Pakistan never got (nor asked for unlike in the case of the Jat and Rajput regiments) any Ghurka Battalions. The British attempted a similar agreement with regards to the Frontier Force Regiment, but the agreemnet stalled.
I beleive the tripartite agreemnet was with UK, India and Nepal.
Two interesting Smuts anecdotes.
First, a descendant, David Smuts, is a lawyer in Namibia who long worked for Namibian independence from South African oppression in the 70’s and 80’s.
Second, it was more than once reported that Smuts’ was so esteemed by Ronald Reagan that the President didn’t recognize the ensuing changes in South African politics (the post WWII/post Smuts legal implementation of apartheid) and wouldn’t pressure South Africa to change because they’d been our WWII allies. The issue was so important in the 80’s that Secretary of State George Schultz was so inflamed that he reportedly threatened to resign over it. Schultz doesn’t deny the reports, as far as I know, but they do make him look good, so why should he?
I think Reagan’s resistance to pressure South Africa was more due to the realpolitik consideration that the South African government was fiercely anti-Communist, and that the ANC was pro-Communist and backed by the Soviets and Cubans.
Yes, the ensuing ANC governments have been highly communist, haven’t they. Have you seen nationalization all around, no valid elections, no free press, severe limitations on travel, censorship of the internet, lots of internal exile and labor camps, corruption among the rulers (well, some of that, of course, but nothing like the Soviets or the Chinese, or the Cubans)? The conservative notion that the ANC was highly communist, as opposed to allied the with South African Communist Party in the fight against apartheid was just not the case, and, rightly, not believed by the State Department in the Reagan Administration. They just didn’t argue against it in public, because they were loyal to the President. But they knew and had relatively good respect for Thabo Mbeki, for instance.
As for realpolitik, SA was so remote an outpost that it’s danger, even if it became Communist, was minimal. Look at Mgabe’s Zimbabwe, for instance; now there’s a guy who’s a Marxist problem. His history is that he’s driven his country into the ditch, all of Africa knows it, and it’s not like some sort of beacon of hope for the rest of Africa–it’s exactly the opposite. The same would have happened to SA.
Don’t know that Mods might want to move this to GD…I’ve made my case, folks can take or leave it as far as I’m concerned.
Oh, and I’m saying that Smuts was cited by Reagan as a reason to support them. Thought that was obvious, but maybe not.
The ANC government hasn’t carried out the things you’re talking about. But when they were a guerilla/underground movement, they were allied to the Communist Party of South Africa, they had Communist members (Joe Slovo, most notably), received financial support from the Soviets, and so on.
This really isn’t controversial, and I don’t know why you’re taking offense at it.
Hardly offended, just trying to express what is my experience of the truth, after having been fairly closely involved in it in those days. And in the same way that President Reagan acted emotionally and impulsively when he suddenly agreed to arms cuts at the summit in Iceland that hadn’t been thought through, his emotional commitment to the country of Jan Smuts, even though he wasn’t clear about the changes since Smuts’ time, motivated his reluctance to challenge any South African government. That’s just how he worked. And in each case, he knew that there was a substantial political camp in favor of what he did, so he didn’t worry about it. But the political camps’ rationales weren’t what motivated him. It was his own personal experience that did.
May I suggest any interested party start another thread on the Reagan Administration’s policy towards South Africa, or the ANC’s alleged communist tendencies, and we limit this one to Smuts.
And may I say I’m gratified - if surprised - that no one’s made a “smutty” joke yet. 
Ah, now you’ve jinxed it!
I would have … but someone already made Botha them! 
Not to mention that the thread would be rather Boer-ing
Well, ain’t this a separate development!
Maybe we should concentrate this camp elsewhere.
And quite correctly too.
As I learn more about our history, I’m repeatedly astonished by the behaviour of the East India Company - and that they were allowed (encouraged) to get away with it.
Interestingly they were the cause of the Boston Tea Party, they were exempt from tax on tea in the Americas, and nobody else was - a form of monopoly by subsidy.
Oh, I agree completely that the British Government needed to relieve the East India Company of its responsibilities vis a vis India. I wasn’t making a value call, just clarifying the historical background for people.