SGPC President: “Sikh religion doesn’t permit…jeans”
SGPC Chief Avtar Singh Makkar recently put forth the stunning idea that the Sikh religion doesn’t permit women to wear jeans. Apparently jeans, along with sleeveless shirts, “attract undue attention and distract others.” [link]
The background story:
…authorities in educational institutions run by the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee are … advising girl students wearing jeans or sleeveless shirts to “go home and change”.
Though the gurdwara body does not have any written rule on the matter, its employees in schools and colleges across Punjab insist hip-hugging denims and bare female arms are too provocative and liable to distract male teachers and students. There have been many recent instances at Ludhiana’s highly-sought-after Guru Nanak Engineering College, where women students were turned out of classrooms and told to stay away unless they went home and changed into “more respectable attire”.
SGPC chief Avtar Singh Makkar actually acknowledges the unwritten rule. “We discourage girls from wearing anything other than the usual salwar kameez because Sikh religion doesn’t permit dresses like jeans, pants or other similar wear.” [link]
What’s wrong with his statement? So many things… only one of which is Makkar’s use of the Sikh religion to promote his personal viewpoint and ultimately, the failure in leadership it illustrates.
One Sikh scholar pointed out that jeans didn’t even exist when Sikhism came into being.
“There were no jeans in the times of the Gurus so how could have they have forbidden Sikh women from wearing these?” said the Ludhiana-based Dr Balkar Singh. [link]
In other words, no Sikh text makes any reference to jeans and Makkar completely made up his claim out of thin air and attributed it to Sikhi. As the President of the Sikh Parliament, that is ridiculously problematic for two reasons (at least). First, no political leader should couch personal opinions in authoritative, official statements (even if many do in reality). The distinction between personal opinion and actual authority should remain clear. Luckily, we can all refer to the actual authorities ourselves. Second, even if an SGPC President is a political, not religious leader, he or she is managing religious institutions and should be able to speak competently (at least!) about Sikhi.
Even if you’re not surprised by Makkar’s wrong claim, I do think a collective sigh is warranted here, for the failure of our leadership to produce … well… leadership instead of personal opinions couched in authoritative, factually incorrect statements.
And last but not least- if there’s a problem of “undue attention and distraction,” I think the easier and more gender neutral solution would clearly be to tell the male students to pay attention. In the context of an engineering college where I imagine women are already in the minority and subject to unwelcome attention from their male counterparts, Makkar’s mentality seems quite un-Sikh-like.
113 Responses to “SGPC President: “Sikh religion doesn’t permit…jeans””
I don't see what's wrong with his statement. I thought it was obvious- women should be modest in clothing, this includes not wearing tight fighting jeans and sleeveless shirts. In this respect, Sikh women aren't so different than Muslim women. Muslim women still adhere to their religious form by keeping themselves covered. But for Sikh women, unfortunately only amritdhari women maintain this tradition nowadays.
But I agree with you that the "liable to distract male teachers and students" seems ad hoc. I think a better religious justification for this pronouncement can be articulated.
–sincerely, randeep
I don’t see what’s wrong with his statement. I thought it was obvious- women should be modest in clothing, this includes not wearing tight fighting jeans and sleeveless shirts. In this respect, Sikh women aren’t so different than Muslim women. Muslim women still adhere to their religious form by keeping themselves covered. But for Sikh women, unfortunately only amritdhari women maintain this tradition nowadays.
But I agree with you that the “liable to distract male teachers and students” seems ad hoc. I think a better religious justification for this pronouncement can be articulated.
–sincerely, randeep
In this respect, they're not different from Orthodox Jews either. Female chastity mediated through rules about clothing. Who woulda thought?
Seriously?
In this respect, they’re not different from Orthodox Jews either. Female chastity mediated through rules about clothing. Who woulda thought?
Seriously?
I agree upto a point on wisdom of SGPC head.
Their is certianly no rules regarding dress code in "SIKHISM " as enshrined in "Guru Granth sahib"
Having said that where do u put a full stop it is sleevless today tomorrow it would extended to half nickers and so on.
Looking modest and yet mdoern and contemporary is a question each generation of Sikhs will have to take a call on.
I have my self seen thea gradual change creeping in when girl would alway wear gunghat to the point of jeans today.
I agree that this is the maximum the currant elders in our community can digest.
Tommorow is a mystery and unknown and the youngester shall lead the way.
so "RAB RAKHA"
Wow, I was in hysterics after reading the above story.
The SGPC should preach modesty rather than enforce a no jeans/sleevless top ban.
Would it not be easier to implement a uniform and be done with the issue.
Another example of how the SGPC are helping the panth???!?!
I agree upto a point on wisdom of SGPC head.
Their is certianly no rules regarding dress code in “SIKHISM ” as enshrined in “Guru Granth sahib”
Having said that where do u put a full stop it is sleevless today tomorrow it would extended to half nickers and so on.
Looking modest and yet mdoern and contemporary is a question each generation of Sikhs will have to take a call on.
I have my self seen thea gradual change creeping in when girl would alway wear gunghat to the point of jeans today.
I agree that this is the maximum the currant elders in our community can digest.
Tommorow is a mystery and unknown and the youngester shall lead the way.
so “RAB RAKHA”
there seems to be a campaign where many muslims are trying to make sikhism look as twisted as islam.
sikhs believe males and females are directly equal.
his views are not thought through, and should be questioned.
however in the gurdwara- sikh women should dress appropiatly as should sikh men.
Woooooowwwwwwwwwwww.
It's disheartening to our Sikh institutional leaders disrespecting the transcending principles of Sikhi like that.
And as much as I wanted to put leaders in quotes to disparage their actual leadership, I guess I have to take ownership since as a Panth, we allow them to disgrace our belief system like they do.
I'm a bit taken aback by the comments of people who practice a faith that is centered around equality and empowerment of every individual think they know what's best for all Sikh women.
Gender inequality anyone? How are we taking our beliefs and ideals into practice?
Just wow is all I can say.
Wow, I was in hysterics after reading the above story.
The SGPC should preach modesty rather than enforce a no jeans/sleevless top ban.
Would it not be easier to implement a uniform and be done with the issue.
Another example of how the SGPC are helping the panth???!?!
Waheguru ji ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
I think we are forgetting something while commenting i.e. What is the guideline of Gurbani(SGGS) about Wearing of clothes and that is:
Baba Hor Pehnan Khushi Khuaar
Jit Painde Tan Peediye
Man Meh Chaleh Vikaar II
One can not say that if one lady is in Salwar-Kameej, she has weared the dress according to SGGS..
All knows also abt the today's salwar-Kameej of girls.
Actually problem is not with a piece of clothes(even if its jeans) but when any one is wearing the jeans or any other cloth,he/she just have to keep in mind that his/her body should feel comfortable and his/her dress is so decent that no one could not even think to see him/her with bad eye.
But
For this there should be high morality character ..
if anyone does not have good character,everyone see her/him with bad eye, either he/she is in jeans or salwar kameej…
We should live by concepts…
Sidhant Nahi Badalna Chahida…Sidhant Di Applications Badaldiya Rehndiya Han..
Main thing which we all are forgetting is that why we or Avtar Singh are commenting on girls only…
Tight-Fit jeans if not allowed for girls then it also not allowed for boys because by tight-fit jeans no one can feel comfortable..
Now a days,even boys showing thier hips by wearing the down jeans..
We should STOP now to blame the girls but should think abt that how can we fill the morality in Sikh boys and girls all…
Avtaar Singh ji is at top most seat of of SGPC but we all know that what SGPC is doing for Sikhi…
Think..
anyone can also reply to me or discuss at
sms.thekhalsa@gmail.com
Waheguru ji ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
Waheguru ji ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
I think we are forgetting something while commenting i.e. What is the guideline of Gurbani(SGGS) about Wearing of clothes and that is:
Baba Hor Pehnan Khushi Khuaar
Jit Painde Tan Peediye
Man Meh Chaleh Vikaar II
One can not say that if one lady is in Salwar-Kameej, she has weared the dress according to SGGS..
All knows also abt the today’s salwar-Kameej of girls.
Actually problem is not with a piece of clothes(even if its jeans) but when any one is wearing the jeans or any other cloth,he/she just have to keep in mind that his/her body should feel comfortable and his/her dress is so decent that no one could not even think to see him/her with bad eye.
But
For this there should be high morality character ..
if anyone does not have good character,everyone see her/him with bad eye, either he/she is in jeans or salwar kameej…
We should live by concepts…
Sidhant Nahi Badalna Chahida…Sidhant Di Applications Badaldiya Rehndiya Han..
Main thing which we all are forgetting is that why we or Avtar Singh are commenting on girls only…
Tight-Fit jeans if not allowed for girls then it also not allowed for boys because by tight-fit jeans no one can feel comfortable..
Now a days,even boys showing thier hips by wearing the down jeans..
We should STOP now to blame the girls but should think abt that how can we fill the morality in Sikh boys and girls all…
Avtaar Singh ji is at top most seat of of SGPC but we all know that what SGPC is doing for Sikhi…
Think..
anyone can also reply to me or discuss at
sms.thekhalsa@gmail.com
Waheguru ji ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
there seems to be a campaign where many muslims are trying to make sikhism look as twisted as islam.
sikhs believe males and females are directly equal.
his views are not thought through, and should be questioned.
however in the gurdwara- sikh women should dress appropiatly as should sikh men.
Woooooowwwwwwwwwwww.
It’s disheartening to our Sikh institutional leaders disrespecting the transcending principles of Sikhi like that.
And as much as I wanted to put leaders in quotes to disparage their actual leadership, I guess I have to take ownership since as a Panth, we allow them to disgrace our belief system like they do.
I’m a bit taken aback by the comments of people who practice a faith that is centered around equality and empowerment of every individual think they know what’s best for all Sikh women.
Gender inequality anyone? How are we taking our beliefs and ideals into practice?
Just wow is all I can say.
wow is right. this is so so outrageous and sexist.
reema you are so on point here:
this kind of reasoning is the same reasoning very often used to justify sexual assault with claims like "well, look at what she was wearing, she was asking for it."
can we please reclaim our sikh institutions?!
If Badal is the Hindu's lap dog than what does that make Makkar? What a hypocrit. Makkar his caste given last name and is the head of the SGPC. WOW! He is a long haired Hindu and cares nothing of Sikhi. Sikh women are nothing like Muslim women. Sikh women are proud lionesses. Daughters of Guru Gobind Singh. True, Muslim women cover there heads .. but many wear tight jeans and t-shirts to go with there head scarves. Nothing against Hindus and Muslims but we don't need to compare ourselves to them. I like the idea of uniforms .. and Sikh culture promotes modesty for men and women alike. Men need to practice self control. It isn`t women`s fault if some men have no self control. Some men get distracted regardless of what women are wearing and doing. All in all, Sikh men and women can learn from this. There is no culture like Sikh culture.
Makkar should pick on someone his own size like Punjabi singers who have promoted all this..Gurdas Mann, Jazzy B, Harbhajan Mann to name a few.. not innocent women. It is usually Makkar's way of going about things..pick on the already down and beaten.
Reema said it best when she cautioned against claiming personal preference as Sikh doctrine.
In regards to re-claiming Sikh institutions, I came across this event which should prove interesting:
Topic: Re-Thinking Sikh Institutions
Presenter: I.J. Singh
April 4th
11:00 am – 12:30 pm CST
http://sikhri.webex.com
wow is right. this is so so outrageous and sexist.
reema you are so on point here:
this kind of reasoning is the same reasoning very often used to justify sexual assault with claims like “well, look at what she was wearing, she was asking for it.”
can we please reclaim our sikh institutions?!
I will second Sonny's comments:
this kind of reasoning is the same reasoning very often used to justify sexual assault with claims like “well, look at what she was wearing, she was asking for it.”
It's a slippery slope – you start with jeans – what's next?
If Badal is the Hindu’s lap dog than what does that make Makkar? What a hypocrit. Makkar his caste given last name and is the head of the SGPC. WOW! He is a long haired Hindu and cares nothing of Sikhi. Sikh women are nothing like Muslim women. Sikh women are proud lionesses. Daughters of Guru Gobind Singh. True, Muslim women cover there heads .. but many wear tight jeans and t-shirts to go with there head scarves. Nothing against Hindus and Muslims but we don’t need to compare ourselves to them. I like the idea of uniforms .. and Sikh culture promotes modesty for men and women alike. Men need to practice self control. It isn`t women`s fault if some men have no self control. Some men get distracted regardless of what women are wearing and doing. All in all, Sikh men and women can learn from this. There is no culture like Sikh culture.
Makkar should pick on someone his own size like Punjabi singers who have promoted all this..Gurdas Mann, Jazzy B, Harbhajan Mann to name a few.. not innocent women. It is usually Makkar’s way of going about things..pick on the already down and beaten.
Reema said it best when she cautioned against claiming personal preference as Sikh doctrine.
In regards to re-claiming Sikh institutions, I came across this event which should prove interesting:
Topic: Re-Thinking Sikh Institutions
Presenter: I.J. Singh
April 4th
11:00 am – 12:30 pm CST
http://sikhri.webex.com
I will second Sonny’s comments:
this kind of reasoning is the same reasoning very often used to justify sexual assault with claims like “well, look at what she was wearing, she was asking for it.”
It’s a slippery slope – you start with jeans – what’s next?
I agree that SGPC chief is violating the basics of "SIKHISM" by appending to his name Makkar .
It should be bought to the notice of "AKAL TAKTH"
I agree that SGPC chief is violating the basics of “SIKHISM” by appending to his name Makkar .
It should be bought to the notice of “AKAL TAKTH”
this is what Khalistan would have gotten us…
Makkar does not even follow Sikhi. How do you equate Khalistan to Makkar? If you want to know what Khalistan would have been like think Banda Singh Bahadur, Mata Bhag Kaur, Guru Gobind Singh, Sant Jarnail Singh, Bhagat Puran Singh and many more. What an unresearched, uneducated statement to make. Any excuse to put down our own freedom. This is exactly what India — slavery to India has gotten us. How meaningless to bring up Khalistan.
this is what Khalistan would have gotten us…
This isn't a discussion about Khalistan- let's stay on topic.
Everyone who said 'wow!'- I know!! Even if the ultimate goal was modesty, I think we have to ask a) whether that's a proper goal to be imposed from a political institution, and b) whether this is the right way to do it. The answer to both in my opinion is no.
Sundari and Sonny- I was also thinking of the same analogy where rape victims get blamed because of promiscuous clothing, but I didn't want to compare being sent home to change clothing with rape, and I also didn't know how to talk about the blame and rape without using a 'victim' and 'violator' vocabulary. I think the issue is more about frameworks of power instead of just one incident (which the victim/violator vocabulary connotes).
Makkar does not even follow Sikhi. How do you equate Khalistan to Makkar? If you want to know what Khalistan would have been like think Banda Singh Bahadur, Mata Bhag Kaur, Guru Gobind Singh, Sant Jarnail Singh, Bhagat Puran Singh and many more. What an unresearched, uneducated statement to make. Any excuse to put down our own freedom. This is exactly what India — slavery to India has gotten us. How meaningless to bring up Khalistan.
This isn’t a discussion about Khalistan- let’s stay on topic.
Everyone who said ‘wow!’- I know!! Even if the ultimate goal was modesty, I think we have to ask a) whether that’s a proper goal to be imposed from a political institution, and b) whether this is the right way to do it. The answer to both in my opinion is no.
Sundari and Sonny- I was also thinking of the same analogy where rape victims get blamed because of promiscuous clothing, but I didn’t want to compare being sent home to change clothing with rape, and I also didn’t know how to talk about the blame and rape without using a ‘victim’ and ‘violator’ vocabulary. I think the issue is more about frameworks of power instead of just one incident (which the victim/violator vocabulary connotes).
reema- i agree that "modesty", a very subjective, loaded, gendered (read: sexist) concept, is not something that should be imposed by anyone, and certainly not the SGPC. i feel you on the analogy to sexual assault and rape and true, it's definitely not the same — BUT this is the same kind of narrow, judgmental thinking that is used to justify much more extreme and violent forms of misogyny. at the end of the day, it's about power–male power–and control–over women and their bodies. it's sickening.
reema- i agree that “modesty”, a very subjective, loaded, gendered (read: sexist) concept, is not something that should be imposed by anyone, and certainly not the SGPC. i feel you on the analogy to sexual assault and rape and true, it’s definitely not the same — BUT this is the same kind of narrow, judgmental thinking that is used to justify much more extreme and violent forms of misogyny. at the end of the day, it’s about power–male power–and control–over women and their bodies. it’s sickening.
I find the moral outrage in this thread simply hilarious. Here are some of the words used by the previous poster:
loaded,
gendered,
sexist,
imposed,
narrow,
judgemental,
extreme and violent,
misogyny,
male power,
control-over women,
and finally
sickening
And that's from a post containing merely 88 words! What's hilarious is that nothing is being said! Everyone's trumpeting the same outrage and the same angry tone. But, at least say something! Everyone is trained to keep repeating that old and tired "equality slogan". What does that even mean?? What does it even mean to say that men are equal to women? I thought we got over this whole second-wave feminism.
I'm a kid. I'm only 22 years old. But what's funny about Sikh kids my age is how little they know and yet their claims to be modern. All this moral outrage! and yet I wonder if Reema, or Sonny, or any other enraged individual has stepped beyond second-wave feminism. What do you think about contemporary, continental feminists' critiques of equality that you vacuously assert? Their approaches can be seen as a critique of critique, of metaphysics, and yet also feminist (or therefor feminist?).
I wish instead of feeling enraged, you could teach me about these things. Less moral outrage, more understanding is what we need. Or, rather, if you are morally outraged, go get a big stick and fight in a good war. But if you're sitting behind a computer screen, I think you could do better.
What is it about that article of clothing made famous by Levi Strauss that gets the patriarchal power structure's own britches in a bunch?
I find the moral outrage in this thread simply hilarious. Here are some of the words used by the previous poster:
loaded,
gendered,
sexist,
imposed,
narrow,
judgemental,
extreme and violent,
misogyny,
male power,
control-over women,
and finally
sickening
And that’s from a post containing merely 88 words! What’s hilarious is that nothing is being said! Everyone’s trumpeting the same outrage and the same angry tone. But, at least say something! Everyone is trained to keep repeating that old and tired “equality slogan”. What does that even mean?? What does it even mean to say that men are equal to women? I thought we got over this whole second-wave feminism.
I’m a kid. I’m only 22 years old. But what’s funny about Sikh kids my age is how little they know and yet their claims to be modern. All this moral outrage! and yet I wonder if Reema, or Sonny, or any other enraged individual has stepped beyond second-wave feminism. What do you think about contemporary, continental feminists’ critiques of equality that you vacuously assert? Their approaches can be seen as a critique of critique, of metaphysics, and yet also feminist (or therefor feminist?).
I wish instead of feeling enraged, you could teach me about these things. Less moral outrage, more understanding is what we need. Or, rather, if you are morally outraged, go get a big stick and fight in a good war. But if you’re sitting behind a computer screen, I think you could do better.
What is it about that article of clothing made famous by Levi Strauss that gets the patriarchal power structure’s own britches in a bunch?
randeep: it sounds to me that you'd rather be hearing some postmodern, esoteric, intellectual pontification than a calling a spade a spade. i'm not sure how expressing outrage about sexism is being stuck in the past, or something that feminists "moved beyond" after the 2nd wave (or saying "nothing").
but if you don't like my language or "moral outrage", maybe this will hit home for you:
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html…
randeep: it sounds to me that you’d rather be hearing some postmodern, esoteric, intellectual pontification than a calling a spade a spade. i’m not sure how expressing outrage about sexism is being stuck in the past, or something that feminists “moved beyond” after the 2nd wave (or saying “nothing”).
but if you don’t like my language or “moral outrage”, maybe this will hit home for you:
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=178526
shersingh
I lived in punjab at the height of the movement, was a college student. The khalistanis were a bunch of taliban. They forced, under the threat of the gun, for everyone to cover their heads, eliminated saris. They wanted all school kids to cover their heads with saffron chunnis.
A democratic,progressive Khalistan is one thing-a fundamentalist, misogynistic and repressive regime another.
It was not a poorly researched statement, I lived through it so shove it.
SGPC school's cannot be allowing sleeveless shirts by women, well for sure not unless those women aren't removing hair from their under arms.. and then i'm sure if they had that much sense of sikhi to keep their hair there.. they wouldnt want to wear sleeveless shirts anyways..
Makkar's comments about Jeans may be misplaced, but the whole discussion on wearing modest clothes needs to be spread amongst men and women in India and across the World.
shersingh
I lived in punjab at the height of the movement, was a college student. The khalistanis were a bunch of taliban. They forced, under the threat of the gun, for everyone to cover their heads, eliminated saris. They wanted all school kids to cover their heads with saffron chunnis.
A democratic,progressive Khalistan is one thing-a fundamentalist, misogynistic and repressive regime another.
It was not a poorly researched statement, I lived through it so shove it.
SGPC school’s cannot be allowing sleeveless shirts by women, well for sure not unless those women aren’t removing hair from their under arms.. and then i’m sure if they had that much sense of sikhi to keep their hair there.. they wouldnt want to wear sleeveless shirts anyways..
Makkar’s comments about Jeans may be misplaced, but the whole discussion on wearing modest clothes needs to be spread amongst men and women in India and across the World.
Sonny,
June Jordan's poetry is to a large degree continuous with those very "second-wave" feminists I mentioned- I'm versed in her poetry because I'm taking the very class she engineered at Cal. You don't seem to understand. It's not that your rage and anger don't exist. I'm sure they do. My question is why they manifest in a 'liberal' voice.
Or, let me phrase it in another way. You say,
But are you calling a spade a spade? Maybe you've been brainwashed into calling a spade a spade when it isn't actually a spade. Maybe we all have. Maybe what you've been taught since day one-that spades are spade- is a vestigial remnant of some dirty politics? Maybe what you've been taught-that 'this' is a spade-was once an outright lie but now has been beaten into y(our) head- that when anyone doesn't call it a spade you become enraged and morally outraged? Maybe it's actually so ridiculous to call 'this' a spade, that "calling a spade a spade" can be the only justification for it – which is itself a lie.
Or, if I rephrase this in a more straightforward way, who is it that's conditioning your moral intuitions? If it's the secular, liberal American culture (aka the Maury Povich show) then it's no wonder you think all this equality stuff amounts to "calling a spade a spade". Even a cursory glance at the foundations of these intuitions shows these ideas to be flimsy and vacuous.
Let go of the moral outrage – behind the moral outrage is an equation, an equation that seems very simple: women = men. It's not obvious this is true, because it's not so obvious what this even means. Men and women, people, aren't objects to equate. Think about the implications of this manner of speech. I think it might unfold some of the slogan's underlying assumptions.
Who knows, it might be this whole 'equality slogan' brainwashing is standing in the way- it's what we need to get over before we realize one another. It sure seems that way.
–sincerely, randeep
re: Bainga-whatdidyousayyournamewas
You're whole you lived in India during the height of the movement you must mean the height of Indian Gov't militancy/terrorism because the Sikhs fought as freedom fighters. Your 'experiences' are a whole lot of lies. Sikhs being Taliban? You definately have been indoctrinated by the Indian Gov't. You knowingly spread poison against the great Sikh freedom fighters of the past. Those who died to protect the honor of all women regardless of their religion. If you did live through the height of the Indian Gov't terrorist movement you must have seen the brutality meeted out to the Sikhs. Or do you choose to close your eyes to this? Hearing your hatred and bias against Khalistan..I wonder if you would support the torture and murder of me and my family the way the Indian police would to people who wanted freedom. Did you play a part in the terrorism against Sikhs or a mute spectator? Same thing I guess. Crazy how out of all the human rights violations against Sikhs in Punjab you point out the things you did. I feel sorry for you. You are brainwashed and must be hurt inside.
— There is nothing wrong with promoting modesty as long as it is emphasized to both the sexes. Punjab can use this emphasis —
Sonny,
June Jordan’s poetry is to a large degree continuous with those very “second-wave” feminists I mentioned- I’m versed in her poetry because I’m taking the very class she engineered at Cal. You don’t seem to understand. It’s not that your rage and anger don’t exist. I’m sure they do. My question is why they manifest in a ‘liberal’ voice.
Or, let me phrase it in another way. You say,
But are you calling a spade a spade? Maybe you’ve been brainwashed into calling a spade a spade when it isn’t actually a spade. Maybe we all have. Maybe what you’ve been taught since day one-that spades are spade- is a vestigial remnant of some dirty politics? Maybe what you’ve been taught-that ‘this’ is a spade-was once an outright lie but now has been beaten into y(our) head- that when anyone doesn’t call it a spade you become enraged and morally outraged? Maybe it’s actually so ridiculous to call ‘this’ a spade, that “calling a spade a spade” can be the only justification for it – which is itself a lie.
Or, if I rephrase this in a more straightforward way, who is it that’s conditioning your moral intuitions? If it’s the secular, liberal American culture (aka the Maury Povich show) then it’s no wonder you think all this equality stuff amounts to “calling a spade a spade”. Even a cursory glance at the foundations of these intuitions shows these ideas to be flimsy and vacuous.
Let go of the moral outrage – behind the moral outrage is an equation, an equation that seems very simple: women = men. It’s not obvious this is true, because it’s not so obvious what this even means. Men and women, people, aren’t objects to equate. Think about the implications of this manner of speech. I think it might unfold some of the slogan’s underlying assumptions.
Who knows, it might be this whole ‘equality slogan’ brainwashing is standing in the way- it’s what we need to get over before we realize one another. It sure seems that way.
–sincerely, randeep
re: Bainga-whatdidyousayyournamewas
You’re whole you lived in India during the height of the movement you must mean the height of Indian Gov’t militancy/terrorism because the Sikhs fought as freedom fighters. Your ‘experiences’ are a whole lot of lies. Sikhs being Taliban? You definately have been indoctrinated by the Indian Gov’t. You knowingly spread poison against the great Sikh freedom fighters of the past. Those who died to protect the honor of all women regardless of their religion. If you did live through the height of the Indian Gov’t terrorist movement you must have seen the brutality meeted out to the Sikhs. Or do you choose to close your eyes to this? Hearing your hatred and bias against Khalistan..I wonder if you would support the torture and murder of me and my family the way the Indian police would to people who wanted freedom. Did you play a part in the terrorism against Sikhs or a mute spectator? Same thing I guess. Crazy how out of all the human rights violations against Sikhs in Punjab you point out the things you did. I feel sorry for you. You are brainwashed and must be hurt inside.
— There is nothing wrong with promoting modesty as long as it is emphasized to both the sexes. Punjab can use this emphasis —
Randeep,
For someone who claims to be seeking 'truth,' you make a lot of assumptions. You seem to think you know more about the commenters than can actually be gauged by their brief comments. You may also be oversimplifying commenters' beliefs, based on …a comment.
Since it's clear that you have no desire to engage with people in conversation, or to listen to their perspectives, but instead just to antagonize people with how little (you think) they know about whatever knowledge you think you hold, I have no desire to engage with you.
This space is open for people to talk, but if you're actually interested in having a conversation (where people actually listen to you and respond instead of ignoring you or getting insulted), you might want to try a different approach.
No offense intended.
There was a book I read a long time ago sitting in a classroom as a freshman in high school, it was a class assigned reading the whole class read it and I was the only student in that class who had another background other then American. This book was titled "Things Fall Apart" in a nutshell the protagonist a village chief hangs himself because his son had chosen to educate himself by going to a British school. All the students in the class were shocked at the ending of the book. Why would the chief hang himself if his son chose to be educated? Is eduction not a good thing? I think most of these people in that class still don't get it even today because they did not have the luxury of a second view point to the situation other then just the western view point. So have any of you other then Randeep thought of what the view point of the "violator" is? Have you looked at his age group and their view point? Has anyone noticed Sikhs in India are a minority surrounded, by a dominating religious group which uses media, politics and what ever it can get its hands on to attack the Sikh faith? I am agreement with Sonny on modesty and Miss Kaur that the approach that the SGPC took was not professional and more threatening to youth then anything else.
Randeep is right people need to better understand what is men=women.
Randeep,
For someone who claims to be seeking ‘truth,’ you make a lot of assumptions. You seem to think you know more about the commenters than can actually be gauged by their brief comments. You may also be oversimplifying commenters’ beliefs, based on …a comment.
Since it’s clear that you have no desire to engage with people in conversation, or to listen to their perspectives, but instead just to antagonize people with how little (you think) they know about whatever knowledge you think you hold, I have no desire to engage with you.
This space is open for people to talk, but if you’re actually interested in having a conversation (where people actually listen to you and respond instead of ignoring you or getting insulted), you might want to try a different approach.
No offense intended.
There was a book I read a long time ago sitting in a classroom as a freshman in high school, it was a class assigned reading the whole class read it and I was the only student in that class who had another background other then American. This book was titled “Things Fall Apart” in a nutshell the protagonist a village chief hangs himself because his son had chosen to educate himself by going to a British school. All the students in the class were shocked at the ending of the book. Why would the chief hang himself if his son chose to be educated? Is eduction not a good thing? I think most of these people in that class still don’t get it even today because they did not have the luxury of a second view point to the situation other then just the western view point. So have any of you other then Randeep thought of what the view point of the “violator” is? Have you looked at his age group and their view point? Has anyone noticed Sikhs in India are a minority surrounded, by a dominating religious group which uses media, politics and what ever it can get its hands on to attack the Sikh faith? I am agreement with Sonny on modesty and Miss Kaur that the approach that the SGPC took was not professional and more threatening to youth then anything else.
Randeep is right people need to better understand what is men=women.
Hi,
I think this discussion rests on a certain tension created by the coming of modern feminism. In almost every non-western culture, this tension is more than visible. Women, newly empowered, are aggressively asserting their claim to equality with men, while, in most cases, patriarchal structures of different societies feel threatened by it and resist this onslaught with utmost force. This dynamic conjures up a binary of traditionalism vs. modernism. The violent imposition of this imaginary binary pair is the root of problem and its very existence fails every attempt at understanding. That's why I am taking the liberty to explore it at some length.
First of all, we should look at its presumed universalism. This kind of discourse treats tradition as a static and dead entity, which is valorized only by uneducated, extremist, underprivileged, demonic and inherently evil groups of people. Tradition, according to this interpretation, is something which is outdated and unenlightened, and antagonistic to the ideals of progress, humanism, peace, freedom and equality. While modernism is said to be its exact opposite. Such are the assumptions which evoke responses like this:
We need to deconstruct this approach. Tradition as a universally applicable concept is nothing more than an empty abstraction. There is no The Tradition, there are only traditions. Every tradition is unique in its own way. So, whenever we talk about modernism, we must be sensitive towards the context in which it is talked about. Some aspects of modernism in the context of some traditions, are indeed liberating. For example, the condition of women in ancient and medieval India was indeed horrible. Under Brahmnic regimes, women were treated as less than human beings and in some cases, they were worse off even than animals. The advent of modernism was indeed beneficial for women in those regions and cultures. But in some other places and situations, it was exactly opposite.
During the period of Guru Sahiban, the status of women in Punjab was unbelievably different than other parts of India. They were not only treated with respect and dignity, which every human being equally deserves, but they were also bestowed with a special spiritual significance. This significance lies in the fact that feminine mode of existence is conducive to achieve a union with Akaal Purakh. Perhaps, this is the reason why all Gurbani is uttered in a feminine voice. It does not mean that one needs a biological female body to achieve union with divine. What is needed is the experience of being feminine which indeed naturally accompanies female body, though it is not exclusively owned by it. Men, in order to live as Sikhs and to unite their souls with Waheguru, must earn this mode of feminine experience through Naam Simran and Sewa. Such is the freedom and honor accorded to women by Guru Sahiban.
On the other hand, look at the liberation offered to women by modernism. Despite its positive contributions, modernism has, in the name of equality, negated sexual difference. In modern times, the negation of difference is the most potent tool of oppression. That's why article 25 (b) of Indian constitution states Sikhs as being a part of Hindus. Sikhs are being denied their difference through said article of the constitution. And this denial becomes the foundation of further oppression and enslavement. Similar is the case of women in modern culture. When they are treated as equal to men, their very existence comes under question. Thus, women in modern societies are condemned to live in bad faith. Every inch of their soul is occupied and they are told to rejoice the freedom newly bestowed upon them. What a joke!
The insistence of women to be like men, to wear their clothes, is an instance of bad faith and nothing else. Men and women, with respect to their bodies, must maintain and respect the difference which is accorded to them by Akaal Purakh. They have no right to violate this difference. Women, and especially Sikh women, need to be courageous enough to shatter the fetters of freedom spun by masculine lust through modern institutions. And men need to realize that exploitation of women in the name freedom and equality is destroying their own spiritual potential. He, who seeks to take control over other's lives to exploit them, is called Saakat in Gurbani and such a person is condemned in both the worlds.
Hi,
I think this discussion rests on a certain tension created by the coming of modern feminism. In almost every non-western culture, this tension is more than visible. Women, newly empowered, are aggressively asserting their claim to equality with men, while, in most cases, patriarchal structures of different societies feel threatened by it and resist this onslaught with utmost force. This dynamic conjures up a binary of traditionalism vs. modernism. The violent imposition of this imaginary binary pair is the root of problem and its very existence fails every attempt at understanding. That’s why I am taking the liberty to explore it at some length.
First of all, we should look at its presumed universalism. This kind of discourse treats tradition as a static and dead entity, which is valorized only by uneducated, extremist, underprivileged, demonic and inherently evil groups of people. Tradition, according to this interpretation, is something which is outdated and unenlightened, and antagonistic to the ideals of progress, humanism, peace, freedom and equality. While modernism is said to be its exact opposite. Such are the assumptions which evoke responses like this:
We need to deconstruct this approach. Tradition as a universally applicable concept is nothing more than an empty abstraction. There is no The Tradition, there are only traditions. Every tradition is unique in its own way. So, whenever we talk about modernism, we must be sensitive towards the context in which it is talked about. Some aspects of modernism in the context of some traditions, are indeed liberating. For example, the condition of women in ancient and medieval India was indeed horrible. Under Brahmnic regimes, women were treated as less than human beings and in some cases, they were worse off even than animals. The advent of modernism was indeed beneficial for women in those regions and cultures. But in some other places and situations, it was exactly opposite.
During the period of Guru Sahiban, the status of women in Punjab was unbelievably different than other parts of India. They were not only treated with respect and dignity, which every human being equally deserves, but they were also bestowed with a special spiritual significance. This significance lies in the fact that feminine mode of existence is conducive to achieve a union with Akaal Purakh. Perhaps, this is the reason why all Gurbani is uttered in a feminine voice. It does not mean that one needs a biological female body to achieve union with divine. What is needed is the experience of being feminine which indeed naturally accompanies female body, though it is not exclusively owned by it. Men, in order to live as Sikhs and to unite their souls with Waheguru, must earn this mode of feminine experience through Naam Simran and Sewa. Such is the freedom and honor accorded to women by Guru Sahiban.
On the other hand, look at the liberation offered to women by modernism. Despite its positive contributions, modernism has, in the name of equality, negated sexual difference. In modern times, the negation of difference is the most potent tool of oppression. That’s why article 25 (b) of Indian constitution states Sikhs as being a part of Hindus. Sikhs are being denied their difference through said article of the constitution. And this denial becomes the foundation of further oppression and enslavement. Similar is the case of women in modern culture. When they are treated as equal to men, their very existence comes under question. Thus, women in modern societies are condemned to live in bad faith. Every inch of their soul is occupied and they are told to rejoice the freedom newly bestowed upon them. What a joke!
The insistence of women to be like men, to wear their clothes, is an instance of bad faith and nothing else. Men and women, with respect to their bodies, must maintain and respect the difference which is accorded to them by Akaal Purakh. They have no right to violate this difference. Women, and especially Sikh women, need to be courageous enough to shatter the fetters of freedom spun by masculine lust through modern institutions. And men need to realize that exploitation of women in the name freedom and equality is destroying their own spiritual potential. He, who seeks to take control over other’s lives to exploit them, is called Saakat in Gurbani and such a person is condemned in both the worlds.
Earth is one paradise of place where we can romp in our natural state the way GOD made us ;
though many states have laws against it.
Out in the wilderness of SPACE we will have to wear that funny rigs the "SPACEMAN" wears to ward of all the radiations and deoxygenated states .
Wonder what will happen to the "SLEVLESSNESS" and the "5K's" in "SPACE" our future home.
Guess the future generation will have to take a call
RAB RAKHA
Earth is one paradise of place where we can romp in our natural state the way GOD made us ;
though many states have laws against it.
Out in the wilderness of SPACE we will have to wear that funny rigs the “SPACEMAN” wears to ward of all the radiations and deoxygenated states .
Wonder what will happen to the “SLEVLESSNESS” and the “5K’s” in “SPACE” our future home.
Guess the future generation will have to take a call
RAB RAKHA
no saris at gun point! Could you give even an iota of proof to support your "statements" … something more credible than the Indian police! 500,000 + Sikhs were murdered by the Indian armed forces. Infants and elders too. They had more than guns pointed at them. Sikh women were forced to do more at gunpoint. Women are a nations greatest strength. The Indian Gov't knew this and that is why the directed the most brutality against Sikh women. Sikh women hold the highest status in our nation. They are slowly but surely reclaiming this in an uphill struggle against hindu society's smothering influences.
no saris at gun point! Could you give even an iota of proof to support your “statements” … something more credible than the Indian police! 500,000 + Sikhs were murdered by the Indian armed forces. Infants and elders too. They had more than guns pointed at them. Sikh women were forced to do more at gunpoint. Women are a nations greatest strength. The Indian Gov’t knew this and that is why the directed the most brutality against Sikh women. Sikh women hold the highest status in our nation. They are slowly but surely reclaiming this in an uphill struggle against hindu society’s smothering influences.
Could you give even an iota of proof to support this statement? I am not in favor of covering up the violence that the Indian state inflicted on the panth, but isn't the number closer to 50,000? I'm thinking of Kalra's data…
Could you give even an iota of proof to support this statement? I am not in favor of covering up the violence that the Indian state inflicted on the panth, but isn’t the number closer to 50,000? I’m thinking of Kalra’s data…