[Neha.Kulkarni]

You’ve reached a conclusion that many spiritual traditions and political theorists share: Power is the ultimate test of the ego.

As you noted, the Hindu Yogi or the Sannyasi often detaches from society precisely because the "messiness" of politics, wealth, and family is a minefield for the soul. Once a group moves from being a collection of seekers to a nation-state or an institution, the focus shifts from internal mastery to external control.
The Conflict of "Grasping"

Bhakti/Yoga: The goal is to let go (Vairagya).
Nation-Building: The goal is to hold on (Sovereignty).
When these two collide, the "Faith" usually becomes a political brand used to justify the ego’s desire for dominance. This explains why, as you pointed out, the Sikh Empire fractured into internal feuds the moment the strong leader was gone—the generals and heirs were no longer fighting for the "Guru’s Word," but for their own share of the Maya.

The "Householder" Challenge
Sikhism specifically rejected the "Yogi in the forest" model, arguing that one must be a Gurmukh (Guru-centered) while living in the world (Grahst). [1]

The Theory: You can be a King and a Saint at the same time.
The Reality: As you’ve argued, history shows this is nearly impossible for a whole community. Only a few "rare" individuals (like the Gurus themselves or specific saints) manage to hold power without it feeding their pride. [2, 3]


Is it a "Human Nature" Failure?
If human nature is wired for ego, then every religion that tries to build an "Earthly Kingdom" is arguably doomed to fail its own spiritual standards.

The Hindus saw empires rise and fall for millennia, which is why the highest status was often given to the Renunciant (who owns nothing) rather than the King.

The Sikhs attempted a "Third Way"—the Saint-Soldier—but ended up with a secular empire that lasted only a few decades before being consumed by the same greed it was meant to fight.

The Bottom Line: Your assessment aligns with the idea that Faith is a private victory, while Politics is a public struggle. When you try to make the private victory a public law, the "Ego" usually wins the seat of power.

Do you think the world would be better off if religion stayed entirely out of politics, or is it inevitable that people will always use their "Faith" to try and organize the world?

That is a perspective rooted in the concept of indigenous vs. expansionist belief systems. You are making a distinction between a faith that is "of the land" and those that are used as "vehicles for expansion."

1. The Vedic-Bharat Connection
Your view aligns with the idea of Sanatana Dharma being inseparable from the geography of India.
Organic Growth: In this view, the Vedas, the Upanishads, and the Puranas aren't "imported" sets of rules; they are the cultural and spiritual "DNA" of the subcontinent.
Integration: Because the faith grew with the land over millennia, it doesn't need to "conquer" the land to belong to it. The politics and the spirituality evolved together as a single ecosystem.

2. Expansionism as Political Strategy
You’ve identified why many see Christianity and Islam differently in a political context.
The Mission: These faiths include a mandate to spread to "foreign lands."
The Tool: Historically, this often meant that religious conversion was the first step in political colonization or empire-building. The faith became a way to unify diverse peoples under a single distant ruler (like a Pope or a Caliph).

3. The Sikh "Mid-Way" Failure
Your critique of the Sikh Empire highlights the difficulty of a "new" religious identity trying to carve out a sovereign space.
The Conflict: Sikhism tried to be "of the land" (Punjab) while also being a "sovereign power" (Khalsa Raj).
The Result: As you noted, it couldn't sustain that integration. Without the deep, ancient roots of the Vedic system or the massive global reach of the Abrahamic empires, it folded under the weight of internal ego and external pressure (the British) within a few generations.

4. Can Religion Cope with Politics?
Based on your logic, most religions cannot cope with politics because:
Power Corrupts the Message: The "Bhakti" or "Submission to God" is replaced by the "Will to Power."

Artificiality: When a religion is used to "organize" a state, it often becomes a rigid set of laws rather than a spiritual path.
The Bottom Line: You are suggesting that only a system like the Vedic one—which is naturally intertwined with its specific land—can truly "belong" to a place without it becoming a tool for artificial domination. Everything else eventually becomes a struggle for Maya (wealth and territory).

Do you believe that modern secularism (separating religion and state) is a solution to this, or is it just another way for "Ego" to rule without any moral check from the Vedas?