Also, gas masks and nuclear-biological-chemical warfare clothing have been designed to fit around beards. For an example, see
http://www.wikipatents.com/ca/2189378.html

So there is no scientific reason for banning beards in a modern army.
I don’t know whether having all soldiers with or without beards has any effect on cohesiveness and I would guess it’s hard to find scientific evidence on that.

We shall have to see what the US Army does with these two Sikh men. Sikhs with turbans and beards HAVE joined the US Army before. Until the 1980’s it was allowed and since then some special exemptions have been made.

The Ghurkhas, where wearing the above when they carried out the Jallianwala Bhag massacre in 1919 under the command of General Dyer killing over three hundred men,women and children. I wonder how many VCs this traitors recieved from their pay masters.

In 1958, on July 26th, Harry Truman, the US President, promised equality of opportunity for everyone serving in the US armed forces. The promise has not been kept in the past several decades

Very illuminating.

Indeed, TCH.

Do you have a beard, Munir ?

Actually, scrap that question. Given Munir’s track record, I don’t think we can necessarily expect an honest answer to anything. I notice that he’s still being somewhat coy about declaring his self-evident Wahhabi/Taliban/Salafi-Jihadi sympathies.

***********************

By the way, Munir, since this is a thread about Sikhs, aren’t you going to wish everyone a Happy Vaisakhi here: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4220#comment-158587 ? Today’s the 310th anniversary of the founding of the Khalsa, you know.

They don’t have to and I do. But thanks for the response. Your whataboutery (Zionism? Really?) pretty much indicates that you do support them. I mean, I just asked for your opinion on behaviour that 90% + of Muslims worldwide would find abhorrant, yet I suspect that you run in circles where the Taleban are a-ok. And your far far right islamist mates read this blog and sooooo you can’t actually say anything bad about the nutters destroying the good name of your religion…. Very illuminating.

A better analogy is the beard which is an obligation for Muslim men

Do you have a beard, Munir ?

Hi Munir,

Do you support the Talebans social policies in Pakistan and Afghanistan towards women? Would you have helped flogg that girl? Incidently, as the Taleban have just executed a couple for eloping together (love now illegal and punishable by death under Taleban Islam) would you agree with that judgement and punishment?

I think you’ve finally got your answer in #52, namely “Yes”.

Why do you believe only Muslims should be forced to condemn or defend what their co religionists do, when you dont ask this of others?

Do you support the Talebans social policies in Pakistan and Afghanistan towards women? Would you have helped flogg that girl? Incidently, as the Taleban have just executed a couple for eloping together (love now illegal and punishable by death under Taleban Islam) would you agree with that judgement and punishment?

Well we certainly know what runs through yours:

“Who are these Pakistani people who can afford the fees of £9,000 a year?
The children of the corrupt elite?
And you’d think some questions might be asked when they applied for visas, about: ”where did you get the money?”
If they are people from humble backgrounds from the NWFP – then a few alarm bells might ring I’d have thought.
Goodness knows what they think (if the are very conservative Muslims) about the ”debauched depravity” of student life in England.”

Damon
“(I suppose it might depend on how American they were – in comparrison to the Gurkha’s who are actually from the Indian Subcontinent – and therefore might have some understanding of the village culture and customs of the Afghans).”

Yeh cos the Hindu Gurkhas are automatically going to understand the villages of Muslim Afghans (of varying cultures)

Well theyre all efnik aint they?

Not exactly since circumcision isnt actually an obligation (though it is treated as such by Muslims-indeed Muslims who never pray or fast will insist on their sons being circumcised) and unlike removing the hair is hardly a reversable opeartion.

A better analogy is the beard which is an obligation for Muslim men or the hijab for women.

wonder how many Sikhs would be happy with that compromise though?

They should be, given the historical precedent for it.

It doesn’t automatically mean many of them *will* be, of course, but one would hope that those Sikhs who are aware of this aspect of their history would be suitably flexible about the matter.

Good point about kesh. I had forgotten to mention that. I wonder how many Sikhs would be happy with that compromise though?

Regarding the suggestions that Sikhs should remove their facial hair and have short hair on their heads in order to be able to join certain armed forces in the West…..well, if that’s a non-negotiable impasse then it’s an unfortunate loss of potentially highly effective military personnel. At least in the cases of baptised Sikhs, for whom the removal of hair is as impossible as the notion of suggesting that Muslims should go uncircumcised.

Incidentally, India has plenty of turban-wearing Sikhs in its military. It’s not a problem over there. In fact, until September 2007, for a couple of years the Chief of Army Staff was General J.J Singh, himself a keshdari Sikh and a decorated officer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joginder_Jaswant_Singh

Something I can add to the debate: Although turbans have historically become part of the visible outward identifiers for strictly-practising Sikhs, it’s worth mentioning that uncut hair, not the turban itself, is one of the 5 Ks.

Therefore, I think an appropriate compromise would be for the military to have specially modified helmets for Sikhs with uncut hair — which isn’t actually a novel idea, because during the Indian subcontinent’s pre-colonial period, especially during the era of the Misls and Maharajah Ranjit Singh, many Sikh soldiers did actually wear such helmets (along with the rest of their armour) instead of turbans when on the battlefield.

Secondly, there is a difference between making sure everyone likes like one particular group versus incorporating diversity into a group-identity. Why is the standard, clean-shaven? If America had been founded by Sikhs, I assume we would require everyone to keep long-hair and a beard?

Lastly, we are hearing about Sikhs serving with a turban and beard based on personal accommodations. We think the Army should not be picking and choosing on such an issue.

Ghurkas have served in both British and Indian Armies and there are many more in the Indian Army than the British. As has been pointed out there is an arrangement from 1947 concerning recruitment to both armies.

As to cannon fodder well all I can say is that the moron posting has never served in the British army. Of the 26 VCs won by the Ghurkas half went to the officers who, prior to the late sixties, were all British. The only non British officers were in the Indian Army. The father of a very good friend of mine, the writer Mal Sen, was a commander of first Ghurkas in the retreat form Singapore. He was Anglo Indian, Lt Gen Lionel Sen, one of ther first Indian officers to attend Sandhurst in the 1930s, but that is another story.

I also think it was a very bad decision for the British government to waiver the law for Sikhs in construction sites and riding bikes. It is fine to be pious, but if you are going to perform a hazardous operation as riding a bike or work in a construction site, then it is just irresponsible not to be protected. It is no different than having a religious edict not to use a condom – as we have in Catholicism, except that we don’t give a damn when it comes to our health, and when it goes against plain common sense.

Intolerance and discrimination are irrational responses to what is different. I do not see how that applies here.

Are the Ghurkas serving within the British Army as mercenaries, or is their home country an ally of the UK, as say Canada is?

Gurkha recruits are citizens of Nepal, but they are not considered mercenaries in either the British Army or the Indian Army. The recruitment is governed by the Tripartite Agreement 1947.