Don't agree with this one bit!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

OK Monty I'll try and get this out in one bash - it might ramble a bit because this is stream of consciousness stuff rather than composed.
1) Sorry about the forswore I coulda swore when you pointed it out. not only that I uused it twice and spelt it differently both times, so I whacked myself on the head
2) My sources would be a little difficult for you to look up, but include my own booklet, an English translation of the Adi Granth, a propaganda sheet from the 70s published on behalf of the Akali Dal in this country, an article in a scrapbook published in a Vancouver newspaper in the 70s by the Vancouver Khalsa Diwan, and my friends David Singh Gill, Adesh Singh, and Bahadur Singh.
3) You quote Guru Gobind Singh and turbans, and as I said, wearing turbans is part of sikh identity not part of the religious requirements of being either a sikh or a Khalsa. The quotes seem to be misunderstandings as to what is being talked about - Khalsa is a very loose term with some specific meanings
i.e. a)the brotherhood of saints (sometimes called the pure) who are the spiritual descendants of the gurus
b) a member of the brotherhood, someone who has taken the vows and wears the 5ks
c) the 'nation of the sikhs' sometimes called the kingdom or the empire, which is sarkar khalsa.
The quotes from Guru Gobind Singh relate to the sarkar khalsa, the army of sikhs he initiated. The sarkar khalsa is secular not religious. Guru Gobind Singh certainly did make it mandatory for sikhs of the sarkar khalsa to distinguish themselves in battle by the wearing of chandtora dumalla - a specific type of turban.

Indeed it is this very confusion between secular sikhism and religious Khalsa that is being deliberately introduced here. The man on guard finds it convenient to proclaim religious principles when in fact (although he himself is undoubtedly religious and is evidently a Khalsa Sikh) he is promoting a secular 'nationalist' propaganda tool.
4) and finally, trying to find English sources on Sikh history, whether religious or secular, is hard going. Before the internet there was virtually nothing I could use when compiling the introductory booklet. Now, the majority of sites that pop up from a google search fall into three categories - those that are giving basic instruction, those that have been edited by activists, and those that are issuing propaganda on behalf of a faction of the Akali Dal (who are very active in Canada by the way). The first are easy to spot and confuse themselves with imprecise terminology (e.g. any site that insists sikhs have long unshorn hair is suspect on this score), the others usually have edited editions you can search to see where references to turbans have been added (wikipedia is rife with this, just take any article to do with sikhs and go back through the edits and you'll spot them too), the third lot include sikhs.org and sikhnet.
I now refer you back to my first post on this subject... and it's over to you.

[TANGODANCER]

Impressive explanation LL. Good stuff.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Impressive explanation LL. Good stuff.

Agreed, Tango, and possibly quite correct (I certainly lack the knowledge to argue). However, the case before me as a neutral judge, is whether a Sikh wannabe guardsman was justified in his claim that wearing the turban was mandatory and whether the journalist who wrote this up should have known better. The evidence on one side is bona fide documentation from legitimate Sikh organizations and on the other oral testimony from prominent Sikhs (via the leopard that wrote the booklet on the matter) and a forty year old Canadian newspaper column. As a judge I would find insufficient evidence (or too much contradictory evidence) to conclude which party was correct thus leaving the question open. I would therefore exculpate the journalist, who certainly had reason to believe the claim of a mandatory requirement of turban even if this was ultimately proved unfounded. I would also exculpate the guardsman on the grounds that he probably believed his turban was mandatory (even if he had misinterpreted a somewhat confused canon) - after all we know people who believe in virgin birth. I would fine all guards regiments several million pounds for bigotry and put LLS in gaol for one day for pedantry.

Case closed!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Judge, jury, and executioner

[Prufrock]

'E is not Judge Judy and executioner!

[Hoboh]

Judge, jury, and executioner

Errrrrrrr I'll do the job without the expensive jury!