A Basic British Commitment

Many people already know of the connection between the Gurkhas and the British Army. This relationship stretches back more than 175 years to 1815, when the British East India Company was trying to push the northern frontier of India to the Himalaya.

From the British soldiers' first meeting with the hill soldiers of Nepal on the battle field, a bond of mutual respect grew It became obvious that the conquest of the foothills would not be possible, and therefore a pact was signed at Sugauli in 1816 in which the boundaries between India and Nepal were agreed and permission was given by the King of Nepal for the British Indian Army to recruit soldiers to serve in its forces.

Time does not stand still but in looking back, I believe the Gurkhas have been of major advantage to both countries over such a long period of co-operation. Until relatively recently, the Gurkhas' military remittances in pay and pensions were the largest source of foreign currency in Nepal and are still substantial; indeed the monetary value to Nepal of British Gurkhas alone is estimated at well over £30 million a year. The hillmen of Nepal have not only been able to acquire wealth but also a number of agricultural, building and medical skills to take back to their villages when they complete their service.

On the other hand, the British forces benefit from the fact that the average length of service for a Gurkha infantry soldier is 15 years, whereas the British soldier only serves an average of 5 years, which means that there are considerable economies in training Gurkha soldiers. At the moment British Gurkhas are trained, and many garrisoned, in Hong Kong. As this colony is to be vacated by Britain in 1997, a question quite naturally arose about the future of Gurkhas within the British Army, if there was to be a future where they were to be deployed. As a consequence of this, the House of Commons Defence Committee decided in 1988 to carry out an enquiry into the future need for Gurkhas in the British Army.

As a result of this enquiry, the Committee said that in terms of excellence, abundance of volunteers, discipline, cost-effectiveness — in that the annual total cost per man per year is about £13,000 for a Gurkha and £17,000 for his British counterpart and the return on training investment as a result of the length of service noted above, "the Gurkhas can provide cost-effective and adaptable soldiers of the highest quality and for these reasons it is expected that the British Army will be keen to employ them well into the twenty-first century."

Following the report, in May of 1989, George Younger, then Secretary of State for Defence, gave an undertaking that there was a continuing role for the Gurkhas in the British Army for not less than 4,000 men. This was initially a disappointment because it was felt that a reduction of 50 per cent was proposed, but of course, it is difficult for governments to commit themselves to actions to be taken some years ahead and, in this case, nearly ten years hence. However, this is a basic commitment, and it certainly demonstrated a desire by Her Majesty's Government to continue the relationship into the foreseeable future. All of this depends, however, on the wishes of the Nepali Government and can only continue while it is a willing party to such an agreement.

Some people claim that it is wrong for one country to supply troops to another in the belief that they are mercenaries. This is, of course, quite erroneous in the case of Gurkha soldiers because a mercenary is a person recruited by a foreign power for a specific conflict at special rates of pay without the consent of the government of their country of origin.

Rules have been laid down by the Nepali Government as to where Gurkha soldiers can serve. They cannot, for example, be used in hostilities against a Hindu country without specific permission arid, as a convention, nor are they likely to be used anywhere should this cause the Nepali Government embarrassment. However, they have been extremely successful in various parts of the world and one battalion is currently based in Brunei at the request and expense of the Brunei Government while remaining under British command. I like to think that if a similar arrangement had existed in Kuwait before August 1990, the Iraqi army would have given the matter a lot more thought before carrying out their invasion of that country.

Only one in 30 Nepali boys who volunteer are actually recruited into the British Army and as part of the same process, similar recruiting is carried out for the Singapore riot police where they are paid by the Singapore Government and have for many years provided exemplary service in that law-and-order role.

In all cases involving the U.K. Government, considerable care has been taken to ensure that loyalty to Nepali customs is maintained throughout the whole period of engagement. Diet, religion, accommodation, education, medical services and loyalty to Nepal and the royal family are punctiliously observed. It is only possible to expect the Nepali people to accept these very special arrangements for so long as it is mutually beneficial.

I, personally, hope that this relationship will prosper and flourish for many years to come.

Thorne is a Member of the British Parliament and of the House of Commons' Defence Committee, which examines the expenditures, administration and policy of the UK's Ministry of Defence.

(This article was written for Himal before the cuts in the British Gurkhas were announced on 23 July.)