(Caveat: the originator of this post is a serving Gurkha in the British Army.) shaiva, I may well lack your surefire ability, a military man as I am, to grasp the full thrust of complex debates in Sajha forums but one thing is clear having now read your post: that you have a very low opinion of Gurkhas. I understand that much at least, loud and clear. Most startling is your decidedly brash manner in the way you go on to typecast Gurkhas as being plain, 'stupid' sycophants, and this obviously sits less comfortably with my pickled head - excuse my expression -, hence this post! So forgive me if I can carry on with my whingeing. "Ranas and Shahas have been selling Gurkhas like sheep and goat to foreigners for centuries." You equate their collective identity to that of 'sheep and goat[s]', because (a) the rulers have 'sold' them to 'foreigners for centuries'? (b) or worse still, they've been allowing themselves to be 'sold'? Fine, your own interpretation but one that's a brazenly rude comparison to be making for a start, given the obvious absence of verifiable facts/historical data to back it up. But then again you're entitled to your opinion however irrational or ill-informed, in much the same way I'm entitled to refute it or accept, so that's okay. And I'm less keen to dwell on the semantic intricacies of your sweeping statement, nor do I want to go on banging on about Gurkha history. So, let me leave it at that. "The sad part is these sheep and goat worship the butcher as god." Butcher? Who? Whoever it is but you fail to say how - categorically. My deduction thus: ditto above. "What to do, some animals are more stupid than others on this planet." Ho, this is where I find your take on dare I say, Gurkha discourse - more unsettling than in your preceding statements. Fine, the 3400 odd British Gurkhas (and also thousands of Indian Gorkhas) are all animals and they're 'more stupid than others'. Am I right then to assume that the word quote others unquote implies the 'clever' lot? Surely a bizarre notion of an IQ-based 'class' category under which only those of your ilk can be grouped together, purely because you had never served or never had to serve in a foreign army. Now that is such a condescending view to have for one whose identity is so inextricably linked with that of the country both you and they hail from. That much is clear at least. More so clear is that you appear to harbour an too familiar brand of the Nepali mind set which seeks to propagate the age-old 'lahure' stereotype by hurling such acid invectives at those who do feel justifiably proud of upholding a unique reputation that the name 'Gurkha' brings with it. Something that has done Nepal service rather than disservice. Labelling one group or entity with such base adjectives is all but a grisly show of arrogance on your part - nothing else. My two-pence worth, I'm afraid! I'll rest my case. Carpe diem Note: I thought, the discussions in this thread were on Nepali soldiers as opposed to on Gurkhas! The name did somehow pop up, so I had to say something.