Betrayal of the Gurkhas: Soldiers denied the right to live..
-
Betrayal of the Gurkhas: Soldiers denied the right to live here hand medals back
Thousands of Gurkha veterans marched on Parliament yesterday where many handed back their hard-earned military medals in protest at their 'betrayal' by Britain.
The renowned Nepalese troops have a proud association with the Army dating back 200 years.
But they are angry at rules which pay younger veterans the same pensions as British-born soldiers while those who retired before 1997 receive only one sixth as much.
Protest: Damber Ghaly gave back six medals including his MBEThey are also demanding an end to "immoral discrimination" whereby older Gurkha veterans are usually barred from settling in the UK as British citizens, despite putting their lives on the line for the Crown - and the ease with which many foreign criminals and huge numbers of illegal immigrants are able to stay in Britain.
Fifty retired Gurkhas handed back their coveted Long Service and Good Conduct Medals at Westminster to express their disgust at their treatment.
It was a hugely embarrassing spectacle for the Ministry of Defence, which relies heavily on Gurkha troops to provide manpower for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Ministers are refusing to change the rules, however, claiming that back-dating the more generous pensions would cost hundreds of millions of pounds and would be "unaffordable".
The Army has around 3,500 Gurkha soldiers, all recruited in the hills of Nepal where 15,000 hopefuls compete for 230 places each year.
Protest: 50 Gurkha pensioners will hand back their precious Long Service and Good Conduct medals to the GovernmentFamed for their curved Kukri fighting knives and terrifying ferocity in battle, the Gurkhas have served alongside British troops around the world since 1815 - including recently in the Falklands, the Gulf and Afghanistan - winning an unparalleled 26 Victoria Crosses.
Their motto translates as: "It is better to die than to live a coward."
A deal dating from India's Independence in 1947 pegged their pay and pensions to those of the Indian Army, to reflect the lower cost of living in their native Nepal compared to Britain.
The MoD altered the rules last year after growing pressure, giving serving Gurkhas the same pay, conditions and pensions as British-born troops - as well as the right to settle in Britain when they leave the Army.
The changes were back-dated, but only to include those who retired after 1997, when the Brigade of Gurkhas moved from Hong Kong to the UK.
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg is calling for an end to the forced deportation of retired GurkhasAround 22,000 surviving Gurkhas who retired before that date are furious, and claim the cut-off date is "arbitrary and unfair".
A typical Gurkha private retired after 22 years with £1,200 a year for life - a reasonable sum in Nepal, but a fraction of what their modern-day counterparts receive under the new rules.
They are also pushing for equal rights to settle in Britain.
Damber Ghaly of the Gurkhas United Front handed back six medals yesterday, including his MBE, in support of fellow Gurkhas who have fallen foul of the rules.
The 50-year-old, who served for 28 years, said: "It is very sad and emotional but I think it is the only thing we can do. I served in Kosovo and Bosnia where I was in charge of my troops.
"It is not a case of being angry but we feel very disappointed and let down."
The Gurkhas United Front's secretary Lal Prasad Gurung, who served in the Falklands, Hong Kong, Brunei, Kosovo and Bosnia, said: "We are the same as the British Army, but we are disparaged in so many ways."
Peter Carroll, a Lib Dem councillor in Folkestone, Kent, where many Gurkhas have settled near their old base, said: "The greatest test of whether people should be part of a community is if they are prepared to die for it - and these people are the bravest of the brave."
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg told the crowd of around 2,000 veterans: "When I told people what you get from the Government in return for the years of brave, loyal, uncomplaining success, people simply don't believe it.
"It is quite simply a national disgrace. I will do everything I can to end this unacceptable and immoral discrimination."
In the Commons later Mr Clegg challenged Gordon Brown on the issue, demanding to know why Gurkhas retiring after 1997 were more "worthy" of British citizenship.
The Prime Minister said Gurkhas had served "loyally" in every part of the world and the Government had already acted to improve their pay and pension rights.
MoD sources said the Government was concerned that backdating the changes to before 1997 would set a dangerous precedent for other retrospective pension upgrades.
The Gurkhas' links with the British Army date back to 1814 when British forces fought a fierce war against Nepal, during which the adversaries developed a deep mutual respect and admiration.
Realising they were unlikely ever to defeat the hill warriors, British commanders began to recruit them instead. By the time of the Second World War the Army had no fewer than 40 Gurkha battalions, with 112,000 men.
New recruits are selected each year through a series of gruelling "Dokho Races" in which young hopefuls must carry heavy baskets over steep tracks across the Nepalese mountains.
Gurkha soldiers are mostly led by British officers, although since the 1960s the brightest Nepalese have undergone officer training at Sandhurst and risen through the ranks.
Prince Harry served with a detachment of Gurkhas during his recent deployment to southern Afghanistan.
Desevering case Britain rejects
Thousands of Gurkha veterans who fought for Britain have been denied the right to live and settle here.
And there are plenty of other deserving cases who have been torn from their families and sent back to their home countries by officials.
Yet at the same time, human rights legislation means scores of criminals and illegal immigrants have been granted the right to live here, usually at great expense to the taxpayer.
Here the Daily Mail details some of the men and women who should be allowed to live in Britain - and undeserving cases who have been told they can stay.
Madan Kumar Gurung
The 55-year-old served in the Gurkha Transport Regiment for 24 years, protecting British interests in Hong Kong.
He patrolled the buffer between Hong Kong and mainland China with live ammunition, watching for signs of trouble. He later became a training officer for the regiment, testing the driving skills of young soldiers.
Despite his decorated service, Home Office officials rejected his application for indefinite leave to remain in Britain earlier this year.
During the year-long process, Mr Gurung has been unable to work or open a bank account, living off the charity of relatives and financial aid from the Royal British Legion.
Yesterday he handed back his precious Long Service and Good Conduct medal in protest at his treatment.
He said: "I feel anger and sadness about my treatment, having served for 24 years with complete loyalty.
"Handing my medal back was one of the saddest moments of my whole life. I earned my medal through hard work and dedication.
"But the medal means nothing if I can't remain in Britain. I cannot understand why the Government is not allowing me to stay when so many others are allowed to remain."
He is appealing against the Home Office's decision, and says he will go on hunger strike if it tries to deport him.
Deborah Phillips
Despite being the sole carer for her increasingly frail 80-year-old mother, Miss Phillips must leave the country in the next few weeks.
She has no intention of claiming benefits and would save the taxpayer the cost of helping look after her mother.
But because Miss Phillips was born in the U.S., moving to England when she was three, she has been refused permission to stay. She must leave by the end of April.
Camille Beutler
The American-born teenager has been ordered to leave after the authorities rejected her application for residency.
But to comply, the 15-year-old grammar school pupil will have to leave both her parents and three siblings behind - tearing her family apart.
Her American mother Lee-Ann Korpal, 37, may now have to travel to the U.S. to live with Camille because they have no living relatives there. But that will mean leaving her
British businessman husband Nick, 45, and their other children behind because he does not have a U.S. work permit.
Verah Kachepa
A family of five were deported to Malawi in 2005, despite a long-running campaign to keep them in the country supported by Tory MP Ann Widdecombe.
Volunteer worker Mrs Kachepa and her four children, who had settled in the country - with the eldest daughter engaged to a solider and due to study nursing - were escorted from their home in Weymouth, Dorset, to Heathrow.
Mrs Kachepa fell foul of immigration laws after her husband, who had been working here legally, abandoned her and returned to Malawi.
The Home Office refused to allow them to remain, despite evidence that they would be in danger if they went home.
...And the undesirables we keep
Learco Chindamo
Italian-born Chindamo will be allowed to stay in Britain despite his 12-year sentence for killing headmaster Philip Lawrence at his school in 1995.
An immigration tribunal last year ruled that Chindamo, 27, could not be deported when he is freed because it would breach his right to a "family life".
Chindamo, who moved to Britain when he was six, is eligible for parole this year.
Yonis Dirie
In 2006, a judge was told he could not deport the rapist because Dirie had been granted sanctuary in Britain.
The drug addict and career criminal, a Somali, was given a ten-year sentence at the Old Bailey for the rape in 1990.
Judge Gerald Gordon, QC, had asked if he could recommend the 40-year-old be deported for what he described as "a truly horrendous crime".
But he was told that because Dirie had been given indefinite leave to remain in the UK, he could not be sent back to his war-torn home country unless the Home Secretary intervenes.
Carol Ajoh
The asylum seeker, who falsely claimed she was a lesbian, was allowed to stay in Britain in 2006 - despite being a married mother of six.
Ajoh was not sent home to the Caribbean after a judge ruled it would violate her human rights.
In the High Court, Mr Justice Collins said her 2002 claim that she would be persecuted in Jamaica over her sexuality was "totally bogus".
But because she remarried and gave birth to three children while her case was being decided, he said it "lacked humanity" to remove her.
Afghan hijackers
In February 2000, nine Afghans hijacked a Boeing 727 and forced the crew to fly to Stansted so they could claim asylum.
After a series of legal battles costing taxpayers up to £15million, they were denied refugee status but told they could stay here on "discretionary leave" for human rights reasons.
It gave the men the right to work, housing and a full range of benefits worth tens of thousands of pounds.
Source: Daily Mail UK, Mar. 20, 2008
-
Biaseness... After so much they've done.
-
uhh.. ultimately they're mercenaries?
they serve here in Singapore too.. but also have to return to Nepal after their 27 year contract is done..
-
Yea... thats the terms of their contracts. Something to keep a close watch on though, since it directly affects us.
-
so unfair.
-
Since when has governments been fair to their soldiers? They glorify how soldiers serve and sacrifice for their nation. But when soldiers are injured or retired, the governments will try all means not to return the sacrifice for their veterans. Being a soldier is a raw deal.