Sikhs Challenge U.S. Army's Ban on Turbans, Beards

[antimony]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph...re_797268c.jpg

http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/i...clinic1_hr.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...4_rir2_416.jpg

What a bewildering array of headdress, and yet it works. Why? Because it reflects the variety in cultural tradition which makes up the British Army, by adding a special flavour to a common uniform and thus a common idea and loyalty. And considering the even greater diversity of the United States it would be a good idea to allow such small variations. A well-trimmed beard and a well-kept turban look just as snazzy as your standard beret anyway.

In India, I would find it extremely distasteful asking why an exception needs to be made for a Sikh (just look at the contributions of Sikh soldiers), I think it is a hard question for other countries.

I guess the issue is not whether a turban and a beard affects operating procedures (IA experience shows that it does not). I think it is an issue of how much latitude can be given to one community before another community demands something else. Muslims are required to maitain a full beard, I do not foresee concessions for them.

[Tronic]

I guess the issue is not whether a turban and a beard affects operating procedures (IA experience shows that it does not). I think it is an issue of how much latitude can be given to one community before another community demands something else. Muslims are required to maitain a full beard, I do not foresee concessions for them.

Actually, it has much more to do with military tradition. I guess when the Brits took over the Punjab region, they actually promoted Sikhs to keep their turbans and beards, so to integrate or atleast merge the traditions of the Khalsa army into the British Indian army. That way, Sikhs could be integrated into the British empire rather than wage war against what they would perceive as another threat to their faith, just as the Turks, Afghans and Persians. The Khalsa panth at the time was a very militaristic order and very widespread; its also a major reason the British stayed out of Punjab until after Ranjit Singh's death when the Sikh empire started crumbling. Hence, the Indian army has just carried on the British tradition, and even me, despite being a Sikh will not be allowed to join the Sikh regiment until I grow my hair and sport a beard; so most opt for other Punjab regiments. There is no such exclusive Muslim regiment, hence there is no exception for Muslims or other religions when it comes to beards. Sikhs in India were not exactly exempted, they had their own Sikh religious army which was integrated into the Indian army once Punjab fell under the British Raj.

[Deltacamelately]

If they were drafted I could understand. Other wise I have no sympathy.......
Can I be more ridiculous? Could I really care less?

Pate,

That's right, your reasoning is ridiculous...whether you care or not.
Armies integrate whetever positive martial traditions are available in their growing up. Its really not a matter of SOPM or NBS gear. These toys are very recent developements. The Indian Army did not evolve overnight, nor did the other state armies. I would rather have a Gurkha with his Khukuri in place, giving him the psychological strength of seeing himself carrying the martial traditions of his Gurkha ancestors than stripping him of that on frivolous arguments about SOPMs. The British did it, we did it. I would rather ammend the SOPMs.

[pate]

Pate,

That's right, your reasoning is ridiculous...whether you care or not.
Armies integrate whetever positive martial traditions are available in their growing up. Its really not a matter of SOPM or NBS gear. These toys are very recent developements. The Indian Army did not evolve overnight, nor did the other state armies. I would rather have a Gurkha with his Khukuri in place, giving him the psychological strength of seeing himself carrying the martial traditions of his Gurkha ancestors than stripping him of that on frivolous arguments about SOPMs.

I actually do care, I don't see anyone else getting special treatment for religious reasons on facial hair in the US Army. I have seen people allowed to have full beards for operational reasons (I think someone mentioned that) and also for their civilian jobs (a Reservist in law enforcement working undercover) and also for medical reasons (very rarely, and only in Basic Training).

As for the turbans, it's not on the list of authorized head-gear, and if it were I think that would open the door for anyone to wear one; Sikh or not. I don't think that would be appropriate.

Now, that all being said, our special forces are allowed to grow out a beard when they are in the field if need be. They also have their own head-gear (different colored berets) that only they are authorized to wear.

America is a melting pot, in my opinion that means that America is about assimilation. I think our armed forces should mirror that, you gain distinction by what you do and achieve, not by your physical appearance.

So, as a descendant of Scots, I should be able to wear a MacFarland battle tartan kilt when I go do my job for the Army? As a person of French descent I already have my rank honorifics in place, but that's not something you wear. (Corporal, Seargent, Lieutenant, Captain, Colonel, Major, and General) I guess we all get the beret (merci, mon bon ami Guillame Clinton), but we aren't all of French ancestery... Should heriditary Manchu Chinese-Americans be allowed to wear the queue as part of their uniform, if they want? As much as I'd totally wear the kilt:) as part of my uniform I think it'd just open the door for all sorts of uniform nonsense...

As for ridiculous reasoning:

...The British did it, we did it. I would rather ammend the SOPMs.

Great Britian having done something isn't a great argument for America doing the same thing. I would say that India having done something has even less relevance than that. I'm not dissing the British or the Indians, mind you, you are free to do whatever you like with your own military traditions. I just think that the American military tradition, abbreviated as it is in the scheme of things, has been trending more towards assimilation and uniformity than in any other direction; and I think this challenge is silly and ridiculous.

I have no problem with Sikhs, Gurkhas, Manchurians, (insert ethnicicity/religion/etc here) fighting alongside me, in fact I welcome them.

We all sacrifice something of ourselves when we join up, that's part of the process, I think. What is more important; your country, or your personal beliefs, habits, lifestyle, etc?

I'd take the one that thinks his (or her) country is more important and made a personal sacrifice over someone who joined up because it was an easy thing to do. Any day of the week.

I just think this is ridiculous in the context of the United States Army. I'm sorry but that's just how I feel, I mean no offence...

[Deltacamelately]

Well, I think I'll agree to disagree with you here. ;)

[antimony]

As ridiculous as it may sound, I support Pate's point of view here for the US Armed Forces, since the concept of the US nation state in one where multiple ethinicities from different parts of the world come in and blend in.

In fact, if the Sikhs in the US are accorded this right, it would be discriminatory to deny any other ethnicity the right to bear their traditonal gear. I don't know where it goes from there

For a country like India, whose armed forces, for better or worse have more "homogeneous" units like the Sikh, Gurkha, Naga, dogra and countless other regiments, it is both ridiculous and insulting to suggest a complete standardisation that would disallow such traditional gear, not least because of the traditions these units have built up and probably also due to the fact that these regiments are composed of "sons of the soil"