The Sikh code of conduct, the Rehat Maryada, prescribes these five K's to be worn by anyone who wants to be baptized as a Sikh:
On the hygiene front, I think that it makes a lot of sense to wear a loose underwear in hot weather as it keeps one cool and ventilated, and avoids infections which are caused by moisture and lack of circulation.
The most controversial K of all, and the one which causes the hottest debates, is the edict to keep unshorn hair. The edict prohibits not just cutting of one's scalp hair, but cutting, trimming, shaving, dying anywhere is disallowed. Some Sikh scholars go further and claim that even tying one's beard is prohibited ("Banhi katti ikk barabar", tying is equivalent to cutting), but that would be a clear disadvantage in sports and in the army. Especially in the army, tying one's beard is mandated, and is usually kept secure by a mesh.
Sikh educational institutions in Punjab sometimes have a quota for "true" Sikhs (those who do not cut their hair), and a girl who so much as trims her eyebrows is considered ineligible. This matter even reached the Punjab and Haryana High Court which ruled in the favor of the orthodox interpretation.
Hair driers are hard to come by in rural India, and electricity supply even in urban areas is intermittent. Hence, Sikhs generally wash their hair once a week, usually on a Sunday.
There is a small mention of the turban in the Rehat Maryada for Sikh men, and almost universally, Sikhs (men) who keep long hair do tie a turban. The turban is a symbol of dignity in North India, as is perhaps elsewhere. Unseating someone's turban is considered a grave insult. Sikhs take immense offense at airport security folks asking them to take off their turbans, as a Sikh feels "naked" without his turban. Sikhs do not like anybody to even touch their turbans, but now-a-days Sikhs are fine with the turbans getting physically frisked with hands or with metal detectors. Every now and then there is a controversy over airport security, with Sikhs calling upon the Sikh Prime Minister of India to intervene.
France has already banned religious symbols in public schools, and the province of Quebec in Canada is considering banning the wearing of religious symbols like the Hijab and the turban for public officials while they are on duty. Sikhs, and Muslims, and perhaps other religious groups, oppose such efforts tooth-and-nail because they see these as attacks on their religious or communal identity.
There doesn't seem to be a rational justification for asking a whole community to keep unshorn hair. Perhaps it might have helped community bonding and cohesion, as people were easily identified as belonging to the Sikh religion. Pseudo-scientific explanations about long hair promoting virility, or sagacity, abound. Even if we assume that all the Sikh gurus never cut their hair or trimmed their beards even as children (a tall claim, since this custom ostensibly started with the tenth Guru), many saints whose teachings are included in the Sikh holy book were born in traditional Hindu or Muslim families and most likely kept short hair.
Sikhs have only themselves to blame for feeling marginalized and being the objects of curiosity in the West as they attempt to keep their traditional, and medieval, attire. Wearing religious symbols in a very visible way is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being inflexible and "backward" and it naturally affects the professional and social life of Sikhs as they attempt to mingle in the modern world. They face an uphill battle in their interactions because their unique and startling appearance is the first thing people notice about them. Many Sikhs who would otherwise look better if they trim their beards look un-groomed, unkempt and aged. Sikh women suffer pangs of guilt as they attempt to look more groomed by trimming their eyebrows.
The community is already rebelling by refusing to wear the five K's. Orthodox Sikh scholars and the Sikh clergy is fighting a losing battle against the inexorable change in cultural norms.
Many Sikh scholars disproportionately insist on wearing of the K symbols instead of following the humanistic and spiritual precepts of Sikh teachings. As they become more and more shrill in their denigration and in calling anybody who doesn't wear these K's a patit (apostate) Sikh, Sikhs get disenchanted not just from the orthodoxy of the symbols, but from the entirety of Sikh teachings.
A young Sikh man or woman who is told repeatedly, by those who claim to be the torchbearers of Sikh religion, that he or she is a failure for not keeping long hair or for not wearing a Kachehra, will have little interest in the rest of Sikh scriptures and teachings. After all, if he is anyway going to be considered a spiritual failure, so be it.
- Kesh (unshorn hair)
- Kirpan (a sword or a dagger, sheathed)
- Kachhehra (drawer-style underpants)
- Kangha (a comb)
- Kada (a steel bracelet)
In practice, most Sikhs rarely keep all of these. Many Sikhs keep long hair and do not trim their facial hair, and the males tie a turban over their hair. Females generally braid their hair or tie them in a bun.
Interestingly, the commandment to keep these five k's, just like most of the Rehat Maryada, does not find any mention in any Sikh guru's teachings. The commandment is anecdotal, describing Guru Gobind Singh's edicts during the supposed establishment of the Khalsa on Vaisakhi day in 1699. I am yet to find any written historical reference to that event. I do not claim that the event did not happen, but for such a peculiar set of edicts, and ones which modify one's physical appearance so radically, Sikhs should have demanded more than just hearsay accounts.
The least controversial of these K's, in my opinion, is the fourth one. Keeping a comb with you all the time is excellent advice if you have long hair. Sikh males who keep long hair and who tie a turban do not usually need the comb during the day. They have occasional need of another simple device, though. That device is called a Salai, and is rather useful while tying a turban, for tucking in loose hair at the back of the turban, and sometimes for tying one's beard as well.
However, like the Kirpan, the Salai is considered a sharp metal object and is usually not allowed in one's carry-on luggage on airplanes, and is generally frowned upon when passing through security. Sikhs therefore have to usually check in their luggage. In many countries, checked luggage now carries an extra charge, so Sikhs are switching to plastic or even wooden salais.
The Kirpan, however, is another story. I believe it must have been conceived as a weapon of self-defense, always to be kept on one's person. Needless to say, a dagger is not allowed to be carried in secure environments. Sikhs consider this an infringement of their religious freedom but they have more-or-less reconciled to the Kirpan being taken away temporarily. It is hard for Sikhs to argue that they should be allowed to carry a weapon into an airplane, especially for religious reasons.
I found this news item quite amusing, not the least because of the name of the film that the Sikh couple was planning on watching. In another news, a Sikh boy was accused of using both his Kirpan and his Salai as weapons.
There is an urban legend (I am not sure if there is a basis for this convention, though internet search reveals some evidence that the legend is not fictional) that if the kirpan is unsheathed, it must draw blood before being sheathed again. When I was in school, I was witness to an enactment of this injunction. A schoolboy, just for fun, unsheathed his Sikh buddy's kirpan, and the Sikh boy insisted on at least causing a scrape on the offender's forearm before putting the kirpan back into the sheath.
The Kada is rather uncontroversial and most Sikhs wear it. Though there is no text detailing its religious significance. Some people consider it a weapon, some a reminder to do ethical deeds with one's hands (though usually it is worn only on one hand), some consider it a bond to the community, some consider it a symbol of "never-ending life" (the last one being a little imaginative, I think). In practice, however, anyone wearing a plain steel bangle or bracelet is generally considered as being sympathetic to the Sikh faith, even if not completely a Sikh.
The edict of Kachehra is, I confess, not easy to analyze. Some consider it to be an aid towards chastity, though the reasoning is not explained. I believe it could be an aid, but in an indirect way. It is, at least in modern times, not an entirely sexy or arousing style of underwear and therefore can naturally lead to chaste behavior.
Wikipedia states the Kachehra to be a martial aid:
Originally, the Kachera was made part of the five Ks as a symbol of a Sikh soldier's willingness to be ready at a moment's notice for battle or for defense. It was to get around quickly in a fight. The confirmed Sikh (one who has taken the Amrit) wears a kachera every day. Some go to the extent of wearing a kachera while bathing, to be ready at a moment's notice, changing into a new one one leg at a time so as to have no moment where they are unprepared. Further, this garment allowed the Sikh soldier to operate in combat freely and without any hindrance or restriction, because it was easy to fabricate, maintain, wash and carry compared to other traditional under-garments of that era, like the dhoti.I am not sure of what to say to this, as this is clearly post-hoc rationalization. People wearing a dhoti during the day usually wear a piece of underwear beneath. And I am not convinced about the extra readiness that a pair of drawers confer upon their wearer. I think it is far more likely that soldiers in those days used to wear a long kurta over just a kachehra, as is still the custom in Nihang singhs, and therefore it was considered part of a soldier's uniform. As the tenth Guru insisted on martial training, it is not unlikely that he made that soldier's uniform mandatory for all who wanted to come under his command.
On the hygiene front, I think that it makes a lot of sense to wear a loose underwear in hot weather as it keeps one cool and ventilated, and avoids infections which are caused by moisture and lack of circulation.
The most controversial K of all, and the one which causes the hottest debates, is the edict to keep unshorn hair. The edict prohibits not just cutting of one's scalp hair, but cutting, trimming, shaving, dying anywhere is disallowed. Some Sikh scholars go further and claim that even tying one's beard is prohibited ("Banhi katti ikk barabar", tying is equivalent to cutting), but that would be a clear disadvantage in sports and in the army. Especially in the army, tying one's beard is mandated, and is usually kept secure by a mesh.
Sikh educational institutions in Punjab sometimes have a quota for "true" Sikhs (those who do not cut their hair), and a girl who so much as trims her eyebrows is considered ineligible. This matter even reached the Punjab and Haryana High Court which ruled in the favor of the orthodox interpretation.
Hair driers are hard to come by in rural India, and electricity supply even in urban areas is intermittent. Hence, Sikhs generally wash their hair once a week, usually on a Sunday.
There is a small mention of the turban in the Rehat Maryada for Sikh men, and almost universally, Sikhs (men) who keep long hair do tie a turban. The turban is a symbol of dignity in North India, as is perhaps elsewhere. Unseating someone's turban is considered a grave insult. Sikhs take immense offense at airport security folks asking them to take off their turbans, as a Sikh feels "naked" without his turban. Sikhs do not like anybody to even touch their turbans, but now-a-days Sikhs are fine with the turbans getting physically frisked with hands or with metal detectors. Every now and then there is a controversy over airport security, with Sikhs calling upon the Sikh Prime Minister of India to intervene.
France has already banned religious symbols in public schools, and the province of Quebec in Canada is considering banning the wearing of religious symbols like the Hijab and the turban for public officials while they are on duty. Sikhs, and Muslims, and perhaps other religious groups, oppose such efforts tooth-and-nail because they see these as attacks on their religious or communal identity.
There doesn't seem to be a rational justification for asking a whole community to keep unshorn hair. Perhaps it might have helped community bonding and cohesion, as people were easily identified as belonging to the Sikh religion. Pseudo-scientific explanations about long hair promoting virility, or sagacity, abound. Even if we assume that all the Sikh gurus never cut their hair or trimmed their beards even as children (a tall claim, since this custom ostensibly started with the tenth Guru), many saints whose teachings are included in the Sikh holy book were born in traditional Hindu or Muslim families and most likely kept short hair.
Sikhs have only themselves to blame for feeling marginalized and being the objects of curiosity in the West as they attempt to keep their traditional, and medieval, attire. Wearing religious symbols in a very visible way is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being inflexible and "backward" and it naturally affects the professional and social life of Sikhs as they attempt to mingle in the modern world. They face an uphill battle in their interactions because their unique and startling appearance is the first thing people notice about them. Many Sikhs who would otherwise look better if they trim their beards look un-groomed, unkempt and aged. Sikh women suffer pangs of guilt as they attempt to look more groomed by trimming their eyebrows.
The community is already rebelling by refusing to wear the five K's. Orthodox Sikh scholars and the Sikh clergy is fighting a losing battle against the inexorable change in cultural norms.
Many Sikh scholars disproportionately insist on wearing of the K symbols instead of following the humanistic and spiritual precepts of Sikh teachings. As they become more and more shrill in their denigration and in calling anybody who doesn't wear these K's a patit (apostate) Sikh, Sikhs get disenchanted not just from the orthodoxy of the symbols, but from the entirety of Sikh teachings.
A young Sikh man or woman who is told repeatedly, by those who claim to be the torchbearers of Sikh religion, that he or she is a failure for not keeping long hair or for not wearing a Kachehra, will have little interest in the rest of Sikh scriptures and teachings. After all, if he is anyway going to be considered a spiritual failure, so be it.
2 comments:
Your post is really one of the finest examples of the maxim "nnem hakim, khatara e jaan". Here are my observations on your half baked knowledge:
"However, like the Kirpan, the Salai is considered a sharp metal object…."
People have killed other people by mauling them with their teeth. Would you recommend security agencies insisting on passengers being toothless?
"The Kirpan, however, is another story. I believe it must have been conceived as a weapon of self-defense, always to be kept on one's person. Needless to say, a dagger is not allowed to be carried in secure environments."
Some “modern” Sikhs recommend keeping a small two inch toy in place of kirpaan. I want to ask them if they can really defend themselves by using a toy? If it is for the original purpose of self defense, it must be at least 5-6 inches long edge, otherwise it is just a tokenism which has no place in sikhi.
"The edict of Kachehra is, I confess, not easy to analyze. Some consider it to be an aid towards chastity, though the reasoning is not explained. I believe it could be an aid, but in an indirect way. It is, at least in modern times, not an entirely sexy or arousing style of underwear and therefore can naturally lead to chaste behavior."
If you are able to make a robust argument against use of kachhera, please do so. Do not just use oblique humor to ridicule something that you cannot otherwise find fault with.
"There doesn't seem to be a rational justification for asking a whole community to keep unshorn hair. Perhaps it might have helped community bonding and cohesion, as people were easily identified as belonging to the Sikh religion. Pseudo-scientific explanations about long hair promoting virility, or sagacity, abound."
For once you are right. There is no rational justification for keeping kesh. The justification is spiritual, which I do not think you are capable of appreciating.
"Sikhs have only themselves to blame for feeling marginalized and being the objects of curiosity in the West as they attempt to keep their traditional, and medieval, attire. Wearing religious symbols in a very visible way is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being inflexible and "backward" and it naturally affects the professional and social life of Sikhs as they attempt to mingle in the modern world. They face an uphill battle in their interactions because their unique and startling appearance is the first thing people notice about them."
Oh really! From my observations, I have found Sikhs to be generally among the most successful community in their profession both in India and abroad. If your argument was correct we should have seen, sikhs at the bottom of social pyramid. But they are not. BTW, India's PM and Chief of Army Staff are Sikhs.
"The community is already rebelling by refusing to wear the five K's. Orthodox Sikh scholars and the Sikh clergy is fighting a losing battle against the inexorable change in cultural norms."
Dear Sir, all I can say is that please do not consider yourself as the representative of the community. Barring a small fringe minority, most of the Sikhs do not have any major issues with the five Ks.
@anonymous:
"There is no rational justification for keeping kesh. The justification is spiritual, which I do not think you are capable of appreciating."
1. What is the spiritual justification?
2. How do you happen to know the spiritual justification? Who originated it, or where did you find it?
3. What is the basis of your belief or faith in the spiritual justification?
Post a Comment