LONDON (Associated Press) – The storied Nepalese warriors who have served in the British military for nearly two centuries were given the automatic right Thursday to settle in Britain, gaining a hard-won victory after years of lawsuits and lobbying.
The Gurkhas’ fierceness has carried them through wars in the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan. But their latest triumph owes much to an aristocratic television star who used her passion and popularity to wring concessions from politicians.
Actress Joanna Lumley, whose articulate advocacy for Gurkhas made her the public face of the campaign, said the decision made it “a fantastic day for my brothers and sisters.”
She joined Gurkhas gathered outside Parliament in screams of “Ayo Gurkhali!” – the soldiers’ famous battle cry.
Lumley told the AP last year that she was drawn to the campaign after hearing her father’s stories of fighting alongside the Gurkhas during World War II.
The Gurkhas have served Britain with distinction since 1815, through the conflagrations of the 20th century and into the 21st. More than 100,000 enlisted in World War I, and similar numbers in WWII. Thirteen have been awarded Britain’s highest military honor, the Victoria Cross.
The intense competition for places within Britain’s Gurkha Brigade – now only 3,800 strong – produces “extremely committed” soldiers who are lauded for their heroism and ferocity, said Briton Alex Northcott, who served as a captain with the Gurkhas in the early 1990s and was saved by one from drowning in a swamp during an exercise in Borneo.
“To watch them in action is absolutely petrifying,” Northcott said.
Nevertheless, British officials have long resisted the Gurkhas’ campaign for more rights, and in 2004 allowed only those who had retired after July 1, 1997, to settle in the country. It had argued that those who retired before 1997 – when the Gurkha base was in Hong Kong – had weak links with Britain.
Other Gurkhas had to apply on a case-by-case basis, which campaigners said left out thousands of Nepalese veterans because the requirements were too stringent. The government had said lifting the restrictions would lead to a flood of up to 100,000 Nepalese migrants that could cost the British taxpayer 1.4 billion pounds ($2.2 billion).
That argument was thrown out this week, when a committee of lawmakers wrote the prime minister a letter saying the projected immigration figures had been “greatly overblown.”
One analyst said the government had no choice but to reverse its stance, hoping to win back some support before next year’s elections after being rocked by an unrelated scandal over lawmakers’ expenses.
“A government that’s involved with an election just on the horizon is going to be reluctant to take on an extremely well-organized and apparently quite popular movement,” said Steven Fielding, the director of the Center for British Politics at Nottingham University.
“The British public have a massive sense of gratitude and affection to the Gurkhas,” he said.
In Nepal, former Gurkha soldiers said they were planning to celebrate.
“We have struggled and fought for years to get these rights, and finally we have achieved it,” said Capt. Kul Prasad Pun, who served 24 years before retiring in 1994.
But he noted the new rules only allowed veterans’ children to settle in Britain if they are under 18 – which would make it difficult for elderly veterans to come to the U.K.
“In our society we parents and children live together as joint families, so barring family members over 18 is not suitable for us,” Pun said.
A dispute over Gurkhas’ pension rights is still outstanding. Gurkhas who retired before 1997 receive less than those who retired later. Home Office Secretary Jacqui Smith said Thursday the government’s position was unchanged.
Britain’s experience with the Gurkhas echoes that of its one-time imperial rival, France, which in 2006 agreed to pay full pensions to veterans from its former colonies. Previously, colonial veterans were paid less than a third of the money given to their French counterparts.
