Confused Youth?

Yes they are confused and the reason for this has nothing to do with what is usually proposed, such as panjabi culture conflicting with sikhism, or our community not being true enough to the Gurus ideals, or something like that.

The answer quite simply is that young Sikhs are informed with inaccurate information about the Sikh religion. They are told that Sikhi believes in equality, that Sikh ideals and modern day liberal ideals are one and the same. That the sikh gurus were social revolutionaries and sought to create a wholly different society than what is normal - and that they wished to do this in the spirit of equality and so on. These are false claims, unsubstanciated by any historical facts. They do not have any basis in sikh philosophy either, and depend on a fanciful reintepretations of history and scripture.

This information comes to us in the forms of the many websites which populate the web, the many pamphets and books falsely advertising claims for Sikhism, regardless of their validity. They paint portraits of Sikhi as some fantastic religion that cures all social ills, and transcends all problems - it is in this context that social revolutionarism is advanced as the main principle of sikhism.

It is not. Sikhs around the world are largely conservative. That is true enough for almost all sikh communities; all sangats; all gurdwara. We are not revolutionaries and do not see that as our aim.

Yet the sikh youth is subjected to propaganda that tells him otherwise. Then the young sikh begins to think that the reason such a great disparity exists between what he has learn about sikhism, and what he sees in his community, is that the sikhs no longer follow the sikh ideals. To find proof of this he must blow up issues such as casteism and gender-inequality.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-youth/14196-confused-youth.html

In fact the sikh gurus never proposed any new positive claims for social change. They only made negative claims: Ending female infantacide, the practice of Sati, treating women unjustly - opposing these things, the sikh Gurus were not proposing equality - instead they were saying we are against cruelty.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=14196

All sikh websites need to be shut down. All sikh writers need to be banned. They only confuse matters and do our young damage. Sikh history and philosophy ought to be discussed directly in relation to truth, and not passionate fashionable ideology.

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

I disagree with you. They DO have support in Sikh philosophy and history.

Read the post in the book review section of "Sikh history in Persian sources" and see if Sikhism wasn't a revolutionary movement according to contemporary sources.


Ok, I think maybe YOU are projecting YOUR conservative beliefs on Sikhism. Sikhism was a vehicle for much change in the land of its birth, that conservatives are trying to reverse that is conceded. "Passionate fashionable ideology" as you put it, can be a force that can help facilitate positive change in society, inline with the traditions of our Gurus.

backup your claim; keep in mind that whatever you say, it must explain the following:

why were there no female gurus if the sikh gurus truly believed in gender equality?

why were all the gurus of the same race if they believed in race equality?

why did they not abolish inequality of property if they truly believed in equality?

why did the first panj pyare (however so ordained) not feature any female members?

why is no composition by a female to be found in sri guru granth sahib?

you must have positive answers to each of these questions. i await your response.

To answer the next two paragraphs of yours, I do not know of this book, but knowing how poor literature on sikhism usually is, i dont have very high hopes on the book you mention.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=14196
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=14196

My beliefs are conservative, but i have been a passionate idealist for most of my (young) adult life. You'll find that the majority of sikhs today are also conservative. That i am conservative does not affect my arguments at all. Lastly, yes social change can be justified and rightful - and the sikh gurus introduced a fair number of changes - but you will find in each case their change was simply negative. They rejected the injust and unfair treatment of women, which is just what we would expect from any saintly person. A negative change is one where you oppose a particular instance of social activity. But its one thing to acknowledge that yes the sikh gurus did these things, to jump to the unwarranted conclusion that they advocated positive change - that is change for the sake of change alone - and for the sake of ideology like equalitarianism.

Did you read the Persian extracts I posted? Don't make demands from me and not do what I request please. Can you see how those Sikhs under Banda totally reversed the social status of the times and adopted "revolutionary" new social models. Give me a response on that before you ask a mound of questions.






why were there no female gurus if the sikh gurus truly believed in gender equality
--------------------------------

Maybe none of the ones around then and there were up to the job?



why were all the gurus of the same race if they believed in race equality?
----------------------------------

Are you suggesting that they did not champion and practice the equality of the lower classes? If it doesn't matter to Sikhs what "race" their Gurus are from, why have you made it an issue?



why did they not abolish inequality of property if they truly believed in equality?
---------------------------------

They set the foundations for change, they didn't try to completely write a comprehensive manual of how society should be run. This is genius in itself as we could have ended up with astrict shariah like law book, but no the Gurus never shackled us rigidly like that.



why did the first panj pyare (however so ordained) not feature any female members?
-------------------------------

It was a call to battle, most wars are fought by men. Although Sikh history shows that women can and have contributed bravely (Mai Bhago).



why is no composition by a female to be found in sri guru granth sahib?
---------------------------------

Does this mean that Sikhism suggests women are not considered as worthy of respect in its doctrines?



you must have positive answers to each of these questions. i await your response.
-----------------------------------

You want positive answers but all of your questions are negative. I think you need to be careful of confusing gender equality with the notion that women and men are not different in any way. There are obvious physical and possibly some psychological differences owing to a number of biological and possibly environmental factors. Realise this.

With all respect.

I've read through the extract and enjoyed it much. Now that i've seen it, i'm sure i've come across such writings before, in my studies of sikhi. As far as i can see the only relevance the excerpt could have on this discussion is that it references in Banda Singh's army a)a mixed composition of castes, b) a mixture of bearded/non-bearded men, and perhaps c) men of differing social and/or economic classes.

Supposing this is true, It doesnt say one way or the other, what the Sikh Gurus felt on equality - whether the above can be considered equality - and whether this equality if so understood actually existed during the gurus time - and not afterwards, as this excerpt describes. If you wish to potray Banda Singh's army as some revolutionary force driven by ideology (as you describe in your post), then all the power to you, but this is seperate from the actual debate on sikh principles and sikh history as conceived and unravelled during the Gurus time. Banda Singh's army might have been in every way sikh to the core - but we cannot know this for sure, and it must be demonstrated before hand, but this will take us far from the immediate topic.

The answer that there were no females at all to be found in the period spanning roughly two hundred years (1500-1700) who could be considered worthy of sikh guruship is interesting for two reasons. Firstly there is no known record of any female being considered for the position - considered and coming up short is fine, but even such a record cannot be found.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=14196

For instance while we know that Baba Budda, a great revered figure in the history of Sikhism was a possible candidate for the throne, we know that even he was never worthy of the position, and yet history makes no mention of any female in such a consideration. Perhaps the simplest answer is that a female was never considered or could be considered, simply because only a male guru could and did reign. This would be in line with conservative thought that only males held positions of such great influence, and certainly in accordance with history that there have only been male prophets or gurus throughout the ages.

Supposing though, that your claim is true that in two hundred years there wasnt a single woman who was saintly enough in recorded history for us to consider a possible candidate for guruship. Can one then avoid the rational summation that women are in some definite way incapable of holding the position based on our past historical experience? If you disagree you would have to demonstrate otherwise with examples to the contrary, but none will exist, so you will have to speak about potentialities.

But potentialities alone do not settle the matter, for potentially a child could be guru, and then we find in Sikh history, that yes, there was such a time when a child was guru. But if we have accepted your explanation that no woman became guru because of insufficient merit, then you would have to explain why a five year old had sufficient merit to become guru Harkrishan but no woman in two hundred years could qualify by potentiality. A five year old could hardly have lived long enough to accumulate more merit than any single woman in the 200 year period thus.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=14196

You will find the simplest explanation is simply that the sikh Gurus were conservative in their practice, and did not consider women as successors. There is nothing wrong with this explanation - morally or historically, and any counterargument in terms of merit only speaks to the conservative case, not against it.

My Question: why were all the gurus of the same race if they believed in race equality?

Your Answer: Are you suggesting that they did not champion and practice the equality of the lower classes? If it doesn't matter to Sikhs what "race" their Gurus are from, why have you made it an issue?

Response: This is quite surreptitious! The question was about race and you reply in terms of class. But for instance a rich arab, distinct in race from us, would qualify just as much for equality, as would any lower class arab. Class is irrelevant for this question. Interestingly you claimed that not only were there no females worthy of guruship in the period, but also in the place. Well Guru Nanak travelled freely, and so could have any other guru for the same purpose, and in these travels could have come across many meritable females, or at least one of historical note, but this is simply isnt so. Well that is your claim. That no such female could be found, either in the region or abroad during Guru Nanak's travels.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=14196
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=14196

Why have i made it an issue - forsooth! I have done no such thing! It isnt an issue for anyone but for those who make positive claims of equality in sikh philosophy and practice. It is an issue for them to explain why their precious equality did not even exist during the gurus times, and why this was so, and it is for them to explain away that this lack existed despite the positive intentions of their gurus to create and sustain an egalitarian society. Importantly it is for them to explain that if the gurus did wish to instill principles of equality into their society purposefully and intentionally - if theirs was a positive view towards such an end then why did they not take steps to ensure my questions could be answered in the affirmative.

The last part of your answer, that it didnt matter to the Sikh gurus about race, so why should it to me - well you are conceeding here that the sikh gurus did not care about race, and so stuck with the status quo in selecting successors of the same race and of the same gender. If their ideology was equalitarian, they would have factored that into their choices. But they simply did not do that. This confirms my argument that while there is no positive claim for equality in sikhism, the sikh gurus did make negative claims where they ended actual and real injustice due to inequality (infantacide, restriction of spiritual and religious material from lower classes etc), but did not wish to turn inequality in general into equality.

My Question: why did they not abolish inequality of property if they truly believed in equality?

Your Answer: They set the foundations for change, they didn't try to completely write a comprehensive manual of how society should be run. This is genius in itself as we could have ended up with astrict shariah like law b00k but no the Gurus never shackled us rigidly like that.

Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=14196
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=14196
Response: This is evasive. Are you saying that the sikh gurus, while disturbed by inequality of wealth and property, didnt take positive steps to overturn this? Are you ascribing to our gurus the vice of inaction against wrong (It is wrong if we accept the hypothesis that our gurus were egalitarians)? What you are saying is that the sikh Gurus were guilty of one thing which every sikh knows his Guru had as a virtue - namely that the Sikh gurus did not merely preach, they acted. They are distinguished for their dedication to their principles, and it is almost unimaginable that the Sikh gurus did not begin to act - and in a big way - to this obvious inequality. But this is what you claim when you say sikhism believes in equality.

It is also interesting to note that even Muslims can publish little pamplets demonstrating with quotes from scripture and otherwise showing that their faith believes in equality of women and men. One only has to have a small appreciable understanding of reality to evaluate such a claim. I can show you such a pamphlet, I was given one yesterday while entering my university library.

My Question: why is no composition by a female to be found in sri guru granth sahib?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=14196

Your Answer: Does this mean that Sikhism suggests women are not considered as worthy of respect in its doctrines?

Response: Your rhetorical question is again evasive. If one believes the common truth about Sri Guru Granth Sahib being composed of various saints of various backgrounds and that this is taken to mean that the sikh faith is universal and one of equality of mankind, then you have to wonder if this is by design. Did Guru Arjan intentionally compile it this way? Well thats what the liberal sikh reformists imply. But supposing this is true, then wouldnt it be true that Guru Arjan would have quite naturally led to including some saintly compositions by females too? After all if he compiled Adi Granth intentionally with the view of including holy sayings of even lowly men - then he would have been equally compelled to do the same for women. This would be true if the liberals are correct in ascribing to Sikh gurus the positive mantle of equalitarian change.

Let me make it clear that I have no such expectation of my Gurus. I did not think they acted towards equality, I do not think they wanted equality, and I dont think they ever proposed it for their sikhs. If anything, Guru Arjan Dev's composing the Adi Granth the way he did, was simply out of the negative intention of ending descrimination. He was against descriminating lower classes from particating in religious discourse, and so his action was motivated by fighting injustice - and not by a positive intention to create equality. Ofcourse overall I think he was driven by concerns for quality, of relevance to Sikhs, of efficacy to sikh principles, and so on, and not just to create a politically correct granth. He weighed up all of these and compiled something greater than sum of the parts. It is the liberals who read too much into this mixed composition, and if they do so, in the same spirit they must answer why there are no female contributions.

My charge: you must have positive answers to each of these questions. i await your response.

Your answer: You want positive answers but all of your questions are negative. I think you need to be careful of confusing gender equality with the notion that women and men are not different in any way. There are obvious physical and possibly some psychological differences owing to a number of biological and possibly environmental factors. Realise this.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=14196


For reference: A negative claim is one where you wish to remove something. A positive claim is where you want to add something. For example descrimination is what the sikh gurus wanted to remove. But equality is a positive one, because you wish to add something - namely equality.

My reply: It is not I who confuses that men and women are different, and thus cannot be equal - it is the equalitarians who wish to fight nature and fact, despite common sense quite clearly demonstrating the futility of their ideals. Your reply about various factors is evasive. It basically amounts to saying 'there are various factors which i dont know about but nevertheless i am convinced that they are directly relevant to explaining the facts.'

Your reply to the panj pyare question is similarly dealt with. Your answer is one for the conservative case and not against it. If it is simply out of convention that men fight in wars, then why should it be any different in society in general? Equalitarians must offer a stronger argument towards this question, and yours is quite lacking.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=14196

Sat Sri Akal.