Notice, the line where it says "women should not be involved with preparation of amrit"
There has never been a satisfactory reason to bar women from acting as one of the Panj Pyaras.
- If the argument is that no woman gave her head that day so no woman has a right to be one of Panj Pyaras ever... then also those castes which were not represented and skin colours, ethnicities etc who never had someone who gave their head that say, they too should be kept from this seva. But they are not... as long as you have a {censored} apparently you are good to go! Counter Argument, Gurbani says these bodies are false, our true identities genderless. The first five, it was not their maleness that gave their heads. They were brahamgiani and above physical limits. They were above gender.
- Some argue that no historical document states Guru Ji appointed any woman in the time immediately after the first in 1699. Counter Argument - There exists not much written history at all, where we can even say who the panj pyaras were, aside from the amrit sanchars of some prominent figure in history, which usually revolved around militancy. The amrit sanchars of ordinary Sikhs were hardly written about at all, and very well could have had women as panj pyaras. Just because we can't find direct written evidence, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
- There DOES exist history proving women WERE involved with conferring amrit in form of charan amrit, prior to 1699. As we know, there were women masands appointed by the Gurus. Masands had full rights over their jurisdiction, including conferring amrit in absence of the Guru. There IS written historical reference to this, including the explanation that masands did indeed confer amrit (charan amrit). So if women masands were capable to confer amrit in a position which had to be directly appointed by the Guru (a position which was much more difficult to acquire) then who are we to say that women can not now confer kande de pahul, in a less restrictive position appointed by panth as part of the panj pyaras? Amrit is amrit. Those who took amrit in form of charan amrit are not any less Sikh in our eyes now, so how can we say there is some hugely different mechanism between Kandi de pahul and charan pahul that would make women all of a sudden no longer suitable?
Gurbani says:
"As Gurmukh look upon all with a single eye of equality, for in each and every heart the divine light abides"
- ALL those who go before panj pyaras and give their head (symbolically) and take kande di pahul, are seen as equal in Khalsa (brotherhood). There is no hierarchy in the Khalsa, meaning anyone is capable to do any seva and selection of panj pyaras should be based on their gian and avastha.
Therefore, I do not believe in the Damdami Taksal rehet maryada, as it seems a lot of brahminical thinking has crept into it. Like for example where it says that wives must see their husband as 'God' over them, while the husband is told to view his wife as a faithful 'follower'. It lays down direct hierarchy in marriage instead of an equal partnership. This worshipping of husband as God is a Hindu tradition, straight from laws of manu. They also believe women are unclean (ritually) and prohibit women from most seva of SGGSJ (some of their Gurdwaras only prohibit menstruating women, others prohibit women altogether - you know... just to be sure no menstruating bibi desecrates SGGSJ with her bleeding). This too is straight from Hinduism and laws of manu. (Hindu women are not allowed in many Hindu temples) Taksalis cite cleanliness as the reason...
But
Gurbani Says:
"The true cleansing bath is service to the Guru."
They are keeping women from the very thing which gurbani says IS what cleanses us... service to the Guru.
