The Gurkhas’ successful fight for justice evokes memories of another Gurkha campaign, says Geoffrey Bindman
The dazzling media campaign led by Joanna Lumley to win the rights of former Gurkha soldiers of the British Army to settle in the UK prompted memories of my rather low-key involvement with their cause in the 1990s. I was asked to advise the Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen’s Association (GAESO) about their pension entitlement from the UK government. They had long complained that the arrangements for Gurkhas after their retirement from service were grossly inferior to those for other British troops. There was clearly a serious issue about racial discrimination.
The discrepancy was dramatic. Gurkha pensions could range from one-sixth to one-twentieth of those paid to other ex-soldiers of the British army by the same British government which had employed them all. How had this situation arisen and how could it possibly be justified?
History
The presence of Gurkhas in the British army seems to date back to 1814 when British Indian troops at war against Nepal were so impressed with the fighting qualities of their opponents that after the war they recruited them. In 1947 when Indian independence arrived, the Gurkhas were given a choice. They could join the Indian army of the new independent Indian government, or they could join the British army. A tri-partite agreement was drawn up between the British, Indian, and Nepalese governments which set out the arrangements. The contentious provision of this agreement—which has been relied on by all subsequent British governments to depress Gurkha pay and pensions—equates the terms and conditions even for those opting to join the British army to those joining the Indian army. Indian army rates have always been much lower.
Leaders of GAESO came to London in the mid 90s seeking equal treatment. An American businessman had agreed to fund their legal representation in Britain. We proceeded to investigate the possibility of challenging the shortfall in Gurkha pensions by reference to the Race Relations Act 1976 (RRA 1976). The government clung to the tri-partite agreement and argued that RRA 1976 did not apply to those who had been engaged exclusively for service outside the UK. It also claimed that for those living in Nepal the cost of living was so much less than in Britain that paying pensions at British rates would confer an undeserved windfall on those who continued to live in Nepal. That ignored the fact that Gurkhas were not obliged to live in Nepal, just as other British soldiers were not obliged to live in Britain. Wherever they lived they could still collect the same pension. The legal case was difficult and we prepared to litigate while hoping that the threat would induce the government to give way or at least compromise to a degree acceptable to GAESO members.
Settlement
I travelled to Nepal to collect evidence. Most Gurkhas lived in or near Pokra, set in an idyllic Himalayan valley beneath the towering bulk of Annapurna. At Pokra airport I was greeted by an expectant crowd clamouring to cover me with garlands of flowers. Warm-hearted and generous, the faith of the Gurkha community in British institutions was humbling. Reasonably but naively, they expected our government to act justly towards those who had fought bravely and selflessly throughout the world in defence of British interests. I visited several of the men in their homes. Elderly and sick, they lived in poor conditions, clearly unable to survive adequately on the meagre sums they were receiving. Several had been decorated for their bravery, including one man I met who had received the Victoria Cross.
I returned to London with a dossier of evidence demonstrating the hardship I had witnessed. In Katmandu I had been taken to meet the prime minister of Nepal who promised full support from his embassy in London. Unfortunately, in the fragile political situation which still prevails in Nepal, I heard a few days later that he had been deposed and replaced.
Negotiation
Negotiations with the Ministry of Defence in London bore some fruit. An increase in pension rates was agreed, though well short of equality. Then to my astonishment I read in a newspaper that lawyers acting for GAESO had launched High Court proceedings in London. Who were these lawyers? Who was instructing them? I soon discovered that a palace revolution in GAESO had removed my friends from the leadership. Without telling me, the new leaders had instructed a new solicitor who claimed, when I spoke to him, that he was unaware that GAESO already had legal representation in England. This was—to put it mildly—surprising but my instructions were plainly withdrawn. My relationship with GAESO had abruptly ended.
Since then I have followed developments through reports in the media and e-mails from Gurkha friends. A number of lawyers have been successively employed in the UK and there has been a good deal of litigation. Attempts to challenge discrimination in pension arrangements through the courts have largely failed. Though the campaign for equality has achieved some success, full equality has still not been achieved. The latest attempt to secure equal pensions failed in the High Court last July.
By contrast, the campaign led by Joanna Lumley to secure Gurkha ex-servicemen the right to settle in Britain has succeeded brilliantly, following a powerful High Court judgment by Mr Justice Blake. I trust that those who do settle in Britain will receive equal pension rights as well. However, the Gurkhas I met in Nepal were much more interested in survival at home than in coming to Britain. That is why I have found the recent campaign puzzling. Of course, those who risk their lives for Britain should be able to live here if they wish, but all former soldiers of the British Army should receive equal pension rights wherever they choose to live.
Geoffrey Bindman
