Why Sikhi failed to spread

[JungChamkaur]

Sikhi failed to spread because of the British Singh Sabha. As mentioned here earlier, sehajdaris were no longer included and not welcomed by low castes who limited sikhi to themselves. The fall and contraction began when sikhs started to move away from sanatan sikhi- original sikhi. As people moved away from the Lahore Durbar and the Khalsa Raj's literature and artifacts and began to believe british sponsored singh sabha cronies, sikhi stopped spreading and is now limited to a small punjab. Earlier, the whole hindu population was willing to be sikh and would provide thousands of recruits into the khalsa and khalsa was respected throughout india. that all changed with the bhindranwale who refused to come out of harimandir sahib. 80s cemented the meagreness of sikhi. 

sikhs themselves made sikhi limited. once sikhi spanned the entire indian sub-continent. now sikhs are so brainwashed they cant even understand or dare to read their own history. how long would the US army last if the united states population was no longer intertwined with it? the only recruits now are those who inherit sikhi from birth.. good luck spreading your new sikhi. make sure you keep hiding sikh artifacts from the general populace and make sure they dont ever come to know about uggardanti bani and sau sakhi and tales of the lahore durbar and its sardars, or sikhs might just become a potent force once again and find recruits from all over hindustan.  BEWARE! LIMIT THE KHALSA! 

[tonyhp32]

The whole trajectory of Sikh history was subverted by the annexation of Punjab. All religions have had to have a sustained and prolonged period of time of being the religion of the rulers in order to spread. Sikhism has not had that, the Lahore kingdom only lasted 50 years. Had it lasted up until now then there is no reason to believe that Sikhism would not have been the religion of the majority of the population of the Lahore kingdom. This is exactly what had happened in Patiala and Faridkot states. From a small base of under 20% in the 1800s, Sikhism became the majority in Faridkot state of 58% in 1941 and the largest minority of 46% in Patiala state. Although the Sikhs were a minority in Patiala state they were a majority in the state's Punjab region and minority in the Dadri- Mahindragarh region. Had the Lahore kingdom survived then the Sikhs today would numbered around a 100 million rather than 25 million. 

Christianity became a world religion when Constantine chose to use it as the vehicle for becoming the Roman emperor. The Christian church then became the state religion and using state power was able to oppress the pagan religion and became the religion of the majority of the population. The same happened with Islam. Mohammed when he did not have state power could only convert a handful of people to Islam in a decade yet when he took over Mecca by force a majority of the Arabs became Muslims and with their conquests they converted those under their rule to Islam. Buddhism needed the emperor Asoka to become it's patron in order to spread to China, Sri Lanka and central Asia. Religions that did not enjoy state power could not spread beyond their original population base. The Jews were a small minority in different countries after they lost state power and were forced to migrate by the Romans from their holy land. The Jews did almost achieve a world religion status when the ruling Khazar tribe converted to Judaism in the 800s and had their rule survived there would have been more central Asian Jews than all the other Jews around the world. Religions have always benefited from state power and grown through the patronage that state power has been able to bestow. A case in point is shown just after partition. In the 1930s and 1940s the Sikhs had been successful in converting a large number of so-called low castes in both Punjab and in UP. In fact between 1931 and 1941 censuses the Sikhs had increased from around 46,000 to 252,000 in UP. After independence, the new Indian govt. limited the benefits available to so-called lower castes to only those that were Hindu. So in order to avail themselves of these benefits, most of the lower castes who had become Sikhs a few years before reverted back to Hinduism. This shows how the state can use its power to change the religion of its inhabitants thorough the use of its patronage. 

I have no doubt that  if  Punjab became Khalistan today, within the next year the Sikhs will go from being 60% of the population to becoming 80-90%. This is how powerful state power can be. 

JungChamkaur

Sikhism was not limited by the Singh Sabha, it was the annexation that stuck a body blow to spread of Sikhism. The Singh Sabha were the ones that stemmed the tide of Sikhism becoming just another Hindu sect after the loss of state power. Yours is just a rehash of the same Hindu narrative that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism and the Khalsa was just created to protect the Hindus. You have cited Uggardanti, but have you actually read the text or are you just repeating the same ignorant Hindu arguments? Uggardanti which was not the work of Guru Gobind Singh calls on the destruction of both the Muslim and Hindu religions and the rule of Khalsa. I suggest you read the text before you ignorantly use it to promote your Hindu lies.

 

 

 

 

[Crystal]

Sikhi failed to spread because of the British Singh Sabha. As mentioned here earlier, sehajdaris were no longer included and not welcomed by low castes who limited sikhi to themselves. ! 

low castes such as?.....

 

Cryst

[kdsingh80]

The whole trajectory of Sikh history was subverted by the annexation of Punjab. All religions have had to have a sustained and prolonged period of time of being the religion of the rulers in order to spread. Sikhism has not had that, the Lahore kingdom only lasted 50 years. Had it lasted up until now then there is no reason to believe that Sikhism would not have been the religion of the majority of the population of the Lahore kingdom. This is exactly what had happened in Patiala and Faridkot states. From a small base of under 20% in the 1800s, Sikhism became the majority in Faridkot state of 58% in 1941 and the largest minority of 46% in Patiala state. Although the Sikhs were a minority in Patiala state they were a majority in the state's Punjab region and minority in the Dadri- Mahindragarh region. Had the Lahore kingdom survived then the Sikhs today would numbered around a 100 million rather than 25 million. 

Christianity became a world religion when Constantine chose to use it as the vehicle for becoming the Roman emperor. The Christian church then became the state religion and using state power was able to oppress the pagan religion and became the religion of the majority of the population. The same happened with Islam. Mohammed when he did not have state power could only convert a handful of people to Islam in a decade yet when he took over Mecca by force a majority of the Arabs became Muslims and with their conquests they converted those under their rule to Islam. Buddhism needed the emperor Asoka to become it's patron in order to spread to China, Sri Lanka and central Asia. Religions that did not enjoy state power could not spread beyond their original population base. The Jews were a small minority in different countries after they lost state power and were forced to migrate by the Romans from their holy land. The Jews did almost achieve a world religion status when the ruling Khazar tribe converted to Judaism in the 800s and had their rule survived there would have been more central Asian Jews than all the other Jews around the world. Religions have always benefited from state power and grown through the patronage that state power has been able to bestow. A case in point is shown just after partition. In the 1930s and 1940s the Sikhs had been successful in converting a large number of so-called low castes in both Punjab and in UP. In fact between 1931 and 1941 censuses the Sikhs had increased from around 46,000 to 252,000 in UP. After independence, the new Indian govt. limited the benefits available to so-called lower castes to only those that were Hindu. So in order to avail themselves of these benefits, most of the lower castes who had become Sikhs a few years before reverted back to Hinduism. This shows how the state can use its power to change the religion of its inhabitants thorough the use of its patronage. 

I have no doubt that  if  Punjab became Khalistan today, within the next year the Sikhs will go from being 60% of the population to becoming 80-90%. This is how powerful state power can be. 

JungChamkaur

Sikhism was not limited by the Singh Sabha, it was the annexation that stuck a body blow to spread of Sikhism. The Singh Sabha were the ones that stemmed the tide of Sikhism becoming just another Hindu sect after the loss of state power. Yours is just a rehash of the same Hindu narrative that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism and the Khalsa was just created to protect the Hindus. You have cited Uggardanti, but have you actually read the text or are you just repeating the same ignorant Hindu arguments? Uggardanti which was not the work of Guru Gobind Singh calls on the destruction of both the Muslim and Hindu religions and the rule of Khalsa. I suggest you read the text before you ignorantly use it to promote your Hindu lies.

 

 

 

 

There are some serious flaws in you theory

 

1) It is true that earlier  ruling religion usually has the upper hand and they used to spread rapidly.But now it is not like this.. Thanks to Master tara singh most of benefits of reservation are also given to sikhs..It is not like that because of Indian govt sikhism did not spread. It is mainly lack of prachar by sikhs  and sikh leaders engaging in politics of Punjab caused sikhism not to spread after independence. Very few lower caste  got benefit  reservation policies in early 50s when they hardly have any skills. Also not to forget Christian missionaries were and are still converting without any govt benefits.

 

2) Hindu's were 84-85 %  at independence muslims barely 10.5 . Today hindu 's are down at 79-80 and muslims at 14-15.How come Hindu's rulers of India after independence  declined while the most hated religion in India increased?

 

3) In last 100 years we have seen tremendous decline  of Christianity mainly because of Atheism  or agnosticism .Again rulers of almost entire world are struggling against no religion people of their own.

 

4)Despite 200 year rule of Christian Britishers  India has only 2% population of christians. 

 

 

[Xylitol]

There are some serious flaws in you theory

 

1) It is true that earlier  ruling religion usually has the upper hand and they used to spread rapidly.But now it is not like this.. Thanks to Master tara singh most of benefits of reservation are also given to sikhs..It is not like that because of Indian govt sikhism did not spread. It is mainly lack of prachar by sikhs  and sikh leaders engaging in politics of Punjab caused sikhism not to spread after independence. Very few lower caste  got benefit  reservation policies in early 50s when they hardly have any skills. Also not to forget Christian missionaries were and are still converting without any govt benefits.

 

2) Hindu's were 84-85 %  at independence muslims barely 10.5 . Today hindu 's are down at 79-80 and muslims at 14-15.How come Hindu's rulers of India after independence  declined while the most hated religion in India increased?

 

3) In last 100 years we have seen tremendous decline  of Christianity mainly because of Atheism  or agnosticism .Again rulers of almost entire world are struggling against no religion people of their own.

 

4)Despite 200 year rule of Christian Britishers  India has only 2% population of christians. 

 

 

Responses below:

1.

Actually the government engages in a divide and rule policy against the Sikhs. The dasam granth debates only began in earnest after the 90’s. Why? They realized one of the sources of our power and wanted to separate us from it. An Indian spy, MK Dhar, wrote a memoir in which he admitted that the govt. had purchased journalists to divide our community.  The rivers of drugs began afterwards as well. Why? Morally weakening the people also serves to create divisions and apostasy. Although I have no doubt that Badal is heavily involved in the drug trade as well, his involvement couldn’t happen without the knowledge and willingness of the central government.

2.

Same as in every other country, very very high birth rate.

3.

I think this has more to do with the rulers of western countries allowing and even promoting policies which weaken and dilute Christianity. Morally weak populations are better consumers.  Special interests groups have also made a coordinated attack on Christian values in an attempt to re-make Western societies and they are largely succeeding. The most de-Christianized countries are also the most leftist. Most of the change in these cases is coming from the top-down. In some scandinavian countries govt. programs fund teaching of sex education promoting homosexuality to kindergarten children! The rulers are agents of kaljug...

However, Russia is a modern and very Christian country. 

4.

For a large portion of their rule the policy was to not mess with peoples religions and just make money. Later this changed and evangelization was pushed forward. 

 

Areas that have been under British rule longest do often seem to have higher numbers of Christians than other areas. 

 

I also think that is much harder to convert people en masse from populations that have very very deep spiritually rich roots. The Hindu and Sikh people have these and so apostasy was low compared to tribal areas conquered by the British.

[amardeep]

The whole trajectory of Sikh history was subverted by the annexation of Punjab. All religions have had to have a sustained and prolonged period of time of being the religion of the rulers in order to spread. Sikhism has not had that, the Lahore kingdom only lasted 50 years. Had it lasted up until now then there is no reason to believe that Sikhism would not have been the religion of the majority of the population of the Lahore kingdom. This is exactly what had happened in Patiala and Faridkot states. From a small base of under 20% in the 1800s, Sikhism became the majority in Faridkot state of 58% in 1941 and the largest minority of 46% in Patiala state. Although the Sikhs were a minority in Patiala state they were a majority in the state's Punjab region and minority in the Dadri- Mahindragarh region. Had the Lahore kingdom survived then the Sikhs today would numbered around a 100 million rather than 25 million. 

Christianity became a world religion when Constantine chose to use it as the vehicle for becoming the Roman emperor. The Christian church then became the state religion and using state power was able to oppress the pagan religion and became the religion of the majority of the population. The same happened with Islam. Mohammed when he did not have state power could only convert a handful of people to Islam in a decade yet when he took over Mecca by force a majority of the Arabs became Muslims and with their conquests they converted those under their rule to Islam. Buddhism needed the emperor Asoka to become it's patron in order to spread to China, Sri Lanka and central Asia. Religions that did not enjoy state power could not spread beyond their original population base. The Jews were a small minority in different countries after they lost state power and were forced to migrate by the Romans from their holy land. The Jews did almost achieve a world religion status when the ruling Khazar tribe converted to Judaism in the 800s and had their rule survived there would have been more central Asian Jews than all the other Jews around the world. Religions have always benefited from state power and grown through the patronage that state power has been able to bestow. A case in point is shown just after partition. In the 1930s and 1940s the Sikhs had been successful in converting a large number of so-called low castes in both Punjab and in UP. In fact between 1931 and 1941 censuses the Sikhs had increased from around 46,000 to 252,000 in UP. After independence, the new Indian govt. limited the benefits available to so-called lower castes to only those that were Hindu. So in order to avail themselves of these benefits, most of the lower castes who had become Sikhs a few years before reverted back to Hinduism. This shows how the state can use its power to change the religion of its inhabitants thorough the use of its patronage. 

I have no doubt that  if  Punjab became Khalistan today, within the next year the Sikhs will go from being 60% of the population to becoming 80-90%. This is how powerful state power can be. 

JungChamkaur

Sikhism was not limited by the Singh Sabha, it was the annexation that stuck a body blow to spread of Sikhism. The Singh Sabha were the ones that stemmed the tide of Sikhism becoming just another Hindu sect after the loss of state power. Yours is just a rehash of the same Hindu narrative that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism and the Khalsa was just created to protect the Hindus. You have cited Uggardanti, but have you actually read the text or are you just repeating the same ignorant Hindu arguments? Uggardanti which was not the work of Guru Gobind Singh calls on the destruction of both the Muslim and Hindu religions and the rule of Khalsa. I suggest you read the text before you ignorantly use it to promote your Hindu lies.

 

 

 

 

Interesting view points. Thank for sharing

Do you know whether the Patiala rajas - apart from Maharaja Narinder Singh - were actively engaged in spreading Sikhi ? Both inside their domains as well as outside.

I've found it very difficult to find good and deep books on their kingdom's religious and social aspects- the books i've come across mostly extent to their military history alone.

It also appears that other religions had a clear target of actively converting tribal leaders and the heads of nations (where after the citiziens and tribe members would often follow suit)- whereas the Sikhs does'nt seem to have had this focus in the 18th and 19th century etc. I have'nt come across a single local ruler or leader who converted to Sikhi outside Punjab, unlike what we see in the history of christianity and islam.

 

Edited August 1, 2015 by amardeep

[chatanga1]

Sikhi failed to spread because of the British Singh Sabha.

That is not borne out by the subsequent census' of Panjab which showed an increase of Sikhs from around 6 to 12 % of the population within about 20 years. If anything Sikhi spread more due to the SS because of the proactive parchar they were doing.

The fall and contraction began when sikhs started to move away from sanatan sikhi- original sikhi.

Which part of this original Sikhi was based on the Guru's teachings of not allowing lowcastes into Sri HariMandir Sahib?

[chatanga1]

Earlier, the whole hindu population was willing to be sikh and would provide thousands of recruits into the khalsa

The WHOLE Hindu population? When you talk about earlier which year/decade/century are you talking abou                 

As people moved away from the Lahore Durbar and the Khalsa Raj's literature and artifacts and began to believe british sponsored singh sabha cronies, sikhi stopped spreading...

maybe you can share how many Hindus gave up being Sikhs and returned to being Hindus, after the demise of the Lahore Darbar?

[amardeep]

"The Ninth Nanak, Guru Teghbahadur, being of a pious bent toured the Eastern provinces with the Bengali monarch in the hope of establishing a prominent Sikh foothold in that region. Since the days of the first Nanak, the Sikhs had been spread far and wide and the Guru desired to collate the Eastern Sikhs under the authority of Nanak. With him traveled a several-hundred strong guard composed of his father, Har Gobind's, finest warriors. These men had inflicted costly defeats on the Delhi court in their heyday and were always prepared to re-manifest the glory which they had earned under their founder.'

-"New Lights on Mogul India from Assames Sources," S.K. Bhuyan, 'Islamic Culture, Vol. III, no. 2,' (January 1934 A.D.), pg. 89."

[dalsingh101]

"The Ninth Nanak, Guru Teghbahadur, being of a pious bent toured the Eastern provinces with the Bengali monarch in the hope of establishing a prominent Sikh foothold in that region. Since the days of the first Nanak, the Sikhs had been spread far and wide and the Guru desired to collate the Eastern Sikhs under the authority of Nanak. With him traveled a several-hundred strong guard composed of his father, Har Gobind's, finest warriors. These men had inflicted costly defeats on the Delhi court in their heyday and were always prepared to re-manifest the glory which they had earned under their founder.'

-"New Lights on Mogul India from Assames Sources," S.K. Bhuyan, 'Islamic Culture, Vol. III, no. 2,' (January 1934 A.D.), pg. 89."

Okay, but what are this author's sources?

[paapiman]

"The Ninth Nanak, Guru Teghbahadur, being of a pious bent toured the Eastern provinces with the Bengali monarch in the hope of establishing a prominent Sikh foothold in that region. Since the days of the first Nanak, the Sikhs had been spread far and wide and the Guru desired to collate the Eastern Sikhs under the authority of Nanak. With him traveled a several-hundred strong guard composed of his father, Har Gobind's, finest warriors. These men had inflicted costly defeats on the Delhi court in their heyday and were always prepared to re-manifest the glory which they had earned under their founder.'

-"New Lights on Mogul India from Assames Sources," S.K. Bhuyan, 'Islamic Culture, Vol. III, no. 2,' (January 1934 A.D.), pg. 89."

Great quote brother. The above quote clearly proves that the battles fought by the sixth master were not mere skirmishes.

Thanks a lot.

Bhul chuk maaf

[sukrit kaur]

Why sikhi failed to spread??

In my view, as Gurbani states,"EH VaPpar virlaa vapaaraey" 

Means Very few rare lucky ones get a chance to meet the satpurkh.As we firmly believe that sikhism is the surest way to meet satpurkh.and it's pretty much evident from suleman's tape. 

So It's the great speciality and vadayaii of Guru nanak in sikhism,and very few selected souls are part of it.

No one is denying to follow sikhism or it's not  a human who can do so by his own will.It's Guru Nanak's blessings to choose a particular individual to be the part of it or not.And when one does not abide by the teachings of sikhism,it means that person is so much busy in worldy affairs and it's not his time to merge into reality.

So this is the biggest reason for not large perspective of sikhism in this world.I wouldnt say that sikhi failed to spread,I would say people (very busy in worldy affairs/being eaten by kaal/not known to supreme reality/not lucky ones to be one jot with divine) had failed to join this great surest Way to meet their spiritual needs.

And In this dark age of kalyug, sikhi even can't be a large perspective of religion in this world.When it will happen,then surely kalyug would have been ended.

So biggest reason is the kaal/maya / darkness pervading among the people.This is restricting Sikhism to pervade the world.

Only Spiritual souls in the search of divine when get blessed by Guru nanak maharaj ,can be the part of sikhism.

So Sikhi never failed to spread and it can never be!!

 

 

[amardeep]

Okay, but what are this author's sources?

Good question. Hopefully someone has acces to the book and can check up. But looking at the title it appears to be sources from the Indian state of Assam.

[paapiman]

 

And In this dark age of kalyug, sikhi even can't be a large perspective of religion in this world.When it will happen,then surely kalyug would have been ended.

So biggest reason is the kaal/maya / darkness pervading among the people.This is restricting Sikhism to pervade the world.

 

These are solid reasons. It makes complete sense that Sikhism is not a big religion in Kaljug, even though first master traveled and touched lives of more people than middle eastern prophets (P.Abraham, P.Mosses, P.Jesus, P.Muhammad, etc). We should discuss these spiritual reasons in a separate topic. Let's leave this topic for historical approach.

Bhul chuk maaf

[Xylitol]

I dont know how sikhs assume high caste hindus were against them when in fact high caste hindus were actually leaders of the panth until singh sabha. also, the gurus were helped by hindu rajputs time and time again from the hills to punjab all the way to nanded. please wake up 

Do you have even ONE source to back up this and numerous other assertions that you have made? Hmm... all just happen to coincide with the RSS Hindu-majority viewpoint...

 

The hill rajas betrayed the Guru despite the Guru defeating them in (defensive) war and choosing to be gracious enough to not take even one inch of land from them. 

[SikhKhoj]

"The Ninth Nanak, Guru Teghbahadur, being of a pious bent toured the Eastern provinces with the Bengali monarch in the hope of establishing a prominent Sikh foothold in that region. Since the days of the first Nanak, the Sikhs had been spread far and wide and the Guru desired to collate the Eastern Sikhs under the authority of Nanak. With him traveled a several-hundred strong guard composed of his father, Har Gobind's, finest warriors. These men had inflicted costly defeats on the Delhi court in their heyday and were always prepared to re-manifest the glory which they had earned under their founder.'

-"New Lights on Mogul India from Assames Sources," S.K. Bhuyan, 'Islamic Culture, Vol. III, no. 2,' (January 1934 A.D.), pg. 89."

I know this source but won't tell you ha ha ha.

Okay, the source says Guru Tegh Bahadur had 30 000 soldiers and it is in Assamese language. I got the book, it is based on the Assamese Buranjees found by SK Bhuyan himself. The source has been rejected by noted Sikh scholars as being inaccurate regarding the number of soldiers but the general idea has been accepted by the likes of Fauja Singh and GS Talib.

 

Edited August 10, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[SikhKhoj]

Had to post as I can't see khojis being stuck in their khoj on basic things. I was researching about this 4 years ago. In my search some scholars referred me to existing works which have been invaluable in answering these questions.

 

 

Edited August 10, 2015 by SikhKhoj

[SikhKhoj]

I found some interesting things in Assamese manuscripts about Guru Tegh Bahadur as well. Contemporary sources, letters, etc. They are in Dr Trilochan Singhs library. The accounts describe Guru Ji as a saint soldier, the description reminds you of the Guru Hargobind-Samrat Ramdas conversation.

[SikhKhoj]

Regarding the initial topic, I was right in claiming that once upon a time Sikhs were more represented amongst various ethnic groups and present in nearly all countries.

Besides the Dabistan there is also Rai Chatarmans book Chahr Gulshaan written in about 1760 which says: "They (the Sikhs) are in such large numbers that in every country and city they are to be counted in thousands. At some places, which is especially connected with them, lakhs of them assemble." (see page 163, Sikh history from Persian sources).

Keeping the mid 18th century writing date in mind, the claim that 'countries' may refer to 'all corners of the Mughal empire' becomes weak. Therefore the statement and the presence of high profile Gurdwaras in central Asia and Arab countries need to be taken seriously. A British author notes in the 19th century that  a Gurdwara near the Red Sea is venerated by the Khalsas like the Muslims venerate Mecca.

[Ragmaala]

How many Sikhs do we have in Sri Lanka ?

What happened after Raja Sivnabh. He became a sikh of Guru Nanak & established a dharamshala there.

"

Gurudwaras in Sri Lanka

Gurudwara Udasi Math, Dibar Gurdwara Udasi Math, situated in Dibar, Batticaloa in Sri_Lanka Dibar, Batticaloa, Sri Lanka Email: goldenlink@msn.com

Gurudwara Pehli Patshahi (Kurukal Mandap) KURUKAL MANDAP - A village in Sri Lanka, visited by Guru Nanak Sahib and Bhai Mardana. When Guru Sahib visited this place there was no village. The village owes its name to Guru Sahib. Kurukul Mandap means “Guru Da Nagar”. The tradition of the visit of a saintly missionary from the Punjab to that place is still well known to the local residents. According to a tradition Bhai Changa Bhatra belonged to this area.

Gurudwara Pehli Patshahi (Koti) KOTI - A town in Sri Lanka, visited by Guru Nanak Sahib and Bhai Mardana. At the time of the visit of Guru Sahib, Koti was an independent State. Dharma Parkarma Bahu IX(1489-1513) ruled it. He gave a warm welcome to Guru Sahib. In the court of the ruler, the Buddhists and the Hindus held a debate with Guru Nanak Sahib. Guru Nanak Sahib finally succeeded in making them agree the supremacy of the Sikh philosophy. The ruler himself was highly impressed by Guru Sahib’s teachings.

Gurudwara Pehli Patshahi (Battikola) A town in Sri Lanka, visited by Guru Nanak Sahib and Bhai Mardana. At the time of the visit of Guru Sahib, Baticulla was known as Matiakullam. Raja Shiv Nabh ruled it. Bhai Mansukh of Lahore had, earlier, visited this town and had told the ruler about Guru Nanak Sahib. When Guru Sahib visited the town, Raja Shiv Nabh’s joy knew no bounds. He requested Guru Sahib to stay at his palace. Guru Sahib visited his palace but stayed at a place, about 20 km from Baticulla, now known as Kurukul Mandap.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Ragmaala

[SikhKhoj]

No King Shiv Nabh has ever existed in Sri Lankan history ^

[paapiman]

No King Shiv Nabh has ever existed in Sri Lankan history ^

Is it possible that he was known by a different name?

For example, the famous Greek philosopher, "Socrates" is known as "Sukhrat" in Hindi. The two words when pronounced by a native English speaker, sound very different.

Bhul chuk maaf

[SikhKhoj]

Sri Lanka never had one king, especially at times of Guru Nanak. There were several kingdoms. The Guru did meet some king but we will never know properly which one.

[SikhKhoj]

Wikipedia quotes HR Gupta to say Guru Tegh Bahadur had bodyguards. Didn't find the reference on the page number (188) though

 

As had been the custom among Sikhs after the execution of Guru Arjan by Mughal Emperor Jahangir, Guru Tegh Bahadur was surrounded by armed bodyguards.^[14] He himself lived an austere life.^[15]

14 H.R. Gupta. History of the Sikhs: The Sikh Gurus, 1469-1708 1. p. 188. ISBN 9788121502764.

 

[JungChamkaur]

have you ever heard of ramgarh in panchkula? chamba's rani who married banda singh? doad rajputs doing seva of guru nanak? chamkaur di garhi? katoch dadhwal rajputs giving sons to khalsa (their descendants are now jatts as they lost rajput rank marrying jatts)...raipur rani giving her son who is the progenitor of the chauhan sikh rajputs of the region? minhas rajputs giving their sons to khalsa? where do you think sikhs come from? the sky? hindu parents gave their children to khalsa and until your garbage singh sabha came along, people of the same tribe were considered brothers and helped each other with marriages and battles like the janjuas who allied with their muslim counterparts to fight the mughals...

ram singh pathania and baba maharaj singh were allies.... pathanias are rajputs btw..

there are other hill rajput states who helped the guru as well and still have the gifts bestowed upon them by the guru.