Jump to content

First Singh To Guard Buckingham Palace


PAL 07
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is another milestone in rehabilitating Sikhs with the British armed forces, a relationship which has been forged in blood for over two centuries and Mr Bhullar should be commended for taking such a principled stand. My only suggestion to Mr Bhullar would be maybe he should consider a style of turban similar to the bearskin shape, such as that favoured by Akali Singhs of yesteryear, a dhumalla-shaped turban. It would go some way to address concerns expressed by some fellow officers that the "uniformity" of the regiment would be under threat. Just a suggestion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why not tie a small patka or keski and wear the hat on top? is there anything wrong with doing that?

We are not to where a hat.A helmet is another story because it actually protects the wearer.Maharaj ranjit had a helmet but no hat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some comments from the readers of that news article, which are interesting...

Political Correctness gone mad! If he wants to join the Scots Guards, he wears the same uniform as everyone else, his religion is a private matter, between him and his god, nothing to do with the MOD.

- Michael, France, France, 2/12/2012 4:34

If he can wear a hard hat over his turban, why can he not wear the bearskin over it? Seems to me he is looking for attention & perhaps a reason to sue. If his turban is more important to him than the bearskin then he does NOT belong in the Scots Guards!

- KJ, Wellington NZ, 2/12/2012 4:32

There's actually no reason why he can't wear a bearskin. The Sikh religion does NOT stipulate turbans. It stipulates long hair. For instance, athletes and sportsmen do not wear turbans when training or participating in an event. They wear either a simple handkerchief tied around the top-knot or a kind of cloth called a 'patka' tied around their head. In fact, the patka is often (usually) worn under the turban. So, all they have to do is wear the patka and the bearskin on top (over it). This insistence on a turban business is a lot of rot.

- JayJay, Here and There, 2/12/2012 4:02

In Canada the same argument was presented by a member of the Sikh community for wearing a turban in stead of the traditional RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) head dress. The steadson. The challenge to the tradition was not well received by the populous but granted by the politicians . A decision interpreted as an erosion of traditional values. Said traditions hold a cohesive bond to past establishment and foundation to that what exists today. Leave well alone ....

- Canuck, Ottawa, Canada, 2/12/2012 4:23

I actually don't see no "milestone" here. I don't understand why anybody, in this day and age of corruption, etc would want to join the army which is used as a power tool against smaller countries by the elite. But these are my personal opinions.

Good luck to him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not to where a hat.A helmet is another story because it actually protects the wearer.Maharaj ranjit had a helmet but no hat.

That was probably whilst he was in battle, so that a blow to the head by a sword, dagger, or even an incoming arrow would be blocked.

However, did Akali Phoola Singh wear an helmet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is another milestone in rehabilitating Sikhs with the British armed forces, a relationship which has been forged in blood for over two centuries and Mr Bhullar should be commended for taking such a principled stand. My only suggestion to Mr Bhullar would be maybe he should consider a style of turban similar to the bearskin shape, such as that favoured by Akali Singhs of yesteryear, a dhumalla-shaped turban. It would go some way to address concerns expressed by some fellow officers that the "uniformity" of the regiment would be under threat. Just a suggestion!

What milestone? What relationship was forged in blood? They won, we lost and were assimilated in their army. End of story. There was no relationship, unless you call the "Master & Slave" a relationship.

Why don't you contact him directly with your suggestion? Unless he frequents this forum....just a suggestion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unbreakable

"They won, we lost"

You and I have been reading the wrong history books old chap. What did "they" win and what did we "lose" exactly? There are many martial races throughout the world, but no one mentions them today because none of them fought in every campaign and theatre of war during the two world wars as the Sikhs did. That is why today Sikhs are spread from Hong Kong to London, Vancouver to Auckland and Borneo to Perth. That is why today, Sikhs are regarded as the most loyal of men because they didn't partake in the so-called 'Indian Mutiny' of 1857. That is why the Houses of Parliament, Sir Winston Churchill said :

"...British people are highly indebted and obliged to Sikhs for a long time. I know that within this century we needed their help twice and they did help us very well. As a result of their timely help, we are today able to live with honour, dignity, and independence. In the war, they fought and died for us, wearing the turbans. At that time we were not adamant that they should wear safety helmets because we knew that they are not going to wear them anyways and we would be deprived of their help. At that time due to our miserable and poor situation, we did not force it on them to wear safety helmets, why should we force it now? Rather, we should now respect their traditions and by granting this legitimate concession, win their applaud."

That was of course in relation to the motorcycle helmet debate. If we were to say that it was a "master and slave relationship", as you suggest, then the British could have well said no to the amendment of the motorcycle crash helmet law and insisted upon the Sikhs to wear the helmet rather than the turban. Afterall, the wars were over by that stage and the need to recruit Sikhs has ceased. Furthermore, public opinion at the time had swayed with the notion that "when in Rome, do as the Romans do". Politically, it was far more sensible to go with the public concensus. I don't believe for one second that it was a "master and slave relationship" at all.

The British didn't hesitate to court martial any Sikh who so much as clipped their beards when in the army. Taking amrit was a pre-requisite to enlist. We can thank them for upholding such high ideals and taking them across the seven seas so that mankind can be aware of the valour and gallantry of such fine men.

Master and Slave? A soldier's soldier more like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use