Why Sikhi failed to spread

[chatanga1]

On 05/03/2017 at 5:37 AM, paapiman said:

In the past, Sikhs did rule most of Punjab (East and West). Malwa Sikh states, which were part of present day Indian Punjab, sided with the British. They could have easily joined hands with Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

 

The Malwa Sardars were afraid of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, which is why they went to the British. Personally I beleive that Maharaja made a big mistake when during his tour of the Malwa states in 1806, he didn't have them all executed and taken the domains under his own name. Or at least shipped the sardars off to Lahore to attend his court whilst he ruled the Malwa.

[Sanjay Sharma]

I just want to give an outsider perspective.

While you will have no doubt to accept the fact that all the Hindus and their families are always ask to revere Gurus and Sikh as warriors of Hindu faith with highest respect. The sikhism until the time of Shri Ranjit Singh and Harisingh Nawla had identity of a unique sect of Hinduism.

However, the Singh Sabha on behest of British and their appointed scholars not only split the Sikhs from Hindus... but also made the inclusive Sikhism as an exclusivity Sikhism. Even if you get hold of  any Rahetnamas or any declaration by SPGC or most of the Sikh Groups it is based upon Anti-Brahmin or anti-Hindu ideology, just to ensure that they maintain their separate identity. Lot of potraits for Gurus with Tilak were removed, most of the language is that "do not follow this because Hindus follow this". Sikhs started questioning the literatures and at the time of Guru Gobind Singh as corruption by Hindus(when it is a fact that most of the scribes of Gurus were also Hindus, there was no such issue until the time of Raja Ranjit singh). Rather than reforming or giving space to Udasis or namdharis was it right to start executing them in Mughal ways?

Detaching Hindus and generating hatred towards hindus, instilled insecurity and mistrust among both communities post singh sabaha and lead to so many events of evil and division.

It burns my heart to understand why couldn't the mainstream sikhs identify the big flaw in the singh sabah and ISI inspired Khalistani events of exclusion and hatred, and let their influence into anti-Hindu rahetnamas.

I mean do they expect Muslims and Christians who are based upon ideology of hatred and exclusivity to convert to Sikhism?? as opposed to Hindus, who gave away one of their sons to Guru when the Sikhs were reduced to low numbers. Though I am not from Punjab, but I have personally seen most of the Punjabis are More Guru Bhakts then being Hindus. can Sikhs find such following among Muslims and Christians??

[jaikaara]

5 hours ago, Sanjay Sharma said:

I just want to give an outsider perspective.

While you will have no doubt to accept the fact that all the Hindus and their families are always ask to revere Gurus and Sikh as warriors of Hindu faith with highest respect. The sikhism until the time of Shri Ranjit Singh and Harisingh Nawla had identity of a unique sect of Hinduism.

However, the Singh Sabha on behest of British and their appointed scholars not only split the Sikhs from Hindus... but also made the inclusive Sikhism as an exclusivity Sikhism. Even if you get hold of  any Rahetnamas or any declaration by SPGC or most of the Sikh Groups it is based upon Anti-Brahmin or anti-Hindu ideology, just to ensure that they maintain their separate identity. Lot of potraits for Gurus with Tilak were removed, most of the language is that "do not follow this because Hindus follow this". Sikhs started questioning the literatures and at the time of Guru Gobind Singh as corruption by Hindus(when it is a fact that most of the scribes of Gurus were also Hindus, there was no such issue until the time of Raja Ranjit singh). Rather than reforming or giving space to Udasis or namdharis was it right to start executing them in Mughal ways?

Detaching Hindus and generating hatred towards hindus, instilled insecurity and mistrust among both communities post singh sabaha and lead to so many events of evil and division.

It burns my heart to understand why couldn't the mainstream sikhs identify the big flaw in the singh sabah and ISI inspired Khalistani events of exclusion and hatred, and let their influence into anti-Hindu rahetnamas.

I mean do they expect Muslims and Christians who are based upon ideology of hatred and exclusivity to convert to Sikhism?? as opposed to Hindus, who gave away one of their sons to Guru when the Sikhs were reduced to low numbers. Though I am not from Punjab, but I have personally seen most of the Punjabis are More Guru Bhakts then being Hindus. can Sikhs find such following among Muslims and Christians??

There has also been an attempt by Arya Samaaj to curb the distinct identity of the Khalsa..you need to draw the line bro...Khalsa is a Panth born in Bharat and will have the same base as other religions born in India ..the concept of Chitargupt and Yamraj and 84 lakh joon..Hindu is a geographical identity only. So even though you love and respect Sikhism you should respect the fact that they are a distinct Panth 

[Crystal]

6 hours ago, Sanjay Sharma said:

I just want to give an outsider perspective.

While you will have no doubt to accept the fact that all the Hindus and their families are always ask to revere Gurus and Sikh as warriors of Hindu faith with highest respect. The sikhism until the time of Shri Ranjit Singh and Harisingh Nawla had identity of a unique sect of Hinduism.

However, the Singh Sabha on behest of British and their appointed scholars not only split the Sikhs from Hindus... but also made the inclusive Sikhism as an exclusivity Sikhism. Even if you get hold of  any Rahetnamas or any declaration by SPGC or most of the Sikh Groups it is based upon Anti-Brahmin or anti-Hindu ideology, just to ensure that they maintain their separate identity. Lot of potraits for Gurus with Tilak were removed, most of the language is that "do not follow this because Hindus follow this". Sikhs started questioning the literatures and at the time of Guru Gobind Singh as corruption by Hindus(when it is a fact that most of the scribes of Gurus were also Hindus, there was no such issue until the time of Raja Ranjit singh). Rather than reforming or giving space to Udasis or namdharis was it right to start executing them in Mughal ways?

Detaching Hindus and generating hatred towards hindus, instilled insecurity and mistrust among both communities post singh sabaha and lead to so many events of evil and division.

It burns my heart to understand why couldn't the mainstream sikhs identify the big flaw in the singh sabah and ISI inspired Khalistani events of exclusion and hatred, and let their influence into anti-Hindu rahetnamas.

I mean do they expect Muslims and Christians who are based upon ideology of hatred and exclusivity to convert to Sikhism?? as opposed to Hindus, who gave away one of their sons to Guru when the Sikhs were reduced to low numbers. Though I am not from Punjab, but I have personally seen most of the Punjabis are More Guru Bhakts then being Hindus. can Sikhs find such following among Muslims and Christians??

The hatred for hindus was started by the singh sabha, distancing themselves from anything they deemed 'hindu' and non sikh, when 1984 happened it set things off even worse than before. Now days Sikhs are so engulfed with hatred for hindus they are blind/tunnel vision.  Khalistanis are the reason sikhi is failing to spread now days, wherever you go you get massive pictures of kharkus, sometimes the pictures are bigger than any of the gurus! those who know of the gurdwara in east London who has almost 99%  of khalistani fighter in the langhar hall and maybe one of two of the gurus.

[Soulfinder]

1 hour ago, Crystal said:

those who know of the gurdwara in east London who has almost 99%  of khalistani fighter in the langhar hall and maybe one of two of the gurus.

Veer i live in east london and i know what Gurdwaras you are talking about as i saw this when i was young

[chatanga1]

9 hours ago, Sanjay Sharma said:

I just want to give an outsider perspective.

 

Why? Why can't you just do a search on the forum and read this topic where it has been discussed so many times ?

 

9 hours ago, Sanjay Sharma said:

While you will have no doubt to accept the fact that all the Hindus and their families are always ask to revere Gurus and Sikh as warriors of Hindu faith with highest respect. The sikhism until the time of Shri Ranjit Singh and Harisingh Nawla had identity of a unique sect of Hinduism.

 

But seeing as you havent worked out what a "search" facility does...

Really? That doesn't sit too well with the fact that the Hindus caused so many problems for the Sikh Gurus and the Panth during its time. Sikhs were never a sect of Hinduism so take your outside perspective outside where it belongs.

 

9 hours ago, Sanjay Sharma said:

However, the Singh Sabha on behest of British and their appointed scholars not only split the Sikhs from Hindus... but also made the inclusive Sikhism as an exclusivity Sikhism.

 

And you put satelites into space for £72 million ? And there are still people like this born in india? Singh Sabha on the behest of the British? typical hindu with the same lies. FYI the Singh Sabha and the British never got on with each other. The Singh Sabha lehar started because 4 Sikhs had renounced Sikhi and become Christians.

 

9 hours ago, Sanjay Sharma said:

 Even if you get hold of  any Rahetnamas or any declaration by SPGC or most of the Sikh Groups it is based upon Anti-Brahmin or anti-Hindu ideology, just to ensure that they maintain their separate identity.

 

Forget rehatnamas, let's look at Guru Granth Sahib and Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth Sahib.

 

9 hours ago, Sanjay Sharma said:

 Rather than reforming or giving space to Udasis or namdharis was it right to start executing them in Mughal ways?

 

Because of this, you should be banned from this forum. I would advise the Admins to ban this poster.

 

9 hours ago, Sanjay Sharma said:

Detaching Hindus and generating hatred towards hindus, instilled insecurity and mistrust among both communities post singh sabaha and lead to so many events of evil and division.

 

Detaching Hindus? the Hindus had already detached themselves from the Gurus. how can you reattach that ? It was the Hindus who were insulting the Gurus that the Singh Sabha responded to.

How could Sikhs generate hatred to Hindus who hated Sikhs already?

 

9 hours ago, Sanjay Sharma said:

It burns my heart to understand why couldn't the mainstream sikhs identify the big flaw in the singh sabah and ISI inspired Khalistani events of exclusion and hatred, and let their influence into anti-Hindu rahetnamas.

 

It burned a lot of Sikhs hearts when when of your people called Guru Nanak a "dhambi."

 

9 hours ago, Sanjay Sharma said:

 as opposed to Hindus, who gave away one of their sons to Guru when the Sikhs were reduced to low numbers.

 

Hindus never "gave away" any of their sons to Guru. This practice only started in Maharaja Ranjit Singhs time, and that too because Sikhs had automatic entry into Mahaharaj's army.

 

So many of these sons became Hindus again when the Kingdom was lost. Shows you exactly, Mr Sharma, how much love they had for Sikhi.

 

[chatanga1]

3 hours ago, jaikaara said:

 So even though you love and respect Sikhism you should respect the fact that they are a distinct Panth 

 

Did you even read his post? He clearly doesn't love or respect Sikhs.

 

2 hours ago, Crystal said:

The hatred for hindus was started by the singh sabha,

 

Crystal, you liked that sharmas post?  Are you kidding with that or what?

 

The singh sabha never had any hatred for the Hindus, they simply loved Sikhi. Thats the difference. Even thought they didn't get somethings right they did get some things right. Stop falling for this hindu bullshit!

 

 

[jaikaara]

11 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

Did you even read his post? He clearly doesn't love or respect Sikhs.

 

 

Crystal, you liked that sharmas post?  Are you kidding with that or what?

 

The singh sabha never had any hatred for the Hindus, they simply loved Sikhi. Thats the difference. Even thought they didn't get somethings right they did get some things right. Stop falling for this hindu bullshit!

 

 

Singh Sabha was made to understand by the Macaulay that the Hindu was a boa constrictor ! if the Hindu was a boa constrictor why would there be contribution to people joining Khalsa ...before any formal divide there have been families with generations having chilldren either follow Sanatan or Sikhi..and Sikhi never faced dwindling numbers as in today ..if there were subtractions then there were additions too..i know of families here who say their great grand father or the forefathers was Sikh or Hindu or who's half family is following either of the two religions.  Arya Samaaj themselves dont get well with rest of Hindus and they made an attempt to curb a separate identity formation motivated by the British which i feel perhaps shouldn't have happened ...

[chatanga1]

11 hours ago, jaikaara said:

Singh Sabha was made to understand by the Macaulay that the Hindu was a boa constrictor !

 

But it wasn't the Hindus actions that started the Singh Sabha lehar. You very conveniently overlook this. It was the threat of Christianity. What don't you understand about this?

 

11 hours ago, jaikaara said:

and Sikhi never faced dwindling numbers as in today

 

That is another falsehood being thrown at the Sikhs, just like that liar asatkiran tried to claim that so many Sikh girl had left Sihi because they couldnt be part of the the Panj Pyare. Think about what you write bro.

 

The greatest number of people leaving Sikhi was after the fall of the Lahore Darbar. It was estimated in that time that over 500,000 Sikhs had left the panth within the matter of a decade.

 

11 hours ago, jaikaara said:

.if there were subtractions then there were additions too

 

Of course there were. The consensus showed that the number of Sikhs grew and grew during the Singh Sabha Lehar.

[amardeep]

Quote

 

The greatest number of people leaving Sikhi was after the fall of the Lahore Darbar. It was estimated in that time that over 500,000 Sikhs had left the panth within the matter of a decade.

 

Please expand

[jaikaara]

13 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 

But it wasn't the Hindus actions that started the Singh Sabha lehar. You very conveniently overlook this. It was the threat of Christianity. What don't you understand about this?

Bro it was the Shuddhi movement which made Singh Sabha and Arya Samaaj come together and then clash over differences, the threat was christianity and islam both . 

 

That is another falsehood being thrown at the Sikhs, just like that liar asatkiran tried to claim that so many Sikh girl had left Sihi because they couldnt be part of the the Panj Pyare. Think about what you write bro.

 I too dont think that is the reason bro for women to leave  i agree with you ...i am talking about a different issue which is still ongoing ..numbers dwindle due to commitment ..and this is natural ..its human psyche

The greatest number of people leaving Sikhi was after the fall of the Lahore Darbar. It was estimated in that time that over 500,000 Sikhs had left the panth within the matter of a decade.

No idea about this bro 

 

Of course there were. The consensus showed that the number of Sikhs grew and grew during the Singh Sabha Lehar.

 

[MysticMonist]

I am not yet knowledgeable enough about the Sikh faith to comment on why your specific faith isn't more numerous. But Bahais face the same problem about 7 million world wide. If Baha'ism is the new revelation for our time, it hasn't seem to caught on!!

I spent most of my life seeking a deeper path of faith. What I've found is that there are lots of religious people. Yet, with so many it is only surface deep. There are many who just uncritically accept the faith of their parents and community. Many are unaware, in any real way, of faiths outside their own. True, deep mystical faith is rare.

I spoke with this about a Rabbi once and I talked to him about seeking God's Holiness. I said well doesn't everyone? What I meant isn't everyone trying to be a good person, don't most people believe in some higher power. The Rabbi said "No, most people don't seek it". I think the Rabbi's right. Not many give up everything to seek God.

So census numbers doesn't prove one's truth of revelation. God is present to all of us, I think. Yet, only a few are called deeper to Him. It's a mystery. Living in a Bible belt town in the American south, I'm one of the few mystics I know. Praying multiple times a day and studying scripturers for myself is rare. We shouldn't compare ourselves to the majority.

I don't know if that was reassuring or not. We seek to serve and love God. I don't care about our census results!

 

 

[das]

1 hour ago, MysticMonist said:

So census numbers doesn't prove one's truth of revelation. God is present to all of us,

Your line reminded me of a one songs' line as:

Aithe bandyan de rabb bahute ne Par rabb da banda koi nahi

[amardeep]

11 hours ago, MysticMonist said:

I am not yet knowledgeable enough about the Sikh faith to comment on why your specific faith isn't more numerous. But Bahais face the same problem about 7 million world wide. If Baha'ism is the new revelation for our time, it hasn't seem to caught on!!

I spent most of my life seeking a deeper path of faith. What I've found is that there are lots of religious people. Yet, with so many it is only surface deep. There are many who just uncritically accept the faith of their parents and community. Many are unaware, in any real way, of faiths outside their own. True, deep mystical faith is rare.

I spoke with this about a Rabbi once and I talked to him about seeking God's Holiness. I said well doesn't everyone? What I meant isn't everyone trying to be a good person, don't most people believe in some higher power. The Rabbi said "No, most people don't seek it". I think the Rabbi's right. Not many give up everything to seek God.

So census numbers doesn't prove one's truth of revelation. God is present to all of us, I think. Yet, only a few are called deeper to Him. It's a mystery. Living in a Bible belt town in the American south, I'm one of the few mystics I know. Praying multiple times a day and studying scripturers for myself is rare. We shouldn't compare ourselves to the majority.

I don't know if that was reassuring or not. We seek to serve and love God. I don't care about our census results!

 

 

I would say 7 million followers in the span of 130 years - mostly converting from Islam - is quite a huge succes in itself in such a short period of time.

[Premi]

Bump

interesting thread will read it properly when I get time 

[dalsingh101]

 

[kdsingh80]

9 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

 

Blaming everything on British , Hindu's but never do soul searching. Sikhs were not the only which Britishers defeated . Large number of Hindu and Muslim rulers were also defeated by them .

[dalsingh101]

2 hours ago, kdsingh80 said:

Blaming everything on British , Hindu's but never do soul searching. Sikhs were not the only which Britishers defeated . Large number of Hindu and Muslim rulers were also defeated by them .

I think I'd take his perspective more seriously than yours. A lot happened to Sikhs and Panjab during colonialism that effects them till today. Loss of sovereignty isn't a small thing. Plus some apnay in the UK are better informed than those in India about these things.  Most people from back home seem shockingly unaware of geo-politics and the impact of colonisation on any people, let alone themselves.  

[GurjantGnostic]

On 4/5/2022 at 4:39 PM, dalsingh101 said:

I think I'd take his perspective more seriously than yours. A lot happened to Sikhs and Panjab during colonialism that effects them till today. Loss of sovereignty isn't a small thing. Plus some apnay in the UK are better informed than those in India about these things.  Most people from back home seem shockingly unaware of geo-politics and the impact of colonisation on any people, let alone themselves.  

More pertinent thread title would be "Why has Sikhi yet to spread?"

[SunnySingh]

15 hours ago, GurjantGnostic said:

More pertinent thread title would be "Why has Sikhi yet to spread?"

Very well said Bro

And a possible answer to your typed question above could be:Sikhi has yet to be spread, because it is the only one way road to the Supreme Lord  Waheguru Akal Purukh.