Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
Wasn't it the conditions laid down by the Nepalese government that control how the Gurkha's were treated. After all, permission is required to recruit in Nepal. The Nepalese don't want to lose people permanently or have people returning to Nepal as relatively rich people, both of which would distort the country.
|
I think you are correct.
I have spoken to a few people who have been to Nepal on military duties and they all seem to tell the same story. The villages feed up the strongest boys in the hope that they will get into the army, when they retire back to Nepal after army service they settle back in the same village.
One told me that back in the 90's when he visited you would see villages with shanty type houses and then on the side of the mountain there would be a huge mansion, this would be owned by ex seargent xyz. He said that the ex soldiers would return and would put something back in to repay the village for helping him get into the army, it could be a water supply, school, generator etc.
He did say that the government were anxious about individuals receiving too much pension, because they may not return home and help the villages or it could create a greater divide between rich and poor. There was a huge fuss in this country about them receiving comparable pension to UK born soldiers, but the sum they received even though considerably less allowed them to live a very rich and comfortable life on their return to Nepal.
I agree that it seemed unfair that they are not paid like for like, but unfortunately it has now created problems in Nepal with very rich few and now it will mean some can afford not even return to spread some of their wealth amongst those who helped them become wealthy.
Perhaps a better system would of been for the MOD to spend the money (difference) on improving facilities and infrastructure in their country instead of creating millonaires.