British Army examines plans to create a Sikh regiment

The head of the British Army is looking at proposals to recreate a Sikh regiment, a minister has said.
The Chief of the General Staff is examining the feasibility of a Sikh unit, including the possibility of a reserve company, and it “may well have merit”, Mark Francois told the Commons.
A new unit would inherit many of the “proud traditions of Sikh regiments” from the Army’s past, he said.
Thousands of Sikh soldiers served in the British Army in the 19th century and in the First and Second World Wars, and 10 Victoria Crosses have been won by soldiers serving in Sikh regiments.
Reviving a Sikh unit has been suggested several times in the past. One recent attempt was abandoned in 2007 by the Ministry of Defence amid fears that the move would be branded racist.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11430070/British-Army-examines-plans-to-create-a-Sikh-regiment.html

I don't really understand why they need their own unit?

We already have Ghurka battalions, why not Sikh ones?

nicko wrote:We already have Ghurka battalions,   why not Sikh ones?

The question is why.  'Why not' is not an answer.  In reading the story, they make the same lapse of reason:

Mark Francois wrote:"Would you not agree with me that it's high time to do away with the political correctness which infects some of this thinking and actually raise a Sikh regiment to serve in the country and make up a very serious gap in our Armed Forces?"

Instead of justifying the idea, apologists leap directly to defending the (assumed) allegation of racism, and perhaps the fact that a Sikh intelligence unit was used against its own during the Sikh separatist movement in the Amritsar's Golden Temple occupation, in 1984.  

But those are afterthoughts.  The question right now is what purpose would it serve to form a Sikh Regiment?  To move things along: to what use would such a regiment be put?  They seem almost to be avoiding that question.

the grey little world of the grey little liberalist


how about


we should also get rid of "scottish regiments", and "welsh regiments" after all it is totally wrong to have pride in being "welsh or scottish ....or sikh isnt it....

to the race to the bottom, dismal sameness, liberalist i suppose ANYTHING which provides a basis for "pride" should go....

of course a sikh regiment isnt raceist...thats utter babble and The sick workings of the leftist mind....
I have no doubt that such a regiment would not only be a matter of great pride to its men but would serve with the same distinction for which the proud sikhs are well known in our military history....

racist

Absolutely agree with both Nicko and Victor her, where there is a long history with Sikhs in the British army.

Sikhs won 4 V C s in the fighting in Burma, they also fought in El- Alamain and I think in Iraq.

Considering how the British army treated non-British regiments in the past this is a terribly racist idea. . Even if they are nice to this one it creates precedent and next thing you know you'll have a Modern day Churchill sending Good 'colonials' to their deaths to protect 'proper British'...

The real reason they want it is because it lets them create a separate set of rules for Sikhs because currently policies of western armies conflict with Sikh religious requirements. then Where do you stop? do you make a different regiment for each group? if the requirements are that unnecessary why have them in the first place?

darknessss wrote:the grey little world of the grey little liberalist

how about

we should also get rid of "scottish regiments", and "welsh regiments" after all it is totally wrong to have pride in being "welsh or scottish ....or sikh isnt it....

Big difference.  Scottish and Welsh regiments already exist.  Here we are talking about a start, not a finish.  And the question is, what for?

I agree with you, to the extent that it is premature to talk about racism.  That would be to discuss the 'why not' issue.  No, I'm curious why a RW government want's an ethnic regiment...what does it intend to do?

You can take pride and shove it up yer ass.  This is the 21st-century and we're not a bunch of 19th-centry Poms.  You thiink ISIL gives a shit? I'm wondering what a RW government is doing to start a war. We all know how RWers love their wars...did I hear someone say, boots on the ground? Fresh meat!

Original Quill wrote:

darknessss wrote:the grey little world of the grey little liberalist

how about

we should also get rid of "scottish regiments", and "welsh regiments" after all it is totally wrong to have pride in being "welsh or scottish ....or sikh isnt it....

Big difference.  Scottish and Welsh regiments already exist.  Here we are talking about a start, not a finish.  And the question is, what for?

I agree with you, to the extent that it is premature to talk about racism.  That would be to discuss the 'why not' issue.  No, I'm curious why a RW government want's an ethnic regiment...what does it intend to do?

You can take pride and shove it up yer ass.  This is the 21st-century and we're not a bunch of 19th-centry Poms.  You thiink ISIL gives a shit?  I'm wondering what a RW government is doing to start a war.  We all know how RWers love their wars...did I hear someone say, boots on the ground?    Fresh meat!

So did Sikh regiments once exist and there is much to be said for reinventing such a notion in a multicultural nation, where it seeks to further unite that nation through ethnic units, of which again we already have. It is like victor said, if you are going to deny this you then have to disband the rest. So you failed to see about patriotic traditions of the British army and this is far from racist, because there is no discrimination on who can join the armed forces, hence why the other regiments are not racist. Even this would not be 100% Sikh either, but the bases for such a regiment.
This has got nothing to do with any war and is more about recruiting people for the army, where it has been difficult at present. You revive old traditions and bring in a recruiting drive of ethnic groups currently lacking in the British army. If you do not like it, ell tough, I hardly think we need lessons from the Yanks on how to run an army, where their own special forces is modeled on the British and where even to this day the Yanks have never understand hearts and minds in combat, to the cost of them losing countless conflicts since the second world war. Even worse taking advise from the left during war, well, that is like hoisting up the white flag of surrender.

Ah, the infamous "white flag of surrender" and "dismal sameness" ... I long for the day in which the right actually tries to understand the values of the left, rather than constantly having to suffer these consistent, idiotic, blind, childish epithets ...

I strive to understand y'all's worldview from your perspective, giving the benefit of the doubt that you innocently and sincerely think your way is better -- why can't the right do the same? Why can't I and people who think like me be something more than strawmen in your eyes?

Ben_Reilly wrote:Ah, the infamous "white flag of surrender" and "dismal sameness" ... I long for the day in which the right actually tries to understand the values of the left, rather than constantly having to suffer these consistent, idiotic, blind, childish epithets ...

I strive to understand y'all's worldview from your perspective, giving the benefit of the doubt that you innocently and sincerely think your way is better -- why can't the right do the same? Why can't I and people who think like me be something more than strawmen in your eyes?

Irony at its best when you constantly sterotype the right.
It seems when the left have this sterotype placed on them, they do not like it but have no qualms on making such associations of the right.
That is irony for you Ben.
So maybe you should start trying to strive for the day you understand that within the right there is many views and to not place them all under one hat as you often do and make such woeful views about them.

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Ah, the infamous "white flag of surrender" and "dismal sameness" ... I long for the day in which the right actually tries to understand the values of the left, rather than constantly having to suffer these consistent, idiotic, blind, childish epithets ...

I strive to understand y'all's worldview from your perspective, giving the benefit of the doubt that you innocently and sincerely think your way is better -- why can't the right do the same? Why can't I and people who think like me be something more than strawmen in your eyes?

Irony at its best when you constantly sterotype the right.
It seems when the left have this sterotype placed on them, they do not like it but have no qualms on making such associations of the right.
That is irony for you Ben.
So maybe you should start trying to strive for the day you understand that within the right there is many views and to not place them all under one hat as you often do and make such woeful views about them.

But you'll note that I'm not one to stereotype the right, if you're being fair, as a true utilitarian. Usually when I make blanket statements about the right I try to confine myself either to the right that I have the most experience of in the U.S., or to the findings of neuroscience.

I'm one of those lefties who acknowledges the diversity of opinion among the right, everything from the pro-business Log-Cabin Republicans to the socially-conservative (and rather anti-corporate) Tea Party movement and even the libertarian right, who would probably give up on war against the gays and the drug users if they could get a little less government out of it. One reason I do that is because I really do want to find common ground and emphasize that we're not really all that different from one another.

But at the same time, I'm a proud liberal who will not surrender or acquiesce to any authoritarian power, nor try to make everyone be the same or act the same -- nor do I feel that my ideology asks the contrary from me.

I love human diversity and human freedom, and if I also love peace, it doesn't make me a white-flag-waving wimp. And if I love equality, it does not mean I dream of a gray sameness rather than to celebrate the beautiful diversity of human cultures.

And honestly, I'd rather someone literally spit in my face than think I support either of those notions.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Irony at its best when you constantly sterotype the right.
It seems when the left have this sterotype placed on them, they do not like it but have no qualms on making such associations of the right.
That is irony for you Ben.
So maybe you should start trying to strive for the day you understand that within the right there is many views and to not place them all under one hat as you often do and make such woeful views about them.

But you'll note that I'm not one to stereotype the right, if you're being fair, as a true utilitarian. Usually when I make blanket statements about the right I try to confine myself either to the right that I have the most experience of in the U.S., or to the findings of neuroscience.

I'm one of those lefties who acknowledges the diversity of opinion among the right, everything from the pro-business Log-Cabin Republicans to the socially-conservative (and rather anti-corporate) Tea Party movement and even the libertarian right, who would probably give up on war against the gays and the drug users if they could get a little less government out of it. One reason I do that is because I really do want to find common ground and emphasize that we're not really all that different from one another.

But at the same time, I'm a proud liberal who will not surrender or acquiesce to any authoritarian power, nor try to make everyone be the same or act the same -- nor do I feel that my ideology asks the contrary from me.

I love human diversity and human freedom, and if I also love peace, it doesn't make me a white-flag-waving wimp. And if I love equality, it does not mean I dream of a gray sameness rather than to celebrate the beautiful diversity of human cultures.

And honestly, I'd rather someone literally spit in my face than think I support either of those notions.

I beg to differ and on many occasions you do club together people on the right and make views about their intelligence and their ability to understand many things. Sorry Ben you are guilty of this, which is why I make such views in return. I never used to, but I get bored of the left thinking they are of supreme intellect and cut about others, basically making some political racial view they are superior.
There is many diverse views within the right and it is more your view of the American right which I believe allows you wrongly to club together those of the right in Europe for example as if they are of the same thinking when many are not.

Britain with a center right wing Goverment in the Tories recently champion gay rights for marriage, they uphold equal rights for many groups. People think the tories are harsh on poverty which I think they look wrongly at where they want people out of pverty by training to change a poor ethos this country has. One where people think they demand everything on a plate, one where they do not take any pride in work. It does not want to have nation reliant on benefits, but for people to work. Yes there are things wrong within Britain how the minimum wage is too low, but it has allowed our economy to thrive because many businesses are here based on our lower wages, of which we would lose if we raise them to high. So there is both positive and negatives to think in regards to all this. But how some make out they are the nasty party is untrue.

Given, I don't know as much about the European right (which are basically the equivalent of lefty gay-rights activists in the U.S.).

But I do strongly suspect we have most of the really bright people. I'm thinking you suspect this as well

Ben_Reilly wrote:Given, I don't know as much about the European right (which are basically the equivalent of lefty gay-rights activists in the U.S.).

But I do strongly suspect we have most of the really bright people. I'm thinking you suspect this as well

No worries Ben and to be fair you are not like some on the left who do take some superiority complex of being better than the right.
So fair point, hardly left activits mind.

I'm sorry, that was quite probably mean of me to say. I'm a product of my environment -- I struggle to see anyone who believes in the utility of government, the necessity of taxation (at any level) and the morality of equal rights as being a quote-unquote true conservative.

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Big difference.  Scottish and Welsh regiments already exist.  Here we are talking about a start, not a finish.  And the question is, what for?

I agree with you, to the extent that it is premature to talk about racism.  That would be to discuss the 'why not' issue.  No, I'm curious why a RW government want's an ethnic regiment...what does it intend to do?

You can take pride and shove it up yer ass.  This is the 21st-century and we're not a bunch of 19th-centry Poms.  You thiink ISIL gives a shit?  I'm wondering what a RW government is doing to start a war.  We all know how RWers love their wars...did I hear someone say, boots on the ground?    Fresh meat!

So did Sikh regiments once exist and there is much to be said for reinventing such a notion in a multicultural nation, where it seeks to further unite that nation through ethnic units, of which again we already have. It is like victor said, if you are going to deny this you then have to disband the rest. So you failed to see about patriotic traditions of the British army and this is far from racist, because there is no discrimination on who can join the armed forces, hence why the other regiments are not racist. Even this would not be 100% Sikh either, but the bases for such a regiment.

There are two ways to argue this.  If you want unity, apply the melting pot notion and eliminate all distinctions between units.  I'm not saying I'm in favor of that; just that that's the way the theory works.

Brasidas wrote:This has got nothing to do with any war and is more about recruiting people for the army, where it has been difficult at present. You revive old traditions and bring in a recruiting drive of ethnic groups currently lacking in the British army. If you do not like it, ell tough, I hardly think we need lessons from the Yanks on how to run an army, where their own special forces is modeled on the British and where even to this day the Yanks have never understand hearts and minds in combat, to the cost of them losing countless conflicts since the second world war. Even worse taking advise from the left during war, well, that is like hoisting up the white flag of surrender.

If it's not about war, why recruit people?  People are not needed if we do not act belligerently.  Here we see, on the one hand, Europe concerned by ISIL; and, on the other hand, we find your concerns about recruitment. I see a suspicious causal connection.  I don't need to bite on your America-bashing comments.  It's simple analytics: why arm soldiers if you are not going to point them at someone and tell them to shoot?

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

So did Sikh regiments once exist and there is much to be said for reinventing such a notion in a multicultural nation, where it seeks to further unite that nation through ethnic units, of which again we already have. It is like victor said, if you are going to deny this you then have to disband the rest. So you failed to see about patriotic traditions of the British army and this is far from racist, because there is no discrimination on who can join the armed forces, hence why the other regiments are not racist. Even this would not be 100% Sikh either, but the bases for such a regiment.

There are two ways to argue this.  If you want unity, apply the melting pot notion and eliminate all distinctions between units.  I'm not saying I'm in favor of that; just that that's the way the theory works.

Brasidas wrote:This has got nothing to do with any war and is more about recruiting people for the army, where it has been difficult at present. You revive old traditions and bring in a recruiting drive of ethnic groups currently lacking in the British army. If you do not like it, ell tough, I hardly think we need lessons from the Yanks on how to run an army, where their own special forces is modeled on the British and where even to this day the Yanks have never understand hearts and minds in combat, to the cost of them losing countless conflicts since the second world war. Even worse taking advise from the left during war, well, that is like hoisting up the white flag of surrender.

If it's not about war, why recruit people?  People are not needed if we do not act belligerently.  Here we see, on the one hand, Europe concerned by ISIL; and, on the other hand, we find your concerns about recruitment.  I see a suspicious causal connection.  I don't need to bite on your America-bashing comments.  It's simple analytics: why arm soldiers if you are not going to point them at someone and tell them to shoot?

Really, we have a growing problem with the Ukraine which has the potential of turning into a third world war. We have the defense of British interests around the world and the growing threat of extremism within Islam. You see many things Quill that make little or no sense. Thankfully we need to keep a well trained army as this country has always done inm readiness for any eventuality. Yes why keep trained soldiers unless  they are used? Because you never know when you might have to use them. Look at this example of Iraq, troops not very well trained that got battered by ISIS. That should be enough to tell your approach is short sighted. I can give you countless examples, soldiers are trained in the possible eventuality they are needed, whichas been more often than not over the last 100 years.
Peace is a long way off yet.

Brasidas wrote:Really, we have a growing problem with the Ukraine which has the potential of turning into a third world war. We have the defense of British interests around the world and the growing threat of extremism within Islam. You see many things Quill that make little or no sense. Thankfully we need to keep a well trained army as this country has always done inm readiness for any eventuality. Yes why keep trained soldiers unless  they are used? Because you never know when you might have to use them. Look at this example of Iraq, troops not very well trained that got battered by ISIS. That should be enough to tell your approach is short sighted. I can give you countless examples, soldiers are trained in the possible eventuality they are needed, whichas been more often than not over the last 100 years.
Peace is a long way off yet.

Frankly my friend, you've got us.  We've got you covered, and if you doubt it get Argentina to start its shenanigans again.   You guys retired your fleet in 2010.

The Telegraph wrote:The Government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review will also confirm that Britain will not have an effective “carrier strike” capability – a working aircraft carrier equipped with fighter jets – until 2020.

David Cameron had wanted to scrap one of the two carriers, the largest and most expensive vessels in British naval history, but the review found that contracts signed by the previous government meant that doing so would end up costing the taxpayer more than going ahead with both. As a result, the two carriers will enter service, but one will be mothballed as soon as possible.

HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales are the future flagships of the nation, and they only carry helocopters.

Your real defense is in NATO.  And NATO is essentially the US, with the moral support of a couple of dozen other nations...who are given ships, F-16s and other toys to play with by the US.  Ever since Korea, the US pays for, and bears the brunt of all the shit as it comes down around the world.

The only reason why Britain is turning to its own military today is, the US ain't interested in fighting around the globe anymore.  And now, ISIL--the former henchmen of Iraq--is expanding westward in North Africa, suggesting similar instincts perhaps in Europe.  It's no coincidence that HAMAS is honing its missile accuracy in Gaza, and Britain is uploading new units in its Army.

Shows how behind the times you are espcially with our Navy being very active and with some of the most state of art destroyers in the world, which is really again deflecting away from this regiment which is being proposed to being drawn up.

[i]Destroyers are part of the backbone of the Royal Navy, committed around the world 365 days a year hunting pirates, drug runners or submarines, defending the Fleet from air attack, and providing humanitarian aid after natural disasters.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipment/ships/destroyers/type-45-destroyer

Actually our main Defense is the Military of the European Union, which is even bigger the US armed forces. You really are behind the times Quill.
Thus we are a very important part of this military force.
The last point is nothing short of made up conjecture

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Really, we have a growing problem with the Ukraine which has the potential of turning into a third world war. We have the defense of British interests around the world and the growing threat of extremism within Islam. You see many things Quill that make little or no sense. Thankfully we need to keep a well trained army as this country has always done inm readiness for any eventuality. Yes why keep trained soldiers unless  they are used? Because you never know when you might have to use them. Look at this example of Iraq, troops not very well trained that got battered by ISIS. That should be enough to tell your approach is short sighted. I can give you countless examples, soldiers are trained in the possible eventuality they are needed, whichas been more often than not over the last 100 years.
Peace is a long way off yet.

Frankly my friend, you've got us.  We've got you covered, and if you doubt it get Argentina to start its shenanigans again.   You guys retired your fleet in 2010.

The Telegraph wrote:The Government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review will also confirm that Britain will not have an effective “carrier strike” capability – a working aircraft carrier equipped with fighter jets – until 2020.

David Cameron had wanted to scrap one of the two carriers, the largest and most expensive vessels in British naval history, but the review found that contracts signed by the previous government meant that doing so would end up costing the taxpayer more than going ahead with both. As a result, the two carriers will enter service, but one will be mothballed as soon as possible.

HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales are the future flagships of the nation, and they only carry helocopters.

Your real defense is in NATO.  And NATO is essentially the US, with the moral support of a couple of dozen other nations...who are given ships, F-16s and other toys to play with by the US.  Ever since Korea, the US pays for, and bears the brunt of all the shit as it comes down around the world.

The only reason why Britain is turning to its own military today is, the US ain't interested in fighting around the globe anymore.  And now, ISIL--the former henchmen of Iraq--is expanding westward in North Africa, suggesting similar instincts perhaps in Europe.  It's no coincidence that HAMAS is honing its missile accuracy in Gaza, and Britain is uploading new units in its Army.

Providing Lockheed Martin come up with the jets that are on order in time the carriers won't just be carrying choppers.

But you are right in some of the other points you have made in that the US support would be vital in any really large international conflict that may break out but under the banner of NATO that's pretty much guaranteed anyway.

The US have even got much of the Arms sales worldwide buttoned up to the extent that we can't even sell our Typhoon jet to any other country without the US saying it's ok.

You are right HMS Queen Elizabeth is made to launch fixed-wing aircraft, Irn, as she has a ski-jump bow--albeit modified.  She's a magnificent beast...a real beauty.

She looks great, but one Submarine and one Torpedo could sink her!

nicko wrote:She looks great,  but one Submarine and one Torpedo could sink her!

Absolutely!  That's why they take all those precautions.

I once watched the supercarrier USS Carl Vinson come into port in San Francisco one weekend.  They never travel without a full task force...destroyers, cruisers, with 4-Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight helos in the air constantly, and at least two McDonnell-Douglas F/A-18s circling overhead (they carry 80-90 aircraft).  Out to sea, they have AWACs and ASW planes in the air constantly, in addition to numerous anti-submarine ships working in concert. All of this, and they work and move as a complete unit.

While you make a good point nicko, today the supercarriers are built with a modular design that makes it difficult to completely sink them.  Nevertheless, advancements in defense are matched by advancements in offense.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:She looks great,  but one Submarine and one Torpedo could sink her!

Absolutely!  That's why they take all those precautions.

I once watched the supercarrier USS Carl Vinson come into port in San Francisco one weekend.  They never travel without a full task force...destroyers, cruisers, with 4-Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight helos in the air constantly, and at least two McDonnell-Douglas F/A-18s circling overhead (they carry 80-90 aircraft).  Out to sea, they have AWACs and ASW planes in the air constantly, in addition to numerous anti-submarine ships working in concert. All of this, and they work and move as a complete unit.

While you make a good point nicko, today the supercarriers are built with a modular design that makes it difficult to completely sink them.  Nevertheless, advancements in defense are matched by advancements in offense.

Spot on Quill. The escort ships provide a wide protection for the carrier and technology these days has come a long way from what was available in the battle of the Atlantic where even there the U-boats were eventually tracked down from both the surface and the air and destroyed. There's massive protection from them now even without breaking the codes of the enemy which no doubt did help as well.