I HAVE worked with Gurkhas on many occasions while serving in the forces and have many fond memories and much respect for them.

I agree with Mr Ruston's sentiment (Letters, October 2) about how Britain should acknowledge the service these men, as individuals, have given to Britain but are we going about it the right way?

My understanding was that the Gurkhas serving in the British forces normally sent much of their wage home to their families. Also, unless they were above a certain rank or had served for a long period of time, those who were married did not automatically serve "accompanied".

When they finally left the Queen's service they returned home and their pension, small maybe in UK terms but probably significant in Nepal, allowed them to continue to live and work in their local towns and villages and thus maintain the infrastructure of that country.

This way Britain did something to recognise the commitment Nepal, as well as its men, were making to our country.

By giving them an automatic right to British citizenship (and here I agree wholeheartedly that they deserve it far more than some who get it) do we not encourage them to settle in this country?

How many, having lived a relatively easy life compared with that in their native land, would wish to return?

If Britain continues to employ them in our services and then "reward" them in this fashion might we not, albeit inadvertently, be encouraging the more able bodied and capable to leave their own country? If so, is that what we should be doing?

Give just and fair recognition, yes; but, while automatic citizenship may reward the individual, is it actually doing something good for the Gurkhas - and Nepal as a nation?

David Waring,

Farlington, York.

Updated: 09:17 Friday, October 08, 2004