TRADITION: Sikh cadets in Surrey a reflection of military history

The Canadian Forces feature at least 15 regiments that reflect ethnic diversity, such as the Seaforth Highlanders, pictured above. Ward Perrin/PNG

Having a cadet group called the Surrey Sikhs would fit into a history of loyal military service.

Sikhs have had a long, proud military tradition and using the word ‘Sikh’ to identify a regiment within the Canadian military should prove to be an asset for the forces.

Doing some research on the topic, it becomes very obvious that the Sikh military has existed for centuries and has stood proud in many wars, including the Battle of Sargarhi.

The Sikh military tradition dates back to the founders of their religion with the sixth Sikh Guru, Guru Hargobind (1595 to 1644), when Sikhs fought their first battles against Mughal oppression.

Highly skilled Sikh soldiers were later quickly integrated into the British Indian Army and proved invaluable and loyal.

Sikh regiments have served in the British army in battlefields around the world including Sudan, fighting slave traders in central Africa, in Persia and in the Middle East.

More than 65,000 Sikh soldiers fought in the First World War as part of the British Army and more than 300,000 Sikhs fought German and Japanese tyranny in Second World War.

The Gurkhas, who hail from the Nepal region of India, have been part of the Indian contingent of the British Army for more than two centuries and have proven that defending a multicultural nation can come from a particular ethnic regiment of soldiers.

The Canadian Forces have also proven this with at least 15 regiments that reflect ethnic diversity. For example: Seaforth Highlanders, Canadian Scottish Regiment and Sudbury’s Irish Regiment of Canada, just to name a few.

Building an inclusive, diverse community can be very complex. By allowing cadets from a particular religious faith to form their own unit to perhaps one day serve and protect our nation would definitely be a Canadian thing to do.

I see nothing wrong with their name being called Surrey Sikhs or with this group to exist for that fact.

Looking at some of the past history of the Sikh military, Canada would be a fortunate country to have such a fighting force on its side.

As one letter writer put it: “These people are willing to put their religion on the line for Canada. Particularly when you consider that they would rather wear a turban instead of a steel helmet on the battlefield.”

At times unfortunately I believe the Sikh community in Canada struggles with a perceived image problem.

With encouraging Sikh youth to join the cadets and be passionate about their commitment towards Canada, we will hopefully see positive changes on how this sect is viewed.

Where I identify a larger issue in all of this is when one of the organizers spearheading this discussion commented that “without Sikh in the name the cadet corps wouldn’t have drawn as much interest.”

This points us to a greater issue within the South Asian community.

Our diverse communities need to become more involved in activities that pertain not only to their own culture or religion. To support initiatives such as this should not limit us to reach out to mainstream causes.

In this case I honestly believe diversity can work in isolation and in partnership with the Canadian Forces for the betterment of our nation and in keeping with British tradition.

Let us not allow a name or religion to become a stumbling block for the greater good.

Ken Herar is a freelance columnist with the Abbotsford-Mission Times.

To read more about Abbotsford, visit the Times at www.abbotsfordtimes.com

Tags: cadets, military tradition, Surrey Sikhs

ed says:

October 20, 2012 at 2:04 pm

there were 9 sikhs in the candian army in world war one
and only 1800 living in Canada in 1944 – so they were if at a ll a small part of our Military
also the had gained the right for voting in canada in 1947
Unlike the aboriginals of canada – which obtained the right in 1960
why shouldnt i beleive i have rights as a Canadian – my family goes back 4 generations – I want my say – without being called a racist – At least we stayed and built this country – the west was founded by eastern european settlers who embraced the new canadian way and assimilited
GET ON BOARD

Sukh Hayre says:

October 20, 2012 at 5:00 pm

Ed,

Thanks for getting numbers.

What would also be interesting to know is, why did the Canadian cadets/army even give this regiment the impression that they were going to be able to name their regiment as they pleased? Again, it would be interesting to know the politics behind how this entire issue began.

What was the original decision based on?

One last note, you hurt your own assimilation argument with the “GET ON BOARD” statement. (I can understand that this could just be frustration that this is even an issue being discussed, but it can also be interpreted differently, in a manner that is not helpful to the discussion)

It oould be this very angry tone in general that has Canadians of Indian desent wanting their own regiment because they want to be cadets, but just do not feel welcomed in existing regiments. I have no idea if racism is an issue. Again, this is another area that may require further investigation. I don’t think anyone not in the system knows if this is an issue or not.

In regards to assimilation, my understanding is that by the third generation, families are completely assimilated into the Canadian culture. The first generation often winds up creating a “disruption” as they learn the ways of their new country and try to hold onto what they believe makes them who they are. The reality is, in their homes, they fight this battle every day as their children try desparately to assimulate, and hold onto the positives their own culture provides them. But, by the third generation, the children rarely speak their mother tongue. First generation immigrants may not appreciate this progression, but this is what they signed up for when they brought their families to this country.

So, in the end, time will heal all wounds.

And in regards to naming cadet regiments, before this issue can intelligently be discussed further, I think we need to hear from the Cadet organization in regards to what they did that allowed this situation to arise and what the logic was in how they came to their final decision regarding this matter.

We can only hope that they, instead of being politically correct, will instead give us the truth.

Cheers.

Sukh Hayre says:

October 20, 2012 at 5:16 pm

Although I find it hard to believe that racism is an issue in the cadets organization because whenever I see these kids out and about, they come across as a very nice group of kids.

And they usually seem to be made up of a diversity of nationalities. My experience being mostly with the kids I have seen practicing at the North Delta rec centre and the kids I often see collecting donations around Remembrance Day throughout the Lower Mainland.

From what I’ve seen, they seem to be a great group of Canadians.

Jeff says:

October 19, 2012 at 9:06 am

Agreed. Three of my family members have died fighting for this country. You can have all the regiments you want named Punjab in India or wherever, but you have to earn it in this country first.

The Canadian way is not to ask for recognition. So why not sign up, fight for your country and then see if you deserve recognition. Try being a true Canadian and just shut up, fight and do your job. And then thank your lucky stars you are even in this country to begin with.

Sukh Hayre says:

October 19, 2012 at 1:02 pm

I do thank my lucky stars everyday that I am in this country. I think we all should.

JJ says:

October 18, 2012 at 2:13 pm

Why can’t people understand that nowhere in the Canadian military are names of religions used! Period.

It’s interesting how these people so strongly want to identify with their homeland and not Canada. They want it to be “Sikh Cadets” or “Punjab Cadets”.

Why not just “New Canadians Cadets” or “Recent Immigrants Cadets” because if you had been in Canada a long time you would be just fine with the names the way they are.

Sukh Hayre says:

October 18, 2012 at 2:36 pm

You are right. That is why having “Sikh” in the name is not being accepted.

But what is wrong with “Punjab” if we are okay with Highlanders, Irish, Scotish, etc.?

Whether the cadets in question are recent immigrants or not is not the issue.

It would appear that heritage/homeland has been an acceptable reference in these units, and that rule should be applied consistently. No favourtism for any group.

JJ says:

October 19, 2012 at 9:00 am

Except those regiments have nearly 100 years of exemplary service fighting for Canada or suffered massive losses.

As of yet, those from Punjab have yet to distinguish themselves in battle or sacrifice when fighting for Canada.

Previous regiments were not just named willy-nilly but instead for situations where Canadians from those areas distinguished themselves admirably in battle. That’s why you don’t have a “ukranian” regiment and only one or two french regimental names.

So you don’t just get a regimental name because you feel like you are owed it.

Please learn about Canadian history and military history before making comments that make you sound like you don’t know much about Canada.

Sukh Hayre says:

October 19, 2012 at 12:52 pm

Insightful. This is how people learn. Thank you. So, this is recognition for past service. In all the media coverage I’ve heard, seen, and read, this has never been mentioned.

You would think someone would have brought it up.

You are right, I should have questioned, why were these regiments were so named. By looking into it, I would have learned the reason behind it. I was intellectually lazy, and for that I apologize.

Sukh Hayre says:

October 19, 2012 at 1:00 pm

The reality is, most of the people in Canada who came from India came after WWII, so, the Sikh community may not have played a very large role, as Canadians, on the battlefield.

Again, very interesting. I would love it if someone did the research and could provide the numbers, but this argument seems reasonable if the explanation you give in regards to how regiments are named is true.

ed says:

October 20, 2012 at 2:02 pm

there were 9 sikhs in the candian army in world war one
and only 1800 living in Canada in 1944 – so they were if at a ll a small part of our Military
also the had gained the right for voting in canada in 1947
Unlike the aboriginals of canada – which obtained the right in 1960
why shouldnt i beleive i have rights as a Canadian – my family goes back 4 generations – I want my say – without being called a racist – At least we stayed and built this country – the west was founded by eastern european settlers who embraced the new canadian way and assimilited
GET ON BOARD

Sukh Hayre says:

October 19, 2012 at 1:38 pm

But did the army not already okay this regiment? Didn’t they just ask that instead of “Sikh”, they name a prominent Sikh individual? If that is the case, what am I missing in regards to what the rules are for choosing an acceptable regiment name? The army must have followed some protocol? No?

Sukh Hayre says:

October 19, 2012 at 1:40 pm

Or do you feel that the army’s protocol is too “politically correct” now, and the naming of the regiments in recognition of past service is not the way things are done, but the way you would like to see them done? That would be a completely different discussion.

gary says:

October 18, 2012 at 3:56 pm

punjabis the birth place of the our gurus its where sikhi started, name would honour such things, while sikhs represent canada, im sureu wont mind who took a bullet for u under any name? cuz i bet none of you would join the armed forces lol

greg says:

October 18, 2012 at 10:09 am

pete u show your racism n hate daily still eh

Pete says:

October 18, 2012 at 9:56 am

It’s just another example of an immigrant group wanting to be different and separate rather than being proud of an existing Canadian tradition.

Sukh Hayre says:

October 18, 2012 at 9:36 am

Also, how would farm equipment and tractors get into shere punjab?

Flying all this stuff in and out of shere punjab would be excessively expensive.

And that would still not solve the most important issue in regards to the local economy, which would be the lack of access to oil.

farmer says:

October 18, 2012 at 1:50 pm

wow seems like u hate ur own, dont have faith in your own, are u sure u even know ur own? i dont think so

Sukh Hayre says:

October 25, 2012 at 1:49 pm

farmer,

I try my best to not hate any of the 7 billion plus that are “my own”.

I’ve listed the concerns I believe the people of the Punjab would face if they were given a “LAND-LOCKED” country of their own.

I’m guessing the only way this would happen is if the rest of the world pressured India to allow it to happen as this is not something India is interested in doing otherwise.

So, now, give me some practical solutions to the problems a land-locked Punjab would face? It’s not about faith. It’s about reality.

Do you think that India is going to just let the people of the Punjab cross the border into India to get their goods to the ocean? Do you think India is going to allow oil to be pipelined, or delivered into the Punjab?

Why would they do this?

What happens then?

In your mind, how do things play out from here?

Are the people of the Punjab better off with this new reality you have created?

Isn’t that the goal, to do what is best for the people of the Punjab?

What do you think best accomplishes this goal? Is what you want to do realistic?

Tell me how oil and the other imports that the Punjab would need would get there and how the Punjab economy would integrate with the rest of the world’s economy?

So, please don’t question my love for people. Give me practical solutions to the problems they would actually encounter.

Or, after what you want gets done, you get to wipe your hands cleans and leave it to your faith in “your people” to somehow magically make it all work.

I’m sorry, I need a plan before your “words” somehow show you love your people more than I do.

Sukh Hayre says:

October 18, 2012 at 9:27 am

For example, how would oil get into shere punjab?

Or new cars, trucks, appliances, tv’s, etc.

And how would the goods produced in shere punjab be exported to the rest of the world?

ed says:

October 18, 2012 at 9:47 am

the truth of the matter is – SIkh have had very little invovlement in the two world wars for canada

As canadians we sent our troops to defend the world – not just our country – do you really beleive that those world war would have fallen on our lands – not likely
the sikhs a have a great warrior like history – fighting everyone they disagreed with on their own lands – But truthfully they fought for the british empire – and we were just a part of that – it is a RELIGOUS FAITH AND SHOUILD NOT BE ALLOWED ANY NAMING RIGHTS OF OUR MILITARY – The religion itself is barely older than our country and quite frankly was contrived by men – some were appointed by previous gurus some were sons etc – it appears to be have contrived by the persucution of the poor and a way to fight the injustices of the land at the time
I say no to this – also this eems to be written about over and over in this paper – i also noticed a editorial in the abbotsford paper – i must say your group is well organized and quite inclusive – this is not what canada is about – we are about religous freedoms, and the right to persue our own direction – why do you want to isolate yourselves so badly

Sukh Hayre says:

October 18, 2012 at 9:17 am

One last off-topic thought:

If shere punjab where to win its freedom back from India, then what?

From what I can see, this region would be land-locked.

How would goods get in and out of shere punjab?

Would that really be better for the people to be isolated from the rest of the world, unable to trade?

Would this new border-enforced islation not give India the leverage to negotiate economic issues to India’s advantage?

Would the average person in shere punjab really be better off?

Sukh Hayre says:

October 18, 2012 at 9:18 am

whoops, second sentence – should be “were”, not “where”.

Sukh Hayre says:

October 18, 2012 at 9:20 am

Whoops again. second last sentence – should be “isolation”, not “islation”

Tim says:

October 17, 2012 at 10:12 pm

I think for what the Sikhs have done for the Commonwealth and Canada over the last Century its the least we can do. Let them name a Cadet hall after theirselves. I’m Irish but very interested in History. For Centuries they were a warrior class I compare to Spartans and Samauri’s. Field games they play for fun would put us in the hospital for a few weeks .

Sukh Hayre says:

October 17, 2012 at 10:06 pm

If anything I have said is completely off base, I would greatly appreciate anyone’s insight on things I have failed to comprehend.

My responses are in no way meant to offend. They are only meant to share my understanding of reality. Everyone has their own interpretation.

I think much can be accomplished through dialogue.The original issue has been expanded quite a bit in this discussion, but I appreciate the back and forth this issue has generated.

George says:

October 17, 2012 at 1:34 pm

It’s a pity we can’t ask Indira Ghandi what she thinks of her Sikh bodyguard.

Sukh Hayre says:

October 17, 2012 at 1:52 pm

Never paint a group of people with the same brush for the actions of a single person.

“You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.” Mahatma Gandhi

jason says:

October 17, 2012 at 8:54 pm

gandhi lol he was a traitor of bhagat singh, lol do u even know history of ur own ppl or u just using a fake name sukhi lol

Sukh Hayre says:

October 17, 2012 at 9:12 pm

“When the rich wage war, it is the poor who die.” – Jean-Paul Sartre

The people of the Punjab may not like being part of India. What has happened in the past may not be right (just like the fact that you, me, and every other immigrant is here because someone’s land was conquered).

The people in the Punjab must live with the reality that geography dictates. The Punjab is a region with a population of 28 million people. India is a country with a population of 1.3 billion people. So, like it or not, if the rest of India does wants to keep the Punjab (and its fertile lands) as part of India, there isn’t much that the people of the Punjab can do.

The Punjabi people may not like this, but they understand their reality. I think the problem they face is people who are once-removed from that reality (have escaped to the richness of developed countries), are still trying to fight for something they believe in, but the fight itself does not affect them in their daily lives (or the wealth and leisure they get to enjoy in their new “home” countries.

If the aboriginal people asked everyone in Canada to go back to their country of origin, would you leave?

Sukh Hayre says:

October 17, 2012 at 9:20 pm

Would you fight on the side of the aboriginals to kick out every non-aboriginal (including your own family)?

Sounds ridiculus right?

“The strong do as they wish, while the weak suffer as they must.” – Thucydides

It isn’t right, but that is the geopolitical reality we live with in this world.

mandeep says:

October 18, 2012 at 10:03 am

wow lol so its ok to kill our ppl daily, distruct our holly books, flood outr land punjab with drugs, take our water away thatbelongs to thestate of punjab? u are a discrace to punjabis all over… say that to the face of a man whos mom was raped due to ill will from hindu govt, or whos dad was killed in a fake indian incounter, maybe thats what 1%ers like u need

Sukh Hayre says:

October 25, 2012 at 1:33 pm

Mandeep,

No, its not okay.

All I ask is that you provide workable solutions.

What should be done? And who should do it?

Is a independent Punjab the solution?

If so, how would this land-locked country get oil, and everything else it needs?

And how would it export its goods?

Who would invest in such a country?

What would happen to the economy and the people living there?

Would they be better off?

Sukh Hayre says:

October 17, 2012 at 9:40 pm

But, back to the original issue, would it not be an honour to shere punjab if the cadets used the name, Surrey Punjab cadets?

And if that works for both sides, is that not an acceptable win-win?

mike says:

October 17, 2012 at 8:53 pm

who cares what she thinks, she killed thousands of innocent sikhs including little babies, and still didnt beleive in her own hindus to be strong enough guards she kept sikh bodyguards still, & boy they were tru to their ppl and heros to us all

Sukh Hayre says:

October 17, 2012 at 9:56 pm

Mike, do you believe that Sikhs are better than Hindus?

And if so, why do you believe this?

Is this something that is taught in the Sikh religion? Because I don’t think that is what Sikhism is about.

mike says:

October 17, 2012 at 1:22 pm

copy & paste that link, it will teach u ppl alot commenting on here, just like that sikhs did alot for canada as well

Sukh Hayre says:

October 17, 2012 at 1:09 pm

“Let us not allow a name or religion to become a stumbling block for the greater good”

The above applies equally to both sides in the debate.

Would the name Surrey Punjabi cadets not work for both sides as the Punjab is a region/state in India, and anyone wanting to join this regiment would know that Sikhism is the predominant religion of this region.

I say Punjabi instead of Punjab only because Punjab, unfortunately, has such a negative/racist connotation attached to it.

Or, Punjab in the name could be used to help overcome this as we move/progress forward.

mike says:

October 17, 2012 at 1:18 pm

bullay tere sukh, sharm ni ondi? punjab has that name attatched to it why? shere punjab was a country until it was taken from us, educateurself of the genocides and atrocities ur ppl went thru for that name & still are. bara changa sikh ha tu sukh

Sukh Hayre says:

October 17, 2012 at 1:43 pm

Mike,

Does what I have said still not apply?

Would it then not be an honour to have this regiment named the Surrey Punjab regiment?

Sukh Hayre says:

October 17, 2012 at 1:50 pm

In regards to “my people”, I was born human. And you are right, humanity has suffered great genocides and atrocities (and still does).

“What we do to each other, are the worst things that we do.” – John Mellencamp.

jessi says:

October 17, 2012 at 12:13 pm

well if we have names under some european places sikhs and anyother deserve that right, its their coutry much as ours we are all immigrants i think some of us forget the country all belongs to natives

Jeff says:

October 18, 2012 at 9:50 am

Well rightly or wrongly, the natives lost power of this land.

And we are NOT all immigrants. Some people’s forefathers came and created this country and settled before the country existed. You can’t be an immigrant when you created the country.

You immigrated (or your relatives) to a European based country. Traditions, culture, laws etc were ALREADY created based on European ways BEFORE you arrived.

Secondly, SIKHISM IS A RELIGION. Canadian military regiments are based on LOCATION NOT RELIGION!!

Pete says:

October 18, 2012 at 2:05 pm

The country does not belong to natives. They gave it up or it was taken from them, whether by force, collusion or other means. And for the record, they now have more land under their control than they ever did when settlers arrived. So in actual fact, they have taken land that wasn’t theirs to begin with!

That’s like saying the US belongs to Britain because they were there first. No, the US got rid of the British.

Sukh Hayre says:

October 18, 2012 at 2:31 pm

So, if the U.S. decided they wanted to take ownership of the oilsands( whether by force, collusion, or other means), it would be their right to do so?

It probably wouldn’t be that difficult to march through Alberta, produce a military victory and claim ownership of one of the most valuable natural resources in the world.

Or if the Americans wanted to take ownership of the lands where potash is mined, just because they are more powerful, would you be on their side, as that is their right?

You might not be on their side, but in your books, it would be something that would have to be accepted because they are more militarily powerful than us?

Or was there s certain time in history that the “might is right” rule became obsolete?

Or does it just not apply to the Canada/U.S. relationship because it is “different”?

Remember, nations have interest, not friends.

You see how things can get complex very quickly if you carry your logic through to its inevitable conclusion.

Pete says:

October 19, 2012 at 8:54 am

First of all, the biggest mistake is applying today’s standards to historical actions. The standards for waging war on a sovereign nation are much different today than 200 years ago. So that comparison is incorrect.

Secondly, you are talking about one sovereign nation invading another with Canada vs. the US. This never happened with natives. So that comparison is incorrect.

However, if one country invades another for whatever reason and wins the war then that’s the end of it. Should all countries that took over land in previous wars give it all back? No, that is impractical.

I’m not saying what happened to the natives was right, but it has happened and you don’t go around trying to undo everything that went wrong in history.

You should really read about the War of 1812 and then the 1938 Balfour Declaration as your points #1 and #2 are not correct.

Sukh Hayre says:

October 19, 2012 at 1:10 pm

I’m not saying historical actions can or should be reversed. All I’m saying is that maybe we feel standards are different today, but if push came to shove, who is to say that the old standards would not come back into play?

Sukh Hayre says:

October 18, 2012 at 3:10 pm

Think the U.S. would never do that to Canada?

1. Remember 1812?

2. I believe that the U.S. did not recognize Canada as a country until after WWI.

3. Here is a video you may want to watch in regards to what “influence” the U.S. may already have over the oilsands (remember, the oil from the oilsands sells to the U.S. for $90 a barrel whereas the going rate for the rest of the world is around $115 a barrel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyI_1VYt8pQ

Jeff says:

October 17, 2012 at 12:05 pm

Why don’t you just joing other regiments and be a proud Canadian and proud of our European heritage that already exists?

Why do you need to identify yourself as Sikh or Indo Canadian? Why not just Canadian? I don’t go around saying I’m a Scottish-Canadian or protestant-Canadian and in the city of Richmond, I’m a minority!

Pete says:

October 17, 2012 at 11:50 am

Such ignorance of our culture!

First of all, Highlanders are Scottish so using those two regiemnts isn’t an example of ethnic diversity in the armed forces.

Secondly, all those “ethnic” regiments are names of locations. Sikhism is a religion and not a location.

There are no Catholic Highlanders or Protestant Blackwatch regiments in the armed forces.

Canadian armed forces are secular and will remain so.

bobby says:

October 17, 2012 at 12:14 pm

hey pete get out of ur cacoon, read jessies comments educate urself be4 commenting

Pete says:

October 18, 2012 at 2:24 pm

tough to read her comment when it was after mine, genius!

You also failed to notice that my comment was on religion vs. location names. Stay with me on this . . . . Sikh=religion. Highlanders=not religion. Got it?

You could educate yourself on spelling and grammar – but as ESL I’m sure you struggle with it.