The effort to uphold Sikh Rehat Maryada today unfolds within a complex social landscape marked by pluralism, secular legal systems, and powerful currents of individualism. Many Sikhs live in environments where religious discipline has no formal legal backing, and where workplace, school, and public norms can conflict with visible symbols such as the turban, kirpan, and unshorn hair. Security policies, uniform requirements, and professional expectations can make the maintenance of the five Ks and daily discipline practically difficult. In such contexts, the code often shifts from being a collectively enforced standard to a more personal aspiration, shaped by negotiation with surrounding social norms.

At the same time, globalization and diaspora life introduce strong pressures toward cultural assimilation. Second- and third-generation Sikhs, especially outside Punjab, may lack fluency in Punjabi and Gurmukhi, which limits direct engagement with Gurbani and the original formulations of the Rehat. This can foster a more selective or symbolic relationship to the code, where certain practices are retained while others are questioned or set aside. Intergenerational gaps emerge as younger Sikhs, formed by different educational systems and value frameworks, sometimes regard aspects of the discipline as outdated or overly restrictive. Without deep understanding of the spiritual rationale, the Rehat can be perceived merely as a list of prohibitions rather than a path of inner transformation.

Internal diversity within the Panth further complicates consistent observance. Various jathebandis, sampardas, and institutions promote differing interpretations of what constitutes authentic rehat, and there is no single global authority capable of enforcing a uniform standard. Disagreements over the role and authority of central institutions, along with politicization of gurdwara management and religious bodies, can erode trust and weaken the moral force of collective decisions. In such a fragmented landscape, local gurdwaras and community leaders often apply the code unevenly, and attempts at discipline may be perceived as partisan or judgmental rather than compassionate and principled.

Social change also brings to the surface tensions around gender, caste, family life, and personal freedom. Evolving attitudes toward marriage, interfaith relationships, and family structures intersect with community expectations around Anand Karaj and shared norms. Persistent caste consciousness, gender bias, and other social inequalities within Sikh communities stand in stark contrast to the egalitarian spirit that the Rehat seeks to embody, thereby undermining its credibility when selectively applied. Economic pressures, demanding work schedules, and the spread of more individualistic lifestyles leave less time and energy for nitnem, sangat, and seva, making disciplined practice harder to sustain. In this setting, the central challenge is less the existence of rules and more the cultivation of inner conviction, so that adherence arises from understanding and love rather than from external compulsion.