The Gurkhas are not British citizens. They are recruited in Nepal under the Britian-India-Nepal Tripartite Agreement of 1947 and remain Nepalese citizens throught their term of service. On discharge they are given the option of staying in Britian or returning to Nepal under the revised 2007 agreement (previously they were required to return to Nepal) but remain Nepalese citizens. I personally have mixed feelings about the Gurkhas and about allowing foreign nationals (whether Commonwealth or not, whatever that means in the 21st Century) to enlist. I know the US is also considering permitting foreigners to sign up in return for citizenship after successful completion of service (assuming they survive!). And questions have been raised in connexion (sorry, old fashioned spelling there) between citizenship, the nation-in-arms and mercenaries (which is what such behaviour ultimately equates). There is a moral and ethical relationship between the people, the government that represents them and the army (drawn from "the people") who protect them (think Clausewitz's Trinity); the citizen's army forms part of the bond or social contract between ruler and ruled. Let us remember Burke
"Men are not tied to one another by papers and seals ..."
The British armed forces merely become a covert immigration and social security net for impoverished Nepalese (while encouraging a "mercenary" mentality) who would be best placed serving their own country (which itself would be best placed addressing social, economic and sectarian issues). The idea that (according to the Mirror article) the Gurkha in questions bravely "served his Queen and country" is nonsense unless we are talking in commonwealth terms (in which case I was unaware that the Biritsh Army defended Nepal as well as the UK). He has my sympathies but IMO (and IMO only) I think its time we (the UK) abandoned that particular "peculiar institution".
Bookmarks