The lost Sikh turban style

[Sukhvirk1976]

Their is a difference in the types of jewellery and the pictures can be misleading.. As one can see the distinction.. Categorically 'mundara' of the type worn by many panjabi boys in the 90s were not considered good form, as they were in the mughal period a identifier of 'ghulams'. I was in anandpur sahib for 300 year anniversary of vaisakhi and staying in shaheed bagh amongst the akali nihangs when one of them whilst speaking to some guys from the UK one of whom was wearing 'mundara' educated him on the history. It was a fierce looking mahakaal but spoke as a parent does to a child. He did not reprimand him or chastise him simply told him that as a singh you are never a ghulam and it was these symbols  were historically ways of controlling people and outwardly reinforcing social hierarchy. He simply said why would you want to identify yourself as a slave 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, TheeTurbanator said:

Can you please provide me with a source for this claim? Im genuinely curious 

 

[MrDoaba]

1 hour ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Their is a difference in the types of jewellery and the pictures can be misleading.. As one can see the distinction.. Categorically 'mundara' of the type worn by many panjabi boys in the 90s were not considered good form, as they were in the mughal period a identifier of 'ghulams'. I was in anandpur sahib for 300 year anniversary of vaisakhi and staying in shaheed bagh amongst the akali nihangs when one of them whilst speaking to some guys from the UK one of whom was wearing 'mundara' educated him on the history. It was a fierce looking mahakaal but spoke as a parent does to a child. He did not reprimand him or chastise him simply told him that as a singh you are never a ghulam and it was these symbols  were historically ways of controlling people and outwardly reinforcing social hierarchy. He simply said why would you want to identify yourself as a slave 

That doesn't sound right. I've always heard that mundara are worn mainly by ascetic Saadhus/Yogis (hence it being looked down on), such as those similar to the ones Shiv Ji is depicted wearing. Many Devi Devte are depicted wearing earrings in both ancient and modern imagery. As far as I know men wearing earrings is an Indic tradition that predates Islam.

The kind of earrings that most boys wore in the 90s were not mundara anyhow, they were nantiyaan which are much smaller. Mundara are large hoop style earrings.

They might have been come to possibly represent those who are ghulaam by default, as those who wore earrings in the first place were the ones being forced into ghulaami. But many were also wearing turbans/other articles of clothing etc which are not considered a sign of ghulaami.

Other than that it sounds like a ploy to get people to stop wearing earrings.

[Guest]

I have seen of old pics of nihangs wearing earings. 

[MrDoaba]

21 minutes ago, Singh123456777 said:

I have seen of old pics of nihangs wearing earings. 

 

Self edit.

[jkvlondon]

6 hours ago, Singh123456777 said:

I have seen of old pics of nihangs wearing earings. 

strange since I thought there was a hukam to refrain from wearing jewellery which required piercings and also against tattoos ... besides wearing jewllery is self-adornment isn't it and we are supposed to be ready for action , girls have pulled out their hoops before going into a scrap ...

[sikhni777]

If it is not a portrait of Guru ji then it is imagination. In the olden times, people had to travel far by foot to meet anyone. If someone said Guru ji dressed like a king, then it is possible the artist imagined the king complete with jewellery. 

[MrDoaba]

2 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

strange since I thought there was a hukam to refrain from wearing jewellery which required piercings and also against tattoos ... besides wearing jewllery is self-adornment isn't it and we are supposed to be ready for action , girls have pulled out their hoops before going into a scrap ...

I'm sure piercings weren't strictly forbidden as they are now. There's quite a few pics of Singhs wearing them.

And I don't get the self-adornment thing. I don't see the biggie in wearing jewllery tbh. People bling up with kapre and all sorts. However I can understand removing it for sucham purposes etc.

[jashb]

4 hours ago, sikhni777 said:

If it is not a portrait of Guru ji then it is imagination. In the olden times, people had to travel far by foot to meet anyone. If someone said Guru ji dressed like a king, then it is possible the artist imagined the king complete with jewellery. 

 

Agreed. It is one person's imagination.

I think it's a good idea overall to view some of these artists depictions with a healthy dose of scepticism. Especially considering some of their (Non-Sikh) backgrounds.

Don't forget that male artists generally gravitate towards the effeminate side of the spectrum. Art and painting aren't skills that come naturally to most blokes.

It's no surprise then that some of these artists might want to depict their subjects wearing things like earrings, and even ankle bracelets(!).

[Sukhvirk1976]

13 hours ago, MrDoaba said:

That doesn't sound right. I've always heard that mundara are worn mainly by ascetic Saadhus/Yogis (hence it being looked down on), such as those similar to the ones Shiv Ji is depicted wearing. Many Devi Devte are depicted wearing earrings in both ancient and modern imagery. As far as I know men wearing earrings is an Indic tradition that predates Islam.

The kind of earrings that most boys wore in the 90s were not mundara anyhow, they were nantiyaan which are much smaller. Mundara are large hoop style earrings.

They might have been come to possibly represent those who are ghulaam by default, as those who wore earrings in the first place were the ones being forced into ghulaami. But many were also wearing turbans/other articles of clothing etc which are not considered a sign of ghulaami.

Other than that it sounds like a ploy to get people to stop wearing earrings.

Dude I don't particularly care whether people wear earrings or not as far I'm concerned it's their actions that matter. I'm just retelling the reasoning given and which I was present to witness