Why does the British Army still have a Brigade of Gurkhas?

January 6, 2008 3:13 PM

Why does the British Army still maintain a force of Gurkhas?

I understand the importance the Gurkhas have had in the British army during colonial times. But why does the British Army still recruit people from Nepal to serve in a special Gurkha brigade? Is it just tradition, or does the British Army still have some belief that Gurkha people make good soldiers? I've read of the "martial race" concept, but would imagine it's been long abandoned along with other 19th century racial theories. So why exactly does the British army still go to so much trouble to recruit people from certain Nepalese tribes every year? What about Sikhs or other peoples that have had a historically important role in the British army?

posted by pravit to society & culture (15 comments total)

The ghurkas have always been something of an elite force, though. The significance is historic, mostly, but they are tough sumbitches, it has to be said. They did (if you read teh Wikipedia article) join the British Army on invitation, too. So they are part of the Army and have been for years, just like any other regiment.

Whether it is racial, cultural or borne purely of tradition, they are a noticeably effective fighting force for their size/number, and I imagine there'd have to be a damn good reason to suddenly shun a regiment of people that have been so supportive of us in the past.
posted by Brockles at 3:20 PM on January 6, 2008

Dittoing they're tough as nails as reason enough.
posted by TrashyRambo at 3:57 PM on January 6, 2008

I was brought up to think that hearing "... we're deploying the Gurkha's..." was the same as hearing "... they'll solve the problem..." and "... they'll do it ruthlessly... ".

I think the average 40+ Brit will have an inordinate affection/reverance for the average Gurkha. How that affection is displayed by their pensions/salary is another matter.
posted by selton at 3:58 PM on January 6, 2008

Two main reasons are:

* They are another pool of volunteers that can potentially bolster the armed forces. The wider the pool, the more likely you'll have a higher quality force.

* They provide the appearance of a multinational force (if not a literal one), which can appear to be a more legitimate use of force from an international perspective. If you hate the British, you're less likely to toss a Molotov at a Gurkha because ... well, he doesn't look very British, does he? Different uniform, speaks a different language, etc.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:58 PM on January 6, 2008

Quite simply:

1. Gurkhas are extremely good soldiers. The selection process they undertake is one of the toughest in the world and greatly contested.

2. Their history is inextricably linked to the British Army's eg over 200 000 fought n WW1 and 2.

3. They are considered natural warriors and my army chums speak of them with great respect often with apocryphal stories of Gurkhas identifying enemy soldiers in the dark by feeling their boot laces before slitting their throats with their Kukri.

In a country recruiting from the mainly the schemes and upper classes, having a tap into some hardy Himalayan warrior types is a veritable boon.
posted by brautigan at 4:22 PM on January 6, 2008

And on a more cynical political note, I expect casualties among their units don't cause quite the p.r. ruckus in The Guardian as would that of, say, a squad of laddies from Ipswich or Stoke-on Trent getting blowed up.

I imagine they cost less to maintain than standard British units as well.

(Remember, too, that the French and Spanish have their own foreign legions (although I gather the Spanish one tends towards Spaniards rather than foreign mercs-in-training)).
posted by IndigoJones at 5:32 PM on January 6, 2008

To add to the above points, I believe also that the Army is significantly better paying than most jobs in Nepal, and so is seen as a good job etc. - leading to a large pool of applicants. Given the trouble the Army has recruiting domestically, again, this is only a good thing.
posted by djgh at 6:00 PM on January 6, 2008

From an international relations perspective (PhD student here) a strong argument could be made that one reason the British Army keeps Gurkha units is to maintain access to a *scalable* source of excellent manpower.

The selection process for the Gurkhas is very strict. If the British ever faced a manpower pinch (something not out of the question for a small island state), they could cheaply / quickly / easily receive a massive boost in manpower by simply easing the selection process. All of the recruiting procedures, techniques, facilities, and legal frameworks are already in place, all the British would have to do is raise the recruiting quota.

In other words, the cost of keeping the Gurkhas units around is lower than the benefit of having massively scalable access of quality manpower just in case.

But of course, this is by no means the only reason. They are also a formidable unit on their own and a historical symbol for the British military.
posted by chrisalbon at 6:50 PM on January 6, 2008 [1 favorite]

I'm pretty sure the Indian Army and Singapore aso have Gurkha regiments.

I don't buy the 'tradition' argument, so much as the "convenient, low paying mercenary" argument (which is perhaps a tradition in itself).

My grandfather was a Major in a Gurkha regiment in WW2. Somewhere we have quite the chest of unusual pictures.
posted by Rumple at 7:21 PM on January 6, 2008

Also, not all Gurkhas are actually Gurkhas, if you take my meaning. That is, not everyone in the regiment is actually part of the people group of that name. When my family lived in Nepal we rented an apartment from a retired Gurkha, but he was actually Gurung. And yes, the pay is significantly better than that of most jobs in Nepal, plus you get a pension and on-the-job training that's likely better than the education that would have been available had you stayed home.
posted by Hypocrite_Lecteur at 8:55 PM on January 6, 2008

There are a few key reasons. The first and most important is that the Gurkhas aren't the only foreign soldiers in the British Army - there are also large numbers of Fijians, and many individual Australian, southern African (i.e. Botswanan, Zimbabwean, South African) soldiers.

The Gurkhas are often held up as examples of superb soldiering - there's a company permanently detached to Sandhurst, where officers are trained, to act as a demo group.

Propaganda value - they're known worldwide as fearsome fighters, (the Argentinians allegedly withdrew from Mount William in the Falklands when news of an imminent Gurkha attack came to them).

Depression of the Nepalese economy, status and (finally) post-service benefits - Nepalis still volunteer, and compete very hard to become Gurkhas because it's a very good option, and one held in high regard in Nepali society. Also, after long legal battles, Gurkhas gained the same rights and pensions as other British Army soldiers.
posted by Happy Dave at 10:43 PM on January 6, 2008

I don't buy the 'tradition' argument, so much as the "convenient, low paying mercenary" argument (which is perhaps a tradition in itself).

Agreed. Considering the outsourcing trend of the last decade, it is perhaps surprising that more nations do not have a brigade of gurkhas.
posted by blue mustard at 1:07 AM on January 7, 2008

It just seems strange to me that Nepali tribesmen with no previous military experience are somehow the perfect soldiers, but whatever.

But the Sikhs have historically been an important part of the British military too. Why doesn't the British army start recruiting for a Sikh Regiment, then?
posted by pravit at 4:59 AM on January 7, 2008

I visited the Gurkha training center when I was in Nepal - it was pretty nifty. Our guide told a funny story:

A commander asked a squad of Gurkhas to volunteer to do an air drop over enemy lines on a dangerous mission. Half of the squad raised their hands immediately. The other half volunteered once they realized they would be using parachutes.

They tough guys with a long and impressive history. I recommend the tour if you ever find yourself in Nepal.
posted by elendil71 at 5:08 AM on January 7, 2008

It just seems strange to me that Nepali tribesmen with no previous military experience are somehow the perfect soldiers, but whatever.

One of my grandfathers fought alongside the Gurkhas in India and Burma during the war, and the impression they made on him led him to to become involved with the Gurkha Welfare Trust for the next 60 years. He used to tell an anecdote about an old WW2 Gurkha veteran living way out in a remote and inaccessible region of Nepal, who made a long and arduous walk through the mountains every month to collect his pension, as they had to report in person to receive it. When he was no longer able to make the trek under his own steam, his son carried him the entire way. They make 'em tough out there.

Compare that to a typical home-grown recruit - a fat, lazy, backwards chav fuckwit from some shitty British provincial town, raised on a diet of reality TV, XBox and McDonalds.

The 1st Battalion of the Gurkha Rifles used to be based near to my home town and I can confirm first-hand that they are guys that you really wouldn't mess with. When in town and off-duty they were always impeccably well-behaved, unlike many other (native British) squaddies who regularly indulged in drunken rampages of violence and vandalism. When the unit was transferred from the area there was a huge outpouring of respect and affection in the local press.

So yeah, it's toughness, discipline and bravery, although I'm sure the fact that the government can get away with treating them poorly, sacking them and rescinding benefits at will is a huge plus.

But the Sikhs have historically been an important part of the British military too. Why doesn't the British army start recruiting for a Sikh Regiment, then?

There is a Sikh Regiment in the Indian Army (which used to be the British Indian Army in the days of the British Raj). There have been recent discussions on raising a new Sikh regiment in the British army following the pattern of the Gurkhas. However, the Commission for Racial Equality considers that the raising of new UK regiments on racial or ethnic grounds would amount to segregation:

Defence chiefs have abandoned plans to raise a regiment of British Sikhs amid fears that the move would be branded racist... Leaders of Britain's 500,000 Sikhs were supportive of the idea of a new regiment, arguing that it would be no different from the Scots, Welsh and Irish Guards or the Royal Gurkha Rifles, which recruits exclusively from Nepal and which is regarded as a model infantry regiment...

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "The creation of a Sikh Regiment has been considered by the Army policy staff responsible for both equality and diversity issues, who went on to consult with the Commission for Racial Equality.

"Both agreed that grouping ethnic minorities runs counter to the Armed Forces philosophy that seeks to include, not exclude, and extend opportunities."

A CRE spokesman said: "We would not support any policy that seeks to isolate specific groups in the Armed Forces or wider society.

"The creation of a separate regiment according to ethnicity would be segregation, which amounts to discrimination under the Race Relations Act. Anything that creates separation between regiments can only have a detrimental effect upon our Armed Forces' operational effectiveness."

The Royal Gurkha Rifles remain as something of a historical anomaly.
posted by boosh at 8:42 AM on January 7, 2008