• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Coldstream Guards Turban

Your argument falls down because this chap didn't fail an alchohol test, he reportedly failed a drug test for cocaine.
Under the Act that defines Sikh "mortal sins", cocaine doesn't rate a mention, while alchohol does.

Ergo, it would appear that being a fully-practicing Sikh and being a coke-head are not mutually exclusive.
God Almighty.

"The Act" you're talking about is the Sikh Gurdwaras Act of 1925 or 1971. It applied / applies to India. It's about legally identifying Indian Sikhs and who can vote for Indian Gurdwaras (place of worship) representation.

It might be a revelation to you, but Sikhs in the British Army aren't subject to Indian law.

The Sikh Code of Conduct which codifies whether someone is a "fully practicing Sikh" or not is based on the Sikh Rehat Maryada (SRM). If you read it you'll find that Section V1, Chapter XIII, Para XXIV. says

The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided
1. Dishonouring the hair;
2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way;
3. Cohabiting with a person other than one's spouse;
4. Using tobacco
.

That's your 'tobacco' bit. I've put it in bold for you. ... and they're not "mortal sins", they're "transgressions" which mean you need to be baptised again.

Carry on down a little bit and you'll come to sub para P 5:
p. The following individuals shall be liable to chastisement involving automatic boycott: ...
5. Users of intoxicants (hemp, opium, liquor, narcotics, cocaine, etc.);


That's the 'cocaine' bit. I've put it in bold for you.

'Automatic boycott' means patit and means you are automatically suspended as a "fully practicing Sikh" until re-instated. It's automatic, and it's not the Army's decision.

Is there any part of that you don't understand?
 
Last edited:
The policy is. If someone says they are a certain religion and it's on JPA. Then that is it.
They do not have to meet any requirements when was the last time you were on a meeting about E&D in the British army? You are reading something on the internet and deciding to interpret your way. You are not legally trained you are not an e and d advisor and you are not in the army.
@stacker1, I was wrong. Half-wit is way over generous.
Just so you get this through your thick skull it is not for the army to decide if someone is a "real" Sikh or not.
Which part of "'Automatic boycott' means patit and means you are automatically suspended as a "fully practicing Sikh" until re-instated. It's automatic, and it's not the Army's decision" do you not understand?

IT'S NOT AN ARMY DECISION TO MAKE, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

It's dictated automatically by the religion. The Army isn't in a position to over-rule it, any more than it can over-rule the Pope if he excommunicates someone from the Catholic church.
 
@stacker1, I was wrong. Half-wit is way over generous.
Which part of "'Automatic boycott' means patit and means you are automatically suspended as a "fully practicing Sikh" until re-instated. It's automatic, and it's not the Army's decision" do you not understand?

IT'S NOT AN ARMY DECISION TO MAKE, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

It's dictated automatically by the religion. The Army isn't in a position to over-rule it, any more than it can over-rule the Pope if he excommunicates someone from the Catholic church.
I'm sure you are aware that someone remains catholic even if they are excommunicated?
Is there a law that says the British army has listen to sikhs rules/law? No? Then it's up to the army to decide what it wants to accept as religious or not.
Once again you are showing you know nothing about the army.
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
But still a Sikh, and would possibly be working towards reinstatement. The army could therefore not order removal of a turban, cutting hair or shaving beard as this would prevent the soldier from practicing their chosen rejoin.

Unless you can provide the chapter and verse which would allow a commander to order such actions to prevent a soldier from repenting and following their chosen religion?
 
Easy way to resolve this. A link showing the policy which supports commanders challenging an individual soldier’s stated religion should do it. It would be a very contentious topic, so there would be clear guidance on why, when and how a commander should do this. Wouldn’t there?
Ummm ... but ... ummm ... where is he "challenging an individual soldier's stated religion"?

In this scenario the only way a Sikh found taking cocaine could be recognised by his commander or the Army as being a "fully practicing Sikh" would be if they were to challenge and over-rule the Sikh religion's SRM. Not really something the Army's in a position to do.
In the case in point, let’s assume for a moment that CO Coldstream Guards decides to let him soldier on but wishes to deny him the usual religious observations allow for Sikhs. Where would he turn to for chapter and verse on “you ain’t no Sikh, bruv”?
Ummm ... let me think ... hang on, one of my dogs has just come in and maybe they'll have the intelligence to know where it spells out, chapter and verse, that a Sikh who takes cocaine can't be a 'fully practicing Sikh' ...

... there we go, evidently it's laid down very specifically in the Sikh Code of Conduct which codifies whether someone is a "fully practicing Sikh", based on the Sikh Rehat Maryada (SRM) in Section V1, Chapter XIII, Para XXIV sub para P 5, which says:
p. The following individuals shall be liable to chastisement involving automatic boycott: ...
5. Users of intoxicants (hemp, opium, liquor, narcotics, cocaine, etc.);


Who's a clever boy, then ...
 
Any religion in the army can pick and chose what religious rules it wants to follow. The army doesn't make them stick to them.
I think what John G is implying is that the soldier will not only lose his army career but also face ostracization in his own community for going against religious rules...
 
I think what John G is implying is that the soldier will not only lose his army career but also face ostracization in his own community for going against religious rules...
I don't think @John G knows what he is trying to imply
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
Ummm ... but ... ummm ... where is he "challenging an individual soldier's stated religion"?

In this scenario the only way a Sikh found taking cocaine could be recognised by his commander or the Army as being a "fully practicing Sikh" would be if they were to challenge and over-rule the Sikh religion's SRM. Not really something the Army's in a position to do.
Ummm ... let me think ... hang on, one of my dogs has just come in and maybe they'll have the intelligence to know where it spells out, chapter and verse, that a Sikh who takes cocaine can't be a 'fully practicing Sikh' ...

... there we go, evidently it's laid down very specifically in the Sikh Code of Conduct which codifies whether someone is a "fully practicing Sikh", based on the Sikh Rehat Maryada (SRM) in Section V1, Chapter XIII, Para XXIV sub para P 5, which says:
p. The following individuals shall be liable to chastisement involving automatic boycott: ...
5. Users of intoxicants (hemp, opium, liquor, narcotics, cocaine, etc.);


Who's a clever boy, then ...
Not you. Not by a long chalk. Nor your dog. If you read the pages you googled so furiously, you would see that they are still Sikh, just not Amritdhari. They would have to practice their faith, atone and seek reinstatement.

They are still Sikh, and the army would treat them as such. They cannot, and will not, prevent someone following their chosen faith.
 
I think what John G is implying is that the soldier will not only lose his army career but also face ostracization in his own community for going against religious rules...
He's trying to pretend that he loses his religious exemptions for not shaving, long hair etc. He won't.
 
When I first joined I said I had no religion and did not believe in any god,because I don't.
I was ORDERED(yes,really) to put CofE.
Eventually I was allowed to amend my records to no religion,but it took years.
 
Not you. Not by a long chalk. Nor your dog. If you read the pages you googled so furiously, you would see that they are still Sikh, just not Amritdhari. They would have to practice their faith, atone and seek reinstatement.

They are still Sikh, and the army would treat them as such. They cannot, and will not, prevent someone following their chosen faith.
The managers at Thai Google have sent a request for you to tone it down bit, they are working flat out.
 
But still a Sikh, and would possibly be working towards reinstatement. The army could therefore not order removal of a turban, cutting hair or shaving beard as this would prevent the soldier from practicing their chosen rejoin.

Unless you can provide the chapter and verse which would allow a commander to order such actions to prevent a soldier from repenting and following their chosen religion?
Hang on, my other dog's just come in ...

... what's that? It's laid down in JSP 831which I linked to before?

... and I've already quoted Rule 3 of Annex A, page 12 back in post # 552, ..... and I specifically added, in that same post, that he'd still be entitled to wear a patka under his normal headgear (bearskin, whatever) and to have a neat, trimmed beard, but not have their hair and beard uncut which only those who are 'fully practicing Sikhs' are entitled to ....

... and that's got no connection with shaving his beard off and not allowing him to repent, but it's actually in accordance with both the JSP and the SRM so someone's telling porkies ...

Who's another clever boy, then ...
 
Hang on, my other dog's just come in ...

... what's that? It's laid down in JSP 831which I linked to before?

... and I've already quoted Rule 3 of Annex A, page 12 back in post # 552, ..... and I specifically added, in that same post, that he'd still be entitled to wear a patka under his normal headgear (bearskin, whatever) and to have a neat, trimmed beard, but not have their hair and beard uncut which only those who are 'fully practicing Sikhs' are entitled to ....

... and that's got no connection with shaving his beard off and not allowing him to repent, but it's actually in accordance with both the JSP and the SRM so someone's telling porkies ...

Who's another clever boy, then ...
It's a good thing you are about to provide the link proving that the British army has to obey what some old Sikhs say about who is and isn't a fully practising Sikh.

I take it you did Google catholic and them being ex communicated?
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
So he’s still a Sikh then. Glad we cleared that up. Keep Googling, Google Guru. You really haven’t got a clue.
 
Last edited:
Hang on, my other dog's just come in ...

... what's that? It's laid down in JSP 831which I linked to before?

... and I've already quoted Rule 3 of Annex A, page 12 back in post # 552, ..... and I specifically added, in that same post, that he'd still be entitled to wear a patka under his normal headgear (bearskin, whatever) and to have a neat, trimmed beard, but not have their hair and beard uncut which only those who are 'fully practicing Sikhs' are entitled to ....

... and that's got no connection with shaving his beard off and not allowing him to repent, but it's actually in accordance with both the JSP and the SRM so someone's telling porkies ...

Who's another clever boy, then ...
Who really cares, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. If, and it is still an if at this stage, he snorted a couple of lines then he deserves everything that comes his way no matter what religion, colour or whatever he is
 
Clearly you don't "know" otherwise you wouldn't be continuing to post utter bollox saying what the Army "has" to do and "can't" do.

I've given the link to current policy and regs. I'm not saying if they're applied or not, but if you want to pretend it doesn't exist, and that the Army's constrained in ways it's not, up to you.
Neither do you John. You're an out of date sexually confused hasn't been.
Listen to those that are living the dream. Let it go.
 
Agreed.
If Colly and discharge are good enough for white soldiers...
It's highly unlikely he will go anywhere near MCTC. (White soldiers don't go to MCTC for failing the CDT either).
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top