Formation of Fijian units?

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by Pliersbabe, Mar 22, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. With rising numbers of Fijians being recruited - there seems to be an ongoing discussion about cultural clashes and integration.

    On the one hand there are multi-cultural backgrounds in every unit - in some more, in others less. So why do the Fijians seem to stick out as a talking point?

    Do you think it may be a good idea to form seperate Fijian units - similar to Gurkha units?

    And what about you Fijians out here on the forum? What is your experience and opinion?
  2. Pliers,

    We dont recruit Fijian units, we do recruit Gurkha units. Gurkha's are recruited into Gurkha Batalions and that has always been the way - the Gurkhas then retain their standards and traditions which have been built up over many many years. They have their own Officers and SNCO's, so the Gurkha comparison isnt really relevant.

    The Commonwealth recruits are being integrated into units along with their British counterparts. Most of the opponions i've heard is about the Commonwealth soldiers bringing their own caste/clan systems into the units they join, and as a result undermining the discipline and cohesion of the unit. How true this is, i dont know. Someone with first hand experience would have to comment. One thing i do know is that it cannot work, we cant have the Unit chain of command and a seperate one applicable to only a few due to their nationality.
  3. Having served with a gurkha/british unit with a 50/50 mix, the gurkhas have their own caste system, but I found it not to interfere with day to day business. The gurkhas are hardworking individuals who are fiercely loyal and it has to be said that they do recruit the best of the large number of potential recruits it is somewhere in the region of 1 out of every 200 applicants makes it through.
  4. No.

    I think that just about covers it :roll:
  5. I agree - this will not happen.
  6. Please let's stop talking about this, before we know it and the PC brigade get their own way, there will be a gay battalion/units being formed 8O !
  7. there already is...... 2RGJ :lol:
  8. One must not forget that the mere exsistance of the Gurka units is by mutual agreement with Indian. This also explains why the Gurka pay is mch lower than the Army as a whole as it is linked to the Indian Gurka pay, same goes with the pensions.

    Don't forget that the Gurkas are also classed a Mercenaries, as in they are hired to fight for a foriegn country, whereas the soldiers recruited from Commonwealth countries are not classed so.
  9. No they're not!

    As the Gurkhas swear allegiance to the Sovereign, have British Officers and wear British uniform they are part of the British Army and most definately not mercenaries. An analogy is the French Foreign Legion, where in addition to allegiance swearing et al the Legionnaires may claim French citizenship after five years service.

    I suggest a refresher on ITD 6!
  10. I was using the litural definition of the word to try and highlight the difference between the Gurka and Fijians.
  11. Sorry, you've completely lost me there!

    The Gurkhas are no more mercenaries than soldiers from the Republic of Ireland who serve in the British Army.
  12. Ever heard of a Dictionary? Look it up, anyone who fights for a forgein state is one.

    Commonwealth soldier fight for the head of state, the Queen, so there for are not.

    Who is the head of state for Napal or the Republic of Ireland?
  13. OK, I will concede that by a dictionary definition there might be an argument that Gurkhas could be classed as mercenaries.

    However in international law (inasmuch as it exists) and the Law of Armed Conflict they most certainly are not. If you are a serving member of the Forces you should either (a) know this or (b) pay more attention in LoAC sessions!

    BTW before making digs about dictionaries I suggest you spell check your posts... :)
  14. Always was crap at spelling.
  15. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    I seem to remember either the Argentinians or Saddam the first time claimed that the British were using mercenaries (a.k.a. The Ghurkas) when we sent them along to kick Dago/rag head arrse and there was some concern that the ghurkas should they become PW's be classed as mercenaries and not be covered by the Geneva Convention.