Images: above - Sikhs in battle in Sicily, WWII, 1943. Below - 1st from bottom - WWI battle scene depicted in a painting. 2nd - WWI Sikh soldiers embark in Bombay for Europe. 3rd - Maharaja Bhupinder Singh of Patiala inspects troops, Belgium, April 1915.
History
Article of Faith
by Major-Gen. KULWANT SINGH (Retd.)
During World Wars I and II, 83,055 Sikh soldiers laid down their lives, and 1,09,045 were wounded while fighting as part of British Indian Army.
All of them wore turbans without exception, refusing to wear steel helmets, despite the protection these offered. Nothing could make them wear helmets. When ordered to do so, the Sikhs disobeyed, which often meant "collective insubordination - mutiny", with serious consequences. The intensity of war also could not lure them to wear helmets.
During World War 1 in 1915, 14th Sikh was involved in intense hand-to-hand fighting at Gallipoli in Turkey. The battalion lost 371 officers and soldiers. The Sikhs refused to give up even an inch of ground. The enemy trenches were found blocked with the bodies of turbaned Sikhs, who died while fighting at close quarters.
Yet another saga of Sikh valour was the battle fought while defending Saragarhi in Afghanistan on September 12, 1897, by 21 Sikh soldiers of the 4th battalion (then 36th Sikh) of the Sikh Regiment. The Sikhs who died bravely with the spirit of "last man last round," wore turbans throughout fighting against almost 10,000 Afghan tribals. It is one of the eight greatest stories of "collective bravery" acknowledged and published by UNESCO. All the 21 Sikhs were posthumously decorated for outstanding bravery in the face of enemy with the highest award then given to Sikhs and Indians - The Indian Order of Merit, equivalent to the Victoria Cross, and present-day Paramvir Chakra
One of the important cases of refusing to wear helmets, or even to carry these, was related to Sikhs of the 25th MT Coy of RIASC (present day ASC - Army Supply Corps), forming part of the 4th Indian Division. This unit moved from Meerut to Egypt as soon as the war started. After their arrival in Egypt, troops, including Sikhs, were issued steel helmets, and were ordered to wear these instead of turbans, as they offered better protection against head injuries. Sikhs found a good cause in disobeying orders to wear helmets. They refused to touch helmets, and kicked them in the presence of the British officers. Hindus and Muslims did not join the Sikhs in this revolt.
Major Shirton, the Commanding Officer of the company, was determined to teach the Sikhs a lesson, and make them wear helmets instead of turbans; it became a prestige issue for him. He tried all methods to convince the Sikhs to wear helmets. When he failed, he threatened them with dire consequences by reading the relevant orders on disobeying a lawful command, especially during war; the punishment could be death. All officers in the chain of command addressed Sikhs, including the Brigade and Divisional Commander, but no one could convince the Sikhs, who were willing to be shot dead, rather than wear helmets instead of turbans.
At one time, Major Shirton brought armed soldiers, who aimed at the agitating Sikhs, and threatened to shoot them if they continued activities like disobeying orders and shouting slogans against the British Government. The Sikhs challenged him to open fire. It was obviously a ploy to threaten the weak ones. The British knew that any shooting at this crucial stage of the war would spread the mutiny in many other units. Ultimately, the British tried their old trick to break the unity by segregating the soldiers on the basis of religion. The Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus were shifted to different barracks.
Most of the Sikh soldiers were educated; they argued their case with senior officers logically to make them see reason. They argued that turbans offered as good a protection as helmets from artillery shells and aerial bombardment, if not better. No other headgear could take proper care of hair, which is sacred to a Sikh.
Sikh history is full of examples where Sikhs have sacrificed their lives for the sake of the turban. "You may take off my head, not my turban." The Sikhs concluded their arguments with a tone of finality. "For Sikhs, the turban was made mandatory by Guru Gobind Singh, who singularly excluded wearing of any other headgear except the turban."
The summary court marshal tried 58 Sikhs in December, 1939, at Egypt. Even at this stage, before promulgating the sentence, it was announced that all those who go back to their work will be forgiven for their mistake, will not be punished, and no harm will be done to their careers. No Sikh was willing to stop the turban agitation, and stood steadfast. "No helmets, death acceptable."
Beside the RIASC mutiny, there were many such rebellions over the controversy of turban vs. helmets. The pattern followed by the mutineers as well the military authorities was almost similar to the RIASC mutiny. The 31st Battalion of the Punjab Regiment moved from Jhansi for operations in Egypt. After two months of training in desert warfare, the battalion was ready for operations. Subedar Ujjagar Singh of Pattu Hira Singh (Ferozepore), along with his company comprising of Doaba Sikhs, refused to wear steel helmets. However, the Sikh company did a splendid job, capturing hundreds of Italian prisoners with negligible causalities to turbaned Sikhs.
Yet in another case, Sikhs of the 12th Heavy Regiment of the Royal Artillery Hong Kong Battery, and some Sikhs of the Hong Kong Garrison refused to wear steel helmets, and were charged with mutiny. A military court marshal sentenced them to seven years' penal servitude in 1941.
All 200 Sikh soldier prisoners at the cellular jail refused to wear helmets while rehearsing precautions against expected Japanese air raids at Andaman Islands. These mutineers were extremely defiant and were punished with lashes, flogging and deprivations. Yet, no Sikh soldier wore a helmet.
Alarmed at the number of incidents, many senior British officers, who had served with the Sikhs, started to educate British young officers on the turban issue, supporting the Sikhs for not wearing helmets. Consequently, by the middle of 1942, orders were passed not to force Sikh soldiers to wear helmets.
The Turban is an article of
faith that has been made mandatory by the founders of Sikhism, having
immense spiritual as well as temporal significance, increasing a
commitment to Sikhism, making a Sikh a more disciplined and virtuous
person. It is a symbol of courage, self-respect, dedication, piety and
sovereignty. It is intertwined with Sikh identity. Anyone who orders a
Sikh soldier to take off his turban and wear a steel helmet just
because it purportedly offers better protection to his head, clearly does not
understand the Sikh's psyche, and his attachment to his turban.
[Courtesy: The Tribune]
August 4, 2010
Conversation about this article
1: Surinder (Massachusetts, U.S.A.), August 04, 2010, 12:19 PM.
"During World Wars I and II, 83,055 Sikh soldiers laid down their lives, and 1,09,045 were wounded while fighting as part of British Indian Army." ... And the British repaid the Sikhs by stabbing them in the back with the Partition of 1947.
2: Pierre (D.C., U.S.A.), August 04, 2010, 12:24 PM.
Is the matter an issue of wearing the helmet INSTEAD of the turban, or at all? The first turbaned Sikh in the Canadian air force wraps his hair around his head and thus wears a more fitted turban that fits under his helmet - but still wears his hair brushed and bound by a turban; but perhaps he is not Amritdhari. Tejdeep Singh Rattan did something similar; http://panthic.org/articles/5229. I had seen advertisement for contemporary helmets designed around turbans out of India, but can't find them now.
3: Karamjeet Singh Lamba (Ahmedabad, India), August 04, 2010, 2:29 PM.
Had these Sikh soldiers decided to wear steel helmets, there would definitely be less turbaned Sikhs in the world today.
4: Pierre (D.C., U.S.A.), August 04, 2010, 3:07 PM.
By the same token, it would seem that if some Sikhs hadn't protected their lives by some means, there would be no Sikhs, turban or not today. Colonial forces aside, why not ANY armour - which was clearly done? Nothing prevents human imagination from making armour to protect even portions of the head WITH a turban on! There also appear some classic paintings where clearly there is something worn with the turban one way or another (sometimes seemingly under it), that is like a helmet, or at least functions as a base for the vertical feather/cloth projections; why not it be steel or something protective? Also featured is one of the modern ballistic helmets designed to accomodate a turban: http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/35561-sikh-armour/ Considering it is a steel band that does not interfere with the turban, what would distinguish it from a chakram? ... If the retort is that there is some unwritten imperative to submit to death without any recourse, again, why was ANY armour worn in combat, why is there the counsel to even fight at all, once all other means of diplomacy are exhausted?
5: Plate (U.S.A.), August 04, 2010, 7:48 PM.
Excellent article that captures facts about Sikh soldiers and the issues they faced then and now. Technically, helmets may provide more protection but for a Sikh soldier the turban provides spiritual strength as the turban has deep symbolic value for the Sikh spirit. A great disappointment that even today a Sikh soldier has to justify the wearing of his/her turban after such a proud and long history of soldiering. Blame lies with us as well for not telling the world about our articles of faith.
6: Irvinder Singh Babra (Brampton, Ontario, Canada), August 04, 2010, 7:56 PM.
Sikh soldiers wear "patka" today, which is smaller than a turban, and a helmet is fitted over it. But by now in 2010, many Sikhs are not opting to join the armies/police, etc., there is no line up, even when the Western governmets have allowed the Sikhs in their turbans. It's now a profession for the utterly poor, I am very sorry to say. American forces allowing the two Sikhs in recently is nothing more than a kind of media blitz for the minorities to join the forces. It did not succeed in attracting too many immigrants to join the forces. To be sent to Iraq or Afganistan at about $90 a day, and get killed! Why not make war history now?
7: R. Singh (Canada), August 04, 2010, 8:57 PM.
Did the Khalsa army under Ranjit singh not wear helmets?
8: T. Sher Singh (Mount Forest, Ontario, Canada), August 05, 2010, 8:48 AM.
If any society was genuinely concerned about safety being its priority, it would have all of its citizens wear turbans at all times - it can't be disputed that wearing a turban makes you safer from head injuries, and protects you from extreme cold and heat, etc. If armies were genuinely serious about safety for their soldiers, then: a) they wouldn't go around shooting at each other; b) give each soldier a tank to hide in; and c) not have pastors in the front to cater to soldiers' spiritual needs, or bag-pipers to boost up their spirits. It is always easier for any majority community to pick apart the valid and valuable practices of others, while completely overlooking their own trivial, frivolous or goofy practices.
9: N. Singh (Canada), August 06, 2010, 1:16 AM.
Surinder: In recent years, it has become 'fashionable' to blame the British for all of India's woes, including 1947. However, I think the time has arrived for the Sikhs to stop being 'victims' and to start looking at some of the facts. Let us be reminded: a) that both the British and Muslims advised the Sikhs against listening to Nehru and Gandhi, and forewarned the misfortune of the Sikhs; b) that Master Tara Singh's loyalties at the time of partition could have been compromised. He was a Hindu-born convert into Sikhi and I would question whether this, together with familial and cultural connections with the Hindu majority, prevented him from putting Sikh interests at the forefront; c) he was also responsible for removing the flag of the Muslim League which acted as the flame to the fire that followed; d) that the Sikh soldiers who died in WWII did so in exchange for India's freedom and what did that get us but 1984! e) that just this year it was the British who threatened to arrest Jagdish Tytler if he stepped onto British soil for the Nov 1984 pogroms, not the Hindu majority government which to this day is trying to manipulate the issue. Time to call a spade a spade, don't you think?
10: N. Singh (Canada), August 06, 2010, 2:04 AM.
Having grown up in Britain and attended university there, I was informed that British universities were notorious as recruiting grounds for British intelligence agencies, notably MI6. I have to admit that I harboured a secret aspiration that one day I would be 'approached' by them but I soon learned that in order to work for MI6 in those days, one had to be 3rd generation British ... my parents were first generation immigrants. The logic for this was that immigrants had to be sufficiently integrated in order to be exposed to and to protect national interests. I have always found this fair and logical, so naturally I would raise the question as to why first generation converts like Master Tara Singh were allowed to negotiate over national issues like the independence question for the Sikhs? Before people jump into the conversation with arguments that all Sikhs were Hindu converts at one time or another, I would argue that those days had and have long changed ... we are talking about 1947, not 1699 or even 1849! Author Jagjit Singh in "The Sikh Revolution' points out that Hindus often converted one son to Sikhi either out of superstition or financial expediency in those days. Special seats were reserved by the British for Sikhs in employment and only Sikhs were allowed to carry kirpans, hence the lure for Hindus to convert their first born sons. As he rightly points out, this practice soon stopped after independence when it was no longer financially viable for Hindus to convert. I strongly believe we get the leaders we deserve, and we have yet to find one who is worthy in today's world!
11: Surinder (Massachusetts, U.S.A.), August 06, 2010, 6:10 PM.
N. Singh ji, one should not blame the British for everything, or even anything at all. I can agree with that. But I am just a Sikh who wants his community to prosper and rise. If I just look at the facts and try to piece the broken pieces together to make a coherent picture, it is not pretty and it not what mainstream Sikh history is trying to portray. Yes, the Muslims were advising the Sikhs and so were the British, but that advice was to advance their own self interests, not the Sikh interest. While the Muslim League was wooing the Sikhs, it was also sharpening its knife. It was planning the slaughter of Sikhs, taking their properties and taking their women as war booty (called "maal-e-ghanimat" in Islamic theology). When the time came, in Rawalpindi and Lahore, the Muslim mobs fell upon shocked Sikhs in well-planned attacks that were rather unusual in their planning and had an almost military precision to it (not my conclusion, but that of historians who have studied Partition violence). In a matter of months, they cleansed all of West Punjab of Sikhs. These are the advisors you want us to listen to. Now we have become so smart and advanced and intelligent that we curse Master Tara Singh, we doubt his allegience and doubt his Sikhi. What would a self-respecting Sikh do in 1947? Join Pakistan? Was that, or is that really even an option? Muslims basically wanted Sikhs to be on their side so that 100% of Punjab came under their rule and the Sikhs become Dhimmis under them. That is not a fate that any Sikh would accede to; Master Tara Singh did what any self-respecting Sikh would have done. Please read the entire history of British occupations and imperial conquests. Feigning friendship while plotting to stab was their norm. In Punjab, they greedily and viciously dismantled the Kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, killing every Sardar that opposed them, demolishing their property and physically liquidating them. All the while verbally claiming to be big supporters and admirers of the Khalsa. What they thought privately of Sikhism and Sikhs is less said on this forum the better for all of us.
12: N. Singh (Canada), August 07, 2010, 11:57 AM.
Surinder ji: every time we have this discussion, you immediately seem to assume that I am suggesting that we should have or should now side with Muslims! Perhaps I am not making myself clear ... my argument is that we should have listened to the warnings of the British and the Muslims and pushed for our own homeland ... that is the answer, not being beggars in one country or another, Hindu or Muslim. Master Tara Singh should have had the foresight, courage and integrity to push for Sikh freedom. Correct me if I am wrong but did he not go on a fast to the death, after having done ardaas, and then broke his fast without meeting his own pre-set conditions - just like Fateh Singh after him! What sort of Sikhs are these? The only man in recent history who kept his promise after doing ardaas and consequently died for it was the great Shaheed of 1984 ... and his glorious men!
13: Surinder (Massachusetts, U.S.A.), August 09, 2010, 11:24 AM.
N.Singh ji, so you are saying that we should have taken the advice emanating from the Muslims and the British even though they were ruled by their self-interests? Do you not see any problem with this logic?
14: N. Singh (Canada), August 09, 2010, 11:39 AM.
Surinder ji: I said 'warnings', not advice, to join or side with the British or Muslims. I see no problem with that logic whatsoever, in fact you only have to look at the events of the last few days and the brutal way in which one of the four Sikh men has been murdered under fabricated charges of terrorism to know that what they said was the complete truth! If I use your logic, it would appear by default that the decisions that were made at the time to stay with the Indians were better. Where have you been in the last 25 years?
15: N.Singh (Canada), August 09, 2010, 11:51 AM.
Surinder: Your silence on the mistreatment of Sikhs by the Hindu majority, as well as your "vitriolic" comments against the British and Muslims, makes me question whether you are looking at this from the Sikh perspective or not, and your intentions in posting here. I have found that certain self-interested groups like to engage in on-line discussions for the sole purpose of frustration rather than furthering intellectual debate ...
16: N.S. Dhesi (United Kingdom), August 10, 2010, 4:53 AM.
If one looks at Sikh history, the Sikhs were never people of action but of reaction. They reacted against the Afghan and Mughal tyranny and carved out independent principalities in the Punjab. Then, with the same enthusiasm, they went for each other's throats. The sheer independence of the Sikh character prevents any unified action. Ranjit Singh subverted all the independent Sikh principalities to his kingdom. To my mind it was not a Sikh kingdom but Ranjit Singh's kingdom. He did not trust the Sikhs and filled the key posts of his kingdom with people of other faiths, whose loyalty was to his person rather than the state. After Ranjit Singh's death, the Sikhs went on the self-destruct mode and handed Punjab to British on a platter. To my mind the sheer independence of the Sikh character is his moral strength and his biggest downfall as he is unwilling to act collectively. Sikhs would dare much and achieve much, but for their respective factions and have always been blind to the interests of the Sikh Panth. So please let us not blame individuals for our setbacks.
17: N. Singh (Canada), August 10, 2010, 10:47 AM.
I disagree with your analysis of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and his choices. It was not distrust which led him to appoint non-Sikhs to certain positions but his belief in equality and brotherhood of Man, which is sorely lacking in India today.
18: Kanwarjeet Singh (Franklin Park, New Jersey, U.S.A.), August 11, 2010, 1:39 AM.
N.S.Dhesi ji: The downfall of Sikhs can be simply attributed to their 'bholapan'. We are not as shrewd as the Hindus nor as 'kattar' (fanatic) as the Muslims. We are simple and straightforward people compared to the others. However, remember that simplicity is the virtue loved by God - this simplicity allows us to achieve success in alien lands such as Canada, U.S.A., Australia, U.K., New Zealand, Uganda, Kenya, Fiji, Holland and even some parts of South America. We have even been able to achieve this in diverse parts of India such as the South - and the reason behind all this is our simplicity and willingness to accept the local culture and blend in. Although we have not had our own Khalistan, we are slowly progressing towards making this world a Khalistan. Guess what would have happened if we would have taken a small piece of land in 1947! Our struggle in India has allowed us to venture across the globe and establish Sikhi - in God's plan, everything works out for the good - and this shall be so in our case too.
19: Preet (Oakland, California, U.S.A.), June 30, 2011, 4:54 PM.
Many historians have said that the British took pride in their Sikh soldiers. They had set rules for Sikh soldiers to keep their hair unshorn and wear their impressive turbans. In other words, Sikh soldiers did not struggle to keep their Sikhi, they were encouraged to observe it fully.
20: S.S. (British Columbia, Canada), January 28, 2013, 12:26 PM.
The British Army and the RIASC accepted Sikh soldiers in their article of faith - the turban - since two centuries ago. These soldiers fought many a bloody battle while wearing that article of faith and sacrificed their lives all over the world for the sake of freedom - from places like Saragarhi, Burma and Al Elamein to Monte Cassino and Vimy, the heroic tales of sacrifice by Sikh soldiers are endless. In the Second World War alone, 14 Victoria Crosses were awarded to the Sikhs - a per capita record given the size of the Sikh Regiments. The turban is as much a part of the British Army (and, by extension, any Commonwealth army that follows British tradition) as a bearskin, Kilmarnock, Gurkha hat or a Stetson. Stand up for what's right and deserved - not for hypocrisy and bigotry.