Praising Gurkhas is not enough

By Harry Phibbs

Everybody loves the Gurkhas. The Lib Dems, the Daily Mail. Price Harry has paid tribute to their bravery and skill currently being shown fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Grassroots campaigners across Britain speak up in appreciation. This is no surprise. The tradition service to the crown from the Gurkhas is long – for the last couple of centuries Britain's military strength has been enhanced by recruiting forces from a Gorkha district of Nepal. The Gorkha district, and its inhabitants the Gorkhas – or Gurkhas as we call them – has prompted much admiration from the British. Gurkhas have served alongside British troops since 1815 – winning 26 Victoria Crosses. Not that things were always sweetness and light. In the Gurkha war from 1814-1816 they fought against the British East India Company and, having failed to defeat them, the British reached an accomodation with them.
But there is a disconnection between the sentiment of goodwill for them and a willingness to treat them decently. Gurkhas who left the army before 1997 are not allowed to stay in the UK. Recently the Labour MP Robert Wareing tabled an early day motion declaring: "This House recognises the valour and excellent service provided by Gurkha troops operating alongside British forces in military conflicts throughout the 20th century and since; and believes that on retirement they should be granted full British citizenship should they wish it." Yesterday, Nick Clegg raised the issue with the prime minister. The rule that Gurkhas who left service before 1997 are not eligible for British citizenship, with its entitlement to live in the UK, is because that was the date of the handover of Hong Kong to China – since then the regiment has been based in Britain while before that it was based in Hong Kong.
It is difficult to make sense of the decision in terms of immigration. Labour MP Kate Hoey has pointed to the fact that around 2,000 immigrants every day are given National Insurance numbers, which allow them to live and work in the UK. Yet it is estimated that only between 7,000 and 10,000 more Gurkha veterans would settle in Britain if the laws change. The total number eligible to live here if the rules were changed would be 43,000, but it is predicted that most would choose to remain in Nepal.
There is a much wider argument about whether or not there is too much immigration to this country. One argument for tighter control is that immigration is a burden on public resources. There is little likelihood that the Gurkhas would be. It is much more likely that with their spirit of enterprise and hard work they would be an economic boon.
In 2004 the then home secretary David Blunkett said: "We have put together the best package to enable discharged Gurkhas to apply for settlement and citizenship. I hope this decision makes our gratitude clear." No doubt his spin-doctors felt they were being very clever using the term "discharged" to disguise their betrayal.
The Gurkhas have saved a lot of British and reassure fighting two world wars and many other beside. Apart from giving them the right to live in the country they have fought for, the government should make another gesture. The should reintroduce the Royal Tournament, which last took place in 1999 and offered such a magnificent reminder of the contribution the Gurkhas have made and still make.