If there is any of the existing people's movements that are shadowed and neglected by the concerned, it is the ex-British Gurkhas' movement which has been raising their voice against the discriminatory action by the UK, which has been distributing pension between its own British ex-servicemen and ex-British Gurkhas by a huge deference that has embittered the Gurkhas who, at the cost of their blood and sweat, served shoulder to shoulder with British counterpart for the betterment of the UK.

One of the organizations leading this movement, United British Gurkhas ex-servicemen, Nepal, (UBGEAN) asserts that the movement of Gurkhas is insatiable and inexorable until the UK manages to pay the pension of same scale; allow the Gurkhas as own nationals to enter and stay in the UK without let or hindrance; and guarantee the financial security for those who were destined to be handicapped during the war-time and their families – a reasonable demand the UK still seems reluctant to accede to.

As to the pension distribution, the issue of pension distribution has to be raised ardently since it is the pension-distribution only which establishes the equal status and dignity between two sides. The demand that the both sides be distributed the pension of same scale even no less or more than a single hair is relevant very much .The only equal deal between the UK servicemen and Gurkhas is tantamount to the sacrifice made by Gurkhas under the policy of the government of the both countries . Certainly, Gurkhas have invested almost two third of their life-time for the sovereignty of the UK by fighting for it dedicatively even more than the Armies of the UK. So it is natural for anyone to be pinched with such an unequal treatment for the same cause, for which Gurkhas contributed to the UK, alongside British Armies. So this is not the case related to bread or alms, but equal status and dignity since all human beings are tethered to the norm that the meaning of life rests on the spectrum of self-esteem and equal status, which a man hopes to live for.

What matters is not how much the UK should pay , but how to draw the line of equality with the pension-distribution to the both sides .The nature of the movement indicates this : suppose , if the UK pays its own ex-armies £ 1 per month and pays the same £1 to Gurkhas , it shall be OK . If the UK pays £10 to Gurkhas only, but £1 to British Armies , that shall not be tolerable to Gurkhas , who are fighting for the justice of equality . Notwithstanding the justice of equality , the UK has been paying Gurkhas far less than what it is paying to its own British ex-servicemen . At all events, the UK must come to follow this: either the British government should pay Gurkhas exactly the same as much as it is paying to its own British ex-men or pay its own ex-men exactly the same as much as Gurkhas are being paid .Why can't the UK, which pays the same value to the either sides at the time of on-service, afford to pay the pension of the same scale to Gurkhas after their retirement ? The question is unanswerable.

It must be mistaken to hold the idea that Gurkhas wish to stay in the UK because the UK is the dream-land of Gurkhas. They tend to enter the UK not for the heavenly attraction to the UK, but for the axiomatic right that only justifies the satisfactory reason regarding the agony and the sacrifice , with which the UK retained its own sovereignty in history . Whether or not they settle there , the UK should issue the legal provision of letting Gurkhas visit or stay freely at their will. Not doubtly, Gurkhas are to stay and go to the UK not to eke out their livelihood, but chisel the hill of injustice fostered by the UK to drag out their dignity intact from there. The natural and ethical question is: why not to stay in the UK, for which they have shed their invaluable blood, for "Today”of which they have given up their "Tomorrow”?

Here in Nepal, the home-land of Gurkhas, the government is hesitating to deal the issue from a diplomatic approach. The Nepal government seems a mute spectator regarding this issue as if it is the case only of Gurkhas. The fact that the government of Nepal is displaying reluctance to settle down this case and there is preponderance of only non-indigenous community in the decision-making level , plays the role of catalyst for Gurkhas who are from indigenous communities to be compelled to feel that their case has been looked down on just because they are from the indigenous communities whom the Nepal government in history sent to the foreign land for some internal political reasons so that they might be extinct in abroad . It would not be a good signal if Gurkhas are made to conclude that their movement is stalemated just because of being from indigenous nationalities who have been marginalized by the rulers of Nepal with the covertly policy of the then government .

Perhaps first to the Maoist’s , the movement of Gurkhas is a burning and sensitive issue more than are the movements of any other nationalists prevailing in Nepal , in that, if this case is not carefully coped with and solved, it will sooner or later devastate the ethnic sentimentalism resulting in a revolt adverse to the national integrity because all Gurkhas fighting for justice and equality are from indigenous nationalities – psychologically humiliated and apparently marginalized by the state .

It was the state policy which generated the destiny of Gurkhas joining the army of the UK. History has it that the background of the inception of Gurkhas recruitment was the time when the successive Kings of Nepal –guided by the Policy of Hinduisation– were tightening up the hold of the totally centralized regime bequeathed by their predecessor, King Prithvinarayan Shah who had centralized the power being autonomously exercised by indigenous nationalities, in the name of the unification of Nepal as a whole .Then, the policy of the state was changed in the favor of the power-holders , for they feared the possibility of a revolt from indigenous people to get their position back . By hook or crook , they wanted the indigenous nationalities , whose state they had brutally coerced , to be totally excluded from the decision-making level to insure their single caste chauvinistic dictatorship . The ruler elites were lying in wait for how to annihilate the man-power of the indigenous people. The power holders' malicious intent of excluding the nationalities from political state-affairs eventually coincided with the British's need of looking for troops who could bravely fight for the extension of their imperialism ,for which the British saw such a martial quality in men from indigenous nationalities . So the then Nepal's government drained out most of the indigenous youths to be extinct in the battle abroad to avert the prospective danger in home. The youths – from indigenous people such as Rai, Magar, Gurung , Tamang , Limbu etc.– had no other alternatives but to be forcefully joined in the British Armies. Runnig away and escaping the the agent (Gallawal, a person commissioned for get the youths enlisted in the British Army) , designated by the UK and Nepal Government, could not prevent them from being joined in the British Army . What a heart-rending and psychological torture it was that they had to be deliberately sent to the den of death! So, if any ex-Gurkhas claim it is the issue ralated to indigenous nationalities as well, that's correct because the testimony of history speaks of such.

The attempt to snuff out the voices of the Gurkhas might end up in providing a space for the Gurkhas to seek humbly another state in very Nepal. No matter what, the substantiality of the movement is ,without fail, interrelated with the sovereignty of Nepal . May be , Gurkhas themselves would not turn against the power-holders , but all those who are sympathizer and sensitized by such government's negligence, would certainly come up with a rebellious swipe in time to come if their demand of justice is ever sided away .

While Nepal government must shoulder most of the blame, the UK is not entirely blameless either. While the UK should have considered the case as tractable and solvable, it has kept on playing Gurkhas false. The UK, which was propelled to the arena of victory by Gurkhas , is now inflicting the feeling of hatred on Gurkhas. This is indicative of disparaging the dignity of Gurkhas along with the sovereignty of Nepal. What's worth keeping in mind is that this movement is for the UK a purgatory where it must cleanse its sin of getting Gurkhas killed for its own vested interest . This movement is for the UK an assay to check if the UK's genuinity is smirched with humanity, democracy and human right. In the long run, the UK has no any other alternatives, but to cash down the demand of ever invincible Gurkhas. All who uphold the value of the real meaning of human dignity and justice should be sensitive to the case of Gurkhas who fought not only for the British Crown but for world peace-keeping, for Gurkhas have been deployed to the dangerous conflicting areas anywhere in the world in the mission of peace.

There is no doubt that a high level diplomatic approach from both government would, if the governments of both sides are sincere to the justice of nature, pave the way out. However, neither the UK nor Nepal government has displayed any concern over solving the problem the way of the government-to-government approach. The later this case is settled down, the deeper this movement creates a rift in the sentiment of the Gurkhas and their communities, for the ethnic cleansing of them, the then Nepal government's conspiracy, in due course, metamorphosed into a legacy- the recruitment of Gurkhas.