Why Sikhi failed to spread

[amardeep]

Here are some interesting articles of different levels on Sikhs outside Punjab

http://sikhinstitute.org/sikhs_living_outside.html

 

 

[amardeep]

this paper is really interesting. Provides great info on Sikh political leaders and prominent people of south india during 18th century

http://sikhinstitute.org/sikhs_living_outside/balwantsinghdhillon.html

 

 

[amardeep]

"As said earlier, Chandu Lal was a Punjabi khatri and was well inclined towards the Udasi sect of the Sikhs. Surely, he was a Nanakpanthi butpolitical exigency had brought him closer to the Khalsa Sikhs. The Khalsa Sikhs had rendered him military support when he needed it badly and for it he was greatly indebted to them. Being a Nanakpanthi his attachment to the message of Sikhism was but natural. Chandu Lal paid back to the Khalsa by creating endowments for the Sikh shrines in the south. As mentioned earlier he not only located the places sanctified by Guru Nanak in the south but also built the gurdwaras there and helped the Udasi Sikhs to manage them. He was instrumental to sanction a liberal grant to the Sikh shrine of Nanded. Walter Hamilton writing about Nanded in 1820 states, this place [Nanded] there is a Seik college erected on the spot where Gooroo Govind [Singh] was assassinated, which in 1818 contained 300 students under the patronage of Nizam's Prime Minister Raja Chandu Lal.47

 

Chandu Lal's generosity to the non-Sikh shrines is also well-reflected in a copper plate ­the Mallapura Math at Puspagiri, Belur taluka of Mysore state. It is written in Sanskrit and Telgu and carries the statement, "Instructed by the wisdom of the named [Guru] Nanak, Chandulal Prabhu on the specified date (1821) granted the village of Ningala in the Khasba taluka as agrahara (brahmin endowment) for the decorations, illuminations and offering of the god Mallikarjuna."48 He even patronized the men of letters which are well recorded in a Gurumukhi document written at Hyderabad in 1825.49 It seems his benevolence had attracted religious scholars from Punjab who glorify him as a great benevolent. We observe that old Sikh shrines existed at Rameshwaram, Salur, Bhaker and Shivakanji and some of the old shrines at Burhanpur, Aurangabad, Surat, Bombay, Amravati, Nirmal, etc., possessed the manuscript copies of Guru Granth Sahib. It points to their period of establishment as well as the role played in organising the Sikhs of south India. On the basis of above study, we can say that the Sikh presence in the south dates back to the times of Guru Nanak."

[dalsingh101]

Paapiman should read the above a few dozen times. lol

[truthseeker546]

On 30/01/2016 at 2:20 PM, Guest guest said:

 

Dear 'Truth Seeker'

from 'an anthropological perspective' what exactly is your background?  I think it would be good to put your bias..cough cough... sorry i mean 'viewpoint' in 'context'.  otherwise what is the point in offering your perspective if we don't even know what kind of perspective it is?  these seem more like underhand insults/attacks coming from a hostile mind (not to offend anyone, just my perspective).  

1) "Sikhism didn't offer anything radically different"- the pure emphasis on Gods name alone as sanctifying/saving a person, is only mirrored in Gaudy Vaishnavas in Bengal (who were contemporaries).  And indeed this practice is adoptable by adherents of other faiths (so it's actually not even a 'missionary' faith).  You can see from Sikh texts that Guru Nanak used to discuss precepts with other religious groups on their own terms.  There emphasis here was a revival of devotion, not conversion.   

What mixture of monotheism with polytheism? Admitting the existence of Hindu gods and goddesses is not the same as ascending to their supremacy, and is not even the case in mainstream Hinduism.  You clearly have no idea about Hindu philosophy back to the Upanishads etc  

And where is the 'sufi mysticism' influence?  Bhagat Kabir- had a Hindu Guru, advocated name of 'Rama', was not technically a sufi.  and accepting saints in other religions doesn't seem to come into indian sufism until AFTER sikhism.  Guru Nanak used arabic words because he was living in a muslim state (madrassas etc) but his terminology is not the same as Sufi schools.  Bhagat Farid is revered purely on terms of his devotion, where is the ideological 'sufi' influence in his works?

The 'influence' of sikhs is extremely great, if you look at the shifts in thinking (shown in literature) amongst Hindus and Muslims in North India.  Why was the last Mughal emperor composing in Panjabi, when that dialect was miles and miles away, if the influence didn't reach the educated classes?  You can study the difference in poetry- sufi and hindu- before and after sikhism arose, you will see a shift.  You can look at the writings of the pundits and urdu scholars for yourself.  Also the rise of other philosophies advocating 'Name alone is required' all over india, as far as Assam.

So Sikhism wasn't confrontational.

2.  Christianity, Islam and Buddhism all took hundreds of years to establish their 'theologies, arts' etc and they all had historical schisms.  so again another comparative failure on your behalf.

do you think perhaps, that a 200 year genocidal campaign on sikhs, maybe didn't help the cause?

Maharaja Ranjit Singh- one little brief rule- yet look at the ethical standard- abolished capital punishment, abolish animal slaughter.  Oh yeas and Sikhs were what, 2% of the punjab population at this time.

'Failure to inspire practice' again how would you know?  Sikhs 'practice' in private.  You have no idea what what they are 'failing' to do.

................................................................

32

Sorry I've not had the chance to go on the internet for a while, just saw the comment thought I'd at least reply to it.

Mr Guest, having a viewpoint that disagrees with the common narrative or status quo is not biased. I don't need to give a lesson on language.

How exactly have I insulted or offended anyone here ? Please do elaborate ?

" the pure emphasis on Gods name alone as sanctifying/saving a person is only mirrored in Gaudy Vaishnavas in Bengal" - seriously brother. You really need to learn about other faiths, and not in a biased way. Christians say the name of Jesus as a source of power, central to their faith, Muslims chant the name of Allah as a central source of their connection to God, Jews say the name of their God Eloh and so on - Naam Japna isn't unique to Sikhism, it was there before Sikhism in most major faiths.

"Where is this 'sufi mysticism' influence " - you know I don't think I'm even going to respond to some of these, as your lack of knowledge doesn't permit me to have a decent discussion about this topic. 

There seems to be this narrative that Islam spread by the sword, if that be so- then why is the religion still the fastest growing in Europe / UK? And why did Christianity spread so much, didn't Roman genocidal campaigns against them have anything to do to stop them?

If you want a serious discussion then please do reply to my posts by of you are hurt or the truth is too bitter and reply of accusation are the only ones you can muster - then it's better that you leave this forum.

[Guest guest]

ignoring all your petty asides:

You still haven't clarified your background?  What religion are you?  This is what I mean by bias...  I'm guessing you're muslim, based on 'fastest growing religion in Europe'.  FYI It is the fastest growing religion in Europe/UK due to immigration from and high birth rate in muslim communities.  Wasn't 'Muhammed' the most popular boys name in UK a few years ago for new born babies?  I don't think it is English people naming their babies that.  And the native christian populations aren't going to reconvert to christianity now are they? so they cannot be fastest growing?

Only Christians and Muslims care about converting.  No other religion I know of does.  

I agree that reverence of God's Name is definitely central to all the faiths, maybe they all started out like that, but it wasn't mainstream, or central for some time.  Rather you should learn to read points properly before responding to them.  I agree Sikhism is pointing out that original truth which is there in all religions.  But sorry to disappoint you but we did not 'borrow' from your faith.  

Example: saying the name of Jesus is certainly central in Christian texts (gospel), but not their (modern) faith.  You may point out the Jesus prayer, but is not 'central' to mainstream orthodox faith and has even had opposition.  They are not permitted to abandon every other rite etc to take up only this.  Same with muslims.  Can muslims give up daily prayers and shariaa to worship on name of Allah?  This way is there in some Hindu texts yes, but amongst many other texts.  

Do mainstream muslims chant only Allah?  They have to chant it is apart of a Quranic verse, correct?  not alone.  please show me verses like 'avra kaaj tera kite nah karma, mil sadh sancta bhajo KEVAL Naam", or "Sarab Dharam Meh Shresht Dharam Hari Ko Naam Jap Nirmal Karam", from the Quran that are said on a daily basis by mainstream muslims, or even known by them?

"you know I don't think I'm even going to respond to some of these, as your lack of knowledge doesn't permit me to have a decent discussion about this topic."

^how does my lack of knowledge prevent you?  why don't you enlighten us when some factual answers to the question?   old school evasion...time to hit google search eh?

and who are you to tell me to leave this forum?  you're opinion isn't 'different from the mainstream' its totally mainstream according to your background, which you don't bother to disclose (muslim?)

[Guest guest]

If you want to see how unpleasant your original post is, here is a thought experiment: go back and substitute your own religion/ background into it instead of sikhism and see how you like it.

[Guest guest]

One more thing that has just occurred to me, if Sikhism 'fails to inspire' what exactly is inspiring you to come to a sikh discussion board repeatedly? 

[truthseeker546]

My own religion is of no consequence  as I'm not here to preach or convert anyone. I'm here to learn and understand different religions. I'm asking questions about Sikhism to Sikhs, rather than making up my own conclusions.

Islam is the fastest growing religion is Europe as mentioned by Amardeep. Please refer to his posts as they seem better thought out  than yours.

 

I've put some videos of other religious chanting Gods name:

Hindu / jainism / Bhuddism 

 

Buddhist:

 

Christian:

Being the largest religion in the world, Christians have the most diverse forms of chanting/saying Jesus's name: I won't paste all the different forms; here is just one:

 

Muslim

Like Christianity , Islam being such a large religion has so many different forms of "Zikr" remembrance of God, I'll post one here :

 

 

 

Judaism

 

Hare Krishna / Hinduism 

 

I hope this helps. 

[Guest Lie-Finder]

Wow Truthseeker546 why are u so scared of admitting your exact background is the fact that you are a Pakistani Jatt that pretends to have no religion shouldn't be so hard to admit

[truthseeker546]

Lets say Im a pakistani Jatt as you claim I am - so what does that prove? How does that help you better understand my questions?

The only reason I'm not mentioning my religion, is that those people who can't answer the questions hide/ dodge that by then asking questions about my faith. I didn't come here to debate but to have a discussion on Sikhism. I take truths from all faiths actually. What interested me about Sikhism, I was told Sikhs believe there is truth in all religions, however, they believe their religion is the most perfect of them all. So I was intrigued and started to ask questions. Initially, I started to ask slightly tough questions to see the reactions. As seekers of the truth don't get offended, rather  they rectify their own positions. Which I haven't seen here.

I've seen some obvious issues with Sikhism (obvious to me) so I've asked about them, maybe I had misunderstood. But it seems it has some serious flaws. That's why it failed to spread. 

It's interesting I get asked about my faith by people who have guests accounts. I've at least made one and have written things about myself that give some indication of why I'm on this forum. why don't you start with that.

[Guest guest]

hm youtube videos- so accurate and scholarly!!!  lets see- you have a Christian 'pop' song repeating 'in the Name of Jesus'.  I have no idea what is being said in the Turkish video, other than 'Allah Hu'.  Again seems like some flashy video.  And hardly mainstream Islam.  I'm guessing they are Rumi followers, via Shams, the traveller from India?

please explain where the 1) name of God alone (not as part of a divine phrase) is chanted and accepted as the highest and only means to salvation in any religion?  i.e. the Japa is of the name only, so only of 'Jesus' or 'Allah'?

your background is entirely relevant because it shows where you are coming from. in this case its becoming clear that you are a muslim.  

so what if sikhs think their religion is the best and perfect etc? obviously any devotee will think that of their religion. so why does that bother you so much?  resentment and inferiority complex maybe? or rather than look at the issues at your own religion you want to put 'doubts' in others? 

hm, yes so noble!

[Guest guest]

19 hours ago, truthseeker546 said:

As seekers of the truth don't get offended, rather  they rectify their own positions. Which I haven't seen here.

I've seen some obvious issues with Sikhism (obvious to me) so I've asked about them, maybe I had misunderstood. But it seems it has some serious flaws. That's why it failed to spread. 

Maybe rectify their positions in accordance with truth, not some troll.  And I'm so sorry that you didn't find the sikh version of Socrates or Lao Tsu on an internet discussion forum!

By that logic, opium, the bubonic plague and communism have no flaws what so ever, since they spread so well!!!

[amardeep]

Interesting map from 1909.. See if you can spot the small little place with a Sikh majority populace!

[chatanga1]

Looking at the map above, you can see the map of the present states more or less.

[tonyhp32]

The area showing a Sikh majority population is Faridkot state. 

[amardeep]

13 hours ago, tonyhp32 said:

The area showing a Sikh majority population is Faridkot state. 

Hi Tony

Welcome back. I remember you had some interesting insights regarding the Faridkot state some time back.

Do you have any info regarding Maharaja Chandu Lal and his Sikh background in the Hyderabad state

[chatanga1]

I was having a quick look through Panth Parkash, and I noticed a chapter where Guru Sahib asks the Khalsa, which lands they want to rule, and Guru Sahib will bless them with that rule. The Khalsa would only commit themsleves to Panjab, and were worried about expanding their domains into regions which were far away. Guru Sahib said that Panjabi Sikhs will only keep Sikhi in Panjab, but it would be the duty of Sikhs from other places who would keep Sikhi going there. Seems to tie in with why Sikh never really developed strongly beyond Panjab, and how also, Panjabi Sikhs haven't taken much notice of Sikhs outside of Panjab until very recently.

[amardeep]

That's an interesting sakhi

[Premi]

On 3/3/2017 at 9:53 AM, chatanga1 said:

I was having a quick look through Panth Parkash, and I noticed a chapter where Guru Sahib asks the Khalsa, which lands they want to rule, and Guru Sahib will bless them with that rule. The Khalsa would only commit themsleves to Panjab, and were worried about expanding their domains into regions which were far away. Guru Sahib said that Panjabi Sikhs will only keep Sikhi in Panjab, but it would be the duty of Sikhs from other places who would keep Sikhi going there. Seems to tie in with why Sikh never really developed strongly beyond Panjab, and how also, Panjabi Sikhs haven't taken much notice of Sikhs outside of Panjab until very recently.

Interesting. Surely the reason that (espeically) 1st and 10th Guru travelled so far, and established Gurdwaras in these places is that one day, Sikhi will spread far. Maybe now we don't have free access to Gurdwaras in Pakistan for example, but in the future, the situation will somehow be very different,

[kdsingh80]

The main reason of not spreading was/is , imposition of 5ks on new converts , not accepting non sikhs who don't keep hair as Sikhs , even though many are committed to Gurdwara and bani..

[kdsingh80]

On 3/3/2017 at 3:23 PM, chatanga1 said:

I was having a quick look through Panth Parkash, and I noticed a chapter where Guru Sahib asks the Khalsa, which lands they want to rule, and Guru Sahib will bless them with that rule. The Khalsa would only commit themsleves to Panjab, and were worried about expanding their domains into regions which were far away. Guru Sahib said that Panjabi Sikhs will only keep Sikhi in Panjab, but it would be the duty of Sikhs from other places who would keep Sikhi going there. Seems to tie in with why Sikh never really developed strongly beyond Panjab, and how also, Panjabi Sikhs haven't taken much notice of Sikhs outside of Panjab until very recently.

Sikhs are only blessed with tiny part of Punjab. Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Kingdom was mainy situated in West Punjab which Sikhs lost in 1947 

[paapiman]

8 hours ago, kdsingh80 said:

Sikhs are only blessed with tiny part of Punjab. Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Kingdom was mainy situated in West Punjab which Sikhs lost in 1947 

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 fact remains that Sri Satguru jee did bless his Sikhs, almost the entire Punjab to rule.

Now, we have nothing (no Sikh rule), is a different story. 

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[amardeep]

All of Punjab was under the rule of Sikh rulers. The states of Patiala, Nabha and Jind were ruled by Sikhs even though they were under Afghan or British protection. Most of Europe is under American protection but that does'nt mean that the european nations are not individual states running their own affairs.

The case with the Lahore Darbar was entirely that they were independant. So in essence, all of Punjab was under Sikh rule.

[chatanga1]

On 05/03/2017 at 4:20 AM, kdsingh80 said:

The main reason of not spreading was/is , imposition of 5ks on new converts , not accepting non sikhs who don't keep hair as Sikhs , even though many are committed to Gurdwara and bani..

I'm not sure about that. The way I see it, was that there was a growth during the Guru- Kaal and dal-kaal, a regression during the loss of the Lahore Darbar, and then a growth again during the Singh Sabha Lehar.

 

During the first 2 mentioned there would have been a strong emphasis of the Khalsa identity and the Singh Sabha period as well. During the loss of the Lahore Darbar, there was regression, but at this time there was little or no emphasis on the Khalsa tration being most imposed on the whole of the Sikhs. Only in the Singh Sabha lehar was the 5 k being more aggressively promoted and even then the number of Sikhs grew.