I’ve just read that some of the legendary Gurkha forces may be sent to Afghanistan as part of the British contingent.
I’ve checked a few web sites about their history and gather that the Gurkhas are citizens of Nepal but they can serve with a number of (restricted) regiments in the British Army. And therein lies my question: Are the Gurkhas considered mercenaries? Honourary British citizens? If they wanted, could they volunteer to serve under the flag of another country such as the US?
Hey KarlG,
From the Nepalese embassy website http://www.nepembassy.org.uk/nepal_britain_relations.html
it says that the Gurkha units are recruited and stationed based upon the Tripartite Treaty between India, Nepal, and Great Britain, and are considered a unit of the British military, while retaining their Nepalese citizenship.
As for them serving in the USA, here is an answer via an immigration attorney in Florida about foreign nationals serving in the US military: http://www.ilw.com/anderson/soldiers.htm
Basically, no foreign nationals may serve in the US military in peacetime (with the exception of some Pacific Islanders serving in the Navy).
As for being mercenaries, that word has two senses; one a very negative connotation associated with murder for hire or military service done with the motivation of greed, and the other sense of generically being non-nationals hired for military service. Given the tough and demanding nature of the Gurkha service and their history, it is hard to imagine a group of men less likely to be seen as serving purely for the love of money. I also kind of doubt if any Gurkha would be willing to serve for anyone else but in service to HRH.
The Brigade of Gurkhas website: http://www.army.mod.uk/brigade_of_gurkhas/index.htm
Anyone else’s take?
45ACP
Compared to other parts of the British Army the Gurkha’s pay rates are much lower. Other benefits such as retirement and widow’s pensions are also less. There have been moves to remove this inequity but so far without much success.
actually on the money issue the crap pay we give them is alot of money in Nepal , hell a Gurka killed in Kosovo in mine clearing was given compensation which people said was disgraceful and should be the same as a British soldier compensation , his wife apparently is a millionaress in Nepal even though the amount of money we would consider poor
I cannot see why there is a pay differential between the Ghurkas and other British soldiers. Any other workers who come to the UK from a “third world” country, for instance nurses from the Philippines, are entitled to the same rates of pay as their British colleagues. I suppose it is yet another of those army traditions we here a lot about.
Another mercenary unit of good reputation and long standing is the Swiss Guard, which will be celebrating half a millenium of service in the Vatican come 2006.
Thanks, very helpful links 45ACP.
And, to clarify, I was using the term mercenary in a non-perjorative, literal sense. Given the information in the 1st link, it seems as if they are not mercenaries in any case.
There was a definition given in “Dirty Little Secrets” which divides ‘soldiers for pay’ into two categories:
“Mercenaries” who fight for pay as individuals, do not work for a national army, and have loyalty mostly towards the money.
and
“Hessians” named after the German soldiers in the American Revolution. These aren’t merceneries per se, as they fight for fixed pay for their states armies in the employ of another nation. “Hessians” are far more common than strict mercenaries and the term mercenary really does not apply to them, for then you find many other armies that qualify as mercenaries; such as the US Army in the Persian Gulf War, or the Ghurkas.