Why it is necessary to tie Dumalla for a Gursikh Bibi ?

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾ
ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਹਿ

shersinghaz ji,

I would like to address some of hte points you have raised. First you mention that the original rehatnama of bhai chaupa singh is housed at Sri Amritsar, clearly stating women are not allowed to administer amrit. You further stated that it is only a modern practice for women to take khande ki pahul. You need to understnad that when piara singh padam wrote his book on rehatnamas, he made it clear that he is only compiling what he has found and not vouching for the 100% authenticity of each rehatnama. Piara Singh Padam needs to be commended for his scholarship and the research that he conducted. Do not misinterpret his intent when publishing these rehatnamas. It is very likely that many rehatnamas have been adulterated over the centuries. You stated that bhai chaupa singh's rehatnama was written by one of the original panj pyare. Please clarify that point because bhai chaupa singh was not one of the original panj pyare.

Take into consideration the historical background that many of these documents had to endure. Historically the panth was in chaos in terms of scholarship. The khalsa had to struggle for its survival through the majority of its history. This doesnt leave much room for scholarship and research. Groups such as the udasis and nirmalas preserved our history. They haven't always agreed with the khalsa ideals and leaned more towards a vedantic outlook of the world. So keep in mind, vedantic groups were the ones that preserving our history and naturally their views will be reflected in the documents they produce. further elaborating on this point, we must consider groups that began joining sikhi and the cultural baggage they brought with them. The tradition of hindu families giving up a son to the khalsa must be considered. It brought a huge demographic change in the khalsa.

This is the period where it is most likely that a male dominated culture of sikhi began. From a purely logistical standpoint, you have to see where the women they married came from. I doubt it was women from sikh families. With such a gender balance developing, the woman had to come from none other than the hindu community. This began to water down the khalsa principles set out by sri guru gobind singh ji maharaj. Just remember the manji system. Guru sahib not only created male community leaders, there were many bibis doing this seva. This last historical fact alone can derail your argument against Sikh women taking affirmative roles in Sikhi.

You quoted the Khalsa Dharam Shastar. You should understand that this document comes out of an adulterated tradition that does not consider Sikhi a distinct entity. Its basic premise is the Khalsa Panth is a part of the Hindu Dharam. Considering Sikhi a seperate Dharam is considered a grave mistake. This is entirely against the Gurmat tradition. Unfortuantely its usage has been reintiated by Sri Hazoor Sahib even after Akali Kaur Singh eliminated its implementation at the takht. I urge you to understand that there is a difference between what Sikhi is and what people that consider themselves Sikh believe in.

-Himat Singh

According to Gurbani and Vaars, every person must take Amrit (Naam) to become a Sikh of the Guru. The method from 1469-1699 was charan Amrit which was changed to Khanda Amrit later on. Many scholars have given different reasons but not a single one asserts that it was a departure from earlier traditions or reserved for men only. Guru Gobind Singh Ji in 1699 implemented the same Gurbani principles according to which Naam is obtained from Satguru. The reason Amrit preparation method is not mentioned in Gurbani is because 1) Vaheguru has given Satguru the prerogative to choose any method to prepare Amrit 2) Guru Sahib did not want Sikhs to assume that there is only one method of preparing the Amrit and 3) Abrogation would have become accepted in Gurmat and Gurbani because abrogating charan Amrit method for Khanda Amrit in Gurbani would have opened the door to other principles. Also, method itself is not a principle. The principle is to obtain Naam according to the method prescribed by Satguru. This is clearly stated in Gurbani in almost every Shabad. There are other reasons but these are sufficient for this discussion. Vaars are no different in this regard according to which charan Amrit was given to Sikhs (which includes women).

Since Guru Sahib eliminated the spiritual distinctions between men and women, they prescribed one rehat for both starting to end. There is not a single spiritual principle in Gurbani that is reserved for a single sex only. Hence, Khanda Amrit being the medium to obtain Naam and enter the path of Sikhi could not have been reserved for men only. It is not rational to assume that with the change of method, women became excluded from obtaining Naam. Otherwise, proponents of such a ridiculous theory must explain the method of initiating women and giving them Naam up to and after 1699. Further, asserting that Khanda Amrit was introduced for men means: All ten Gurus are not one in letter and spirit for the last Guru departed from His predecessors which is contrary to what Gurbani states and that the last Guru introduced new injunctions which were never given any time to develop and be implemented into the lives of the Sikhs. In this view, the tenth Guru did not fulfill the mission of Guru Nanak Dev Ji but pushed it into a different and opposite direction. Such notions go against the fundamentals of Sikhi. Hence, by relying on any document that states that Amrit is for men only, one is going against the teachings of Gurbani. One cannot seriously claim that all the Shabads in which a devotee is begging Satguru for Naam Amrit is written for men only because women are not qualified for this blessing. Gurbani is supreme and all other historical documents must be interpreted and accepted according to Gurmat. History cannot be used to defy Gurbani principles be it Amrit for men, meat eating, opium usage etc.

Now to Mata Sahib Devan Ji. Granted her name is not written as Kaur in her rehatnama but not a single document proves that she was not given Amrit or Naam. Since a Sikh must marry a Sikh, it is ridiculous to assume that Guru Sahib, being a Sikh, married a non-Sikh woman who had not even received Naam. Again, if not Amrit then what was the method of giving Naam to women? What is the historical proof and what Gurbani Shabad proves that there must be two different methods? Dr. Trilochan Singh was at the forefront of using Mata Ji’s correct name as Sahib Devan but even he did not make the claim that she was not given Naam. According to him, she had received Naam through charan pahul and therefore, did not need to receive Naam again through Khanda Amrit. This is why her name did not change. The same goes for Bhai Nand Lal, Bhai Kanhaiya and many others. Those who wished to take Khanda Amrit changed their names but the ones who did not and had already obtained Naam through charan Amrit became members of the Khalsa. Khalsa is a Sikh, Sant, Saadh, Brahmgyani etc. These are not different personalities but different names of the same ideal God-oriented person be it a man or a woman. Khalsa is not a gender but a character and an ideal person in whom Guru Sahib’s power is vested. Nowhere has Guru Sahib ever suggested that His roop lies with men only.

Whether Singh Sabha changed the Sikh teachings or simply brought them to limelight is a separate topic. Dr. Gurdarshan Singh Dhillon has already proven the latter case in his articles. Basically, if a former case, it would have become a cult and a separate faction. Many great Sikhs became its proponents. Sant Attar Singh, Bhai Randhir Singh and Taksal do not believe that Amrit is or ever was for men only. I highly doubt Singh Sabha could influence such Sikhs with their arguments to change their understanding about Sikhi.

Bhai Chaupa Singh rehatnama is altered just like all other rehatnamas. No rehatnama exists in its original form. All other historical texts have different versions. Also, a rehatnama is something that explains rehat as defined by Gurbani. If Gurbani does not support it, then its rehat cannot be accepted. Prem Sumarag granth supports giving pahul to women. I remember reading in Gur Pad Prem Parkash that women took Amrit in 1699 including wives of Guru Sahib. Mata Sahib Kaur Ji came in 1701 according to historical sources. Giani Gian Singh writes that her Anand Karaj was performed after she was given Amrit. Guru Sahib’s hukamnama written to sangat of Kabul clearly commands them to take Amrit from Panj Pyare. Was it addressed to men only? Are men the only sangat?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence meaning that just because it is hard to find women with ‘Kaur’ names in history does not mean there were none nor does it lead to the conclusion that Amrit was for men only. Such a premise does not support this conclusion and it is a logical fallacy. Women being part of Panj Pyare is a separate topic but no true Sikh of the Guru can claim that Amrit is or ever was for men only. It is a method of initiation and imparting Naam to the devotee. Since women have equal rights in religion and can equally tread the spiritual path, they are equal receivers of Amrit. Guru Rakha

Well put Bijla Singh ji.
If khande da amrit is not for women then What is the prescribed method for giving Naam to them?

It seems Bhai Bijla Singh has summed everything up (once again) very nicely. I believe it's futile to debate on this point any further. A woman is not just a creation for the purpose of breeding. I am sure Vaheguru could have administered the male body to re produce if he willed.

She thinks, she feels, she loves, she has a spirit inside her. There must be a purpose to that life just the way there is a purpose to a male life. And if that purpose happens to be salvation to ONE GOD, who is a god of males and females, then the pathway to that GOD must be the same. This mean same lifestyle, same initiation, same rights and privileges and so on.

The points being raised can also lead to questions such as:

1) what is the purpose of a female human
2) why is she different yet at the same time so similar to a man
3) is there another GOD for her than the one man looks upto, because ONE GOD wouldn't subscribe 2 paths

And there doesn't seem to be any logical answer to those questions.

Rab Rakha Jee

I meant to share this back when this topic was posted but was still working on the presentation and forgot to post it when it was complete. The following is a PowerPoint on the topic of dastars and bibian which is geared towards encouraging young bhujangans to adopt Sikhi bana:

[www.dropbox.com]

Please let me know if the link is working or not. When viewing the presentation on more recent versions of PowerPoint you should be able to see attached notes as well, but it should also be visible without notes on other applications, so someone please let me know if it's not.




Secondly, ignore ridiculous statements that khandey ke pahul and rehit is not meant for bibian. There is plenty of historical evidence that shows that bibian and have been taking amrit and keeping the same rehit as Singhs since puratan times. Here's a link to a mini archive of records pertaining to puratan Sikh women. The site is still in the works and there's a few more things which need to be uploaded, maybe in the following few days:
[sikhherstory.omeka.net]