Plans were drawn up last year to form a Sikh Regiment in the UK army. Presumably this was to capitalise on the long tradition of Sikh’s serving with the British army, as well as to bolster falling enlistment numbers. Research showed a Sikh regiment would be easily drawn, many Sikh community leaders were vocal in their support for it, and the idea was presumably that Sikh’s would be attracted to a regiment that they could call their own.
However, the plans were dropped, after the Council for Racial Equality stated that they were sectarian and divisive. Given that a lot of regiments within the UK draw from either a specific geographic locality or from certain nationalities (Irish regiments, Gurkha’s etc.) was this the correct decision? If the Sikh’s themselves had no problem with it, how is it necessarily divisive?
IIRC Gurkhas are technically mercenaries. But yes, it would be racist: consider the offence a White-only regiment would cause. Recruiting from a geographical area is different: whoever lives in that area is eligible, regardless of race, creed, or whatever.
I’d have no problem with it, just as I have no problem with Gurkha regiments. So long as it’s clear that other branches of the service are also still open to members of that minority group (as was not with the case with, say, the U.S. Colored Troops during the Civil War), regiments limited to a particular minority group benefit from enhanced unit cohesion, esprit de corps, and easier recruiting among members of their community.
The Irish regiments and Gurkhas are different because they’re specifically drawn from Ireland and Nepal (or were, in the case of the Gurkhas). Same for the Welsh Fusiliers, Scottish Guards, and what have you.
The Sikh regiment wouldn’t be drawn from Punjab, but from all over Britain, so you’d be assigning people to it based solely on their religion.
Segregation is a bad idea in an integrated society even when the victims are in favor.
ETA: Are there still Gurkha regiments? I assumed those were disbanded after independence…
I always distrust words I cannot exactly define. ‘Mercenary’ as noun is one of those. Perhaps you might enlighten me by explaining what it means in the most technical sense.
There are…the Brigade of Ghurkas is still around, with one Infantry Regiment (the Royal Gurkha Rifles), as well as an Engineering Regiment, a Signals Regiment, etc.
As for a Sikh Regiment, there’s one in the Indian Army, and the Sikh Regiment has a long and honorable history. I don’t see a particular problem with it, so long as the Sikhs are agreeable.
Traditionally they have been contracted as individuals, direct from Nepal, by recruiters there by permission of the government. When the contract is over, they return home.
Their status is changing now with some landmark rulings around pensions, residency rights etc., as public feeling here indicates that decades’ service to the UK should be rewarded.
Their reputation as brave hardass bastards that you want on your side helps them a lot with the public as well. I’ve never heard anyone say a bad thing about them.
On the recent PBS series Monarchy, the Queen is shown hosting the living recipients of the Victoria Cross at a luncheon. There was no suggestion that the only Gurkha present - he won his during WW2, I believe - was a mercenary.
I met some on training and I’m here to tell you they were some seriously motivated individuals. Field engineers, in this case. They were all ridiculously fit - I think some had muscles in their hair - and would just walk off into the woods for a few days and do things like cut off our water and power for a few minutes, just for the hell of it.
My great-uncle ran into some in Burma and claimed theyr were the scariest bastards he’d even encountered and he was eternally grateful they were on our side.
(assuming both were describing Gurkhas) As far as I know about Sikhs, that can be said about them, too. Any army would have an advantage if the other side knew there were who REGIMENTS of either arrayed against them. Another vote for “separate (if they volunteer, otherwise they are in the regular army) Sikh and Gurkha regiments.” They are nothing if they are not scary, and both are WAY scary.
Okay, the only Sikhs I know PERSONALLY run a local 7-11 and are about the nerdiest yet charming guys a guy could know, but their rep is STILL TOTALLY BADASS. In a nerdily charming way. This is something I love about America: We take the baddest asses and turn them soft.
Case in point: Had a buddy. Iraqi, but he was “Assyrian.” TOTAL badass, with the patented “gunfighter’s glint” in his eye. You knew he had killed and was over here because when he left it was a Really Good Idea. His specialty over here? Videotaping weddings.
There is nothing wrong with it, it’s PC nonsense run amok. Gurkha’s are famous for their fighting ability, and if they can trust each other and bond with one another based on a common faith then they will be that much more effective a fighting force.
It’s just more liberal social engineering that believes that every form of cultural segregation is some kind of oppression. It’s actually more oppressive to veto it on ideological grounds if the group in question is totally in favor of it.
Again, Gurkha regiments have absolutely nothing to do with the proposed Sikh regiment. Gurkhas are Nepalese, and are from Nepal. The members of the proposed Sikh regiment would be British citizens, and are not from anywhere in particular, although the vast majority would be of Indian (specifically, Punjabi or Multani) descent.
If you want to object to “liberal social engineering”, go ahead, but comparing this idea to something completely unrelated is probably not your best argument.
Fair enough. The point still stands, if Sikhs want to form around these lines they should be able to. It would benefit the nation overall I should think. India uses Sikhs like that. Which of course is problematic if you are Indira Ghandi and raid their holy sites.