The manpower of the British army is to be reduced to its lowest figure in over 200 years, yet the MOD hopes to retain its capabilities and its tempo of operations. That in itself is a questionable and ambitious goal given the volatile nature of the world today. In total over 21,000 British soldiers will go, men and women from the Midlands and Home Counties, Scots regiments, historic English regiments – some of the oldest infantry regiments in the British Army. But the fate of the Gurkhas is perhaps the most thorny and provocative issue. These men (there are no women though this is set to change) have served in the British Army for the last two centuries, have won 13 Victoria Crosses and are rightly viewed as a model of loyalty; an institution within an institution. Only two years ago another British institution allied herself with these Nepalese warriors. The aim of the actress Joanne Lumley was to secure rights for the Gurkhas commensurate with those awarded to all other British soldiers: equal pensions and service rights, and the ability to settle in the UK once their duty was done.
It was a laudable, high profile campaign, which carried the public with it and resulted in total victory for Ms Lumley. Or did it? In fact it might well have actually weakened the argument for retaining so many members of the Brigade of Ghurkhas. The first thing to understand, is that Gurkhas are not unique to the British Army. They also serve – in far larger numbers – in the Indian Army.
Although the first Gurkhas regiments were raised in 1815 to later serve in the British Indian Army their employment, which is essentially as mercenaries, was agreed in a tri-country pact between Nepal, India and the UK in 1947. The pact laid out their terms of service and enshrined the fundamental principle that at the end of their military careers they would go back to Nepal bringing their riches with them. On their return they were viewed as the wealthy and privileged, standing out from the majority of the population in terms of prosperity, education and social standing.
Now the contract has been rewritten and while the rights extended to Gurkhas is essentially identical to home grown British soldiers their flexibility is not. The cost has gone up. The benefit has not. In an era where every penny counts this has made them more vulnerable to cuts.
Each man who joins the Gurkhas goes through a rigorous selection process in Nepal (paid for by the UK military). The successful are then transported to the UK (paid for by the UK military) undergo military training which includes English lessons (paid for by the UK military). After five years they are entitled to what is known as long leave, six months at home in Nepal, during which time they are again supported by the Ministry of Defence (though this too is set to change). Of course the MOD does not have its own money. It spends taxpayers’ money, our money.
So what do we get in return? Obedience and bravery, unquestionably. The fighting record of the Gurkhas is second to none. And yet in modern times soldiering has not been limited to warfare in far-flung places. And this is where the Gurkhas limitations are revealed, for what they don’t possess is utility.
The Northern Ireland conflict dragged on for 30 years yet not one Gurkha unit served on what was known as Op Banner. Nor did they turn out to help with the fire strike in 2002 that drew in 18,000 military personnel. And they were also absent from the Foot and Mouth disease frontline. In fact they have not and never will help with any task that supports the UK civil power. Why? Because the memorandum of understanding with Nepal prohibits it. Simply put, if the Gurkhas were the last troops on the island when a repeat of something like last summer’s riots broke out they would not deploy to restore order. To that end they have far less flexibility than your average soldier.
What the Gurkhas do possess is the ability to recruit and recruit quickly. Having reduced the size of the military to an all time low, by retaining the brigade of Gurkhas we retain the ability to enlarge the British army quickly if the need arises. But retaining these men of honour means that other men of honour, men from the UK will find themselves out of a job.
Simply put I am a Northern Irish soldier, I once belonged to the largest regiment in the British Army, I now belong to the smallest. There are more Gurkhas serving in the British army now than there are Irishmen. In total Irish-born servicemen have won 188 VCs (of 1355 awarded) yet we took our reductions as every other corner of the UK took theirs. It is time to dry our eyes and look at the issue with a clear head. 
If the Gurkha’s really want equality then their usefulness should be subjected to the same objective scrutiny lavished on other regiments and corps. In the interests of fairness, surely Miss Lumley could not disagree with that?
An Ordinary Soldier 
…again, economic and practical expediency is the principal concern of the UK govt at this time in preserving the Gurkhas at the expense of ‘home- grown’ British troops. In order to hurriedly and conveniently recuperate billions of misspent national finances during a time of economic growth. Same picture across the board: education and health services are being equally struck hard.
I have no doubt the Government need to make cuts, to not make cuts would mean that other serves would have to carry more of the burden. I don’t want to see the health service, police force or education decimated any more than it has been. Therefore I am a supporter of the MOD cuts to meet our financial burden. My argument is to get the best for your money, the Gurkha’s are a fantastic bunch of men, I fought and commanded them in Iraq and Afghanistan and have nothing but admiration for them – but they simply do not have the same utility as English, Welsh or Scottish soldiers and they cost more. I am saddened that we will take the pain of these cuts with our heads held high but the burden of what we will be asked to do will not be reduced in any way.
To be honest Sarah you say some nice things about me and my views but the reality is this, neither the MOD or the media as a whole listen to people like me, I am both uneducated and not a senior officer. I started life as a private when I was 16 and fought my way up the ranks o be a Regimental Sergeant Major and the commission to be a Captain. 30 years in the military and my views are still sidelined yet they are clearly the views of a man who has spent his life on the front line and not behind a desk. I wish more would read my blog and see were some of the military issues really lie.
To respond to your second paragraph above, I would reiterate my opinion on the quality of your blog, both in content and acute pertinence to the issues surrounding the questions hanging over the British Armed Forces today. I would also add that you are right in your perception that your views (as those of many others in a similar situation to yourself, both in the military and outside) are held at a discount. Simply because (in my view, and in my own experience within
education), the ‘powers that be’ are not interested in your, or my, opinions on these matters. Other (often ‘in my view’ illegitimate and deeply problematic) political, not necessarily economic, agendas are in place, for national and international motives which the general public will not be privy to- despite the apparent wide access to information which we appear to have these days. Tragically (for it is no less, given the consequences for our troops where Foreign Policy is concerned) we are simply no longer in the days of ‘wisdom and justice’. Politics predicated upon rational, macro- planning, and wise and just principles are discarded and the prognosis must be that we now face a very uncertain, vulnerable future as a Nation.
I look forward to catching up with further blog editions, Doug! I find them most informative.
public will not be privy to.
I agree with the broad thrust of this post but is a shame that the myth and sentimentality that surround the issue of Gurkhas will prevent the Government making rational and justifiable decisions. Not because they can’t but because they don’t have the backbone to do so