The role of religion in the military has long been a touchy subject. For the sake of unity, there is a lot of regulation on how religion is practiced among troops. It is generally understood that everything in the military is uniform for a reason: cohesion. However, a recent article, “Army Allows a Sikh Doctor to Serve Wearing a Turban,” indicates that exceptions are sometimes made in the name of religious practice. Wearing a turban and leaving hair uncut are important to religious practice among Sikhs, and Capt. Kamaljeet Singh Kalsi, a doctor, has been given permission to serve in the Army without compromising the requirements of his religion. The article says the Army looked at the following factors: unit cohesion, morale, discipline and safety and/or health when deciding whether Kalsi’s request should be granted.
The Army deems it acceptable and not at all inappropriate for Kalsi to practice wearing religious symbols, but you have to wonder whether his Army comrades will accept him. As a doctor, Kalsi will play a vital role in the health and safety of those who are sent to him, but will they accept him or treat him fairly and equally? In the United States, religious followers can wear anything from hijabs, to turbans, to cross necklaces, to yamakas as an expression of their faith, and while they are free to do so it doesn’t mean they aren’t judged. But can those in the military afford to be judged?
I don’t know the answer to this question. I do wish I could have more details on the reasoning behind this decision. The article notes that members of Congress wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Gates saying, “We do not believe that any American should have to choose between his religion and service to our country.” I understand this sentiment, and I believe it to be true. But there are rules, so why was Kalsi given an exception? What makes him uniquely qualified to keep his beard and long hair? While Sikhs are supposed to follow certain rules of dress, there is no obligation.
Recently, Sikhs were also given the right to leave turbans, uncut hair, beards, etc. intact if they are federal security guards. I understand that: the government should not discriminate based on religious identity. But people who join the military knowingly give up certain freedoms for the sake “uniformity” and “equality” among one another. Of course, there are exceptions: the Army Command Policy handbook says “religious jewelry, apparel of articles may be worn while in uniform if they are neat, conservative and discreet.”
This ruling surprises me, but I’m even more surprised the decision applies ONLY to Kalsi. If he is allowed to wear a turban and groom himself differently, so should all Sikhs in the military or entering the military. Given the uniformity of the Army, wouldn’t it make all its decisions apply to everyone? I hope that Capt. Tejeep Singh Rattan, another Sikh, is granted his request to practice his religion in the same way as Kalsi. It would show that all Sikhs, and people of all religions, will be treated equally.
What do you think? Should there be more freedom or religious expression in all the military, and more decisions like that of Kalsi and the Army? Or should strict regulations be upheld on grooming and uniform?
