1) Once again Timeline is witnessing that perennial "Sikhism is 100% distinct from Hinduism" vs "You can't separate Sikhism from its Dharmic roots" argument between Khalistanis and Hindus!
2) And once again erudite Hindutvavadis/Hindus/Hinduvadis put forward well articulated arguments emphasizing the fact that Sikhism is but the Dharmic Sampradaya like other sects of Hinduism and not distinct identity or that it can't be seen without the context of Hinduism.
3) Keeping aside the debate however this vary arguments bags few question for introspection! What was that context of Hinduism (of Punjab) which formed backdrop for Sikhism? Or if Sikhism is but one sampradaya then what about other Sampradayas prevalent in Punjab? 🤔 etc
4) Amount of emphasis put on the aspects of Sikhism and its exact relationship with Hinduism dominates discourse to such an extant that above mentioned questions hardly gets any attention. Least one says about any attempt to find answers for those questions!
5) Let me give an eg. It is well known that all Sikh Gurus belonged to the Caste of Khatris. And yet surprisingly Sikhism never gained considerable traction among the Khatris in general. Same was the case with the Brahmins & people of the Punjab hills especially Rajput nobility.
6) One can argue that just like Bhakti movement it was an egalitarian movement meant to question Hindu orthodoxy of the day and so it isn't surprising that it didn't attract them. It did manage to gain considerable number of converts from lower castes and peasantry afterall.
7) What is unusual however is that Bhakti movement became popular among all the classes of the society. From Nobility and elites to the masses. Infacts if one talks about Buddhism and especially Jainism then it actually had considerable appeal among the elites and rich!
8) Also appeal of Sikhism among the lower castes & peasantry can be explained by the socio-political circumstances. For a poor an opportunity to join a Bhangi Misl - a gang of opium addicts in turbulent Punjab was perhaps better lucrative than any appeal for egalitarianism!
9) Clearly then Sikhism failed to convince the Punjabi Hindu orthodoxy of the time to abandon faith, tradition and rituals of the ancients. And that does seem very unusual reaction when one compares it with Hindu experience to the same kind of movements in the past!
10) Popular perception is that once it started Hindus of Punjab just open heartedly embraced Sikhism! But here we find the picture of the community that is actively trying to preserve their ancient traditions than to give away to egalitarian movements!
11) Why was it the case? Perhaps their experience was shaped by age old confrontation with Islam and Orthodoxy was the best protection they had to preserve their own identity and dharma. Or perhaps my observations and assumptions are completely misplaced
12) Whatever the case may be it is certain that elements of Punjabi Hindu society remarkably remained adherent to their orthodox identity throughout the ages and under various circumstances. Something that goes against current popular perception!
13) As a Hindu it sounds very appealing and remarkable achievement to me. And yet at the same time it is used as a context that gave rise to Sikhism. 🤔 It is hard to reconcile this paradox without acknowledging the Punjabi Hindu experience!
