Sikh regiment dumped over 'racism' fears

[Ray]

Sikh regiment dumped over 'racism' fears

By Sean Rayment, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:35am BST 24/06/2007

Defence chiefs have abandoned plans to raise a regiment of British Sikhs amid fears that the move would be branded racist.

The proposal to create the regiment, reminiscent of those that fought for Britain in the two world wars, was dropped by the Ministry of Defence after discussions with the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE).

Sikh leaders had informed Army recruitment officers that they could easily find enough volunteers to form a 700-strong regiment. However, despite the infantry being under strength by 3,000 soldiers, the offer was rejected.

Lieutenant General Sir Freddie Viggers, the Adjutant General with responsibility for recruitment, is understood to have accepted the argument put forward by race commissioners at the CRE that creating a Sikh regiment would be divisive and amounted to "segregation".

Leaders of Britain's 500,000 Sikhs were supportive of the idea of a new regiment, arguing that it would be no different from the Scots, Welsh and Irish Guards or the Royal Gurkha Rifles, which recruits exclusively from Nepal and which is regarded as a model infantry regiment.

The decision to shelve the plans was last night criticised by politicians, members of the Sikh community and soldiers, who claimed that the Army had fallen victim to political correctness.

Kuljit Singh Gulati, the general secretary of the Sikh Temple in Shepherd's Bush, west London, said: "The Sikhs have a long and distinguished heritage of serving with the British Army.

"I know there are many, many Sikhs who would join up and would serve wherever required. But if you want to get them in large numbers they need their own regiment, something they would take a huge amount of pride in.

"They would regard it as very prestigious. It is a shame that it now looks as though it will never happen."

A senior Army officer said: "The MoD has missed a golden opportunity in not tapping into the Sikh community's desire to form a regiment. It's nonsense to suggest this would amount to segregation and since when did the CRE dictate Britain's defence -policy?"

The decision will also dismay Prince Charles, who has expressed an interest in the creation of dedicated units to boost the number of people from ethnic minorities in the services and to harness the military tradition of the Sikh faith in particular.

Last year, the armed forces were ordered to meet tough targets to recruit more men and women from ethnic minorities.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "The creation of a Sikh Regiment has been considered by the Army policy staff responsible for both equality and diversity issues, who went on to consult with the Commission for Racial Equality.

"Both agreed that grouping ethnic minorities runs counter to the Armed Forces philosophy that seeks to include, not exclude, and extend opportunities."

A CRE spokesman said: "We would not support any policy that seeks to isolate specific groups in the Armed Forces or wider society. Laughing

"The creation of a separate regiment according to ethnicity would be segregation, which amounts to discrimination under the Race Relations Act. Anything that creates separation between regiments can only have a detrimental effect upon our Armed Forces' operational effectiveness."

In full

www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...ikh124.xml

Britain is running short of troops and it cannot meet its defence commitments.

The British Army needs to take on 15,000 new soldiers a year, but has been under-hitting that target by an average of 1,500 annually. And £ 2.8m ad campaign is being launched to reverse the declining rate in recruitment. (BBC NEWS | UK | Ad campaign to combat Army shortfall)

British soldiers who persuade friends to join the infantry will be paid 500 pounds (about 900 US dollars) as part of an emergency campaign to halt a drastic decline in recruitment, the Sunday Telegraph reported.
(http://english.people.com.cn/200510/...30_217782.html)

Therefore, the situation is bad and troops seem to be badly required.

It must be added that there is a shortfall in numbers in almost all armies of the world but it is within manageable proportion.

How did the situation come to this state in UK? And why is it that so late in the day the British Army or govt is waking up to this manpower crisis instead of attempting to easing the situation over the years?

The size, organisation and weaponry of a country's armed forces is based on the Strategy (national and thereof the military) perceived to the Threat Perception.

Was the Organisation, Strength, Weaponry and Equipment adequate to meet the national defence and national projection in the international arena adequate before the Iraq and Afghanistan War intervened?

Was the British govt not apprised by the Military of the consequence of the Iraq and Afghanistan War in so far as strength and equipment necessary before embarking on them and the shortfall, if any?

Or did the approach to these two campaign taken in a cavalier manner by the British govt and the Army?

There is no doubt that seems to be a shortfall not only in manpower but also of equipment and so real basic equipment.

>>

Now that the British Sikh has volunteered to provide manpower for a Sikh Regiment, interestingly, the British govt has apparently fought shy over issues of racial sensitiveness. Does this mean they have shot themselves in the leg? The rationale given does not cut ice, especially when the British Army is in dire straits over its numbers.

Sikhs have a very loyal to the British Raj (they did not participate in the so called Sepoy Mutiny of 1857) and have excelled themselves as hardy, loyal soldier of unimaginable bravery and valour not only through the British Raj times and WW I and WW II, but also for Independent India. Their bravery cannot be questioned. They were and are fine soldiers and credit to any country they serve with in modern times.

Therefore, why are the British shy?

Could it be that they are afraid that the Moslems would also demand their Regiment like Baluch and Pathan and so on? In the current atmosphere, it may not be prudent, though some British Moslem soldiers have acquitted themselves in the most honourable way in Afghanistan.

Or could it be that they are afraid that if things don't go right, then what happened in India post Bluestar could happen to them? And don;t underestimate the British for not taking a whole lot of imponderable and contingencies into question before coming to a conclusion. Notwithstanding the image they project, they are a very cautious lot who always bet carefully. No wonder they ruled the World at one time!

Then there is the question of the class of Sikhs who populated and populate the British Indian Arny and its successor the Indian Army i.e. Jat and Mazbis vs the rest. The Jat and the Mazbi Sikhs are the one who toil on the land and hence are hardy, but the remainder, the Khatris, though are of the martial caste category of the Hindus (there is supposed to be no caste in Sikhism) are actually softer, more intellectually inclined and are wizards at commerce and hence are not quite the right material that excite the British nostalgia of their Raj Army. Could that also be playing subconsciously on the British mind?

In the Indian Army Regiments which are of single class composition is actually only of that community or caste and there is no mixing, i.e. the Sikh Regiment is ONLY of Sikhs. I believe, that that is not so in the British Army ( I couldn't fathom the composition from the discussion on ARRSE). If that is so, it is surprising since the Indian Army structure is based on the British Army. How and when did they discard the system if single class in their Army?

There is a raging debate going on in ARRSE and there are more who favour a Sikh Regiment. ARRSE is the unofficial website of the British Army, so that could be the view of the Army, present and past. I wonder what is the opinion of the British civilians.

The British Army require these men who are volunteering i.e. the Sikhs. They are an organised religion and a clarion call from the Granthis at the Gurudwaras will surely produce the requisite numbers.

So, why are the British chary?

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir,

They chopped the Scottish Regiments and the Gurkha Brigade. Raising a new regiment is political suicide after that.

[glyn]

Sir,

They chopped the Scottish Regiments and the Gurkha Brigade. Raising a new regiment is political suicide after that.

Quite right. Chopping units with a long and glorious history behind them was a criminal act by this ghastly government we suffer under. The socialists mistrust anything acclaimed to be 'elite'. They do not understand 'Esprit de Corps' - just fear it. Ideally they would like to get rid of all the Armed Forces of the Realm, and it seems to me that they are well on that road.

[pdf27]

Having said that, a regiment that can only recruit to half strength has no future ahead of it - in wartime it is likely to be broken up to reinforce other regiments, or be heavily augmented by other units. In either case, esprit de corps will be hammered at exactly the time it is most needed.

I am far from convinced that the recent amalgamations were unnecessary, nor that in the long run they will do damage to fighting effectiveness.

[dave lukins]

[QUOTE=pdf27;385400

I am far from convinced that the recent amalgamations were unnecessary[/QUOTE]

How many Guards Regiments were Amalgamated compared to proper Regiments As for a Sikh Regiment, I too am certain there will be a cry of "Rasism". Anyone can join any Regiment no matter where they come from in the UK.

If only Sikhs can join the Regiment, there will be an outcry from certain parts of "Society" that we could very well do without

I think a Sikh Regiment would add a Sparkle to the ever dwindling Ranks:)

[pdf27]

How many Guards regiments were as badly recruited as some of the amalgamated regiments?

[Ray]

Maybe if you read this, you would understand the issue better:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/...c/t=70652.html

[Ray]

Maybe if you read this, you would understand the issue better:

British Army Rumour Service > > Forums > > The Serious Bit > > Current Affairs, News and Analysis > > Sikh regiment dumped over 'racism' fears

[dave lukins]

And your thoughts about this Mon Brigadier Sir???:)

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir,

I completely understand the British Army Staff's position. I mean who would want to spend a day before the Human Rights Commission explaining why everybody else but Sikhs need a haircut?

[Tronic]

Being a Sikh myself, I think this would've been a wonderful idea for the British Sikhs; would've gave the British next generation a good patriotic kick; and also would've got the British Sikhs to unite under the flag of Britain rather then the present, where Western Sikhs tend to unite under a make-shift "Khalistani" flag, they don't have the same strong connections with India and their religious identity makes them stand out from their adopted societies; hence, you can't blame the youngsters growing up very confused! Steps such as these, like the Sikh regiment, would've given the youngsters confirmation of their recognition in society and would've given them a stronger sense of loyalty and responsibility, possibly even more then British natives themselves, towards Britain. In India itself, which is home to the Sikh regiment, Sikhs make up close to 20% of the Indian army, even though comprising of only 2% of the country's population. I am sure, it would be the same in Britain if the Sikh youth there are given a dose of nationalism which they most certainly crave!

I completely understand the British Army Staff's position. I mean who would want to spend a day before the Human Rights Commission explaining why everybody else but Sikhs need a haircut?

Sir, that day had probably already come the day the first Sikh joined the British army. Infact, Indian army's Sikh regiment itself is a creation of the British!

[Officer of Engineers]

I'm under the impression that now all members of the forces are required to have proper trim, even in the Indian Army. NBC gear is extremely unforgiving.

[Tronic]

I'm under the impression that now all members of the forces are required to have proper trim, even in the Indian Army. NBC gear is extremely unforgiving.

The Sikhs that I know who are in the Indian army already trimmed or are clean shaven. So sir, I wouldn't really know on the present conditions, but I don't think that they would be required to trim for the Indian army. Though I did find this for the British army:

As a Sikh, will I be able to wear a turban and other items of religious significance?

In the Armed Forces Sikhs are permitted to wear the 5Ks; Male Sikhs can also wear a turban. However, some constraints regarding the wearing of a turban and keeping facial hear uncut do exist:

* Turbans. Some trades require specialist headgear to be worn, especially under operational circumstances. Examples of this are Commander’s helmets in armoured fighting vehicles, combat helmets, breathing apparatus (full hood) for fire fighters and flying helmets for aircrew in some types of aircraft. Turbans are incompatible with specialist headgear, which must be worn on health and safety grounds. Male Sikh personnel can normally wear a Patka under specialist headgear, however, this is not possible under a flying helmet which must be closely fitted to the contours of the head. Aircrew with long hair, male and female, may be required to have their hair cut short in order to achieve a satisfactory fit of a flying helmet.

* Facial hair. For occupational or operational reasons, where a hazard clearly exists personnel authorised to wear beards on religious grounds will have to be prepared to modify or remove their beards to such an extent as to enable the correct wearing of a respirator or breathing apparatus.

* Aircrew. It is unlikely that a male Sikh will be able to obtain an effective seal on his oxygen mask without trimming his beard.

* Respirator. An effective seal on a respirator can only be achieved when the skin is clean shaven. In an operational environment where there is an NBC threat, Sikhs or other personnel with beards will need to shave. However, when practicing NBC drills, male Sikh personnel would not be required to shave their beards
Defence Internet | About Defence | Equal Opportunities in the Armed Forces FAQS

So, yes, British army does have certain conditions; as for Indian army, still cannot say, maybe Ray or LT can be of help here.

[Ray]

Dave,

I am not too sure how the current British Army is organised.

From what I can understand from various threads of different forums, is that while the name is Royal Scot Dragoon Guards, the men recruited need not be from Scotland and could be from anywhere else i.e. the name can be anything, but the troops can be drawn from anywhere.

Now, if the Regiment's name has nothing to with the class/ community/ region composition, then there seems to be no reason to have a Sikh Regiment. If indeed the Sikh elders can muster a battalion worth, such men could be then distributed to various units already in existence. That would, in any case, make up for the declining figures and the purpose served.

However, if in the British Army, recruitment continues to be as per the composition the Regiment's title indicates ie. a Scot unit is staffed by Scots alone, and an English Regiment, by the English and so on, then there is nothing that should stand in the way of having a British Sikh Regiment.

Given the military tradition and valour of the Sikhs, I am sure they will make the UK proud.

In the Indian Army, the Sikh Regiment is composed of what is known as Jatt Sikhs. The Sikh LI is composed of the Mazbis and the Punjab Regiment with other class of Sikhs and Dogras.

I think the British govt is pulling punches under cover of various PC 'shrouds' to avoid the real question. The real issue is - If there can be a Sikh Regiment, why not a Baluch or a Pathan Regiment? After all, they too served the British Raj well and loyally. In these uncertain times of militant Islam, having a Pathan or a Baluch Regiment does not kindle the same Raj nostalgia as would a Sikh Regiment, but then having a Sikh Regiment and not a Moslem one would not appear too PC, would it?

Now, that is where the fear lies - the Islamic question viewed against 7/11 and other problems that UK is facing with militant Moslem/ Islam.

What is the guarantee that ObL will not infiltrate these Regiment and it is not safe to have a whole lot of wild people running amok with weapons, if for some valid or imagined reason, they feel Islam has been slighted, not by the Army alone, but as in the case of Rushdie getting a knighthood or some more serious thing.

The aftermath of OP Bluestar too could have affected the thinking, which in any case, was an aberration.

I can vouch for the loyalty of the Sikhs and they are good but then I do not know the difference in the mental makeup of the British born Sikh and the hardy Indian Sikh of the village. The Indian urban Sikh is as soft as any other Indian urban boy can be.

To equate the valour and courage of the WW II Sikh veterans what the modern youth will do, is another very doubtful equation.

Notwithstanding, the modern Sikh youth will equal any other youth, be it in Britain or in India.

[Ray]

Tronic's contention of getting the British Sikh youth off the misplaced pipedream of a Khalistan by having a Sikh Regiment is another plus towards having a British Sikh Regiment.


As far as the IA is concerned, no Sikh in Sikh Regiment can cut his beard or hair. Trimming of beard, though illegal, I have seen on some. Sikh Officers too cannot trim or cut their hair. Two now senior Sikh Officers (one, an Army Commander now and another a ex DGOS) had to leave the Sikh Regiment for the same, even though both's fathers were highly respected Officers of the Sikh Regiment.