How the Gurkhas went from pet warriors to victims
We've found a new way to exploit these relics of the British Empire
A century ago, Rudyard Kipling implored Brits to take up 'The White Man's Burden', to venture forth to the dark continents and liberate the natives from sickness, famine and stupidity.
Today, if the over-the-top media coverage of Joanna Lumley's visit to Nepal is anything to go by, we have The White Woman's Burden.
The newspaper splashes on Lumley's visit - featuring photos of the actress being showered with garlands under headlines such as 'VICTORY TRIP' and 'GODDESS JOANNA' - have eerie echoes of Britain's colonial past, with Lumley depicted as the embodiment of the Mother Nation and the Gurkhas as her happy, appreciative children.
The use of Lumley’s trip as a symbol of caring post-colonial Britain is nauseating
It's worth remembering that a central part of Kipling's infamous poem was his view of foreign peoples as "children" who needed our help. They were "half-devil and half-child", he said, and colonialists should "serve [their] needs".
So it is today, it seems, with newspapermen and politicians holding up St Joanna as the deliverer of happiness and liberty to the little brown people 'over there'. Of course, no one can challenge Miss Lumley's motives or deny the genuine bond of affection that has linked the Gurkhas with many British army officers and their families.
And, of course, the actress's campaigning on behalf of the retired soldiers has forced through some beneficial changes. The Gurkhas have always been treated shoddily by the Ministry of Defence, which has paid them lower wages than British-born squaddies and given them fewer pension rights.
New Labour ruled, in typical mean-spirited fashion, that only Gurkhas who left military service after 1997 would be allowed to settle in the UK. But following a pro-Gurkha motion in the Commons and Lumley's vocal campaigning, the government backtracked: now, Gurkhas who left the military before 1997 after completing at least four years' service can apply to settle here.
Yet there is something unmistakably nauseating in the transformation of Lumley's trip into a symbol of modern, caring, post-colonial Britain which now helps brown people rather than oppressing them.
The Gurkhas have long been the playthings of the British elite, but where in the past they were pushed forward as evidence of Britain's fighting spirit and its ability to create 'loyal savages', today they are pushed forward as evidence of Britain's superior emotional intelligence and its ability to empathise with Third World victims.
For all the discussion today of Gurkhas as good friends of Britain, we 
About the author
Brendan O'Neill is editor of spiked. He has written for The Spectator, New Statesman, The Guardian, Christian Science Monitor, Slate and... MORE
Also by this author
- James Bulger's mother is 'wrong kind of victim'
- Haiti earthquake media coverage is titillating us with disaster porn
- How to kill and maim but keep it eco-friendly
- Stephen Fry has turned Twitter into an enemy of free speech
- Censors show class prejudice by passing explicit Antichrist for cinemas
- Most Read
- Most Emailed
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Related Links
About Us | Contact Us Our other sites: Auto Express | Custom PC | Evo | IT Pro | MacUser | Men's Fitness | Micro Mart | PC Pro | bit-tech | Know Your Mobile | Octane | Expert Reviews | Channel Pro | Know Your Cell | iMOTOR | Know Your Mobile India | iGizmo | Digital SLR Photography | Den of Geek | The Week | Computer Shopper | Dennis Communications | Magazines | Mobile Phone Deals
The Week is a registered Trade Mark of Felix Dennis. The First Post is a registered Trade Mark of First Post Newsgroup IPR Limited.
Comments
Hide comments
How very little you understand the Army/Gurkha relationship.You are undoubtably a left liberal self important snob.Get out more.
Posted by ROBERT BOYD at 12:36pm on July 29, 2009
All this regurgitation of what people said decades ago is so often irrelevant and/or trotted out to assuage "guilt"; give it a rest. Or give us for example similar views from other cultures/times, such as the Middle Kingdom view of foreigners (actually quite strong still, in China).
Posted by alan scott at 4:04pm on July 29, 2009
The past should stay where it belongs.I was brought up hearing about the bravery & how loyal the Ghurkas are to our country.I say it was years over due that they are welcomed here as Brits. They showed J Lumley the respect they love her what is so wrong in that.No one is making a mockery of these loyal Brits.Yes Brits
Posted by Josie at 4:11pm on July 29, 2009
Well, I suppose you are entitled to a point of view.
Posted by Julian Scott-Foxwell at 4:38pm on July 29, 2009
The one thing that you seem to miss is that any of this was necessary. The work of the Ghurka Trust in caring for the old soldiers and dependants is a measure of the esteem that some people in the UK have for them. What about sending your fee for this article to the Trust?
Posted by Herbert Hatley at 5:02pm on July 29, 2009
A small point. Kipling never implored the Brits to take up the "White Man's Burden". This poem was directed at the Americans who had colonised the Philipines.
Posted by Jack Angove at 8:47am on July 30, 2009
Presumably this article is only intended to provoke, and deserves to be regarded with contempt for its objective as well as its content. Shame though, upon the normally sensible First Post for providing a platform for such twaddle
Posted by Simon Martin at 9:16am on July 30, 2009
I had exactly the same feelings about Lumley; an officer's daughter patronising what are in reality mercenaries. Doubtless the British state has exploited them, but they joined voluntarily, and I understand thousands apply every year, so the wages, while appearing low compared to squaddies, must be viewed compared to average wages in Nepal, in which country they are an elite, and live like lords when their service is over. They fight and kill for a foreign power for money, that, by definition, is a mercenary, and any attempt to claim they have a special right to come and live here [including their extended families] is patronising. Lumley merely added her gushing luvviness to the already patronising attitude [which includes several of the commenters here]. This is all post-colonial guilt on the part of the middle-class who benefitted hugely from the Raj, including Lumley's officer-class family. Remember the Gurkhas were formed to put down Indian resistance to the Raj, and they were very effective at it. Do we owe them anything? No.
Posted by Peter Simmons at 10:17am on July 30, 2009
Complete and utter rubbish..............I've never seen so much twist in a man's knickers!
Posted by Mike Smith at 10:37am on July 30, 2009
Peter Simmons at 10:17am on July 30, 2009 Yet another load of left liberal twaddle .I really do wish you would get your facts right (your international law for a start, also pay scales in the British Army. Your concepts are so obviously the result of left wing history teaching,found most commonly in comprehensive education. Believe it or not History has many faces.
Posted by ROBERT BOYD at 4:49pm on July 30, 2009
Unfortunately, Brendan O'Neill appears to have a mind-set that is rooted in old British colonialism rather than the more modern, post Thatcher monetarism which doesn't care about Britain's colonial past so long as the cost of it remains low or even negligible to the public purse. This is purely the attitude that has existed for the last twenty years and without Joanna Lumley's help in exploiting her friends in the media no Ghurka would have been allowed to stay in Britain despite the obvious right and relatively low cost to the government. Whilst I can sympathise with Brendan's anti-British attitude, I feel that he comes across as merely sniping at someone who has managed to do something that her father couldn't and force the government to bow to public opinion. And in answer to Simon Martin, yes the rates of pay are determined by their home country but we do owe them much as many who served with them in various conflicts will testify where their allegiance to Britain has never been in question, so I believe they have a right to retire in the country they served.
Posted by Patrick Rowley-Brooke at 10:26pm on July 30, 2009
Robert Boyd. Your post, while strong on ad hominem slurs is short on facts; there aren't any...This issue has nothing to do with international law, pay scales in the British Army or your ludicrous claim that it is all down to 'left wing history teaching found most commonly in comprihensive schools' - my Gramnmar School history teacher would appreciate that last one...The Gurkhas have traditionally been paid less than UK born troops, quite rightly, they are Nepalese without the UK's cost of living. And I can assure you my grasp of history is extensive, unlike yours...
Posted by Peter Simmons at 12:52pm on August 2, 2009
For all those posters claiming the Gurkhas are held in high esteem in Britain, that they are 'loyal Brits' and other ludicrous statements, is it because you're thrilled by their favoured method of killing involving their 'traditional' large curved knife, the Khukuri? Do you get excited at the thought of it slicing throats like it did in the Falklands? They are lauded for their butchery skills, yet, being smaller than the average westerner, and brown skinned, means they can be patronised endlessly by the likes of you and the Lumley creature whose officer father doubtless sent plenty of them to their deaths, while surviving into ripe old age himself. Officers tend to be like that; few ever get injured these days, unlike the old days when they actually led their force into battle. Witness the numbers of old retired generals who spout nonsense regularly. It's racist, colonial patronising to feel affection for mercenaries. They can't be loyal to the UK since they aren't citizens, perhaps Nepal wouldn't be so keen on exporting its population if these people had stayed there and done something for their own country rather than the Raj, leaving it the undeveloped mountain backwater it still is. Try thinking for yourself rather than repeating the tired old 'plucky little Gurkhas' dogma.
Posted by Peter Simmons at 1:05pm on August 2, 2009
It is comments by the likes of Peter Simmons that really shows Britains True Colours!!! Britain has used peoples shamelessly, how many gurkhas made the ultimate sacrifice over the years?? Uh?, yet they or their children do not have an automatic right of entry into the country that so many of their countrymen died for?? As for the rest of us "poor colonials, whose fathers, brothers, husbands,etc,etc died for the Mother country. We do not have a right to enter either but the likes of germans and their ilk can cruise in anytime they want to!! Shame on you Britain Shame!!!!!
Posted by Seanofaus at 7:00am on August 3, 2009
Seanofus: they, the Gurkhas, were contracted to kill for wages. That's what they did, there was no mention in the contract that they would becomeBritons or be able to live here. They were happy to accept the money and do the killing. What part of that don't you understand? Mercenaries by any definition. Or are you patronising them since they are short and brown and so deserve special treatment? If they had been Russians or Uzbeks, would the same apply? 'Made the ultimate sacrifice' is just purple prose trying to make a point by exploiting emorionally charged language; soldiers tend to get killed occasionally, it's the nature of warfare and they all knew the risks. There aren't all that many who died actually, so you 'so many of their countrymen dies for' is yet more hyperbole. Don't know which colony you're from, but we see thousands of Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis etc. coming here every year, and many stay, so your ludicrous statement about not having the right to enter is a lie. 'Germans and their ilk' are part of the EU, which entitles free movement among member states.
Posted by Peter Simmons at 10:41am on August 5, 2009
Add comment
You must be signed into your user account to add a comment.