Gurkhas

[Davy]

Spent the last week on an Army base t my sons and there is a squadron of Gurkhas here. In boredom..and some interest I looked into why we continue to have Ghurkas fly across the world to be in the British army. Of course the easy answer would be that they are poor and happy to come here for the money and there is a lot of truth in that, as well as their own self pride in the regiment they have.

Little quick history is that after the British army suffered heavy losses in Nepal, the East India trading company signed a quick hasty truce and the army offered jobs for the locals. In 1947 after the Indian independence from team GB, they allowed 4 regiments of Gurkhas to continue with the British army and so it continues.

Ok now to the point. Most people in UK are happy for the Gurkhas to be here and agree they be allowed to settle in UK as they have fought and lost many family and friends in our wars. 26 Victoria crosses testify to that. But reading through some stuff on the web, there have been different points of views raised and I thought there might be a discussion in there somewhere. I will bullet point some comments, and I do not agree with them all, but for a fair discussion include them, and also include stuff people may not have considered.



Gurkhas have fought bravely with us for almost 200 years and should be considered very bit as British if they have served their time.

Gurkhas should be entitled to a pension, same as any other solider but should not have automatic rights as British citizens.

Gurkhas are merely soldiers of fortune (merceneries) and like British merceneries abroad should be happy with their wage then return home.



We should prioritise Gurkhas as British after they have served a set time or had to retire due to injury/illness from the brigade more than we should allow people from other non eu countries to settle here.

It is right to allow the troops to stay here, but they should not be allowed to bring grandparents, other relations outside immediate family


We should do more to help Nepal with their infrastructure so that the soldiers will be more likely to return to Nepal.


There should be no special relationship with Nepal and they should be treated as any other country.

We should be ashamed that we use a poor country to provide troops to fight for us. It is not like we are actively promoting office workers/labourers to come to UK for work



We should encourage more troops from other commonwealth countries as we do Nepal, Figi etc.


We should provide pensions for Gurkhas who left the army before the cut off date,1/7/97, it is not right to differentiate

 

[hibs1986]

It's an interesting question, and you've raised interesting points. My response is probably a gut reaction rather than an intelligent response: IF we are to employ a foreign volunteer unit, and they are employed in the defence of the country, then they are effectively British. Still thinking about their grandparents.....

I'm not sure they can be classed as mercenaries; they belong to an official Unit attached to the UK Armed Forces, whereas (in my entirely inexpert view) I would see mercenaries as unattached, opportunistic foreign 'temp' fighters.

 

[Purple & Green]

How many Gurkhas are we talking about?

How many non british citizens are in the British army apart from Gurkhas?

Edit: The Big Question: Who are the Gurkhas and what is their contribution to military history? - Home News - UK - The Independent has some handle on numbers

 

[Perthhibee]

oh ghurkas....

I enjoyed them being in the army because in some scoff houses they had the ghurka curry sections (which are amazing)

hated them in my corps because they were useless..... (great infantrymen though) They were very set in there ways and trying to tell them what to do was a nightmare and usually ended up in me having to fix what was broke

 

[Jack]

Gurkhas have fought bravely with us for almost 200 years and should be considered very bit as British if they have served their time.

The old romantic in me says Yes.

Gurkhas should be entitled to a pension, same as any other solider but should not have automatic rights as British citizens.

Absolutely. They do the time they're entitled to the full reward for that.

Gurkhas are merely soldiers of fortune (merceneries) and like British merceneries abroad should be happy with their wage then return home

Nah, they would have all gone home by now if they were.

We should prioritise Gurkhas as British after they have served a set time or had to retire due to injury/illness from the brigade more than we should allow people from other non eu countries to settle here.

Yup, as above.

It is right to allow the troops to stay here, but they should not be allowed to bring grandparents, other relations outside immediate family

Agreed.

We should do more to help Nepal with their infrastructure so that the soldiers will be more likely to return to Nepal.

Don't see why not, after all their nationals have made a significant contribution to our country.

There should be no special relationship with Nepal and they should be treated as any other country.

That would be awfully nice of us! Not!! Aye, come away from your homes and families, die for us and err die for us.

We should be ashamed that we use a poor country to provide troops to fight for us. It is not like we are actively promoting office workers/labourers to come to UK for work

Nah, different circumsatnces.

We should encourage more troops from other commonwealth countries as we do Nepal, Figi etc.

Counties within the Commonwealth Countries have their own armed forces that regularly join up with the UK forces.

We should provide pensions for Gurkhas who left the army before the cut off date,1/7/97, it is not right to differentiate

Yup, see above.


At the end of the day Joanna Lovely Lumley loves them and I love Joanna Lumley.

 

[beefy]

I'm still Chas&Daved up. I keep reading the thread title as "Gertcha"

 

[Davy]

How many Gurkhas are we talking about?

How many non british citizens are in the British army apart from Gurkhas?

Edit: The Big Question: Who are the Gurkhas and what is their contribution to military history? - Home News - UK - The Independent has some handle on numbers

The Gurkhas as I said before were part of the Indian army under control of the British. There were 10 regiments of Gurkhas. 6 stayed with Indian army and 4 joined the British army. Nowadays however we have reduced numbers to something like 3k, but the Indian army have around 42k. There is also one regiment used as guard service in a USA Navy base. Ex-Gurkhas usually from British regiments have taken over as soldiers for the Sultan of Brunei. and also as police for the Singapore Police. Thus it does seem that many have long left their roots and live abrod permanantly, and Britain cannot claim to have sole useage for Gurkhas. There has also been a movement inside Nepal to set up their own military and do not look favourably on ex-pats.
As to parents/grandparents, many do have them living on army bases with them as babysitters. I am not sure as to what kind of visas are required.

However it does appear under new ruled any commonwealth soldier can be granted UK passport after 4 years of continuous service...but may be dissalowed if they have been disciplined in the service.

 

[egb_hibs]

If Britain is to let in any foreigners at all, I'm struggling to think why any others would be allowed in in front of those prepared to die for the country.

 

[Jack]

If Britain is to let in any foreigners at all, I'm struggling to think why any others would be allowed in in front of those prepared to die for the country.

Good point regarding.

 

[Dub]

Spent the last week on an Army base t my sons and there is a squadron of Gurkhas here. In boredom..and some interest I looked into why we continue to have Ghurkas fly across the world to be in the British army. Of course the easy answer would be that they are poor and happy to come here for the money and there is a lot of truth in that, as well as their own self pride in the regiment they have.

Little quick history is that after the British army suffered heavy losses in Nepal, the East India trading company signed a quick hasty truce and the army offered jobs for the locals. In 1947 after the Indian independence from team GB, they allowed 4 regiments of Gurkhas to continue with the British army and so it continues.

Ok now to the point. Most people in UK are happy for the Gurkhas to be here and agree they be allowed to settle in UK as they have fought and lost many family and friends in our wars. 26 Victoria crosses testify to that. But reading through some stuff on the web, there have been different points of views raised and I thought there might be a discussion in there somewhere. I will bullet point some comments, and I do not agree with them all, but for a fair discussion include them, and also include stuff people may not have considered.



Gurkhas have fought bravely with us for almost 200 years and should be considered very bit as British if they have served their time.

Gurkhas should be entitled to a pension, same as any other solider but should not have automatic rights as British citizens.

Gurkhas are merely soldiers of fortune (merceneries) and like British merceneries abroad should be happy with their wage then return home.



We should prioritise Gurkhas as British after they have served a set time or had to retire due to injury/illness from the brigade more than we should allow people from other non eu countries to settle here.

It is right to allow the troops to stay here, but they should not be allowed to bring grandparents, other relations outside immediate family


We should do more to help Nepal with their infrastructure so that the soldiers will be more likely to return to Nepal.


There should be no special relationship with Nepal and they should be treated as any other country.

We should be ashamed that we use a poor country to provide troops to fight for us. It is not like we are actively promoting office workers/labourers to come to UK for work



We should encourage more troops from other commonwealth countries as we do Nepal, Figi etc.


We should provide pensions for Gurkhas who left the army before the cut off date,1/7/97, it is not right to differentiate

You didn't make mention of the honour felt by these serving Gurkha and the pride they feel in being selected for active service. The Nepalese appear to have a great affinity with our royal family [plenty more than I do that's for sure] and they are prepared to lay down their lives for britain. They serve, they should be treated the same as any other soldier regards pensions.

 

[GORDONSMITH7]

Dinnae ken about Gurkhas however I am seriously considering hiring one of their fellow Nepalese Sherpas to carry the St.Pat's Branch flag up tae row AA in the East as I, in the words of the great Nepalese poet and scholar Prem Bahadur Kansakar, am totally fucked doing so every home game.

GGTTH

BIG G