- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 54
Per
do you feel the same way when you look at other amritdhari women in their chunnis?
do you feel the same way when you look at other amritdhari women in their chunnis?
Sikhi Why Are Some Sikh Women Now Wearing The Turban?
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
- Replies 33
- Reads 10K
- Dec 21, 2010
- 3,384
- 5,689
Admin Kaur ji thanks for your post and summary of the essence that I agree with. Conversely I will even go as far as to say that those who actually are pushing or demanding women to wear a turban are trying to subjugate or rule them as it has nothing to do with women historically or as per SRM. Just because one can't manage chunni or sees others playing with it is not a reason to ask that millions of other Sikh women should be asked to wear a turban! Let us review the language of the SRM again;
t. For a Sikh, there is no restriction or requirement as to dress except for he must wear Kachhehra [A drawer type garment fastened by a fitted string round the waist, very often worn as underwear] and turban. A Sikh woman may or may not tie turban
If you ask a legal mind, the above line simply means no restriction on women to do anything regarding covering hair on the head, including no head covering. I understand that attending at a Gurdwara everyone is asked to cover their head be it Sikh or non-Sikh. So let us not start calling 100s of thousand or if not millions who do not wear anything on their head outside a Gurdwara as wrong. Let us not call those who wear bandannas and tichels as somehow incompatible with the SRM or inferior Sikhs. By the way since Turban is not defined in SRM, let us not call males who do variety of head coverings as bad or incompatible with the SRM.
Sikhism is that liberating for women
in this matter and even gives flexibility to males too. Also I have never run across anyone who wears a turban while sleeping and SRM does not talk about need for a Turban at all times of the day either. Practicality and respect in managing hair on your head is the context of this clause from what I can figure out while style is to each their own.I rest,
Sat Sri Akal.
Last edited:
- Jul 20, 2012
- 1,393
- 1,921
...but yet you are somehow trying to convince those of us who DO tie turbans wrong... without realizing it, you are conveying the message that turbans are not for women, like trying to make me feel like I shouldn't tie one. You're saying oh its not against SRM but there's no reason for you to because its not a woman thing... (which is the same as saying women should not tie one).
- Dec 21, 2010
- 3,384
- 5,689
Harkiran Kaur ji you can read what you want into it or twist it the way you want it. I am not bullying my way with an argument and neither should you. Be specific and stop picking a fight with fellow well wishing Sikhs who admire your contributions.
Show me where I want you to stop wearing a turban, I am simply saying there is lot of flexibility for both men and women and respecting the hair on your head is the context. Nothing more or less. I believe some how you are trying to project that wearing a turban for a Sikh woman is the best thing, it needs to be specially recognized, rewarded and somehow makes this class of women more Sikh than others. I definitely see no basis for it and personally reject that without asking anyone to do it one way or other. A Sikh woman wearing a turban is no different than a Sikh woman not wearing a turban to me. Sikhism must start from inside and shows and shines in both men and woman with or without a turban but only context is per SRM which has given ample flexibility to both. Taken to the extreme the creators of SRM could have even defined the style of a turban, the length of cloth, the color of the cloth, times of the day that it must be worn, how to take it off during washing your hair, how long to keep it off while you are drying your hair, how to tie your hair before tying a turban, can it be starched or not, should it be tied from the start every time you take it off, and so on. Why they did not do that? Because there was a simple context behind it. Respect the hair you are required to keep in the best way possible and a generic turban was mentioned for Sikh men because there was a variety of head dresses worn by men in other religions including caps, skull caps and kullas (permanent turban like dress) and these were ruled out for men with the use of the word turban. The only categories of head dresses of the times for women other than chunnis or nothing at all were veils and these were identified as not proper for women. You stated a context that chunnis were allowed so that more women would get baptized, which is utterly wrong. Chunnis were the way of the times for women requiring no enforcement and accepted for Sikh women in the flexibility provided within SRM. Harkiran Kaur ji this is the context that I understand and that I came to know from all Sikhs I have come to know in my life. Exception to this is Sikhs who want to enforce their ways as the best ways without any support from SRM which includes Sikh women wearing turbans, Sikh men wearing dhumallahs, and so on and requiring every man to only wear certain style of turban. None of this is supported in the SRM and description is pretty simple (no rocket science) to be not requiring so many posts or threads to understand what SRM says.
If you are hear to win an argument you can continue, I have no such interest. By the way you are not alone as there are groups requiring that in the guise of equality to men, Sikh women must wear a turban, which is false in terms of any dictate from SRM.
In the absence of SRM requiring any of this context, for me it simply is women bullying women; men bullying women; men bullying men and women bullying men with no basis per SRM.
Sat Sri Akal
Show me where I want you to stop wearing a turban, I am simply saying there is lot of flexibility for both men and women and respecting the hair on your head is the context. Nothing more or less. I believe some how you are trying to project that wearing a turban for a Sikh woman is the best thing, it needs to be specially recognized, rewarded and somehow makes this class of women more Sikh than others. I definitely see no basis for it and personally reject that without asking anyone to do it one way or other. A Sikh woman wearing a turban is no different than a Sikh woman not wearing a turban to me. Sikhism must start from inside and shows and shines in both men and woman with or without a turban but only context is per SRM which has given ample flexibility to both. Taken to the extreme the creators of SRM could have even defined the style of a turban, the length of cloth, the color of the cloth, times of the day that it must be worn, how to take it off during washing your hair, how long to keep it off while you are drying your hair, how to tie your hair before tying a turban, can it be starched or not, should it be tied from the start every time you take it off, and so on. Why they did not do that? Because there was a simple context behind it. Respect the hair you are required to keep in the best way possible and a generic turban was mentioned for Sikh men because there was a variety of head dresses worn by men in other religions including caps, skull caps and kullas (permanent turban like dress) and these were ruled out for men with the use of the word turban. The only categories of head dresses of the times for women other than chunnis or nothing at all were veils and these were identified as not proper for women. You stated a context that chunnis were allowed so that more women would get baptized, which is utterly wrong. Chunnis were the way of the times for women requiring no enforcement and accepted for Sikh women in the flexibility provided within SRM. Harkiran Kaur ji this is the context that I understand and that I came to know from all Sikhs I have come to know in my life. Exception to this is Sikhs who want to enforce their ways as the best ways without any support from SRM which includes Sikh women wearing turbans, Sikh men wearing dhumallahs, and so on and requiring every man to only wear certain style of turban. None of this is supported in the SRM and description is pretty simple (no rocket science) to be not requiring so many posts or threads to understand what SRM says.
If you are hear to win an argument you can continue, I have no such interest. By the way you are not alone as there are groups requiring that in the guise of equality to men, Sikh women must wear a turban, which is false in terms of any dictate from SRM.
In the absence of SRM requiring any of this context, for me it simply is women bullying women; men bullying women; men bullying men and women bullying men with no basis per SRM.
Sat Sri Akal
- Jul 20, 2012
- 1,393
- 1,921
Ambarsaria Ji,
Can I ask you a question??
Guru Gobind Singh Ji, was quoted as saying that "as long as Khalsa retains its unique identity...." he will give his entire radiance and strength. Turban was given as part of the 'khalsa uniform'. My question to you is, do you think Guru Gobind Singh Ji meant for only males to be Khalsa? Because some Singhs actually believe this! That there is no historical evidence that women even took amrit in 1699 or immediate time after. First recorded 'Kaurs' taking amrit were in late 1700's. Before that the common 'Kaurs' we hear of, Mata Sahib Kaur Ji for example were actually Mata Sahib Devi Ji. In fact some argue that women were only given amrit (and that too... kirpan amrit) so their warrior husbands would actually be able to eat the food they cooked. Meaning, some believe that women were never supposed to be Khalsa... meaning Sikhi is no different than any other religion when it comes to keeping women out of the heirarchy of the faith, keeping all authority in hands of males. Obviously I believe that Khalsa was meant for both... or what, Sikhi is only for men?? These Singhs, also say Khalsa itself was not a 'woman thing'!! So should we just shut up, be quiet, sit on sidelines in the religion, and let men run everything while we cook for you??
Part of the argument is that Khalsa uniform was intended by Guru Ji to include turban, to stand out among the crowd. Actions certainly form part of identity, but the purpose of giving Khalsa a uniform was to stand out VISIBLY! Now, if women do not tie one, and wear only a chunni, they blend in. You can't tell the difference between a Hindu woman, a Muslim woman (most Muslim women in India tie very loose chunnis over their heads and not the tight hijab you see in other places), and a Sikh woman wearing a chunni. Go to Kashmir and you will find it difficult to point at a woman and say which religion she is. Is this "standing out in a crowd"?? It's blending in!
Some have suggested this was on purpose as keski was originally meant for both, but in turbulent times, women blended in more for protection. At one time Darbar Sahib actually required a keski of ANYONE male or female wishing to take amrit. In early 1900s it was relaxed for females to encourage more women to take amrit.
So do you think that Khalsa itself was actually meant for only males? For me, I feel like if I don't don the FULL Khalsa uniform, then I am only 'almost' Khalsa and giving those Singhs more ammo, more reasons to place restrictions on women because we don't "fully" embody that image... the unique identity of Khalsa.
Ishna Ji is correct, I am not saying I am superior at all by tying one, what I am trying to do is show those Singhs that THEY are NOT superior to US! And yes, I have heard the argument that women are more subordinate role to men in Sikhi because of not being fully in the Khalsa warrior image. That women's 'role' was at home having babies and cooking and serving their warrior husbands... and that the leadership in Sikhi belongs to the Khalsa 'Singhs'. That women only were given a 'token' amrit (kirpan amrit) so they could 'serve' their husbands and it not be considered 'jhoot'. But that women were never upposed to even be Khalsa at all. For MANY young Singhnis, tying a turban is making a stand against this ideology that women are meant to only have subordinate roles and serve men. To stand out like Mai Bhago Ji (who also tied a turban btw...) which brings me to my last point:
Guru Gobind Singh Ji was quoted as giving a HUKAM to Mai Bhago, because she was such high avastha, that she neglected her physical state (clothing) and nearly naked. Guru Ji told her to wear kachera and to tie a TURBAN!!! He could have just told her to wear kachera and cover her body, but he specifically gave her hukam to TIE A TURBAN. Why did he feel that was important?? I mean if turbans were not womanly, and not something women should do??
Can I ask you a question??
Guru Gobind Singh Ji, was quoted as saying that "as long as Khalsa retains its unique identity...." he will give his entire radiance and strength. Turban was given as part of the 'khalsa uniform'. My question to you is, do you think Guru Gobind Singh Ji meant for only males to be Khalsa? Because some Singhs actually believe this! That there is no historical evidence that women even took amrit in 1699 or immediate time after. First recorded 'Kaurs' taking amrit were in late 1700's. Before that the common 'Kaurs' we hear of, Mata Sahib Kaur Ji for example were actually Mata Sahib Devi Ji. In fact some argue that women were only given amrit (and that too... kirpan amrit) so their warrior husbands would actually be able to eat the food they cooked. Meaning, some believe that women were never supposed to be Khalsa... meaning Sikhi is no different than any other religion when it comes to keeping women out of the heirarchy of the faith, keeping all authority in hands of males. Obviously I believe that Khalsa was meant for both... or what, Sikhi is only for men?? These Singhs, also say Khalsa itself was not a 'woman thing'!! So should we just shut up, be quiet, sit on sidelines in the religion, and let men run everything while we cook for you??
Part of the argument is that Khalsa uniform was intended by Guru Ji to include turban, to stand out among the crowd. Actions certainly form part of identity, but the purpose of giving Khalsa a uniform was to stand out VISIBLY! Now, if women do not tie one, and wear only a chunni, they blend in. You can't tell the difference between a Hindu woman, a Muslim woman (most Muslim women in India tie very loose chunnis over their heads and not the tight hijab you see in other places), and a Sikh woman wearing a chunni. Go to Kashmir and you will find it difficult to point at a woman and say which religion she is. Is this "standing out in a crowd"?? It's blending in!
Some have suggested this was on purpose as keski was originally meant for both, but in turbulent times, women blended in more for protection. At one time Darbar Sahib actually required a keski of ANYONE male or female wishing to take amrit. In early 1900s it was relaxed for females to encourage more women to take amrit.
So do you think that Khalsa itself was actually meant for only males? For me, I feel like if I don't don the FULL Khalsa uniform, then I am only 'almost' Khalsa and giving those Singhs more ammo, more reasons to place restrictions on women because we don't "fully" embody that image... the unique identity of Khalsa.
Ishna Ji is correct, I am not saying I am superior at all by tying one, what I am trying to do is show those Singhs that THEY are NOT superior to US! And yes, I have heard the argument that women are more subordinate role to men in Sikhi because of not being fully in the Khalsa warrior image. That women's 'role' was at home having babies and cooking and serving their warrior husbands... and that the leadership in Sikhi belongs to the Khalsa 'Singhs'. That women only were given a 'token' amrit (kirpan amrit) so they could 'serve' their husbands and it not be considered 'jhoot'. But that women were never upposed to even be Khalsa at all. For MANY young Singhnis, tying a turban is making a stand against this ideology that women are meant to only have subordinate roles and serve men. To stand out like Mai Bhago Ji (who also tied a turban btw...) which brings me to my last point:
Guru Gobind Singh Ji was quoted as giving a HUKAM to Mai Bhago, because she was such high avastha, that she neglected her physical state (clothing) and nearly naked. Guru Ji told her to wear kachera and to tie a TURBAN!!! He could have just told her to wear kachera and cover her body, but he specifically gave her hukam to TIE A TURBAN. Why did he feel that was important?? I mean if turbans were not womanly, and not something women should do??
- Dec 21, 2010
- 3,384
- 5,689
Harkiran Kaur ji don't quote Sakhis as fact. I simply like not to comment. Sakhis were many times based on perceptions, love of the subject or person or topic and of course told very respectfully. These cannot be scrutinized or used as fact or non-fact because either way one will offend someone without any basis.
I am always very upfront with my answers but questions on Sakhis or sayings I don't get involved in.
Sat Sri Akal
I am always very upfront with my answers but questions on Sakhis or sayings I don't get involved in.
Sat Sri Akal
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 54
Personally I cannot see what all the fuss is about, wear a turban, don't wear a turban, why do you need to justify to anyone what you do? I don't...
- Jul 20, 2012
- 1,393
- 1,921
Ok fine don't comment on it. But you still didn't answer my question... do you believe Khalsa is only for males?
And I am not picking a fight... I am just explaining MY reasons for why I personally tie a turban. But somehow I feel like you are telling me that tying a turban is silly and not something women should do because "it's not a woman thing". For me, I have actually experienced these Singhs who say that without turban, people should not be allowed to perform kirtan at Darbar Sahib. I realize they will find other reasons to bar women anyway, even if they DO tie a turban, but for me personally, I feel inside, like I am giving them one less reason to see me as subordinate to them. Some of them make an issue of the 'relaxed rehet' for women, and that being reason to give us less rights in Sikhi. You see their whole premise is Waheguru made us different, so we should have different rights when it comes to seva etc. Then of course I respond ALL souls are equal and genderless, and then the next quote from them is well if we are all equal why do women not have to tie turbans?... So they insinuate that because of this relaxed rules for women, women should have less rights to prominent roles in Sikhi because males are somehow more 'holier than thou' because they are more strict in their rehet.
So my own personal reasons include demonstrating that yes women CAN adhere to more strict rehet and remove at least that one reason to see us as lower. As a side note, IF women are ever allowed to perform kirtan at darbar sahib, I can almost gurantee only female ragis with turbans will be approved.
I'm just tired of the same old, women's place is at home, raising babies, and cooking and cleaning the house while men rule the world. And that somehow by trying to have same rights as men, we are 'trying to be men' or doing things that are not womanly... like tying a turban. You know I had to actually FIGHT for the right to tie it in the military because it was only allowed for Sikh males before. Your argument takes away that right. I think you will find that MOST Singhnis who tie a turban at least partly do it in order to stand side by side with the Singhs and NOT be seen as weak or lesser than the males. To be seen as more than baby machines and servants to the men. And yes, it DOES play a big part in that!
If Sikh women are fine with their roles, thats ok by me too! I'm not forcing it on anyone else. It's just how I feel... for me personally. Because I don't fit into that submissive stay at home in shadows behind my Singh kind of mould... I strive for leadership, to stand out not blend in... yes I realize there are plenty of women who don't tie turbans and are very spiritual. They are usually not written about very much and are in sidelines because they still fit that submissive, home maker servant profile. I just don't fit in that role at all. And wearing a chunni, easily leads to having hairstyles (if for nothing else to manage it), which leads to possibly wearing earrings (prohibited), makeup... etc. and then all of a sudden the SInghs see me as lesser than, supposed to be submissive to their leadership etc.
You can say it doesn't have a direct impact on that... but I have experienced differently.
Last edited:
- Dec 21, 2010
- 3,384
- 5,689
Harkiran Kaur ji ask this question from yourself and my answer will be the same. Devil is in the details.
Your focus on turban for females as critical for Khalsa or definition of the same is the issue. I im in no position to encourage or discourage as it is per SRM. You want changes to SRM that you strongly believe in, go for it and follow the suggestions in SRM as to how to do it. For me there are more priority topics of reconsideration in SRM. Forcing women to wear a turban or glorifying those who do and put down those who don't is not of any consideration for me as I find the present treatment of this aspect is marvelously addressed to in SRM.
Sat Sri Akal.
Last edited:
- Jul 20, 2012
- 1,393
- 1,921
Except, yo
Except, you are actually putting down those who do by saying it's not something women do... its making me feel like I shouldn't be doing it?? Like I am doing something you see as silly because 'its not something women do'... do you see my point?
Except, you are actually putting down those who do by saying it's not something women do... its making me feel like I shouldn't be doing it?? Like I am doing something you see as silly because 'its not something women do'... do you see my point?
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 54
Harkiranji
you are not empowering women, you are actually insulting every Sikh Amritdhari woman who refuses to wear a turban, you are accusing them of not looking like Khalsa, of being slaves to their men, of being submissive, exactly what is your argument? No one here objects to women in turbans, yet even when someone lends their support, you manage to turn it into criticism, so please, what point are you trying to make?
you are not empowering women, you are actually insulting every Sikh Amritdhari woman who refuses to wear a turban, you are accusing them of not looking like Khalsa, of being slaves to their men, of being submissive, exactly what is your argument? No one here objects to women in turbans, yet even when someone lends their support, you manage to turn it into criticism, so please, what point are you trying to make?
- May 9, 2006
- 3,261
- 5,192
The part I think is hilarious is that Gurbani a) doesn't talk about people having to wear turbans or not, and b) warns against the pitfalls of any particular religious dress. It talks about maintaining distinctiveness in a different way. Perhaps we can put aside the SRM for a minute and look at how Gurbani tells us to stand out?
- May 9, 2006
- 3,261
- 5,192
Harkiran bhainji, I think I know where you're coming from. I can feel the frustration coming out in your posts as a Kaur who has been offended by Singhs who are misguided and more concerned with rules that are easy to follow, the power kick they get from enforcing rules on others, and the superiority they feel by asserting themselves at the top.
By fighting against them, you fight against their egos, and you can't hit that which is immaterial.
I am not like you. I'm content to be the backup support. You'd prefer to be on the front lines, in keeping with your whole personality - you've been in the military, so you're used to routines and uniforms and putting yourself up front. While you're fighting on the front line, you know that Sikhs like me are quietly making you chai and daal for when you get back home. These are both two sides of the same coin. I am strengthened by my "support" role. It is no less - it is of equal value to the front line people. Without support, what do they have to stand on? The langar is just as important as the fighting.
The core of the argument against misguided Singhs should not be about proving that we can look like them. It should be about changing the culture that makes them expect that we must look like them to be considered Sikhs.
The fact is, women will never look like Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Even if we finally got all the Singhs in the world to love and accept us wearing turbans, the focus will shift to that which we (usually) cannot have - beards.
By fighting against them, you fight against their egos, and you can't hit that which is immaterial.
I am not like you. I'm content to be the backup support. You'd prefer to be on the front lines, in keeping with your whole personality - you've been in the military, so you're used to routines and uniforms and putting yourself up front. While you're fighting on the front line, you know that Sikhs like me are quietly making you chai and daal for when you get back home. These are both two sides of the same coin. I am strengthened by my "support" role. It is no less - it is of equal value to the front line people. Without support, what do they have to stand on? The langar is just as important as the fighting.
The core of the argument against misguided Singhs should not be about proving that we can look like them. It should be about changing the culture that makes them expect that we must look like them to be considered Sikhs.
The fact is, women will never look like Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Even if we finally got all the Singhs in the world to love and accept us wearing turbans, the focus will shift to that which we (usually) cannot have - beards.
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 54
This is simply untrue, I know several women with beards
❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM
❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM
