It is disappointing to notice that people read good things on Sikhism and then they turn back and promote stupid ideas quoting wrongly the good ideas.

In her letter Narjit Singh is telling the readers that her sister should have walked ahead or parallel to the bridegroom in the Ananad Karej ceremony, in order to be equal. I wonder what did he/she learn from the best value system in the world that we find in Sikhism  People become equal by respecting each other and not by walking ahead or side by side. Even the cattle walk ahead driven by the owner behind, Do they become equal? In Waheguru scheme of things there are certain functions only women can do (like giving birth to a child) and men have certain exclusive functions,

So long as they go about their lives in Dharm (order) they will go smoothly, but as soon as they go astray, they are bound to collapse. All planetary bodies are orbiting in the universe in Dharm (order), as soon as they leave their orbit, They will collide with other bodies and explode. Similarly, men and women should revolve in their given orbits in the sphere of marriage, They should help each other in living life in accordance with Guru’s teachings that says Kirat Karo, Naam Japo and Wand Chhako, walking ahead or parallel at Anand Karaj to gain equality is an empty idea and least creative. I have seen ladies who walked ahead in Anand Karaj only to be abused and divorced later on. I have seen husbands who walked ahead only to be beaten and abused later on by their spouses.

May Waheguru give us power to understand the real meaning of equality, which is respect and dignity towards fellow human beings.

Ajit Singh Sahita Nepean, Ontario

 Sir

Mr. Narjit B. Singh’s letter of 925-92 in which he comments on Dr.Upinder Jit Kaur’’s article “Women’s Role in Sikhism” demands a response, He states in his opening paragraph that “we need to match our conduct to our Guru’s teaching and Gurbani.” As Sikhs I think we all can agree on this. However, statements he makes in his concluding paragraph seems to contradict this stance, He mentions that we must “adapt” “We shall remain creative.” He goes on to use as an example of this adaptive and creative use of Sikh teachings the use of contraceptive measures for birth control. Citing “sexual gratification as a biological need,” he discards abstinence as “not the answer.”

To this I ask Narjit B. Singh  Is birth control and its implied interference with the natural human function of procreation in keeping with Gurbani? And what if the attempt at thwarting the fertilization process were to fail would you, N.S .Singh, support aborting that human fetus? Is that what you mean by matching “our conduct to our Guru’s teaching and Gurbani?”

Rasamrit Singh Cambridge, MA

Article extracted from this publication >> October 16, 1992