Can Sikhi be separated from the land of Punjab?

[MisterrSingh]

Should it or not? The obvious answer most of you will reply with is Sikh migration to UK, Canada, USA, etc., but that's because the Punjab we know is still hovering in the back of our consciousness. We know it's there even if we aren't connected to it directly.

But what if Sikhi's link to Punjab was severed definitively? What would we lose as a people? What would we gain?

Is it necessary for a spiritual or religious movement to have physical, material roots in a specific geographic location, or is the only important consideration the ideology itself?

I'm not quite certain which side of the argument i stand.

[Dsinghd]

Amritsar is Guru Ki Nagri. Sikhs fled Pakistan. There isn’t a Puratan Punjab left like before 1947.

[puzzled]

I think its very important for the survival of a religion and stability. Imagine a empire without a capital, where you supposed to hold court ..

I think Its the reason why Guru Ji created Akal Takht Sahib to hold court. 

 

[MisterrSingh]

1 hour ago, puzzled said:

I think its very important for the survival of a religion and stability. Imagine a empire without a capital, where you supposed to hold court ..

I think Its the reason why Guru Ji created Akal Takht Sahib to hold court. 

 

Aside from the surface pageant and pomp, do we truly control that institution? Currently, what can we actually physically do and affect (particularly anything that requires action external to Sikhs) as a result of any consensus reached within that court? 

I think a "home" is important for a distinct group with which they can identify; a base of sorts. So in this regard I agree with you.

[Koi]

It would not be wise, especially as we hold no actual sovereignty over any land.

[puzzled]

45 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Aside from the surface pageant and pomp, do we truly control that institution? Currently, what can we actually physically do and affect (particularly anything that requires action external to Sikhs) as a result of any consensus reached within that court? 

I think a "home" is important for a distinct group with which they can identify; a base of sorts. So in this regard I agree with you.

Punjab is like our headquarter, for the survival of any religion or community this is very important. I believe half the problems we are facing from other communities and the lack of representation is because we don't have our own country, now imagine if we didn't even have Punjab!  Regardless of how corrupt it is, being a slight majority in Punjab gives us a bit of political representation, imagine if we didn't even have that. 

Obviously currently the Takhts and Government are under very corrupt people, but this isn't the first time that this has happened, its happened many times in the past. Like when Guru Gobind Singh ji sat on the throne as a child the massands had taken over and were only removed when Guru Ji became an adult. I think the same thing happened after the empire collapsed, massands took over. 

We seem to have phases with Sikhi, ups and downs. Not sure where we stand atm lol   

[MisterrSingh]

1 hour ago, Koi said:

It would not be wise, especially as we hold no actual sovereignty over any land.

Do you think we'll have any choice in the matter IF it ever comes to that point? 

The current farmer issue highlights how little control we have over anything of a practical nature.

[Redoptics]

In regards to Sikhi itself , we don't need Punjab, however the history, the Gudwaras we do need, as puzzled said its our heritage its our birth place.

[proactive]

You only need to look the condition of others who do not have a state with a majority to see that they are on the brink of extinction. Look at the Parsis. Thye may been the wealthiest community in India but they are on their way to becoming extinct. Look at the Sindhis, they did not have the foresight to understand that they would have to leave Sindh after thye creation of Pakistan and look at their condition today. 

[Jai Tegang!]

There is a deep connection of Sikhi with Punjab. It’s the place where Sikhi took root and survived and thrived. Beyond it, there were sangats in far corners of greater india and beyond, but we all know there are barely traces left today. Another thing I have noticed myself, the average pendu munda might not look all that religious, but they keep a fierce loyalty to Guru Panth ( even if not following rehit themselves). While outside of Punjab this doesn’t remain the case, especially in the west. Here you will get the minority hyper religious types, or those who feel zero affinity for the faith of their forefathers. The middle path is not the same that Punjab offers, thanks the pervasive Sikhi ethos that get instilled regardless of strict adherence.

Currently Punjab and diaspora relations are fully on display with the farmer protests. Punjab feels they have a voice and monetary backing from brethren residing in superpower states, while diaspora feels confident they have a place of return if things head south.

Also, I believe every religious tradition surviving today has a solid cultural base. Islam has arab culture, Christianity has European culture, Buddhists have east Asian, Hinduism has Indian culture. You simply can’t imagine one without the other. The more dominant and successful the underlying culture, the more so we conflate it with the apparent  success  of the religion. It’s another debate of whether it was the culture that helped the religion more, or the reverse.