| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Sikhs Want U.S. Army To Waive Dress And Appearance Regulations |
| 2009-04-15 |
| Here we go folks. The Sikhs want the US Army to forgo Uniforms for US Army Sikhs. Do we allow Army Chaplains to wear different uniforms? Here's an idea - DON'T JOIN THE MILITARY if you can't adhere to Military rules and regulations! A uniform is a set of standard clothing worn by members of an organization while participating in that organization's activity. Are you joining the US Military to become part of an outstanding organization or joining the US Military to try to push your organization? Also, why are the Sikhs protesting by the US Marine Memorial, when they are supposedly Army? Here is the letter the Sikhs wrote to Robert Gates Of course, they are just another "Community Organizing" group... ARLINGTON, Va. -- Seeing "Integrate the U.S. Army" on a protest sign recalls the civil rights struggles of African-Americans in the mid-20th Century. But on Tuesday, under a cold wet spring sky, more than a dozen Americans of a different minority, the Sikh faith, stood in front of the iconic Iwo Jima memorial to World War II with one simple request: Let us serve. The Pentagon has informed two Sikh personnel in the Army Reserves, a doctor and a dentist, that they must remove their turbans and cut their hair when they are called into their regular Army service later this year, according to a Sikh advocacy group. Capt. Kamaljeet S. Kalsi said the Army recruiters who approached him during his first year of medical school in 2001 said they wanted him, and his beard, turban and long hair, to serve in the medical corps. Seven years later, Kalsi expects to begin the Officers' Leadership Basic Course in July. But superiors in the Army's Health Professions Scholarship Program told him last year that he may have a problem with these "articles of faith" and an Army medical advisor to the U.S. Surgeon General informed him he may face resistance over his turban and beard. Kalsi wrote to commanders at the Army Graduate Medical Education Office in December 2008 asking for exemption, but was denied. On Tuesday, the Sikh Coalition filed a formal complaint with the inspectors general of the Army and the Department of Defense on behalf of Kalsi and 2nd Lt. Tejdeep Singh Rattan, a Reservist since 2006. The group was formed after two Sikhs were attacked in Queens, N.Y., on the night of 9/11 as reprisals for the attack. For Kalsi, whose family came to the U.S. in 1978, the issue is frustrating and confusing. He is the fourth generation to serve in allied militaries. His father and grandfather were both Indian Air Force veterans. His great-grandfather served in the British army. "I can't understand why my Army would keep me from serving," Kalsi said. Kalsi joined in 2001 after talking extensively about his religious beliefs with a recruiter. The recruiter told him, "Yeah, we have Sikhs in the military, don't worry about it," he said. Kalsi jumpstarted his career with rotations in military hospitals at West Point and Travis Air Force Base, Calif., serving as active duty, in uniform with his turban, beard and long hair intact. Sikhs point to a long military tradition in India, the U.S. and other allied countries. They are known as "the protectors of India," Kalsi said, because they come from Punjab, a northern gateway border province of India and first line of defense against invaders. In World War II, 85,000 Sikhs died serving in Allied forces. The Army banned turbans in the 1980s, but grandfathered those serving, and has made a few exceptions. Today, there are a half-million Sikhs in the U.S., and the coalition's executive director said U.S. policy seems hypocritical given that Sikh's serve side-by-side with Americans abroad. "The policy doesn't make any sense because we have Sikh troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq as we speak with the militaries of Great Britain and, in Afghanistan's case, with Canada," said Coalition spokesman Amardeep Singh. Turbans, long hair and beards are considered a mandatory religious uniform for all Sikhs. Keeping uncut hair is required according to the Rehat Maryada, the Sikh instruction for living. In the 18th century, Muslims forced Sikhs to convert by cutting their hair and removing their turbans, the group noted. Of the four taboos listed for Sikhs, adultery is as forbidden as cutting one's hair. "The fact that cutting one's hair is a moral transgression as serious as committing adultery speaks to the immense significance of uncut hair in Sikhism," lawyers for the Sikh Coalition wrote in a letter to the inspectors general. "The Army places a high value on the rights of soldiers to observe their respective religious faiths; however, the Army does not accommodate the exceptions for personal grooming standards for religious reasons," said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Nathan Banks. The restriction forces soldiers to meet "health, safety and mission requirements," Banks said, and facial hair prevents an airtight seal on gas masks. But lawyers representing the soldiers say the policy poses a "burden on their exercise of religion" under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and has been unevenly applied given some Sikhs in the U.S. Army were allowed exceptions and served for decades. Col. Arjinderpal Singh Sekhon, a Sikh, retired in January, one day after his 60th birthday, due to Army age restrictions. "My battalion right now, which I trained, is in Afghanistan as a combat support hospital," he said. "I ran the best 68-whiskey program," referring to combat medics. "I did all this, and these two young people can do the same, maybe better than me," he added, because they sought out the Army and are eager to join. The coalition's complaint added: "Shutting Sikhs and other devout citizens out of our armed forces not only reinforces the stereotype of these groups as the 'other' but also robs them of an opportunity to integrate into American society. In addition, it is important that our nation's armed forces reflect the diversity of its population." Rattan, who emigrated to the U.S., called the Army's policy "deeply unfair" to ask him to choose between religion and country. "I am willing to lay down my life for America. In return, I ask only that my country respect my faith," he said. "My turban and beard are not an option -- they are in intrinsic part of me." |
| Posted by:Lftbhndagn |
| #27 The Armed Forces desperately seems to need more manly men such as in these photos, not more homosexuals and women. I hope they do get some solution to allow Sikhs, a picture is worth a thousand words, and these seem like ultra capable Men. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2009-04-15 23:41 |
| #26 |
| Posted by: john frum 2009-04-15 23:24 |
| #25 Its a great sight, but it still doesnt tell me how they would take to being controlled absolutely and how would they be received by other soldiers in their unit who might be small minded or bigoted against them for their "otherness" Plus, Officers have the double problem of being regarded as impractical, pompous and uppity. Add to that a demand for accomodation, and now we're talking real differences. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2009-04-15 23:08 |
| #24 The military has succeeding by grinding down personal affectations in the interests of uniformity Indeed, it helps if you have a lot of them  |
| Posted by: john frum 2009-04-15 22:59 |
| #23 Thanks John Frum, you just answered that last unanswered question about the hair and kevlar logistics. It is up to the Pentagon. I hope they do include Sikhs, but its not up to me. The thing not covered much here is the intangibles of being a soldier. Part of the invisible inculcation process is being stripped of your bodily individuality and being one of the team, mentally as well as through the uniform. Feeling you have control over your own body and the clothes on your own back is a privelege you HAD until you enter the U.S. Army. Once youre in they tell you when to go to the bathroom, how to stand, eat, sit, shower, everything. How well would Sikhs do at being controlled absolutely by the United States Army if they cannot let go of religious tangibles? |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2009-04-15 22:57 |
| #22 That should be "under" rather than "over". The cloth patka covers the hair. The big turban covers that and is normally removed.  Regulations state that beards must be trimmed or pulled back so as not to interfere with masks etc. |
| Posted by: john frum 2009-04-15 22:53 |
| #21 accodate? or accomodate....long day...mea culpa |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-04-15 22:45 |
| #20 No problem in Canada... Sikh soldier returns By CARY CASTAGNA -- Edmonton Sun Taliban fighters aren't the only ones clad in turbans in Afghanistan. Maj. Harjit Sajjan, who finished a nine-month tour of duty in September and received his Canadian Forces service medal at Rexall Place yesterday, says he never doffed his turban in the Middle East. "I can wear a helmet. I can wear a gas mask. There's nothing that my turban or my beard can prevent me from doing in the military at all," said the 36-year-old Sikh from Vancouver. "To put a helmet on, you have to have an inner liner. My turban acts like an inner liner, so I just wear the kevlar shell over top." Interestingly, these Sikh Soldiers have been wearing gas masks for a while  Sikh soldiers using gasmasks while defending Ieper, Belgium in April, 1915. |
| Posted by: john frum 2009-04-15 22:45 |
| #19 trouble is - you start accomodating one, you accodate all. The military has succeeding by grinding down personal affectations in the interests of uniformity as an American soldier/sailor/marine/etc. You become a member of a team, not an individual. Welcome Sikhs, conform or leave |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-04-15 22:43 |
| #18 There is a condition sycosis barbae whereby man doesnt need to shave by doctors orders if the man gets sycosis barbae from shaving. In these certain cases a soldier doesnt have to shave but must trim beard. As for the long hair and turban, I cant shed any light of ideas or solutions on that one, because of the need to wear Kevlar helmets. May the United States Army solve its problems, and hope for the best for our best. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2009-04-15 22:43 |
#17 In the Indian Army, Sikhs wear ballistic patkas, which can accomodate the cloth patka which wraps the hair (normally worn over the Pagadi turban) |
| Posted by: john frum 2009-04-15 22:38 |
#16 This guy turned 90 today. The only living Indian 5 star general - Marshal of the Indian Air Force, Arjan Singh. He strafed Pashtun tribals in the NWFP, flew against the Japanese in the Arakan, was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross in 1944, commanded the IAF during the 1965 and 1971 wars. Has flown over 60 different types of aircraft from Pre-WW-2 era Biplanes to Jet fighters. |
| Posted by: john frum 2009-04-15 22:16 |
| #15 Yea, if they want to keep a beard and do their own wardrobe things, they'd have to go SF, but still that leaves the CF question. A little late for that, I suppose. Where does SF even fit in with dentistry and/or physicians commisions, IDK? I give up, would these men just realize they joined the Army, man up, and shave or whatever. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2009-04-15 22:03 |
| #14 If they cannot don CW gear in a deployable unit I cannot see their use except as an "undeployable". You might note that most were formerly used in situations that did not require the ability to deal with Chem-Bio-Nuc Warfare. Times have changed and they have not or will not. That narrows their options but the Military should not relent in this case. The regs are there for a good reason. And I agree with #7, NS. Too bad, so sad. Deal with it. |
| Posted by: tipover 2009-04-15 21:27 |
| #13 " If things were harder on them because of their turban and beard, you wouldn't hear them bitch about it" Im sure thats true they are fierce and wouldn't bitch about it. Trivial as it seems, still, meeting boilerplate requirements is part of being a soldier. It is a shame such fine soldiers are dispensable due to wear of the uniform. Could their religion give them some slack in the hair and beard areas? Back to my point, being in the Army regardless of Military Occupational Specialization boils down to meeting boiler plate requirements. At present (im not the definitive judge if these are the guage of a good soldier or not) the first req. is knowing your Military Specialization. The second is qualifying on your assigned weapon a minimum of every six months. The third is passing your run, sit-ups, and push ups. And the fourth is not being Red (for no-go) for things like your gear, or pro-mask. Lastly, you have to be up to date on vaccinations... Not to mention you have to pay all your bills on time and abide by all regulations. Dont have one of those elements, your status is not fully combat ready. When not fully combat ready, its not okay to be in a war-zone because you endanger your own life and the life of others. Its nothing personal or categorical against Sikhs, who no doubt sound very formidable. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2009-04-15 21:11 |
| #12 These "needs of the Army" arguments are silly. From 1943 or so until the 1980s, Sikhs were fighting with the best of us. They are hardcore warriors and were some damn fine soldiers. If things were harder on them because of their turban and beard, you wouldn't hear them bitch about it. "The Sikh Regiment is one of the highest decorated regiment of the Indian Army, with 73 Battle Honours, 14 Victoria Crosses, 21 first class Indian Order of Merit (equivalent to the Victoria Cross), 15 Theatre Honours...and 1596 other gallantry awards." Geez. Like dismissing the 82nd Airborne Division because their berets were the "wrong" color. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-04-15 20:18 |
| #11 oops, and meant to mention like a third of soldiers smoke packs and packs of cigarettes, so it might be possible cause. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2009-04-15 19:38 |
| #10 Sometimes soldiers "develop" asthma or breathing disorders after theyre already in. I saw accomodations being made for folks with inhalers. I dont know if they were eventually med boarded or not. I think in many cases no, due to needing bodies. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2009-04-15 19:34 |
| #9 GT: I'm a lung doctor. You mean asthmatics can serve? I had always been told that asthma was an automatic medical discharge. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-04-15 19:29 |
| #8 You change to be fit for the Army, the Army doesn't change to fit you. Hooah GT! Lastly, try beards and long hair for a while in 115f-130f desert heat, blowing sand and dust. You'll be making tracks to the Haji barber, or initiating a do-it-yoself trim job pretty damn fast. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-04-15 18:45 |
| #7 Ultimately this has nothing to do with the Sikhs, particularly, and everything to do with the Muslim demands to come. If they don't want to assimilate and do things the Army way, then they should be released to civilian life. That would be too bad, but less bad than what would follow. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-04-15 18:25 |
| #6 True, being in the Army entails sacrifice. Why should they be treated any different? And yes, if you can fully do a combat job, rank and pay should be in full effect, if not, then take the dock in pay and quit bitching. I'd wanted to wear a large cross dangling outside my uniform, have my long hair flowing in the breeze and have long fingernails, but all were prohibited, and were cut off or removed. I made my sacrifice to serve in the Army, so should anyone else. You change to be fit for the Army, the Army doesn't change to fit you. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2009-04-15 18:17 |
| #5 If they want to have their own dress code and not be combat ready, I'm fine with that so long as their pay reflects reflects that fact and we have a qouta on how many non-combat ready personnel we have. Neither of those will happen as they are discriminatory. Therefore I have no choice but to be against allowing them a waiver on dress code. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2009-04-15 18:05 |
| #4 Its a tough situation because in a combat medic, combat lifesaver situation, or forward operation lives are at stake for the lifesaver who has to run, walk, and carry victims off the battefield in a chemical environment. I know I had trouble getting a seal on my mask in seconds at times as a female combatant with only a shoulder length head of hair back in a bun. True story, I ended up bobbing my hair shorter. As for the regs here, it kind of dilatory of the Army to begin deliberations on these fellows cases now. They've already given a lot of service, perhaps a deal can be struck. But to be combat ready, a soldier has to be able to wear a mask, or else they'd be best off serving in strictly non-field situations. But its not like its a big deal, we had plenty of asthmatic soldiers who couldnt don a mask, who were put in job areas they could do. Its doable. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2009-04-15 17:56 |
| #3 I understand that there have been advances in making CBN protective clothing that can accomodate beards. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-04-15 17:38 |
| #2 Turbans, beards, and hair down to your a** walking around in the rear, or on a parade field might look interesting or distinctive to some, but it makes pulling on a protective mask, helmet, HALO or SCUBA gear a bit of a challenge. Last time I checked this was still the United States Army. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-04-15 17:38 |
| #1 Ease up on them hammers, Tex. For many years, Sikhs served in the US military with honor and distinction. They wore OD turbans and had beards and were not inclined to leave before retirement as senior NCOs. I might add that it was far more likely to see them branched combat arms than anything else. The Special Forces had a bunch of them, as did the Rangers. The reason is that they are a militant, pro-military and nationalist religion. They dominate the Indian Army officer corps, and serve loyally in any army they are allowed to enlist. If they screw up, they are not just in trouble with their military leaders, but with their religious leaders as well. They were only pushed out in the 1980s because they couldn't wear protective masks against chemical weapons. And there were a LOT of soldiers who were sad to see them go. Hell, we "discovered" Sikhs in WWII, and the Japanese were scared half to death of them. There was one instance where on a Pacific island, four Sikhs so terrified a Japanese battalion that they surrendered without firing a shot or anybody getting hurt. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-04-15 17:24 |