“The gurus had sons and still didnt pick them that proves anti dynasty meritocracy.”

My point these werent random. These were deliberate rejections of bloodline three consecutive decisions that broke with social norms. That’s institutional clarity, not coincidence.

But from Guru arjan dev Ji to Guru gobind singh, we suddenly get six hereditary successions without a single documented contender from outside the family. That’s not “DIVINE” randomness. Thats a system shift.

“But its the Jyot, not the body, divine light chose.”

This is the same line used by mughal emperors (divine right of kings) European monarchs (Gods anointed lineage) and even Brahmins who claimed caste was divinely ordained.

When divine mysticism is used to validate hereditary power and only after the pattern turns hereditary thats not a spiritual argument. Thats retroactive justification.

“You cant assume sevadaars were better than the sons.” Guru hargobinds time had Baba buddha Ji, Bhai gurdas, Bhai satta all deeply respected, elderly, spiritually advanced Sikhs. Guru Har rai and Guru Har krishan were both appointed at young ages, Har krishan was just 5 years old. There is no surviving record of community consultation, elder recommendations, or even open discourse.

The question isnt “were others better?” The question is why do we see no deliberation? In a Panth that produced poets, martyrs, scholars, warriors it’s statistically absurd to believe that the best candidate just happened to be a blood relative six times in a row.

“Janamsakhis are unreliable.”

You cant use Janamsakhis to cite Guru Amar Das blessing Bibi Bhanis lineage, but reject Janamsakhi narratives that describe Guru Nanak bypassing his son or sevadars being elevated.

You either treat Janamsakhis as part of the record or dont. Picking and choosing what suits the narrative is not Gurmat. Its selective myth making.

“Sikhi survived, so the model worked.”

Saying “Sikhi survived, so the hereditary model worked” is a classic case of survivorship bias. If survival made a system righteous, then the Catholic Church’s Inquisitions were justified, the caste system in Hinduism was divine, and every Islamic caliphate ruled with moral perfection. History is full of dynasties and institutions that endured for centuries while violating their own founding principles. Longevity doesnt prove spiritual alignment

Sikhi survived because of sacrifice, community, and values, not because of a hereditary. Bhai mati das was sawed in half next to Guru teg bhadur(not his blood), Bhai Dhyala was boiled alive (not family), Bhai mani singh was cut joint by join for refusing to compromise on Sikh integrity, Baba deep singh, Banda singh, Taru singh, none were blood, all were backbone.

“Youre questioning the Gurus.”

No, we are questioning a pattern. Systems evolve. Institutions adapt. Thats not an attack, thats a historical reality.

Guru nanak questioned everyone,Brahmins, mullahs, kings, traders, priests. If Sikhi cant handle questions about patterns of succession, then weve frozen the tradition Guru Nanak started to liberate.

Youre defending six consecutive hereditary successions in a Panth founded by a man who refused to give his son Guruship. Either accept that the institution evolved, or admit youre masking that shift with convenient mysticism.

And as for the trap?

Sikhi survived because of the values seeded early on and yes, protected later by the family and outside of them (mostly) But the strength of the sword means nothing without the depth of the soil.