Gurkas in Afghanistan

[PSY]

Video on British Army Gurkas in Afghanistan.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Huh! Hadn't thought they'd share a language (Urdu) with the Afghans. Now that is a BIG advantage.

[dan/california]

Couldn't we just tell the Gurkas that they can have the joint, lock, stock, barrel? As a reward for long and excellent service to the British Empire of course. We could even throw in some air support and free ammo, just to sweeten the deal.

[Götz von Berlichingen]

What with the high lethality of the modern setting, what is the likelihood of a successfull Gurka knife fight?

[Michael Emrys]

What with the high lethality of the modern setting, what is the likelihood of a successfull Gurka knife fight?

If the Afghanis have bars...

Michael

[Bigduke6]

I thought that report was a bit rah rah Gurkha, actually.

As to the language it's not as if the Gurkhas speak what the average Afghan speaks.

The Gurkha's native language is Gurkhali. Urdu is not the same as Gurkhali, the languages are fairly closely related and from the same general language sub-group, but except for some words they are not mutually intelligible. One would not expect a native Gurkhali speaker and a native Urdu speaker to be able to have a normal conversation.

German and Dutch, Italian and Romanian, roughly Gurkhali and Urdu are similarly/close distant, I would say. This means that if a Gurkha speaks Urdu, he is speaking a foreign language he learned, albeit it is a foreign language far easier for him to learn than English.

Of course, Urdu (what they speak in the non-Pathan parts of Pakistan) is for practical purposes the same as Hindi, India's first linqua-franca (English being the second), and Hindi is the language of Bollywood.

I think we can take it as a given that many of the Gurkhas have been exposed to Bollywood since an early age, and that Bollywood and Indian media are more accessible to them, now that they are (by Gurkha standards) filthy rich from their English pay, than English-language media.

I think it is quite believable that most Gurkhas serving with the British army have seen so many Bollywood movies and soap operas that they can understand spoken Urdu without much difficulty, and, given that Gurkhali isn't that different from Urdu/Hindi, a Gurkha in British service could with a little effort learn to communicate in Urdu, and doubtless many do.

Likewise, Afghans be they Dari, Tadjik, or Pastho-speakers, if they have not spent their lives in remote villages doubtless have been exposed to Bollywood media. A good proportion of those have cause to pay attention to central and southern Pakistan, or northern India would, likewise, have good reason to learn Urdu.

(Although all things being equal I would expect the average British-employed Gurkha to learn Urdu faster than the average Afghan; as the British Gurkha has enough cash to purchase whatever Bollywood media he likes, and the Gurkha's native language - Gurkhali - is closer to Urdu than the Afghans' Pashto or Dari/Persian.)

But I think it is worth repeating: Urdu is not particularly a language of Afghanistan. There the major languages are either Pashto or Dari, which is for practical purposes Persian, i.e., what they speak in Iran.

Pashto also is an Iranian language, according to the strict definitions it is part of the East Iranian language group, but modern Pashto it is very indeed different from modern Persian, the two languages became distinct about 4 millenia ago. So at a guess the two languages are as different, and mutually intelligible, as for instance Russian and Czech.

Urdu and Gurkhali, take your pick, are even more distantly related to Pashto and Dari/Persian; although all of these languages are still part of the Indo-Iranian language group.

So if you speak Urdu and waltz into an Afghan village, yes you will be speaking an Indo-European language like they are. Yes, there will be some common Persian root words if you look closely.

But that's a long way from being able to talk to the locals. My opinion, you walk in an Afghan village and start talking to the villagers in Urdu, your inherent chances of being understood would be something like walking into a small Lithanian or Latvian village, and asking in Serbian or Slovenian where the terrorists are hiding.

So the news report really is playing fast and loose with the facts. An Urdu-speaking Gurkha does not speak a language allowing him, inherently, to communicate with most Afghans. Rather, an Urdu-speaking Gurkha speaks a language allowing him to communicate with Afghans who have some exposure to Indian media, i.e., first and foremost urban Afghans, and secondly Afghans whose religion doesn't preclude watching Bollywood films with all those sexy dance numbers and hot actresses.

I think it should be obvious by this point that the Afghans that the Gurkhas would most like to be friendly with - the most traditional and rural Pathans - are precisely the Afghans least likely to have been exposed to Bollywood media, and so have an understanding of the Gurkhas' Urdu.

So bottom line, Gurkha Joe speaks Urdu, that's great, certainly if you are out to win hearts and minds a far signt better than Tommy just speaking louder in English, so the Afghans can understand him.

But Urdu is not a win-hearts-and-minds-free card with the Pathans, who of course are not only Afghanstan's largest ethnic group, but also the ethnicity controlling the region in Afghanistan where the insurgency has safe havens.

If you want to have a conversation with a Pathan, as far as that goes, you don't have to learn his language usually, although that of course is helpful. As I understand it, Pathans with any education at all are at least bilingual; the Pathans living in Afghanistan needing Dari/Persian if they want to communicate with any one outside the Pastho-speaking regions, and the Pathans living in Pakistan needing Urdu. And of course since Pathans pretty much specialise in thumbing their noses at borders set up by the non-Pathans, it's pretty much foregone conclusion that the Pathans that really specialise in moving men and goods back and forth from Afghanistan and Pakistan, should speak Pastho, Dari, and Urdu.

There is probably some irony in the reality that a Gurkha speaking Urdu is more likely to find Pathans able to talk with him in Pakistan, where the Gurkha is not allowed to go, than with a Pathan in Afghanistan, where the Gurkha's job is to make friends with the Pathans.

One thing I am sure of: That Afghan policeman in the vid was lying through his smiling teeth when he said "Oh yes, we love the Gurkhas, they are our friends."

Yeah right. An Afghan policeman be he Pathan, Tadjik, Hazara, or just multi-national could not have any other opinion of the Gurkhas, than that they are Buddhist mercenary neighbours hired by the English, as part of England's troop deployment/attempt to occupy Afghanistan - something which is far from new, the Gurkhas have been in Afghanistan fighting the Pathans for British pay off and on since about the mid 1800s.

The Gurkha tradition of loyal individual service to a foreign ruler is very close to anathma to the entire Afghan culture, which might very well be said to be united only by a desire to resist foreigners, and loyalty only to family and clan.

[hcrof]

Very good post Bigduke. Still, I wish we could get more Ghurkas over there!

(Havn't watched the vid yet)

[Blackcat]

Interesting post Big Duke, thank you.

One small point, Gurkhas are Hindus not Buddists.

Oh, and this sentence, "The Gurkha tradition of loyal individual service to a foreign ruler is very close to anathma to the entire Afghan culture, which might very well be said to be united only by a desire to resist foreigners, and loyalty only to family and clan" is not very accurate either.

Pathans and other Afghan tribes had a long history of faithful and loyal service in the British Indian Army. Indeed, from 1857 Pathans formed a large part of said army. They served with honour and distinction wherever they were sent into action, including the Western Front in WW1 (somewhere I have a photo of a Pathan soldier being decorated with the VC by King George V whilst recovering from his wounds in hospital in Brighton, Sussex).

[GSX]

Interesting post Big Duke, thank you.

One small point, Gurkhas are Hindus not Buddists.

Oh, and this sentence, "The Gurkha tradition of loyal individual service to a foreign ruler is very close to anathma to the entire Afghan culture, which might very well be said to be united only by a desire to resist foreigners, and loyalty only to family and clan" is not very accurate either.

Pathans and other Afghan tribes had a long history of faithful and loyal service in the British Indian Army. Indeed, from 1857 Pathans formed a large part of said army. They served with honour and distinction wherever they were sent into action, including the Western Front in WW1 (somewhere I have a photo of a Pathan soldier being decorated with the VC by King George V whilst recovering from his wounds in hospital in Brighton, Sussex).

Yes, a whole lot of service was given by a lot of people in what was the Indain part of the Empire.

[Bigduke6]

Blackcat,

On the religion you're quite right, my error there.

On loyalty to foreigners, fair comment, but it sort of depends on which Pathans you are talking about. Certainly some Pathans were faithful to their salt, but that I would say is a far sight from all of the Pathans.

Just off hand, the British Army fought the first and second Anglo-Afghan wars during the time period you're talking about, and that's not counting all the pointless little actions getting people killed from 1857, over the next hundred years or so the end of the Raj in India, almost all of it in territory inhabited by the Pathans.

Heck, in 1898 Churchill was under fire in the very same Swat Valley we're reading about today, and the shooters were the very same (well, by blood lines anyway) Masuds Pakistan keeps promising every one they're going to repress any day now. If I recall correctly there was an excellent unit of Pathans on the British side in that campaign, I believe the Guides. It's been a while since I read Churchill's book, but I'm pretty sure it was Afridis on the British side, and Masuds on the jihad side. There is even a funny passage where Churchill writes about Pathans fighting each other, according to him they yelled out insults back forth as they fired.

So although one certainly can find cases of some Pathans fighting well for the Raj, I don't think that's really proof that Pathan society as a whole is anywhere near as friendly to fighting as mercenaries for foreigners, as are the Gurkhas. I would say that if there is one single historical truth one can draw from the region inhabited by the Pathans, it is that invading foreigners are hated and resisted.

[Blackcat]

Big Duke,

The First Afghan War was a tad before (1839-1842 are the generally accepted dates), but no matter.

I agree with you that the Pathans will fight anyone who goes into their land as an invader and that includes other Pathans. It is a very complex part of the world, more complex than any Western politican or diplomat seems to understand.

In the current fighting NATO troops have shown formidable bravery and fortitude, but then so have the opposition - just as both sides did in the skirmishes of the 19th and early 20th century. The tragedy is all the current expenditure of blood and treasure is happening because a few Western politicians in positions of power never read history and are too arrogant to listen.

[souldierz]

The Gurkhas are an under appreciated force to the outside world.Never knew what a Gurkha was until a while back.Now knowing i give those true warriors much credit.Gurkha's seem to be a very loyal bunch especially to the British who haven't always been kind to them or rewarding to their deeds.

They almost seem like modern day Gauls fighting for other kings in other lands like back in ancient times.The Gauls were good body guards and kings kept them because they were loyal and battle worthy.

[Bigduke6]

Blackcat,

Oops, my error again. Make that the 2nd and the 3rd Anglo-Afghan Wars. There were two in the time frame you mentioned, but I numbered them wrong.

I think the problem here is not the politicians as much as the people that vote for them. Even a superficial reading of the region's history makes the stupidity of trying to invading it, never mind trying to occupy and pacify it, about as obvious as a hairy wart on a runway model's nose. It's not like the history of Afghanistan is a secret.

But when the general public doesn't even know where a place like Afghanistan is at, doesn't care about the differences between Uzbeks and Pathans, well, it is pretty easy to sell some very stupid ideas to the general public.

In 1965, the US general public thought invading Vietnam was just the thing to stop the spread of Communism, it was a very popular idea. In 2001, the US general public was absolutely convinced Afghanistan was just teeming with terrorists, and the only way to deal with them was to send troops and a bunch of gee-whiz weapons to hunt the terrorists down.

Remember how we got told in 2001 Special Forces carrying radios and riding around on horses were the brave new silver bullet, that was how the US was going to defeat its terrorist enemies, with high-tech and easy?

Sounds really stupid now, but of course hindsight is 20-20.

[costard]

The bit I don't get is how a Saudi prince managed to ally with the Pushtu - to the extent of getting them to fight the Great Satan itself. The only common link is the Bush family - George snr running Stingers into the 'stan to help the Muj defeat the Russkis. Where's the drug tie-in? - ahhhh, CIA again.