Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji didn't discriminate between satguru as their is only one same satguru for every yug. He told us to praise, worship, meditate on the one and only satguru. He wrote about the 24 incarnations of Vishnu and he corrected what happened actually to the 24 incarnations. If Krishna and Vishnu were satguru, Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji would have said it in his writing about them. Instead he wrote to say I don't praise them or think of them, I hold Mahakaal ( which translates into Vaheguru in this context as he is the destroyer of all) praise only in my mind.
Jagsaw, I am very surprised that you consider the movement of Sikhs out of areas with substantial Sikh populations to be "progress".
First of all, I thought you lived in Southall? Or perhaps another part of West London? If so, I find it odd that you consider it a positive thing not to live in areas such as the one that you yourself live in.
Second of all, I think you are greatly overlooking just how much of a positive impact that living in an area with a substantial Sikh population can have when it comes to preserving our religion and culture. It is foolish to discount the importance of children being able to grow up in a "community", with Gurdwaras and Khalsa Schools nearby, with peers who come from the same background, who practice the same things, speak the same language.
I credit the "ghettoization" of the Sikh community in the UK for preserving the Sikh religion and Punjabi culture despite several generations having elapsed. The vast majority of Sikhs in the UK trace their roots in the UK to the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s. Yet somehow, young Sikhs in the UK appear to be more religious and interested in Sikh issues than the Sikh youth in Canada or America. Somehow, young Sikhs in the UK seem to have almost as much exposure to Punjabi language and culture as their American and Canadian counterparts whose families arrived from India in the 1980s and 1990s.
In America, the vast majority of Sikhs live in cities and neighborhoods with effectively no Sikh presence. That has an impact. It leads to young Sikhs who grow up with little knowledge of, connection to, or regard for their religion and culture. It leads to interfaith marriages that effectively wipe out Sikhi from families. It cripples our ability to safeguard our way of life. I very much doubt that young Sikhs in America in the year 2060, whose families arrived in the 1990s, will speak fluent Punjabi, go to the gurdwara, engage with their religion, and connect to Sikh political issues the way that a surprisingly large number of young Sikhs in the UK do today.
I think Malwa gets more credit for keeping Sikhi alive than it deserves. Malwa is bigger than Majha and Doaba combined (in both land and population). So the contributions its people have made to Sikhi in recent times is a bit distorted (I say "recent times", because before 1947, Majha and Malwa were comparable in terms of land and Sikh population). Malwa is so much bigger that it dominates.
It is notable that even though Majha has a much smaller population than Malwa, the vast majority of young Sikhs who took up arms in the 1980s were from Majha.
The Majha district (especially what is now Amritsar District and Tarn Taran District) have historically been the strongholds of Sikhi. However, this region was the hardest hit during the dark times of the 1980s and 1990s, and it is perhaps the hardest hit today when it comes to the drug epidemic. Sadly, the Sikh youth in Majha seem to have discarded their kesh, do not follow rehat, and have in many cases succumbed to drugs.