Gurkhas are people from Nepal, recruited for the British national army, Singapore Police and the Indian Army. They are not hired just to fight war. Different nations have different security and military strategy, for example, the primary purpose of the Gurkhas in the Singapore Police is to act as a neutral or impartial force should there be any racial conflict in Singapore. British Gurkhas and Indian Gurkhas are deployed differently as per their host nation’s military strategy; hence Gurkhas do not fit into any category or the definition given for mercenaries.As far as the available literature suggests the Gurkha is represented as a mercenary (Chene 1991; Hutt, 1989,) but there is the debate among the Gurkhas on their status.
This is very recent phenomenon among the more educated Gurkhas who have access to the definition of the contemporary mercenary. In this respect, Article 47 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention, defines mercenary as, “one hired to be directly involved in armed conflict for their own gain” (Protocol, 2005).The financial incentive must be offered by someone native to the conflict and must be more than what is paid to those they already employ (Protocol, 2005). For example, governmental hiring of a mercenary would involve paying them more than their national military troops (Clever, 2000). The final two qualifications are that the mercenaries cannot be native to the armed forces of the conflicts and on-duty members of another national military (Protocol, 2005).
Another essential definition of the mercenary is that they are paid more than the host national army of the specific country. Oftentimes, Gurkhas are either paid equal or less than their native counterparts. “Gurkhas Justice” is living ethnographic evidence of unequal payment – the primary aim of the Gurkha Justice is to ensure Gurkhas are equally treated with their British counterparts. Gurkhas are duty bound members of the nation such as Britain, India and Singapore thus they are clearly not the mercenaries. The availability of the further evidence helps the motion proposed, i.
e. when the position of the Nepalese Prime Minister was solicited in April 1947, he had agreed to recruitments by both British and Indian on the following condition:“If terms and conditions at the final state do not prove detrimental to the interest or dignity of the Nepalese Government, my government will be happy to maintain connections with both Armies provided the men of the Gurkha regiments are willing to serve and they will not be looked down upon as mercenary” (Chene, 1991).In the meeting with all the representatives, the British delegation stated with emphasis that His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom in no way regarded Gurkha troops as mercenaries. They would form an integral and distinguished part of the British Army and that, subject to the limitations of finance and supply welfare, facilities would be provided for Gurkha troops on similar lines to those provided for British (UK) troops (Chene, 1991).For the Gurkhas, there is an absolute command and structure. For instance, there exists the rank and file like in any military organization.
In fact, the rank of the commanding officer of the Gurkha unit in general is at least a Major, preferably Colonel, in contemporary Gurkha units. Whatever debate may be in the intellectual circle, whatever may be the status of the Gurkhas in the public domain, they are certainly not mercenaries. As far as public perception is concerned it could be that they want to see Gurkhas differently. What the Gurkhas want to be known as is another matter altogether. My observation is that Gurkhas did not really care much about the debate before, but it seems some of them do care now.
