If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
1st Sikh in U.S. Army in 3 Decades
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Lamba was granted a rare exemption to wear his turban and beard. The exemption is from a rigidly followed US Army policy that came into force in 1981, effectively preventing Sikhs from enlisting. The 26-year-old Lamba was recruited in 2009 through the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) programme essentially for his language skills in Hindi and Punjabi. On Wednesday, he completed his basic training with his turban and beard intact.
http://expressbuzz.com/world/us-army-gets-first-sikh-soldier-in-three-decades/222413.html
Personally, I say good for him.
With his linguistic skills he could prove to be a vital asset to the U.S. Army.
Also, the fact that he chose to go through BCT at the risk of being excluded or treated as an outcast exhibits sheer determination and perseverance.
Thoughts?
http://expressbuzz.com/world/us-army-gets-first-sikh-soldier-in-three-decades/222413.html
Personally, I say good for him.
With his linguistic skills he could prove to be a vital asset to the U.S. Army.
Also, the fact that he chose to go through BCT at the risk of being excluded or treated as an outcast exhibits sheer determination and perseverance.
Thoughts?
0
Comments
I haven't had the pleasure of meeting one yet... :no:
Reading the comments, I would say the (current) first comment is spot on in its sentiment, even if the historical assertions are unverified.
I'd assume an elephant God with six arms is probably more getting mixed up with Hindus (Kali the six armed Goddess and Ganesha, the Elephant God)
But there is a wider question, which is why the army should bend its rules to fit individuals? If you want to serve (and good for him) he should play by the same rules as everyone else and if that means having his head shorn, well he needs to decide whether his religion or his country is more important.
Why should the army deny itself willing and capable soldiers because of arbitrary rules based on an outdated vision of an homogeneous infantry?
Not outdated at all. In the end the military relies on the ideal of it being a disciplined force, subject to the same rules and whilst having specialisms, being basically uniform, ie the idea that everyman is an infantry first and medic, siggie, sapper etc second. The homogeneity is important for the discipline and the discipline is to stop soldiers either running away or feeling they can do what they like because they have the weapons...
Otherwise we might as all have dressed how we liked and turned out like a bunch of unshaven hippies....
you mean like in the adverts for the special forces game?
Surely the same lines of logic could be applied in different circumstances to obviously sikh soldiers. I guess it depends if it's a frontline soldier or a support specialist to a large degree.
To allow one guy is the perfect defintion of bending the rules
If they said everyone could have long hair and a beard that'd be changing the rules
For the sake of being a prick I'm going to argue semantics here and say it's more like an exception to the rules than bending them.
In any case I'm sure the military has their reasons.
Sounds like Sikhism is the religion of choice if exceptions are what your after!
Because he speaks the same language as the people in Pakistan / backwater Afghanistan where they're fighting . . .
Seems like a pretty good reason to me
It's a very good reason... unless he's gay, then he's not wanted.