until the 1940s, everyone who received Amrit at Akal Takht was required to wear a keski regardless of gender. then Jathedar Gurmukh Singh Musafir decides that not enough women were taking amrit because they’d rather wear their hair like hindu ladies. so he says ok, keski isn’t required for women. this doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, as far as my limited understanding, Sikhi shouldn’t about compromise or about fitting in or about fashion… Guru ji makes no distinction in gender for anything else, it simply doesn’t make logical sense that there would be a gender distinction in such an integral part of our external identity.
sorry to disrupt the direction of the thread. it’s just something that has always confused me. how can Sikh women expect men to wear a dastaar and keep kes while they don’t seem to care about it for themselves?
bhul chuk maaf…
Two clothing requirements only. With the first, I personally don't know anyone who wears the kachhehra explicitly mentioned in the Rehat, in fact I don't know where one can even go about buying such clothing with a "fitted string" around the waist. No one seems to fuss that people haven't taken this requirement literally; instead, people look to the spirit of the requirement and wear kachhehra without a "fitted string"
If the only other clothing requirement is flexible in terms of fulfilling the spirit of the requirement rather than the explicit type of kacchehra mentioned, what of the turban? Are people who wear patkas (for sports or whatever) still adhering to the requirement's spirit (to cover kes)?
In short, is this a question of form over substance?
no attempt to even answer the question? am i surprised?
[quote comment="7726"]
Two clothing requirements only. With the first, I personally don't know anyone who wears the kachhehra explicitly mentioned in the Rehat, in fact I don't know where one can even go about buying such clothing with a "fitted string" around the waist. No one seems to fuss that people haven't taken this requirement literally; instead, people look to the spirit of the requirement and wear kachhehra without a "fitted string"
[/quote]
forgive my confusion… isn't the string used to tie the kachhera (nala/nara) usually sewn into a seam around the waist? wouldn't that be "fitted" to the kachhera? i've never seen kachhera made any other way.
i suppose we should look at the original punjabi for specifics, rather than trying to dissect the translation… oh wait, in the punjabi version, it doesn't explain how kachhera are designed, because every Sikh knows what kachhera are. i would suggest that the turban is not described because every Sikh also knows what a turban is (wrapped one lar at a time around the head, and tied fresh every time). and a patka, a bandanna, and a baseball cap are obviously not a turban.
Two clothing requirements only. With the first, I personally don’t know anyone who wears the kachhehra explicitly mentioned in the Rehat, in fact I don’t know where one can even go about buying such clothing with a “fitted string” around the waist. No one seems to fuss that people haven’t taken this requirement literally; instead, people look to the spirit of the requirement and wear kachhehra without a “fitted string”
If the only other clothing requirement is flexible in terms of fulfilling the spirit of the requirement rather than the explicit type of kacchehra mentioned, what of the turban? Are people who wear patkas (for sports or whatever) still adhering to the requirement’s spirit (to cover kes)?
In short, is this a question of form over substance?
Two clothing requirements only. With the first, I personally don’t know anyone who wears the kachhehra explicitly mentioned in the Rehat, in fact I don’t know where one can even go about buying such clothing with a “fitted string” around the waist. No one seems to fuss that people haven’t taken this requirement literally; instead, people look to the spirit of the requirement and wear kachhehra without a “fitted string”
If the only other clothing requirement is flexible in terms of fulfilling the spirit of the requirement rather than the explicit type of kacchehra mentioned, what of the turban? Are people who wear patkas (for sports or whatever) still adhering to the requirement’s spirit (to cover kes)?
In short, is this a question of form over substance?
[deleted by Admin Kaur. sizzle, please keep it relevant]
what were we talking about again? oh. it's just as tangential and meandering.
no attempt to even answer the question? am i surprised?
no attempt to even answer the question? am i surprised?
Sizzle,
If you have something substantive to contribute, go for it. But really, you sound more like a troll with the level of harassment you're dishing.
[quote comment=”7726″]
Two clothing requirements only. With the first, I personally don’t know anyone who wears the kachhehra explicitly mentioned in the Rehat, in fact I don’t know where one can even go about buying such clothing with a “fitted string” around the waist. No one seems to fuss that people haven’t taken this requirement literally; instead, people look to the spirit of the requirement and wear kachhehra without a “fitted string”
[/quote]
forgive my confusion… isn’t the string used to tie the kachhera (nala/nara) usually sewn into a seam around the waist? wouldn’t that be “fitted” to the kachhera? i’ve never seen kachhera made any other way.
i suppose we should look at the original punjabi for specifics, rather than trying to dissect the translation… oh wait, in the punjabi version, it doesn’t explain how kachhera are designed, because every Sikh knows what kachhera are. i would suggest that the turban is not described because every Sikh also knows what a turban is (wrapped one lar at a time around the head, and tied fresh every time). and a patka, a bandanna, and a baseball cap are obviously not a turban.
[quote comment=”7726″]
Two clothing requirements only. With the first, I personally don’t know anyone who wears the kachhehra explicitly mentioned in the Rehat, in fact I don’t know where one can even go about buying such clothing with a “fitted string” around the waist. No one seems to fuss that people haven’t taken this requirement literally; instead, people look to the spirit of the requirement and wear kachhehra without a “fitted string”
[/quote]
forgive my confusion… isn’t the string used to tie the kachhera (nala/nara) usually sewn into a seam around the waist? wouldn’t that be “fitted” to the kachhera? i’ve never seen kachhera made any other way.
i suppose we should look at the original punjabi for specifics, rather than trying to dissect the translation… oh wait, in the punjabi version, it doesn’t explain how kachhera are designed, because every Sikh knows what kachhera are. i would suggest that the turban is not described because every Sikh also knows what a turban is (wrapped one lar at a time around the head, and tied fresh every time). and a patka, a bandanna, and a baseball cap are obviously not a turban.
[deleted by Admin Kaur. sizzle, please keep it relevant]
what were we talking about again? oh. it’s just as tangential and meandering.