(Courtesy: el Zorro)
The writing below is in response to an opinion piece published in the Kathmandu Post on Sunday, April 22, 2007. The author of the opinion piece is Mr. Peter J. Karthak, a brilliant writer and a frequent contributor on various issues related to Nepal.
Mr. Karthak's opinion piece is located at the following URL:
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=107397
As a matter of clarification, similar to Mr. Karthak's writing, this rejoinder is not so much a commentary on the real issue at hand (the British Gurkhas' quest for fair treatment). Instead, this is an exercise at emulating Mr. Karthak's logic (and his style of writing), to demonstrate the weaknesses in the author's assumptions and the flaws in his logic
As eloquent a writer as Mr. Peter J. Karthak may be, his platform of communal slander as the basis for his dissertation on why Gurkhas are not "mercenaries," boils down to nothing more than a clever play on "big" words. That is, words on paper, presented in such a fashion so as to forward a distorted perception of Mr. Karthak's customized reality.
Mr. Karthak's presentation of history to support his theory that Prithvi Narayan Shah was in fact a mercenary is highly entertaining (in juvenile kind of way). The author's stab at injecting an ethnic dimension into the debate on the British Gurkhas' quest for parity is somewhat ridiculous; especially given that his extrapolation (generalization) stems from a sample size of eight to a population of 26 million! Words may be Mr. Karthak's forte, but numbers certainly do not appear to be!
Mr. Karthak's postulation that Prithvi Narayan Shah was a mercenary has some merit. His colourful depictions of King Shah's military exploits, the King's methods, etc. make a whole lot of sense if the intent is to superimpose a 21st century dictionary definition on a 17th century warrior. For individuals who are able to contextualize Mr. Karthak's loquacious presentation, his words amount to a whole lot of nonsense - facts, grossly out of context and skilfully distorted to support the author's own point of view.
For starters, Mr. Karthak probably knows that the very origin of the concept of a modern military began with the birth of the idea of a nation state. With higher frequencies of conflict, Kings and Emperors (in their time) gravitated away from the idea of hiring mercenaries for specific periods and instead, began permanently employing these same mercenaries. Thus the birth of the concept of a modern military and simultaneously, the emergence of the notion of nation states.
Applying the logic above, Prithvi Narayan Shah's quest to form the Nepali nation state was very much in line with the trends that defined both the movement away from the mercenary mentality (to a professional and standing military), and towards the concept of a nation state (as opposed to tiny principalities).
So in essence, Peter Karthak is correct, but his presentation of history is culled to fulfil a resentful purpose - to add an unnecessary communal dimension to a debate that has nothing to do ethnicity. To satiate Mr. Karthak's ego, he is right to point out Prithvi Narayan Shah played the role of a leader of various individual mercenary armies and Prithvi was very much a part of the historical trend that resulted in the formation of nation states.
However, this observation bears absolutely no relevance to the fact that Nepal's Gurkha/Gorkha army men (serving in various capacities for foreign employers), have always been and will always be, mercenaries.
There is no shame in being termed a "mercenary." Being "a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army" is a job like any other. The term itself distinguishes one solider from another on the basis of nationality, not ethnicity. And if it is Mr. Karthak's contention that Gurkha mercenaries are discriminated against by bahuns and chhetris, what he really means is that bahuns and chhetris are discriminated against British Army recruiters. Being termed a "mercenary" is not discrimination if the term is applicable; being denied employment if one is not from a certain communal background is the very definition of one form of discrimination.
Perhaps Mr. Karthak is familiar with the concept of a PMF (Private Military Firm)? "Corporate Warriors" employed by these firms are hired straight out of any number of special forces programmes that span the globe - this includes the elite British Gurkha regiments as well. Similar to the Gurkhas (Nepalese citizens serving in foreign militaries), these PMFs employ a host of mercenaries from across the globe.
The point here is that an American Special Forces operator, working for the American government is a solider. That same soldier, should he chose to seek employment with a company like (the former) Executive Outcomes, changes definitions from a solider to a mercenary. Why? That's simply how the term is defined and it has absolutely nothing to do with communal background or ethnicity.
Unfortunately, Mr. Karthak seems to be slightly behind the times. Mercenaries have evolved from Mr. Karthak's medieval definition to become rational, responsible, economic actors in a global environment where military skills are in high demand. Nepal's Gurkha forces are not an exception.
The bottom line is this: "Yes, Mr. Karthak, in the 21st century, mercenaries do win Victoria Crosses and Param Vir Chakras." And if mercenaries are deemed qualified to be entrusted with the lives of Hamid Karzai and Ahmed Chalabi, they should damn well be qualified to serve in a sentry post at Buckingham Palace or as a desk ADC to the Indian President.
In today's globalized environment, Mr. Karthak needs to understand that for a British Gurkha (or any Special Forces operator for that matter), a Victoria Cross or a Param Vir Chakra is more than a distinction - it is a qualification on a resume that commands a higher salary in the privatized military sector.
If employment came second to nationalism, there would be no British or Indian Gurkha regiments today. It has always been and continues to be economic incentives that drive mercenaries to seek employment outside their national boundaries. There's nothing wrong with this trend just like there's nothing wrong with the number of former British Gurkhas who serve in PMFs all over the world.
In summary, Mr. Karthak would do well to steer clear of fanning communal tensions in Nepal - we have enough problems to deal with already. Then again, since the entire thrust of Mr. Karthak's writing revolves around a communal / ethnicity-based theme, perhaps Mr. Karthak would consider writing on a topic that he can intelligently (not just articulately) comment on?
8 comments:
I really do not have high regard for Mr. Karthak. He writes with malice and ill intentions. If you get a chance to read his past articles or writings- you can easily conclude that his views are often off-beat with an attempt to show his coarse,inch long insights mixed with racial, class envy, and resentment filled words.
There is something very wrong with him- and it shows.
No shit 'Gurkhas' are mercenaries! By any definition, even skewed ones from a supposedly 'prolific' writer like Karthak. What freaking good has come to Nepal from these foreign loyalists who hurl slander at their homeland while securing permanent residency and pensions from their Sahibs.
Basically, colonialism that got uprooted long ago has had no effect on this bunch. Loyalty of this bunch clearly rest on the employing military and not with their homeland. Hence, by every sense of the word, Gurkhas as mercenaries is more than apt.
Karthak contrasts the 'reputation' of Nepal Army with that of Gurkha mercenaries. Rightly so, winning VCs and Param Virs reflect their bravery and loyalty to the employing military. However, that does nothing to justify that these mercernaries should be granted similar public recognization in Nepal as they find in Britain, India or Singapore simply because their contribution only benefit two groups - the employing military/nation and the mercernaries themselves. Why should mercenaries be recognized as contributing anything to Nepal's growth in any sphere? Any public recognition should only come to those that add value to nation's development.
Nepal Army, on the other hand, may be all that Karthak portrays as but what 'Peter' conveniently overlooks is that it is still Nepali - meaning, serving for the nation and people of Nepal and NOT some foreign employer. Simply, that qualifier changes everything.
Heck, compared to Gurkha mercenaries I would even recognize the Maoist Army more readily and give due credance for effort made and lives lost. At least the Maoists are driven by a sense of patriotism to a degree. Mercenaries, on the other hand, are like stray dogs who guard the houses of random strangers as long as he gets two pieces of bread from their adopted masters.
Nepal for Nepalis
A very effective rebuttal. Young Nepalis join the Gurkha regiments in India and UK for purely economic reasons and nothing else. Hopefully there will come a time soon when the Nepali economy can absorb these young men and they don't have to leave the country as mercenaries or whatever.
If you guys keep saying/treating Gurkhas as merceneries, untouchables as Dooms, simple/innocent people of Tarais "Indians" and people living in mountains "Latos and Murkhas" then what would you say "so called" Political Leaders, Bereucrates and Civil Servants who think they are running the show now!!!!!!!.
Have you guys ever tried to look out side of your ethnic groups and relegion belief? It is simple calculation, the Himalayan range (Mt. Everest)to the North protects us from China, Madhises protects us from Indians along the Southern border, Gurkhas (Nepalese Indians) protects from Indians along the Eastern border (Darzeeling, Keursang, Kalingpong and a "Rai/Limbu" guy in Sikkim), Dheradoon! a Gurkha "Khatri" guy just oppend up a Gurkha Forum protects us from Indians along western border and we have 100,000+ Gurkhas and BSF (Gurkhas) who are in active service in Indian Forces. Today's British Gurkhas carries almost 300 years unwritten living history of this soil and keeps on preaching we are one of the finest peach loving human being in this plannet. As a result countries like America, British, German, Russia and Japan don't even try to point a finger at us.
Common! wake up guys, change your attitude and try to see things out side your Mantra book.
Pen doesn't work to kill a tiger (corruption, cheating, slavery, discrimination you name it)you need a gun or pure heart like Gurkhas. And you should be able to balance them. It both have power in their own place.
Don't ruin this country in th name of politics and freedom, please.
Kudos to Mr Peter Karthak on an excellently covered article, following which I refer yet again to Dr Khatry’s letter of 30 Apr 07. Once again, it seems my invite to our office has been declined, which I still believe would be fit and proper to discuss what bothers him. Disregarding the classification of mercenary – why is it that he is pent up on British Gurkhas from whom he may agree the country has indirectly prospered. Does his morale not prick to see the hordes of economy migrants rushing to the Middle East, the ill treatment and slavery status some are forced to live in. The dozen who were hacked liked animals and now forgotten. These are real issues which he should divert his concern to, if genuinely concerned on exploitation of fellow Nepalese.
He should also note that a Gurkha must remain a Nepali on enlistment and date of discharge, this is a requirement placed and signed by our Government. Additionally there are Foreign and Commonwealth soldiers too in the British Armed Forces and like them the present Gurkhas have only to serve fours years to qualify for settlement should they opt.
Yes a gross injustice has been meted to the pre July 1997 personnel an issue we are seriously lobbying, decisive to take the legal route if necessary. And the British Government’s adamant but irrational stand that the Brigade was an overseas based formation prior to this date, does not help and further disillusion people like Dr Khatry.
Gurkha Legion
Gurkha:
I don't think this writer's intent was to slander the Gurkhas.. from what I can see, he is taking a grim view of how Peter Karthak has tried to dilute the real issue of unfair treatment by injecting an ethnicity-based view.
The issue here is that Karthak took a stab at Khatri, more because of his name than because he called the Gurkhas mercenaries.
And by the way, I do believe that Gurkhas are mercenaries. There's no shame in providing for one's family. And I also agree with the author that Karthak take the term mercenary, completely out of context - it is not a degrading term in our times.
Listen Nepali Dajyus and Bhais,
I refer these lines to Bahunist act and attitude calling Gurkhas as Mercenaries cause they can't see peace and prosperaty in their neighbor hoods. They are born to be distructive, not constructive.
Before pointing your finger to a person or group, get your acts right first.
I believe you guys have problems in following areas;
1. "Janai" - is the main force of evil which always drags you people into negative thinking. "Get rid of it"
2. "Tuppi" - always makes them feel that they are from defferent plannet. "Get rid of it"
3. "Bad Language" - Tan, Timi, Tapain, Hajur, Raja saheb, Babu saheb, etc divides people at the first sight. "Divide and Rule" is the mantra - "Get rid of it"
4. "Women and Cow" - you people treat a cow (an animal) as a God but women (a human being) as second class citizen - "Get it right"
5. "History" - you people do not have a single history running a firm/company to it's best. You need a lot of guts to run a country. You were Pandits and Bhanses during Ranas and Shahas rule (it led you to Chakaribad). You became rakamis and lekhandas after 2007BS (it led you to corruption and cheating). You people entered politics in 2046BS (which led you to dirty games and crooking). All you have done till this date is to full fill your individual interest, nothing else. "Think of team work specially in the case of Nepal and get rid of your bad habits"
6. Every relegion has only one God to prey or lean on to when one is down but you have kept thousands of God. You know why? it confuses a simple mind. "Get it right"
These are just the tips of an iceberge in Bahunism. There are thousans of evil acts in your system. "Get rid of it before it is too late"
You people are not ment to rule the country by yourself in the name of democracy without participation of other ethnic groups. Let us not forget the case of PAGADI wallah (Heavy Truck Driver) way back, when he raped a Nepalese girl somewhere in Muglin right after highways was built.
We Gurkhas had played a big roll to built this nation. We will be continuing our legacy to our last breath to protect this nation from internal and external enemies. There is no doubt. We are politically, socielly and economically fully aware. Gurkhas of today, do not kill people to gain a piece of lands but they fight against those who carries out evil acts in the society.
Think twice before you let your evil thinking go out of your mind.
Jai Gurkhas
karthak is not even a good writer, he is a horrible one, and to have him as 'copy chief' at that rag Republica only explains why it is full of errors.
Post a Comment