The message of Guru Nanak is to accept all
religions and that the Divine is one and the same for all. The Gurdwara is open
for all to come and visit, and partake in the Guru's free kitchen and
meditation/prayer. The Sikh scripture is not prescriptive, and to find
information about marriage rites you have to look at the Rahit-name,
i.e. codes of conduct. The primary scripture of the Sikh canon is the Guru
Granth Sahib which is devotional, it does not describe in detail how a Sikh
should conduct oneself in social life. Therefore, secondary scripture, the Rahit-name were composed
in the times of Guru Gobind Singh to fulfil the needs for the
emerging community, some three hundred years after Guru Nanak. We need to
consider why these injunctions were not bound with the Guru Granth Sahib? I
would argue that any code of conduct, like any law, is open to interpretation
based on the circumstances. Therefore, these laws related to the Sikhs temporal
life, were not fit to be bound with the spiritual content found in the Guru
Granth Sahib. The Rahit-name are
mostly referred to by Khalsa Sikhs, most Sehajdhari Sikhs will know very
little about them, and generally will only accept what is written in Guru
Granth Sahib.
The practices of prima noctas by the Moghuls and foeticide by some sections of Indian Society, as well as no widow remarriage, and Sati, led to the chivalrous codes, one of which was to protect women. The community was small and thus had to ensure its survival. The Rahit-name clearly
state a Sikh should marry a Sikh, and if someone wishes to marry a Sikh they
should embrace Sikhism. A Sikh is defined as someone who believes and practices
the teachings of all Ten Gurus, and the Guru Granth Sahib. Some would argue that as Sikhism is against empty
ritualism, for a non-Sikh to be married before Guru Granth Sahib when she/he
has no intent to follow it, is an empty ritual. The Prem Sumarag Granth circa
1700 clearly states a Sikh should marry his son or daughter within the Sikh
community, after taking amrit. So, in actual fact the Sikh marriage rite
of Anand Karaj was only prescribed for Khalsa Sikhs (which is still the
practice at Takht Hazur Sahib, Nanded), while Sehajdhari Sikhs would
have had some sort of marriage blessing in the Gurdwara.
Nowadays, we can see young Sikh
males dressing up as a Singh and keeping their beard for the day and carrying a
sword, and then later on shave their beard. It was probably for this reason
that this injunction of being amritdhari for marriage was made. Some
Khalsa Sikhs argue that Sehajdhari Sikhs should not be allowed to have an Anand
Karaj. This change in tradition occurred the time of British with the introduction
of the Anand Marriage Act in 1909, which was adopted by the Singh Sabha. It
states:
‘3. Exemption of certain marriages from Act: Nothing in
this Act shall apply to -- (a) any marriage between persons not professing the
Sikh religion, or’
Since then the position of women has changed
worldwide and in the West women are economically independent and have much more
freedom. In our secular societies, religion plays a very little role in most
peoples lives, and in the West there have been increasing numbers of mixed
marriages. Which led to the Akal Takht Sahib issuing a ‘Sandesh’ or advice,
which some may argue is different from a ‘Hukam’ or encyclic edict. This ‘Sandesh’
states that to be a Sikh the person must have Singh or Kaur in their name. Sikhs
do this at birth, but in reality this title is only officially given to
Amritdhari Sikhs. The Sikh Rahit Maryada (1955) states:
Article XVIII - Anand Sanskar (Lit. Joyful Ceremony)
a. A Sikh man and woman should enter wedlock without giving
thought to the prospective spouse’s caste and descent.
b. A Sikh’s daughter must be married to a Sikh.
c. A Sikh’s marriage should be solemnized by Anand marriage
rites.
k. Persons professing faiths other than the Sikh faith cannot
be joined in wedlock by the Anand Karaj ceremony.
Point A is not adhered to as many Sikhs marry
within their caste. Point B is that it is to interesting to note that it is
about a daughter rather than a son. Point C is also interesting as this
deviates away from traditional Rahitname.
The issue behind the protests is
that those individuals, who are predominantly male, see these marriages as the
loss of a member of the Sikh community, to another. It would be interesting to
find out if they have protested at the weddings of Sikh males, with non-Sikh
females. This group has employed the Rahitname to support their protests, and
seem to have coaching on tactics to employ against the police also. One of the Committee
members discussed the issues with the group who said ‘ We are only following the
maryada (injunctions) of Guru Gobind Singh, to which the committee
member replied you know your Pita ji, but not your Baba, Guru Nanak then.’.
An interesting debate was between
the Hundal brothers, Jagraj Hundal and Sunny Hundal. Jagraj Singh is a Khalsa
Sikh and runs ‘Basics Of Sikhi,’ and Sunny is a Sehajdhari Sikh and is a
journalist. Sunny labelled this emerging group protesting at mixed marriages as
the Khaliban, or the Sikh Taliban, which Jagraj Singh considers unfair, as they
haven’t committed any act on level with the Taliban to date. However, Sunny’s
argument is that if left unchecked, this type of ideology could one day lead to
more dangerous forms of extremism.
Perhaps, a good way of reaching common ground is perhaps to introduce a Sikh Marriage Blessing or prayer for any couple.
Kamalroop
Singh
Sikh
Marriage Act 1909
Prem
Sumarag Granth (Circa 1700), see JPS 15 for the dating of this manuscript.
Sikh
Rehit Marayada SGPC.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wedding-between-sikh-bride-and-nonsikh-groom-stopped-by-thugs-at-london-temple-10450476.html
