Gurkhas betrayed again!

ah, well. hopefully we can get back on track now.

further to my last, saw the news tonite, lead story was joanna and the minister, the meeting was not quite so buddy buddy as it appeared in the article i posted earlier. it was obvious that the minister was distinctly uncomfortable at being caught out & he was rattled and was being pretty much directed by joanna. it's quite apparent the govt. is trying it's best to stay with as much of it's original discredited plan as possible. there was a new article on line quite a bit less complimentary to the govt. position tonite.

Lumley in public clash on gurkhas

there is a video there on it if it's working...
 
ah, well, hopefully we can now avoid more distractions and get back on track.

saw the news on tv tonite, the article i posted earlier was a bit more neutral than the actual meeting. a new bbc news article quite a bit less favourable to the govt. was posted tonite also.


Lumley in public clash on Gurkhas

there is a video there too, shows the minister looking very sheepish and being led by joanna lumley. what is not shown is that joanna's lawyer immediately thereafter expressed his disgust with the continuing prevarication and spin of the govt. who seems to be doing their best to continue with their failed policy as if nothing had happened.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
Interesting ideas, but keep in mind:

1. The UK needs the Gurkhas at least as much as the Gurkhas need the UK. The tradition is part of what made the nation what it is, and eventually, treating them like this will break that bond. It's not like they don't have anywhere else to go, and this just feeds into the communists of the new government's antipathy to outsiders.

2. The US does not and should not have ethnic military units. Achieving citizenship within our military works because the new soldiers are integrated in all-American units. That avoids the kind of second-class soldier effect the Gurkhas are facing now.

Look how long it took before black veterans were considered real soldiers in the US. We don't need that again.

3. It's a British problem that we can't solve for them and by doing so officially, we would embitter the situation even more than it is now. Of course, any Gurkhas who do want to come here should be as welcome as any allied soldiers.
Click to expand...

I think this is pretty much right. In my view, Gurkha mercenaries are lucky to have the institution still around. It's basically a remnant from colonial rule that survives more or less to the benefit of both parties, though not necessarily equally.

I was under the impression that after completing service, they were generally welcomed in the UK and it's former colonies. Perhaps this was more tradition, not written in stone.

Do Gurkhas really care all that much about the UK? The way I see it, their service is the result of a large economic incentive, in a country that is largely rural and poor. Loyalty to the UK only extends as long as the UK provides the stepping stone to bigger and better things.

A country like the US offers immigration without any "strings attached". No military service required. That is, if you can get it. These days, there are fairly strict criteria and boatloads of red tape. It's interesting that the US military is willing to offer citizenship to some foreigners in exchange for service, which is a way of getting around the usual bureaucracy. However, as noted, the US armed forces these days are quite integrated. Special units are organized by specialized skill sets, not ethnicity. Such a thing would be viewed as racist, and rightly so, given the history of such things.
 
shecky, please read the earlier posts. referring to the gurkhas as 'mercenaries' is an insult to the fine UK regiments of professional soldiers who have enlisted in them. we just got thru one troll session, we do not need more :thumbdn:

Under international law, according to Protocol 1 Additions to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Gurkhas serving as regular uniformed soldiers are not mercenaries.

UK regiments are in general named after the recruitment area they come from, which was traditionally the county, like the local Gloucestershire Regiment which was an infantry regiment of the British Army. Nicknamed "The Glorious Glosters", the regiment carried more battle honours on their Regimental colours than any other British Army line regiment. i doubt they'd like being called racist.
 
Last edited:
Different tradition in the US, though, kronckew. Although we have had units largely composed of soldiers from one area, that did not imply the ethnic homogeneity it would in a British or other European regiment.

shecky isn't speaking of Gurkhas as classic mercenaries, but he is correct in that their service was so popular because it offered economic incentives not easily available to them otherwise.

By refusing them residence, it's the UK that is treating them as mercenaries.
 
I always saw the Ghurkas as our version of the French Foreign Legion. They should have the right to apply for nationality and be looked on extremely favourably - it shouldn't be a rubber stamp though (the exception being soldiers injured in confilct).

I do worry for the loss of the 'best of the best' from Nepal though. I know I wouldn't like to see a drain of the best young men and their families going to live in a foreign country.
 
Moff8 said:
I wouldn't like to see a drain of the best young men and their families going to live in a foreign country.
Click to expand...

But that's exactly what drives most emigration/immigration throughout history, the ambitious and capable looking for a better life elsewhere.
 
From what I understand, Gurkha soldiers in foreign armies get paid vastly better than those in the Nepali Army, which, in the first place, means that they bring in a little more money to the country.
Secondly, Gurkha veterans often are able to use their training and (relative) resources to start businesses of their own.....such as a certain Mr. Kami Sherpa, who opened a blade-smithing concern.;) Some have also gone into leading tourist expeditions, and so on.
The point being, that foreign military service seems to do some economic good, at least for the soldiers and their immediate communities. They get extra career training, and maybe some capital to start something with. And therefore, I'm not sure that the Nepali Gov't would want to shut it down.
 
UPDATE: I found that as of about 2004 it was estimated that the recruiting of Gurkha soldiers brought the equivalent of 68 million English pounds into the country's economy, directly or indirectly, every year. If I understand the exchange rate correctly, that's more than 100 million dollars per year!

I don't think that the Nepali gov't will stop this practice, anytime soon.
 
Nicholas said:
I don't think that the Nepali gov't will stop this practice, anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that Nepal just underwent a revolution: no more king, and former Maoist rebels are the major political party. If they are driven by ideology, economics will not deter them from asserting what they see as national morality. They spent years fighting a rebellion that killed people and further impoverished the country. Their imperatives are not your imperatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top