Disclaimer: The following message is not intended, in any remote way, to propagate the least bit of hatred towards individuals of any particular sexual orientation. Its sole purpose is to address certain issues that have been brushed aside for quite sometime and need to be clarified. I am no authority on understanding or explaining the priceless jewels contained in Gurbani or in the Vaaraan of Bhai Gurdas Jee. If anything stated by me (based on how I perceive Guru’s message) offends anyone, I deeply apologize in advance. Vaheguru’s jyot is in all beings, be they humans, animals, insects, plants, trees etc. they all have His jyot in them. Homosexuals, transvestites, eunuchs, transgenders, LGBT, all have the jyot of Vaheguru in them. None of them should be hated or seen as inferior. They are human beings like everyone else and are worthy of affection, respect and dignity and all human rights like any other individual.
Those beloved Sikhs who think/feel/say that Gurbani doesn’t say anything about homosexuality need to understand Gurbani in the unblemished light of Gurbani itself, not some “feel-good” concocted dogmas. You won’t find the exact Gurmukhi word for “gay” or “lesbian” or “homosexual” anywhere in any of your preferred/favorite Gurbani translations in English. You need to use Gurbani’s wisdom to find out.
When I started to try and research what Gurbani says on this issue, I tried to look for words such as ਖੁਸਰਾ, ਨਿਪੁੰਸਕ, ਕਾਪੁਰਖੁ. These however may not do complete justice to the definition of homosexual. Its not really that easy to find out honestly.
The simplest definition of a homosexual would be an individual who is sexually attracted towards another person of his/her own gender. Such an individual is physically a male or female by birth. Thus we cannot exactly call them ਖੁਸਰਾ as it means eunuch, a person who is (most likely from birth itself) neither male nor female. The same is true for ਕਾਪੁਰਖੁ. On the other hand, ਨਿਪੁੰਸਕ means impotent. It most likely refers to a male who cannot reproduce, or cannot engage in sexual acts with a female. Neither of these 3 words (albeit present in Gurbani and the Vaaraan of Bhai Gurdas Jee), I feel, refer to a homosexual. The only similarity a homosexual may have with ਖੁਸਰਾ, ਨਿਪੁੰਸਕ, ਕਾਪੁਰਖੁ is that none of them can (or perhaps choose not to) copulate with the opposite gender and produce an offspring.
Lets try to understand these Vaars of Bhai Gurdas Jee.
Bhai Gurdas Jee – Vaar 6, Pauri 8
ਏਕਾ ਨਾਰੀ ਜਤੀ ਹੋਇ ਪਰ ਨਾਰੀ ਧੀ ਭੈਣ ਵਖਾਣੈ।
Having one women as wife he (the Sikh) is a celibate and considers any other’s wife as his daughter or a sister.
Clearly, a Guru’s Sikh (if male) is allowed only one woman as his spouse, vice versa a Sikh woman is allowed only one man as hers. We can argue and debate that there is no mention of not being allowed to marry within the same gender. However, the word “ਨਾਰੀ” clearly means “woman” and in this Vaar it does not in any way refer to a woman having another woman as her spouse.
Lets look at another Vaar.
Bhai Gurdas Jee – Vaar 34, Pauri 21
ਨਾਰਿ ਭਤਾਰਹੁ ਬਾਹਰੀ ਸੁਖਿ ਸੇਜ ਨਾ ਚੜੀਐ।
Without husband a woman cannot enjoy pleasures of bed.
This means two things. It doesn’t say that a woman cannot enjoy a bed without a man, it says “without a husband”. So firstly, a Sikh (male or female) can have a physical relationship only with their married spouse (via Anand Karaj). Secondly, it clearly talks about a woman and her husband, not a woman and “her wife”, not a man and “his husband”.
So 2 things here. First is marriage, i.e. Anand Karaj, and second is that the marriage is between 2 GurSikhs of the opposite gender.
There have been recent messages I came across on the Internet where various people have stood up for our LGBT brothers and sisters. That is indeed a noble gesture and the duty of every Sikh to stand up and defend anyone who is facing any kind of oppression. They are also human beings like everyone else, and as GurSikhs we are to treat them as such and never ever hate anyone.
But what I found particularly disturbing was people trying to justify Anand Karaj between people of the same gender. Some opted for a safer way out by suggesting to have a court marriage instead. The bad news is, neither of the 2 are permitted for a GurSikh. Engaging in a married life (with whoever you choose to, male or female) WITHOUT Anand Karaj in the hazuri of SatGuru Sache Paatshaah Ji is a bajjar paap in itself.
An Anand Karaj is done so that a man and woman can join not just physically but spiritually as well. Both genders are blessed with different types of traits and virtues which complement each other. These traits and virtues are meant to pass on to their next generation which is born out of their physical union.
Sahib Sri Guru Amar Daas Paatshaah Jee says in Raag Soohee on Ang 788: ਧਨ ਪਿਰੁ ਏਹਿ ਨ ਆਖੀਅਨਿ ਬਹਨਿ ਇਕਠੇ ਹੋਇ ॥ ਏਕ ਜੋਤਿ ਦੁਇ ਮੂਰਤੀ ਧਨ ਪਿਰੁ ਕਹੀਐ ਸੋਇ ॥੩॥ They are not said to be husband and wife, who merely sit together. They alone are called husband and wife, who have one light in two bodies. ||3||
Here (from my limited understanding so please correct me) ਧਨ refers to the wife and ਪਿਰੁ means husband. Please help define these words if anywhere it suggests man and man or woman and woman.
Sahib Sri Guru Nanak Dev Paatshaah Jee Maharaj says in Asa Ki Vaar on Ang 473 (one of the most favorite Shabads quoted to teach how Sikhi is about gender equality)
ਭੰਡਿ ਜੰਮੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਨਿੰਮੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਮੰਗਣੁ ਵੀਆਹੁ ॥
From woman, man is born; within woman, man is conceived; to woman he is engaged and married.
ਭੰਡਹੁ ਹੋਵੈ ਦੋਸਤੀ ਭੰਡਹੁ ਚਲੈ ਰਾਹੁ ॥
Woman becomes his friend; through woman, the future generations come.
ਭੰਡੁ ਮੁਆ ਭੰਡੁ ਭਾਲੀਐ ਭੰਡਿ ਹੋਵੈ ਬੰਧਾਨੁ ॥
When his woman dies, he seeks another woman; to woman he is bound.
ਸੋ ਕਿਉ ਮੰਦਾ ਆਖੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਜੰਮਹਿ ਰਾਜਾਨ ॥
So why call her bad? From her, kings are born.
ਭੰਡਹੁ ਹੀ ਭੰਡੁ ਊਪਜੈ ਭੰਡੈ ਬਾਝੁ ਨ ਕੋਇ ॥
From woman, woman is born; without woman, there would be no one at all.
ਨਾਨਕ ਭੰਡੈ ਬਾਹਰਾ ਏਕੋ ਸਚਾ ਸੋਇ ॥
O Nanak, only the True Lord is without a woman.
Now notice how clear this Shabad is. The question “ਸੋ ਕਿਉ ਮੰਦਾ ਆਖੀਐ” is put to the men who look upon women as inferior. Why see her as inferior when “ਭੰਡਿ ਮੰਗਣੁ ਵੀਆਹੁ”, when a woman is the one you (you men) are engaged and married to. You men are bound with women “ਭੰਡਿ ਹੋਵੈ ਬੰਧਾਨੁ”.
What more evidence do we need to understand Gurbani’s stance on this subject? Gurbani has given its decision that men and women are bound to one another (ਬੰਧਾਨੁ) and so a matrimonial alliance of a man can happen only with a woman (ਭੰਡਿ ਮੰਗਣੁ ਵੀਆਹੁ ) and vice versa.
Lets also not forget that homosexuals can never ever reproduce a baby. Even if they claim the opposite and adopt a kid. Guess what, that kid was also born from a mother and father, not out of two women or two men.
Bhagat Kabeer Jee says in Raag Gond on Ang 872: ਜੈਸੇ ਮਾਤ ਪਿਤਾ ਬਿਨੁ ਬਾਲੁ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥ Without a mother or father there is no child.
That is how nature works. A man cannot impregnate another man via sexual intercourse. A woman cannot impregnate another woman via sexual intercourse. What purpose (both physical and spiritual) would such marriages then fulfill? I still haven’t come across a single instance from Sikh history where a same-sex marriage or a same-sex physical relationship ever occurred or was even permitted. If anyone is aware, please do share.
I also read some folks trying to justify by saying that homosexuality even exists among animals, and so it is perfectly natural. I don’t disagree, it may or may not be natural. That is not something I have studied/researched, nor is it the subject of what I am trying to get at here. If comparing with animals and justifying is what people want to do, well, animals also mate with whoever they choose to. They are under no obligation to go through an Anand Karaj. They are not expected to live by Gurmat Maryada or become GurSikhs. If humans start doing the same, in a manner that animals do, we would be behind bars forever. Why? Because being humans we are expected to live by certain standards of not just culture or society but also nature.
Some of our beloved Sikhs also feel that Gurbani is “silent” on such issues. Lets presume Gurbani is silent. Lets think of a different issue for a second here. I want to know how much reference does Gurbani have about Buddha. We have over half the planet revering him and his teachings and quotes, yet Guru Sahib has rendered the same Buddha pretty much non-existent in Gurbani. We should wonder why. One could say Guru Sahib had confidence in His Sikhs that they would be wise enough to know that Gurbani is way beyond fancy quotes. Coming back to original topic, likewise, its possible Guru Sahib was really confident about His Sikhs (who would read Triya Charittar and stay alert) who would be wary of homosexuality’s position in Gurmat. He knew they would, in the light of Gurbani, be wise enough to make decisions. Thus the perceived “silence” on this matter perhaps? This in no way means Guru Sahib approved of or permitted anything that condoned actions contrary to the message of Gurbani. As stated right in the beginning, we need to find out Guru Sahib’s opinion on this issue by making unbiased efforts to studying Gurbani and its deeper messages.
Growing up in the Middle East, I did come across well accepted notions that homosexuality is a prevalent part of the Afghan and Pashtun/Pathaan culture, and upto some degree perhaps even in Persian and Arab culture as well. I can just imagine the Puratan Singhs seeing homosexuality as something sexual practiced by invaders (who they called ਤੁਰਕ) who saw another human being’s body (male or female) as a means of sexual enjoyment. That itself indicates that homosexuality was a non-issue for the Singhs, as they would obviously never want to have anything to do with such carnal practices of (ਤੁਰਕ) barbaric invaders.
Correct me if I am wrong, but perhaps this mindset isn’t emerging from Punjabi Sikhs. They are very clear on this issue. Its perhaps our GurSikh brothers and sisters from Western culture who have strong opinions on this matter.
It is good that people from other cultures and races are adopting Sikhi and Sikh culture (totally distinct from Punjabi or Indian subcontinent culture). They should be encouraged to adopt the values and virtues of Gurmat culture, not permitted to bring whatever they choose from their former cultures into Sikhi and claim it to be valid just by distorting the meanings of Gurbani to suit themselves.
Although I am born in a Punjabi Brahmin family, I never wore a janeu, neither did I come across a single male in my paternal or maternal side of the family who wore it. Lets presume for a second I did wear the janeu before adopting Sikhi. Would I be allowed to wear a “janeu-type” gatra to hold Sri Sahib? Suppose a Muslim wants to become a Singh and wants to cover his jooda (tress knot) with a skullcap. Do you think that will be allowed as per Rehit? What about a Christian who becomes a Sikh and wants to kiss his Singhnee right after Anand Karaj in Guru Sahib’s Hazuri? How much should we dilute the Gurmat Maryada just so people who adopt Sikhi can feel comfortable? Sorry, it has to be the other way around. Once you belong to the Guru, you are the one who should surrender your mind and serve Him.
It is true that Guru Sahib struck a blow to the barbaric cultural and social norms of those times and gave all oppressed sections of society (women, so-called lower castes, so-called untouchables) the kind of freedom and equality that was unheard of. Lets avoid using this narrative to presume and conclude that Guru Sahib would make any kind of special exceptions for people based on their sexual orientation. We know that He did not make any special exceptions for Brahmins when they chose to receive Amrit from a separate baataa and not from the one which other non-Brahmins had sipped from. Sorry, no special privileges based on any such factors here, be it birth, be it race, be it wealth or educational qualifications, or even sexual orientation. He created a Niyara Khalsa, one that was unique, distinct and independent from all such factors that in today’s day and age are creeping into not just the lives of Sikhs but even their minds. It is unthinkable that Guru Sahib would allow Anand Karaj between people of the same gender just to please homosexuals. If pleasing others by making compromises was His style of doing things, He would never have to fight battles with both Hill Rajas (Hindus) and Mughals (Muslims). He would never have to sacrifice His entire family and His beloved Sikhs. History has shown that Singhs as young as 18 years of age had disowned their own mother and newly wedded wife right in front of an executioner’s sword when it came to sacrificing their life for Sikhi. It would be pretty naive to imagine a devout Sikh (Singh or Kaur) would choose to distort Gurbani and twist Rehitnaame to fulfill his/her own sexual orientation based agenda.
Eastern and Western culture both have their pros and cons. Neither is perfect as both have several positive and negative components. We should be like swans, we should use our Guru-given Bibeki intellect and be wise enough so we can pick and choose what aspects of eastern and western cultures are in accordance with Gurmat, and make only those as part of our GurSikh lives.
Be like a swan (hans), choose your lifestyle wisely and live the way Guru wanted you to live. Don’t ever hate anyone, but be sure to draw the line where boundaries and limits are meant to be drawn.
Once again, if anything stated by me (based on how I perceive Guru’s message) offends anyone, I deeply apologize. Since I am no final authority on Gurbani or Vaars, please forgive and correct me wherever I may seem wrong. My intention was not to hurt any soul by stating whatever you have read. Therefore, if you disagree, that is fine. Please help me understand your opinion better in the light of Gurbani, or Bhai Gurdas Jee’s Vaars, or any other approved and esteemed Sikh resources/evidences (historic or otherwise) you may have.
Mehtab Singh
ਸਤਿਗੁਰਬਚਨਕਮਾਵਣੇਸਚਾਏਹੁਵੀਚਾਰੁ॥