Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MisterrSingh

Can Sikhi be separated from the land of Punjab?

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great points so far. The emerging issue I'm seeing is that Punjab is integral to our history and our way of being, but it's not really OURS. It's marooned in another country that is, let's be honest, hostile to our aspirations and state of being. Without political and other forms of temporal power we are at the mercy of external forces. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

This is again where I feel we're similar to jews, again sorry I know you will not agree with me . and also you don't like me comparing sikhs to jews 😄 there's no comparison . we're indeed much richer in our history and faith, but when it comes to

"persecution,

losing land ,

scattering over the world " we're with the jews. 

the only thing jews have and we don't is they progressed it to 

"we got the land back and most the jewish diaspora from different parts of world come back " 

NOW, coming back to your question, Can sikhi be separated from Punjab ? Nope ! Can it be extended far beyond punjab ? A resounding Yes ! and infact should have been our policy. This "we don't proselytize" got us nowhere. It might make us appear cool to a few liberals , nothing more. Infact, if we truly believed sikhi was the most straight forward way to god, why would we not preach it to every human ?

ok lets ignore proselytization for a minute. Yes, we do need punjab region as roots, same way as islam needs arabia, christianity and judaism needs israel and hindus need india . We're connected to it, our history, our conscience , the baani of Guru Nanak dev ji uses old punjabi , so we need roots to punjab both geographically and linguistically . However, it doesn't mean we can't be majority or even rulers elsewhere. Mughals ruled india , despite islam being a religion connected to arabia . 

I understand the cause of this question arising. It is because you see how we feel politcally emasculated as a qaum . 

I will tell you one thing here. (something related to future events yet to come) 

My intuition for long has told me that something major is going to happen in this century or the next one. And if you see carefully , the signs of that have begun to appear on face of earth. For instance , I believed Russia India friendship will become cold. And now it seems this is happening . Since China is close friend and partner of Russia. 

World is about to get divided into two axis soon and smaller nations will be forced to pick up a side. And it seems india has already picked up US , as opposed to china and russia. I just have a gut feeling ww3 will erupt this way after the world has become bipolar. and in the aftermath of it sikhs will get raaj after a power vacuum happens . Just as we got it last time when power vacuum occured after marathas and afghans annihilated each other in third battle of panipat 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Arsh1469 said:

Sikhi has already lost half of Punjab (The Punjab in Pakistan) If we lose all of Punjab we have lost our nation.

whereever Guru ji's charan touched and whereever his flag is now flying high is his nation; Jagat Guru ji's kingdom is Jagat , a tree has roots but it grows and spreads fragrance and fruit everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panjab will always be integral to Sikhi. This reminds me of a passage in Panth Parkash where the Singhs requested to Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj to bless them with raaj over Panjab. However, Maharaj wanted them to think bigger: 

Furthermore, the panth and the Khalsa have always been considered chakravarti or otherwise free roaming. Can we really be considered this if we are inseparable from the beloved dharti of Panjab? However, mirroring what many have already said, Panjab is our headquarters and is essential (especially considering the current situation and the panth).  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The reason why if it is done by state is that if you start on a smaller scale with some flyover state like North Dakota or Arkansas and it is seen as successful and better than the current system, then other states will follow suit. The elites can probably handle one or two problems but if all the states to implement a comprehensive health system simultaneously then the elites will find it difficult to handle. Plus if it becomes a bottom up grass roots movement then you might stand a better chance. 
    • Divide and conquer, of course. Left-leaning coalitions are easy to defeat because they are made up of many different groups, and it is very easy to make it seem like one group is being favoured over another. Whatever issues Sikhs in the UK might have with another group, I think Corbyn (and even more so McDonnell) would have been great allies for the Sikhs. It's a shame. I get the impression that a majority of Sikhs vote Labour (although there are some who love the Tories ... they are the kind of odd people who feel proud that they can claim that their ancestors were from former British colonies). Do a majority of Hindus support the Tories? I don't understand why the British voters were not more receptive to Corbyn's proposals. They sounded pretty good to me: fund the NHS properly, nationalize the railways, etc. I agree that he was clearly a threat to the status quo. Note how it came out later that high-ranking Labour officials were relieved when Labour narrowly lost the 2017 election! I think something similar would have happened in the US if Bernie Sanders had gotten the Democratic party nomination to run for President. Most Dem politicians and most "progressive" business leaders (e.g. Bill Gates) would have privately (or even publicaly) preferred Trump to Sanders.
    • You won't get an argument from me defending insurance companies and the American healthcare model. As I said in my post, the wealthy and powerful (e.g. insurance companies) do everything they can to prevent social safety net programs from being established and/or expanding. They own most of the politicians, and they are very adept at scaring voters by spreading misinformation and framing things in misleading ways. For example, some more left-wing democrats proposed abolishing private health insurance and moving to a more efficient, universal healthcare system. The talking point became that these democrats were "trying to take away your health insurance." Technically it is true, they wanted to take it away and replace it with something better. You can see how misleading it is, but one-liners like that go a long way in politics. It's not the size of the America that makes an NHS-style system impossible. If such a thing were proposed at state levels, the same media campaign against it would take place in those states.
    • Wonderful replies here by the sangat 🙏🏾. A small point to note; if you walk side by side, one of you will stand closer to the Guru and have to walk a slightly shorter distance, while the other will have to stand a little further away from the Guru and walk a slightly longer distance. Who will it be? And how do you decide who gets to stand closer to the Guru? This is what happens when you start splitting hairs. As sangat have mentioned, if you don't like the Anand Karaj, you are more than welcome to get "married" in any other way you see fit...
    • From what I understand is that the insurance companies hold too much sway. In an average US salary, how much percentage of income goes into the medical insurance. What is the point of paying into insurance when it comes to using it, the insurance companies do everything they can not to pay.  In the UK, our NHS money is funded from our National Insurance contributions and I think we probably pay less into our healthcare than people do in the US, so what is your insurance contributions paying into? NI is a tax but at least it's an upfront tax, not this sly stealthy cr*p where it looks like you pay less tax but your money is taken elsewhere. The US maybe a vast place, but if it was done a state by state level where some states are between 5 million to 10 million people, I think it is quite do-able. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use