End Gurkha Recruitment in the British Army

[tim]

I'm proud to be descended from several generations of men who've defended their homeland. Are you ashamed of your ancestors who did the same?

I just think that it was a stupid waste for my great-grandfather to be sent to die on the Western Front in1915, leaving a widow and three children under the age of six. I don't know if my mother's family would have been less dysfunctional if he'd lived but they could hardly have been more so. I'm grateful that my paternal grandfather was in a reserved occupation, building the machines that killed rather than going to the fronthimself, because having spent the first 13 years of my lofe with him, he wpuld not have been able to deal with the emotional traumas of life in the trenches.

As to defending the "homeland". The British military has spent most of the past three centuries destroying or threatening to destroy other people's

 

[tim]

I'm proud to be descended from several generations of men who've defended their homeland. Are you ashamed of your ancestors who did the same?

My great-grandmother (paternal) was a cousin of Michael Collins. He is only relative I'm aware of who actually got involved in defending his homeland. I'm not convinced that everything he did should be something to be proud of. Or that there is infact merit in feeling pride or shame about the actions of long dead people with whom I share some DNA.

 

[weltweit]

..As to defending the "homeland". The British military has spent most of the past three centuries destroying or threatening to destroy other people's

I think this is a difficult argument because Britain has gone through a dramatic transformation in the previous generations, we were once a global superpower ruling over a massive empire, we bred and equipped hundreds of thousands of people to travel to and administrate our colonies and our military was equally equipped for the tasks of empire building, defence and maintenance.

That empire, as all do, went into steep decline but it was only relatively recently that we accepted the commonwealth model and while we are now a relatively rich small island of 65 million people, we have yet to fully accept our much reduced role in the world.

Arguably we could accept our reduced role in the world, size our military appropriately and discard nuclear weapons, but somewhere in our national psyche we are not yet ready to give up a wider role. It will probably come but what has to happen for us to admit our reduced influence I am not sure.

 

[UK subversive]

interesting comments, and curious that the poll is mainly supporting recruitment. interesting, but i suppose it confirms what i kind of thought about the response i would get on urban ie mainly white left/ anarchists, i would guess. dont expect much from them, rarely disappointed.

thats why i got Stalin as my avatar.

cheers for the comments, its interesting for me whether or not people agree with the demand to end Gurkha recruitment.

 

[Casually Red]

You'd think people depending on foodbanks...actual bloody food banks...might cause some to have a look at priorities but no . That poppy does a hell of a job .

 

[Casually Red]

Q: Does the campaign also apply to Irish soldiers or just Nepalese soldiers?
I think the CIRA had some sort of campaign against it in Ireland, around 100 Irish citizens without British citizenship join the British Army every year.

Since that fucking GFA nonsense there's been an upsurge in snide attempts to recruit in the south of Ireland , and to rehabilitate the British army generally by means of that poppy bollocks . They emblazon it all with " peace and reconciliation" so if you oppose it you're basically anti peace . It's pathetic .

Some of the more notable examples were a visit by some aircraft carrier to Dublin, which was a thinly veiled navy and marine recruiting exercise . Loads of kids schools were invited . Then there was a fair bit of outrage across the board when it turned out some job finding community group in limerick were advertising jobs in the BA , which was completely illegal . Fucking idiots .

It's not just the contos opposing this stuff by any means , other republican and left wing groups have been too . But there was something in the media last year about some British soldier from limerick having to negotiate safe passage home to visit his family with one or other conto faction . It's always been a problem but n recent years it's become a lot more insidious as they seek to use former colonies to swell their recruit base . Back in the 1920s and 30s the IRA had to shoot a few retired admirals and the like who were giving character references to the locals seeking to sign up .

 

[LDC]

interesting comments, and curious that the poll is mainly supporting recruitment. interesting, but i suppose it confirms what i kind of thought about the response i would get on urban ie mainly white left/ anarchists, i would guess. dont expect much from them, rarely disappointed.

thats why i got Stalin as my avatar.

cheers for the comments, its interesting for me whether or not people agree with the demand to end Gurkha recruitment.

No, most votes are actually for 'don't care' and 'stopping recruitment' (18 in total so far), not 'supporting recruitment' (12 so far). And if you think that's bad I think you've probably got a nasty shock for your campaign when you start asking people outside Urban...

Personally although I don't support the military as it exists now (whatever that non-support might mean in reality, which is probably nowt...) I voted 'don't care/not an important issue' as I think it's pretty obvious that it's not a strategic, winnable, or useful campaign given the current state of politics in the UK, and is unlikely to garner much support amongst people, and is only going to end up going nowhere and slowly dying a death as an idea.

I think a lack of strategic thinking is something that the left (including anarchists/activists that you mentioned in a previous post) is really bad at and it jumps from one irrelevant/obviously unwinnable campaign or issue to another, and it's that rollercoaster of activism that partly stops people and groups engaging in more fruitful and politically useful work.

But whatever, go ahead with this campaign (that to me quite clearly falls into the category of irrelevant/unwinnable) if you want, you obviously think it's ace. Come back and let us know what it achieves in six months/years.

Meh.

LDC

PS: Neither the FFL or the Ghurkas are mercenaries in any way.

 

[LDC]

Bringing an end to the squandering of money on employing mercenaries, who are then sent of to slaughter people in the Middle East or Africa in one of the vanity wars that our political class are so addicted to,would seem to have some political merit.

Nice bit of delusional thinking going on there.... Yes, ending that would have political merit. But this campaign quite clearly can't and won't do that. So IMO there's better things to do.

PS: Again... they're not mercenaries, any more than any other part of the UK military are mercenaries. Stop using ridiculous and inaccurate language that just makes you look foolish.

 

[YouSir]

interesting comments, and curious that the poll is mainly supporting recruitment. interesting, but i suppose it confirms what i kind of thought about the response i would get on urban ie mainly white left/ anarchists, i would guess. dont expect much from them, rarely disappointed.

thats why i got Stalin as my avatar.

cheers for the comments, its interesting for me whether or not people agree with the demand to end Gurkha recruitment.

You big rebel you.

 

[Brainaddict]

interesting comments, and curious that the poll is mainly supporting recruitment. interesting, but i suppose it confirms what i kind of thought about the response i would get on urban ie mainly white left/ anarchists, i would guess. dont expect much from them, rarely disappointed.

While plenty of people on this thread have spoken in favour of general demilitarisation of British society, they have also said it's important to consider, in the context of an army that isn't going to away, what Nepali people want. If that's too white for you, then fine, but consider this: the Maoists in Nepal wanted to end Gurkha recruitment when they got into power. But they didn't. Why? Your article claims it was some conspiracy cooked up with the British. Because Maoists are notoriously prone to do what colonial powers ask I suppose. Why not believe their reason for changing their tone: because it's the lifeline for too many Nepali people (and villages). They've decided to abolish it as a long term goal (creating other ways out of poverty I guess) rather than do it immediately.

You are accusing people of being a bunch of too-white anarchists for taking a position also taken by Nepali maoists. Your high horse is not looking very stable.

 

[DotCommunist]

I dunno how true it is but I heard tell that when the argentinian (conscripts, poor bastards) soldiers heard the ghurka were coming they started to do a lot of surrendering. The English state has a habit of using people it formerly brutalised as shock troops. The highland reg's were once such. iirc.

 

[Bakunin]

I dunno how true it is but I heard tell that when the argentinian (conscripts, poor bastards) soldiers heard the ghurka were coming they started to do a lot of surrendering. English states has a habit of using people it formally brutalised as shock troops. The highland reg's were once such. iirc.

The Argentinian troops were informed of the approaching Gurkhas by leaflet drops. The leaflets showed a picture of a grinning Gurkha sharpening his kukri, so I'm told. Hence, they had a tendency to either surrender or abandon their positions without a shot fired. Another reason was their own officers telling them that Gurkhas wouldn't take prisoners, but would happily behead them, eat their flesh and drink their blood. Which, being entirely untrue, the Gurkhas themselves took as a serious insult.

 

[likesfish]

The Junta Built up the Gurkha's as some savage unstoppable force so terrorizing their own troops the poor bastards fled at the first chance.
there was a book written with translated interviews with Argentinians who took part in the war.
talking about Gurkha's wearing Sony Walkmen and high on drugs butchering their own wounded etc etc. none of which happened the Gurkha's hardly fired a shot in anger. though the paras did apparently tell them to smile at any Argie POW who gave them trouble after telling the Argentinians if they smiled at you its because they were going to put you in a pot for supper

The army would like to ditch the Gurkha's expensive and rather limited roles these days but wouldn't get to keep the cash if the brigade went

 

[Idris2002]

The Junta Built up the Gurkha's as some savage unstoppable force so terrorizing their own troops the poor bastards fled at the first chance.
there was a book written with translated interviews with Argentinians who took part in the war.
talking about Gurkha's wearing Sony Walkmen and high on drugs butchering their own wounded etc etc. none of which happened the Gurkha's hardly fired a shot in anger. though the paras did apparently tell them to smile at any Argie POW who gave them trouble after telling the Argentinians if they smiled at you its because they were going to put you in a pot for supper

The army would like to ditch the Gurkha's expensive and rather limited roles these days but wouldn't get to keep the cash if the brigade went

It's also a big marketing ploy for your boys.

 

[Casually Red]

I can remember back in the day various tabloids and politicians intermittently making calls for the Gurkhas to be sent in to " sort out " south Armagh . It generally only led to any soldier smaller and browner than usual getting more scrutiny and dirtier looks than his mates .

 

[Teaboy]

What about the Gurkha's in the Indian army?

 

[Bakunin]

What about the Gurkha's in the Indian army?

Ah, yes. The treaty aiding Gurkha recruitment to the British Army is a tripartite deal between the British, Nepali and Indian governments if I remember rightly. Also, if memory serves there are more Gurkhas serving with the Indian Army than the British Army.

 

[Idris2002]

Here's one I hadn't heard of before: Gurkhas in the private security industry in Africa:


https://www.issafrica.org/pubs/Books/PeaceProfitPlunder/Chap7.pdf

 

[ViolentPanda]

You big rebel you.

He's like a slightly more grown-up flimsier, bless!

 

[Pickman's model]

interesting comments, and curious that the poll is mainly supporting recruitment. interesting, but i suppose it confirms what i kind of thought about the response i would get on urban ie mainly white left/ anarchists, i would guess. dont expect much from them, rarely disappointed.

thats why i got Stalin as my avatar.

cheers for the comments, its interesting for me whether or not people agree with the demand to end Gurkha recruitment.

you don't appear concerned at the number of fijians in the army. why not?

 

[toggle]

While plenty of people on this thread have spoken in favour of general demilitarisation of British society, they have also said it's important to consider, in the context of an army that isn't going to away, what Nepali people want. If that's too white for you, then fine, but consider this: the Maoists in Nepal wanted to end Gurkha recruitment when they got into power. But they didn't. Why? Your article claims it was some conspiracy cooked up with the British. Because Maoists are notoriously prone to do what colonial powers ask I suppose. Why not believe their reason for changing their tone: because it's the lifeline for too many Nepali people (and villages). They've decided to abolish it as a long term goal (creating other ways out of poverty I guess) rather than do it immediately.

You are accusing people of being a bunch of too-white anarchists for taking a position also taken by Nepali maoists. Your high horse is not looking very stable.

but, but, but....



got to love being called a big white imperialist for suggesting listening to the brown people whose lives are the focus of a campaign.

 

[Bakunin]

but, but, but....



got to love being called a big white imperialist for suggesting listening to the brown people whose lives are the focus of a campaign.

Awwwwww, but I'm a big white imperialist. I can't listen to brown people, I'm supposed to shoot them and steal their country.

 

[sihhi]

While plenty of people on this thread have spoken in favour of general demilitarisation of British society, they have also said it's important to consider, in the context of an army that isn't going to away, what Nepali people want. If that's too white for you, then fine, but consider this: the Maoists in Nepal wanted to end Gurkha recruitment when they got into power. But they didn't. Why? Your article claims it was some conspiracy cooked up with the British. Because Maoists are notoriously prone to do what colonial powers ask I suppose. Why not believe their reason for changing their tone: because it's the lifeline for too many Nepali people (and villages). They've decided to abolish it as a long term goal (creating other ways out of poverty I guess) rather than do it immediately.

You are accusing people of being a bunch of too-white anarchists for taking a position also taken by Nepali maoists. Your high horse is not looking very stable.

Roshan Kissoon the author of the first article is linked to Nepal's Maoist tradition (don't know exactly what tendency post-government).
The obvious demand is for Britain to give hard currency to Nepal - as restitution, say, for British support for its monarchic dictatorship for ~200 years - and end the recruitment of Gurkha. In the same way that deindustrialised high-unemployment working class areas (the bedrock of British army recruitment) should also be compensated given full employment and be left alone from military recruitment.

 

[likesfish]

tbf Gurkha pensions and money gets spent in the hills of Nepal.
I'd imagine any restitution would vanish into central goverment coffers to be spent by important people who know best, after Mercedes and other important things have been brought.

N.B> if you want a military career in Ireland you can try to get a job in the Irish defence forces then spend a career doing very little or join the British military which does actually fight and recruits or if your a headcase join the legion.

 

[tim]

They're not mercenaries, actually. They're a part of a regular army within a sovereign State and don't draw any more pay than British soldiers of equivalent rank. They're also subject to Queen's Regulations and military law, the same as any other solider in the British Army. As such, they don't qualify as mercenaries under the UN Mercenary Convention and neither do the French Foreign Legion.

The UN Mercenary Convention is available here: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm
QUOTE]

Mercenary is a word that predates, by several centuries, the creation of the UN which has always been used to cover soldiers from third party nations involved in a conflict

Here for example is the Merriam-Webster definition

1mercenary


CloseStyle: MLA APA Chicago


noun mer·ce·nary \ˈmər-sə-ˌner-ē, -ne-rē\
: a soldier who is paid by a foreign country to fight in its army : a soldier who will fight for any group or country that hires him

With regard to the UN convention, the British and the French have the Ghurka regiments and the Foreign Legion respectively as integral parts of their armed forces and both are permanent members of the Security Council with the power to veto decisions, so it seems unlikely that a UN organisation is going to go against their political interests.

I would in general also be rather wary about allowing any political organisations to define and redefine the meanings of the words.

 

[Spymaster]

: a soldier who is paid by a foreign country to fight in its army : a soldier who will fight for any group or country that hires him

So they fail on the second point.

There are just three countries in the world who's armies have Gurkha regiments; the British, Indian, and Nepalese.

Knock yourself out if that makes you happy to call them mercenaries.

I actually see little wrong with a tradesman selling his services overseas to feed his family anyway. The shame is not on them but on the countries they serve who don't grant them full pay and benefits.

 

[Bakunin]

For the purposes of international law the UN Convention definition takes precedence. And the Gurkhas (almost all of them, anyway) wouldn't fight for just anybody. A lot of them are proud of their service and often it's a family tradition as well. I will grant you that, for a British national, enlistment in the Legion is a crime under the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870 which specifically bars British nationals from enlisting in a foreign army (of which the Legion is recognised as being part), but that Act has only been used once to prosecute one single individual (in 1890) and they were acquitted.

For the record, the Legion is pretty open about recruiting foreigners to avoid the 'Vietnam Syndrome' of bad PR through coffins draped in French flags coming home. The Legion's attitude is simple. If the Legion does well on an operation then that's good PR for the French Army and the French nation. If they're wiped out then a bunch of foreigners were killed. Simple. They don't hide that fact from people coming to enlist, the recruits know that when they join. They also offer automatic French citizenship, with the same rights and benefits as any other French citizen, to any Legionnaire who completes their contract in good standing and they also have retirement homes and employment for former Legionnaires who don't wish to return to their native countries. So they take better care of their foreign recruits than we take care of ours.

 

[Artaxerxes]

Mercenary is a word that predates, by several centuries, the creation of the UN which has always been used to cover soldiers from third party nations involved in a conflict.

And before then it used to mean anyone who fought for direct pay instead of as part of a tithe or duty. Words evolve as do institutions such as the nation-state and army neither of which existed once.

 

[Wilson]

http://www.essexcountystandard.co.uk/news/13520909.Gurkhas_are_our_heroes/

 

[sihhi]

And the Gurkhas (almost all of them, anyway) wouldn't fight for just anybody. A lot of them are proud of their service and often it's a family tradition as well.

It depends what you mean by almost all of them, a large number went to Sierra Leone in the 1990s (apparently under an American officer who fought the bush war for Rhodesia in the 1970s) to fight for the NPRC National Provisional Ruling Council military regime

and there were Nepali Gurkhas operating as truncheoned security guards against protests over power firm EON.

In what appears to be a reference to E-ON’s Kingsnorth power station in Kent, G4S boasts that its Gurkhas “were called upon by one of our customers to protect their coal fired power station from over 2,000 protesters. During this deployment over 60 of our officers conducted anti-protest operations over a period of four days while the site was effectively locked down.”

The whole point of the OP is that this particular tradition should be replaced with better traditions. Anti-recruitment for Britain was a big part of the Indian and Nepalese communist movement because Gurkha brigades were used for colonial repression in Malaya & Borneo, Brunei, Aden & even Hong Kong during the disturbances of the 1960s.