I thought of this when I saw the below tweet. The continued narrowing of Sikhi & attacks on the historical & natural syncretism between Hinduism & Sikhi is an unfortunate phenomenon today.
It does beg the question tho - why is Sikhi not Pan-India like itโs Dharmic predecessors?
It does beg the question tho - why is Sikhi not Pan-India like itโs Dharmic predecessors?
The Guru lineage of many (most?) of the Bhagats of the SGGS ultimately come from the great Southern Vedantacharyas. The Panj Pyare come from across India as do the Bhagats themselves. The Puranic lore in the warrior poetry of Sikhi originally danced across India across eras.
There is controversial stuff surrounding the defining of identity & religion during the British Raj, but it seems like the 20th century really put a nail in the usual Dharmic expansion we saw in earlier Dharmic religions.
Singh Sabha - Partition - Bhindranwale/1984 - Khalistan
Singh Sabha - Partition - Bhindranwale/1984 - Khalistan
What strikes me of this whole issue with Sindhis is the irony.
It was the Nihangs who etched the name of Lord Ram across Babri Masjid in an act of defiance & devotion starting the legal RJB dispute.
Putting new โidolsโ with old ones is how many Dharmik sects initially spread.
It was the Nihangs who etched the name of Lord Ram across Babri Masjid in an act of defiance & devotion starting the legal RJB dispute.
Putting new โidolsโ with old ones is how many Dharmik sects initially spread.
Loading suggestions...