The Gurkhas

Should Gurkha soldiers, who give 17 years to the British Army, and hence the British people, be allowed to apply for British citizenship?

Have a Google around and see some of the examples of the service these people have given to the country.

Gurkhas may get the right to live in UK

LONDON, SEP 15: An urgent review of immigration laws is being done to enable former Gurkhas, who served with the British Army, to be treated as special cases for granting the right to stay in Britain.

The Immigration Minister Beverley Hughes, said that the review by Defence chiefs and Home Office officials and of the Foreign and Commonwealth office has already started and further talks have been planned as well. It may also become possible for them to come back to the country after discharge on the basis of work permit or immigration concessions.

The move has been initiated following an increasing numbers of Nepalese soldiers, part of the British Army since the 19th century, turn to the asylum system to claim naturalisation after their military career ends. All political parties and Army chiefs have been campaigning for long for better treatment of the Gurkhas by Whitehall.

They have been pointing out to the government their exemplary record and tradition while averring that these should be considered when they apply for citizenship. So far only five Gurkhas have been given naturalisation in the past 30 years, including the nephew of Tenzing Norgay.

Anne Widdecombe, Tory MP, who has a large Gurkha detachment in her constituency, has been pleading for their case. Now, Hughes has assured Widdecombe that the current policy is being reviewed for the naturalisation and settlement of Gurkhas.

There are about 35,000 Gurkhas serving with the British Army and retired ones are embroiled with the Ministry of Defence over their demand for the same pay, pension and service conditions as British soldiers. At present they allege that they barely receive a sixth of the pension that British troops are entitled to.

Retired GurkhasThe Gurkhas who retire after 17 years' of service receive a pension of £91 per month as against £623 a month given to British soldiers who retire after 22 years.

Widdecombe said that while many of the 110,000 asylum seekers would be allowed to stay on by default, "we sternly resist the claims of 200 or 250 Gurkhas who have rendered sterling service to this country".

Seven retired Gurkhas have challenged a High Court ruling that the Ministry of Defence had not unlawfully denied them equal pay and pensions. They claim that the denial to treat them equal to the British soldiers is a breach of their human rights.

(Courtesy: Hindustan Times)

Diaspora news


:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@20 October 2003 - 13:08
Should Gurkha soldiers, who give 17 years to the British Army, and hence the British people, be allowed to apply for British citizenship?

---

Simple answer yes.

the two things (poor pay and where they live) are linked, apparently the justification is that living in Nepal is so cheap compared to living in Britain. Basically they get the same pay while they stay in Britain, but when they take leave home to Nepal their pay is drastically cut (if its any consolation they probably get free travel). I suppose the pension thing is the same, but they weren't given nationality so they couldn't stay in Britain, the assumption is probably that they'd go back to Nepal and hence get less pension.
It all seems pretty harsh really.

i think that they should get citizenship, like the foreign legion does in france. there should be serious fringe benefits for these poor old colonial shit kickers. they are the ones asked to do the deeds too messy for the homeland sourced divisions.

I believe the Nepali government were always against such a deal. They wanted the soldiers to return with their money and help the Nepali economy.

When you travel around the Gorkha region of Nepal, you see that a lot, most maybe, of the wealth comes from returned soldiers.

As ilw pointed out, pay is linked to the cost of living in Nepal. This is shit! To gauge a man's worth by the level of abject poverty in Nepal is wrong. Add to this the fact that his family would have paid to get him in. Even tho the British don't charge, the endemic corruption in Nepal ensures they pay. The family unit there is extended too, with more dependants than the standard western family.


:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@20 October 2003 - 09:49
I believe the Nepali government were always against such a deal. They wanted the soldiers to return with their money and help the Nepali economy.

When you travel around the Gorkha region of Nepal, you see that a lot, most maybe, of the wealth comes from returned soldiers.

---

Billy-

What kinds of numbers are we talking here?

Soldiers, I mean?

35,000 Gurkhas are in the British army, 200 to 250 have applied to stay. Obviously, many more would if the law were to change.




:)

The considerations here are manifold:

Are the Gurkhas motivated to apply for citizenship and re-locate in the U.K. for the sole purpose of securing a higher compensation?

Is this motivation self-indulgence on the part of these soldiers, or are they "sending money home"?

Do the amounts of these conpensations constitute an influence great enough to give a long-term boost (i.e. create development) to their home economies?


Is the U.K. government just being cheap by "conditionalizing" compensation which, by all rights, should be the same for everyone?

I could go on, but time is short......

All of the above.

A few days walking around Gorkha, or any other part of Nepal, and it would become obvious why someone would want to leave for a place like Britain, especially if you had kids.


:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@20 October 2003 - 15:49
To gauge a man's worth by the level of abject poverty in Nepal is wrong.

---

I think the point is that with a pension your supposed to be paying for someone to live the rest of their life comfortably, in repayment for their years of service. I just checked out a couple of websites and the estimated average annual income is about 120 quid so 90 quid a month would probably get you quite a lot (though 42% of the population are below the poverty line so comfortably would necessarily be a lot higher than 120 quid a year). It seems harsh that they can't get British residency, but i can see that the counter argument about impoverishing Nepal is also valid.
I'm not sure which way is better, undoubtedly you would get a significant number of Gurkha's claiming residency and although its not really a big immigration problem for us it may be an emigration problem for Nepal. Its debatable how much of a problem, Nepal's population is larger than i had thought at over 23 million, but it is also very poor. Simply paying the ex-soldiers more and sending them back to Nepal would probably also have unwanted effects in Nepal and apparently (unreliable source) there are already problems with people commiting suicide for failing to get in to the army, massively increasing the wealth of the ex-soldiers living there is unlikely to help.

As ilw points out, a main consideration is Nepal's concern for the potential loss of a large portion of it's more capable citizenry as well as the financial consideration.

It would be a terribly magnanimous gesture on the part of the U.K. government to send these men home with proper compensation-such would effectively remove the inappropriate consideration being given immigration issues.

It's impossible to gauge the average income of a Nepali, millions of them live outside of money, they are self sufficient, and barter and exchange. Many more are not even counted in the first place, another estimate of the population of Nepal is put at over 30 million.

Deforestation is the major problem, the trees are used for cooking, then landslides wash away their land.


:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@20 October 2003 - 11:05
It's impossible to gauge the average income of a Nepali, millions of them live outside of money, they are self sufficient, and barter and exchange. Many more are not even counted in the first place, another estimate of the population of Nepal is put at over 30 million.

Deforestation is the major problem, the trees are used for cooking, then landslides wash away their land.


:)

---

All the more reason for a "correct" outcome.... ;)

35,000 is past and present soldiers still alive.

These guys are amazing people, really....maybe some of the old timers that have been in the forces of various countries have met them. If so, you would never forget 'em.

They should be given every right of British citizenship and allowed to live here...they have earned it.

While here, they should be given full pension rights, as every other ex soldier is.



However, i do not believe that they should be given full pension in Napal.

The ex-soldiers are already some of the richest people in the country, giving them more will only impoverish the rest, possibly causing massive inflationary pressures.

I do believe, however, that the rest of the money should be paid into the Nepalese economy in someway (backdated, of course)....maybe via Trust funds to help the infrastructure or create employment.

The Gurkhas have EARNED this money....if giving it directly to them may destroy the economics of the country, giving it indirectly may help the country.

Either way, it does NOT belong in the British Governments pocket....

http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/I-Agree.gif

I don't think anyone should spend their money for them, I certainly wouldn't pump it into the Nepali economy, as I said before, corruption is endemic in Nepal, it would disappear and no-one would benefit, except the ones who stole it, of course. I also believe no-one has the right to tell these men they have to stay in Nepal to help the economy. If Britain doesn't take them, other countries will, and it will be your loss, in Australia we have a growing community of ex-gurkhas, and they are model citizens.

When you are part of the middle class in Nepal, 90 pounds a month is peanuts, sending a man back with that is condemming him to a life of survival, not a comfortable life for the rest of his years. 90 pounds is only a lot when you are poor.

I want to see equality, and that has only one value, 100%.

This is only one aspect of the stinginess of the British government. Aged pensioners in Australia, who spent their working lives paying into the UK pension scheme, and then retire here, have their pensions frozen at the rate is was when they retired. It is only the generosity of the Australian government that keeps them from the poor house. But .. that's another thread methinks.


:)

I did say that they should have every right to British Citizenship, and paid the full pension if they do take this up.

I also said that any investment should be via Trust Funds..........not given to the Napalese government.

The beauty of Trust Funds is that there are Trustees (Gurkhas perhaps?) that can direct the money into their local infrastructure and helping their communities in a non-inflationary manner.

You yourself have pointed out that the average wage in Napal is £120pa and they get already £90 per month (£1080pa).......to put this in terms that we can understand, its the equivalent of every retiring private of the British Army getting over £250,000pa in the UK. This is a LOT of money in that country....

You are proposing that, in effect, giving retiring soldiers in the UK £1,500,000pa will not effect the local economy.

British private currently gets:

Quote:

---

£623 a month given to British soldiers who retire after 22 years.

---

Hardly a "Comfortable, Middle Class" income in the UK.

Remember this pension does not stop with their death....the pension goes on until their Wives die and all children are over 18....their children also get automatic rights to try for the Gurkhas, an opportunity that many in Napal would kill for.


Making the lives of millions of people worse in order to give a few what they, I agree, have earned...is not a very responsible act.

I think you miss my point here RF. The reason the average wage is so low, is a reflection of the poverty in Nepal, it is not an indicator of the true wealth of it's citizens. Giving them 90 pounds a month is like giving you enough money to live in a slum, and telling you that's the "average". I've spent a couple of years in Nepal, on and off, and 90 quid is peanuts, believe me.

As for making millions "worse", end the corruption, that's where the money goes, Gurkhas are a very tiny minority in Nepal.


:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bigboab+20 October 2003 - 14:33--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bigboab @ 20 October 2003 - 14:33)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean@20 October 2003 - 13:08
Should Gurkha soldiers, who give 17 years to the British Army, and hence the British people, be allowed to apply for British citizenship?

---

Simple answer yes. [/b][/quote]
Prior to even reading the thread, I wholeheartedly concur with this sentiment.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@20 October 2003 - 20:08
I think you miss my point here RF. The reason the average wage is so low, is a reflection of the poverty in Nepal, it is not an indicator of the true wealth of it&#39;s citizens. Giving them 90 pounds a month is like giving you enough money to live in a slum, and telling you that&#39;s the "average". I&#39;ve spent a couple of years in Nepal, on and off, and 90 quid is peanuts, believe me.

As for making millions "worse", end the corruption, that&#39;s where the money goes, Gurkhas are a very tiny minority in Nepal.


:)

---

and £650 per month in the UK is.....enough money to live in a slum.

Its all relative.

Who gets 650 quid a month? My mum gets less than that. If you are talking about ex-soldiers, they also get the state pension.


:)

Agreed.

For which they paid Natioanl Insurance.

The Gurkhas do not pay National Insurance, and yet i would fight for them to get the State Pension too in this country

If they have provided the service, which they have, they should get the appropriate payment. The same as anyone else. Same rules, without fear or favour.

It shouldn&#39;t be some sort of equivalence thing. It should not be dependent on where they live. They should get £x, the same as anyone else who has provided the same service.

They should also get it where they want. When I collect my pension I will expect it to be paid into the bank account of my choice, on a monthly basis. Where I chose to live at the time is a matter for me.

They should also be offered UK citizenship "on the nod".

76 and still not getting your pension. I think that is a disgrace JP.(Hold on a wee minute darling I am speaking to someone) :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bigboab@22 October 2003 - 01:53
76 and still not getting your pension. I think that is a disgrace JP.(Hold on a wee minute darling I am speaking to someone) :D

---

I&#39;m a lively 76 young man.