by A.K.S. Aujila

Taken in 1966, probably in northern England, of a Sikh bus conductor wearing his turban. In the 60s several campaigns were mounted to permit Sikh employees of bus companies in Britain to wear the turban and not the uniform cap. In 1982 the House of Lords ruled Sikhs were a separate ethnic group effectively entitling them to wear turbans anywhere. BBC online

This article was published in The Sikh Review, April 1967. -Editor

I feel urged to compliment Gyani Sagar of Manchester for the compliation and the consequent production of the elaborate and impressive anthological document entitled, Sikhs and Turban. The contents of this narrative appear to incorporate binary objectives.

Primarily, it is a pithy protestation collectively voiced and universally subscribed to by an accountable cross-section of our society, against the existent gross injustice, i. e., the deliberate and preposterous exclusion of the turbaned Sikhs from employment in the Manchester Corporation Transport Services and secondarily, it is an honest attempt to furnish the corroborative evidence in order to substantiate the vital and singular fact, i. e., having learnt the true nature and value of turban-wearing as is specifically practiced by the adherents of the Sikh religion and the compelling reasons for jealously guarding their ecclesiastical symbols, a large number of local authorities in this country, which previously operated a similar type of reprehensible and preclusive ban against employing the turbaned Sikhs, have revoked the discriminatory and unduly punitive regulations especially affecting the Sikhs that they too must conform to the uniform regulations and wear a cap instead of turban and have thus opened doors of equal opportunity of employment for all the citizens.

My recent research has yielded abundant confirmation about the overall results of this experiment and I can confidently state that the pursuance of the liberal-minded and humane policy by such authorities as Huddersfield, London, Bristol, Birmingham, Glasgow and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, concerning the employment of the turbaned Sikhs, has not only proved to be a double blessing but also a great measure of unqualified success.

To reiterate the epitome of the issue, I consider it as a matter of tremendous urgency to emphatically highlight and fully delineate the salient aspects of the current argumentation, pertaining to the employment of the prospective turbaned Sikhs by the Manchester Corporation Transport Department. In order to deal with this problematical topic satisfactorily and adequately-I am using both of these words in a relative sense- one will have to ask some fundamental questions, such as, why is it mandatory for the Sikhs to wear turban?, what is the intrinsic value of the Sikh turban?, what is the inherent nature of this attachment that so conspicuously exists between the turban and its wearer, in the Sikh religion?, Is this special relationship or spiritual bondage capable of an ordinary or mundane and altogether explicative analysis?, what is the significance and origin of it all?

I am fully aware of the fact that the preceding list of questions that one might frame in an effort to elicit factual knowledge and explanation is not an exhaustive one and nor indeed do I entertain any pretensions that it is, by any means, an easy task to provide simple, outright an convincing answers to such question.

Yet an earnest attempt to find the appropriate answers must be made as it is my firm belief that the root cause of the present trouble, in common with so many other agonizing crisis to be found in the world, is the ignorance of the true facts. Since ignorance is the arch-enemy of, amongst other things, the harmonious and progressively healthy relations in any civilized human society, therefore once, we can dispel this ominous barrier caused by ignorance through the dissemination of the true facts the end result will unquestionably; be mutually beneficial. However as far as the present context is concerned, it is fervently hoped that the provision of the, as far as possible, comprehensive factual information will be instrumental it the fuller comprehension of the vitally imperative issues and principles involved and consequently the resultant emanation of spirited goodwill will lead to the fresh reappraisal of the case finally contributing towards an amicable resolution of this outstanding impasse.

T o put the entire matter in its proper perspective, I would like to focus on the basic and central point of the current controversy, i.e., the r representation and essential of the Sikh turban. In the very outset, I must unequivocally state that it would be totally an erroneous view to regard the Sikh turban in terms of an ordinary headgear, which can be discarded at one's will or as a measure of some high-pressured expediency; thus it is unlike the practice of wearing a cap or hat or for that matter the informal custom or habit of wearing turban that is found prevalent in the Middle East and certain parts of tribal Africa. The substantive elements which contrast and sharply differentiate the Sikh turban from the other types of headgears are to be deeply embedded in historical and religious origins…and this is where the real justification of the Sikh turban lies.

One of the religious Commandments enunciated by the Sikh prophet Guru Gobind Singh dictates that the followers of the Sikh religion must never - in any circumstances whatever – cut, trim or singe their natural hair from any part of the body. It is further categorically enjoined on the practicing Sikhs that, in the interest of personal and public hygiene, they must duteously endeavor to keep their hair clean. And usual practice followed by the Sikhs is to wash their hair at least once a week or as often as might be necessary; also the hair must be combed twice a day. Furthermore, the Sikhs must wear turban and the object of this religious sanction was twofold. Firstly, the turban served as an ingenious and a thoroughly practical device, which helped to keep the hair tidily in their place and well covered and secondly, the turban characterized its wearers with neat and smart appearance and an added sense of moral, visual and psychological distinctness. There is a good deal more that I will like to say with a view to explain the historical reasons, closely connected with the evolution and the proper justification of the Sikh turban but unfortunately the limitations of space forbids me to render the expanded treatment and thus I am forced to dwell and concentrate more on the religious side of this issue.

The Sikh prophet, Guru Gobind Singh, himself demonstrated the perfect personification of the above attributes and these traits have been successively handed down from generation to generation and it is thus that the embodiment of these religious vows and values have become so deeply rooted in the cultural and moral heritage of the Sikhs. Amongst the true followers, known as Khalsa, of the Sikh faith the obedience to the foregoing Commandment is total. It is worth noting that the reverent validity of the Commandment of the Sikh Prophet is as profound and as much peremptory in the Sikh religion, as one is bound to find is the case with the Commandments of Moses and Jesus in their respective religions.

One of the direct and sustaining consequence of the above Sikh Commandment has been the sanctification of the various religious symbols, which is not unlike the perpetuated symbolism to be found in other religions of the world- it may vary in form but remains similar in essence and in this particular case, the symbol of turban. The Sikh turban is an individuating religious entity, which is inviolable, inalienable, indivisible and above all an inseparable complementary factor bestowing the spiritual and an integrated, wholeness on the Sikh personality and character. The Sikh turban serves as flesh to clothe the very indomitable spirit of Sikhism, and finally, it is an unitary emblem of the Sikh religion.

It is no exaggeration to claim that the Sikhs have displayed a dogmatic tenacity in the upholding of their avowed symbolic religious commitments, particularly turban, even under the most trying and exacting circumstances. To mention just one illustration, it happened during the Second World War, when according to the promulgation of the binding Defence Regulation, the wearing of the field helmets was made obligatory for all the Armed Forces. As the Sikhs are expressly forbidden to wear a cap or a hat -and helmet was appropriately classed in the category of hats or cap - the Sikh Regiments bluntly refused to acquiesce in the wearing of field helmets, even at the extreme peril of being wounded fatally in the battlefield and other spots of conflagration. The net result of this stand taken by the Sikhs was that the authorities recognized the nature and content of the principles upon which the decision of the Sikhs was based and hastily modified this part of the Defence Regulations thus totally exempting the Sikhs from the wearing of the regulative field-helmet. I must make further two qualifications, as measure of fuller explanation, concerning the above Army Uniform Regulations.

First point is that the Sikhs were not told to abandon their turbans in favor of field-helmets As it was laid down in the original Defence Order that the Sikhs were required to wear the helmets over and above their turbans; even when a strong aversion was demonstrated to such an idea in principle. In the second place all the occurred during the British rule and the modifications to the British Army Uniform Regulations were indeed effected by the British authorities; while the Sikhs were fighting loyally, predominantly the British War – at least as far as India was concerned - to defend the British ideals and institutions all over the world. So let us not regard this small point that the history has already often entrenched the fact that the wearing of turban is the birth and religious right of the Sikhs and nobody ought to dictate otherwise.

Besides, even viewing this matter from the social standpoint, especially in terms of dress mannerism, it is worth while to note that the Sikh turban forms such an integral part of the main items of the clothing of a Sikh that it is practically inconceivable that he would go around the public places without his turban. Not only that without his turban he won’t be suitably attired, but also such an shall be tantamount to letting someone loose right in the jostling heart of the town without any trousers and underpants on: which apart from being a case of indecent exposure, legally speaking, will also be considered an unethical act transgressive of the accepted values of a decent human code.

Thus, when considered in the cold day light of the above context, the implications of the dogged and insensate previous decisions of the Manchester Corporation Transport Department to debar the turbaned Sikhs from seeking employment - to work on the Corporations' buses and other services - appear to be much more sinister, pernicious and a lot wider than at first sight. It remains no longer a simple and a superficial issue of demanding rigid compliance with the prescribed Corporations' Transport Uniform Regulations - wearing of cap instead of turban - because this insistence actually camouflages something hideous and cruel. It is an outrageous act of profane coercion directed at the divestiture of the religious personality of the Sikhs.

Sohan Singh Jolly Sikh busmen in Wolverhampton have won the right to wear turbans on duty after a long-running campaign. Conductors and drivers who are practising Sikhs will also be allowed to have long beards. Wolverhampton's Transport Committee dropped its ban after the leader of a Sikh group, Sohan Singh Jolly, had threatened to burn himself to death in protest. Dr A K S Aujila of the Supreme Council of Sikhs in the UK said: "We are going to wage relentless war on the idea that individuals can take this sort of action (suicide) involving the whole community and very likely lead to a worsening of community harmony in Britain". "In the interests of race relations we have taken the decision to relax the rule," said Ronald Gough, chairman of Wolverhampton Transport Committee. After the committee's change of heart Mr Jolly said he had been forced to make his threat: "I am a moderate and religious man and would never have taken the extreme step of threatening my life if they had not refused to listen to reason." BBC

Knowingly this Local Authority is relentlessly putting pressure on the employment-seeking turbaned Sikhs and it is virtually telling them to turn renegades to their faith if they are to be considered for transport jobs. The consideration for employment as a bus driver or bus conductor is made conditional upon the irreligious submission of the Sikhs to trade in their turbans for caps- what a terrible precondition, based on such a flimsy pretext, and what a monstrous price for someone to ask in return for so little.

In fact, in this matter the policy and the attitude of the Manchester Corporation Transport Committee can be summed up as a sheer and naked “Religious Discrimination”; it is equal to asking every Irish from the Republic of Ireland to give up his Catholic faith and convert to Anglicanism before he can be considered for a job on the Corporations' buses.

On the present score, as supported by the previous verdicts given by the Manchester Corporation Transport Committee on the applications of the employment-seeking turbaned Sikhs - as each effort was frustrated, despite the presentation of the new evidence - two of the fundamental Human Rights, which are duly embodied in the Charter of Human Rights as compiled and approved by the United Nations - a historic landmark and a prized achievement in the annals of human race - are being brutishly contravened.

The calculated denial of the Local Authority to accept the suitably qualified turbaned Sikhs who have to wear the turban as a religious symbol - clearly violates basic Human Right, the Freedom of Religion. When a Local Authority imposes obdurate strictures, of dress, religion or what have you, as conditions to the entry of its employment and thus succeed in permanently keeping out of its employment a section of its community; then unquestionably infringing the Right and Freedom of Opportunity Employment for self-fulfillment of a human being regardless of race, color and creed.

This grim state of affairs gives further rise to the hypocritical paradox - at least as it lends itself to independent observer, who feels baffled by the unsightly gulf that exists between the theory, that is propounded so majestically and in such a fatherly or shall I say motherly manner, in practice, it is the opposite, that these principles stand for, that unconcernedly acted upon.

Britain professes to be the proud leader and the mainstay of the unique multiracial organization in the whole wide world, namely, the Commonwealth of Nations. The very principle upon which the Commonwealth of Nations has been progressively formed, demand, without exception, an irrevocable committal on the part of all member nations to the ideals of Equality, Justice and Fairness, Tolerance and Liberty (be it Religious, Civil or Political).

The enshrined aim is to create a multiracial society, where any type of prejudice won't be allowed to plague the main organism and where the true human values will, for once, take precedence over the blind and hurtful spasms of prejudice for its own sake. But, despite all that I have said above, it a sad thought having to realize that there exists such a rampant duplicity of standards in the spheres of both public and private affairs. Otherwise how can we account for this anomalous situation, whereby a vigorous but minority segment of the contemporary society and which has to its credit an unblemished record of loyalty and service, is being harshly subjected on whatever assumed grounds, actually a Religious discrimination?

At this point I would like to introduce an encouraging glimmer of new hope - a very welcome develop on the home front aiming at the eradication of the social injustices and prejudices. In a recent speech the Home Secretary, Mr. Roy Jenkins, made the following observation concerning the official policy of the Government and the future trends of legislation as far as the operation of the Race Relations Act was concerned.

"I define integration not as a flattening process of assimilation, but as equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of tolerance. That is the goal. If we are to maintain any sort of world reputation for civilized living we must get far nearer to its achievement than is the case today."

Obviously, these are noble and sincere sentiments uttered by a sincere man who seems to understand the human problems and has sufficient feelings and guts to call a spade a spade. But mere words, as the past experience will testify and also knowing the human nature as it is, however well-intentioned, remain a poor substitute for an effective action. For obtaining results we need a combination of words, deeds and goodwill (co-operation) on the part of the citizens, who do care.

Now the big question is, are these admonishing words of the Home Secretary going to stand in stark isolation as a sermon of sham idealism or are these words going to be translated, with genuine sense of realism, into tangible and firm actions? Are these words foredoomed to failure because of our hardened and impervious attitudes of could-not-care-a-less about the anti-social practices? For an honest answer we have to do a bit of heart-searching, what is required is less of introversion, less of self-centeredness, and more of tolerance and liberal-mindedness.

I must stress the propitious reminder that it is not the big or tall talk or for that matter the academic theories, on their own, that are going to produce or achieve the desired results in the field of human relations and human understanding and this is equally applicable on the national and international levels.

Nor indeed is it up to one man or an elite to propagate a panacea for the unfortunate social and other ills and prejudices, which create wide crevices in the fabric and structure of the society. The criterion of success in this field, I am afraid, is much more demanding. It is, in some respects, like the waging of crusade, which requires collective and total effort with complete sense of dedication and the firm conviction of the justification and righteousness of the undertaken cause. It is inexcusable to say that there exists any lack of direction which will point out right way for us to travel; as sane minds are painstakingly showing us the correct course to follow. But the looming question is, will we see the light in time or are we going to remain fatalistic and openly tolerate and accept, to every conceivable detriment of reason, that Man is born to suffer at the hands of fellow Man?

Presently, the Manchester Corporation Transport Committee is considering afresh the recent application submitted by the interested turbaned Sikhs for employment in the Transport Department. In the wake of the evincive testimony, as outlined in the foregoing text, it is prayerfully hoped that the impending decision of the Transport Committee will be taken in the enlightened, positive and strictly egalitarian spirit and above all the guiding principles of good sense, essentially emanating from the basically good men - the decision makers - will prevail.